Kill Motion 103 - NOW

I was wondering how long before the clowns in the Liberal party would come up with a law designed to curb free speech on the backs of the Quebec City massacre of six Muslims.

Simple question: Are YOU prepared to give up on freedom for ONE incident?

Does this strike you as 'balanced' or measured?

Not to me it does and the CBC used the appropriate word: Chilling.

This is how you end up on the slippery slope to thought control.

American leftists are already on that track as they've taken to positions that basically stipulate: You're racist even if you don't know it.

We need to put an end to this shit.

And fast.

No to Motion 103.

Here's how Trudeau put it:

"In a seven-minute response, Trudeau said fundamental rights and freedoms are enshrined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that individual rights must be balanced with others in our society. Determining the parameters is an ongoing discussion in a dynamic, successful society like ours, he said.

Trudeau said the motion aims to address the fact there is a community that is "particularly vulnerable these days to intolerance and discrimination."

"You're not allowed to call 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre and call that free speech," Trudeau said.

"That endangers our community. And as we saw 10 days ago in Quebec City, there are other things that can endanger our communities. And we need to stand strongly and firmly against that."

Not a day goes by where he greatly disappoints. 

This is nonsense.

First, you got that? YOUR FREEDOM hinges on how someone may perceive your speech. Think about how profoundly problematic this position is.

The argument Muslims are 'vulnerable' is tenuous at best. Their experience is nothing compared to black Americans, the Irish, Jews (especially Jews) and Italians faced. I reject outright that my right to criticize Islam or Muslims be subjected to such grotesque laws and logical fallacies.

Notice how they're deliberately conflating legitimate criticism of political Islam and terrorism with Muslim people in general. It's an outright lie Miss. Khalid is cynically preying on. It's akin to American progressives purposefully not distinguishing in the immigration debate the key part about being worried about illegal aliens does not mean being anti-immigrant.

But this is what progressives do. Conflate and run amok with faulty premises. 

Does Trudeau want the same kind of authoritarian abomination we see in Europe where, for example, comedians are taken to court for making fun of Muslims? Is this his 'vision' or definition of Canadian 'values'? Is this 'justice' in his mind? It sure isn't mine. 

Worse than that, with this terrible proposal comes the reality of dragging people through the system potentially ruining their lives in a classic 'the process is the punishment' debacle.

For having an opinion.     

Last, I'm not surprised a shallow mind like Trudeau wasn't aware that the 'fire in a crowded movie' line - for some reason the go to default position for leftists looking to curb speech - isn't even illegal. 

It never was binding and it was overturned 40 years ago because it was so onerous.

You can shout it and you ain't going to jail for it. 

Except from The Atlantic:

"Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."

So this is the phrase liberals use to push their anti-free speech agenda. Why am I not surprised?

Kill Motion 103.

Now.