What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
'her lawyer reminded her they were fighting for “the principle of free speech.” “I’m hoping that the activists will now realize there are limits to their behavior,” she said.'
So the "principle of free speech" they were fighting for was the principle of limits to free speech?
In Canada all rights are limited
But defamation laws exist in a lot of countries
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
I'd like to know more about the ruling than what's presented in the article. And I guess I'd need to know more about Canadian defamation law.
Not reading the book is unfortunate (sort of)...but it seems like a person could form a sincerely-held beliefs about a book without reading the thing cover to cover.
Canadian defamation law is actually much stricter than US law - truth isn't always an absolute defense and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove their statements werent defamatory.
I haven't read the book either but from the description and from my own knowledge of the systemic racism within Canada, the racist history of the RCMP and police forces in canada, and the known practice of "starlight tours", I would 100% understand why someone would surmise that the book is racist garbage.
I almost want to read it to find out how the author could possibly justify any of the police actions, but I'd really rather not, so I'm just going to make my own assumptions about why the judge ruled the way they did (and I have one very obvious guess).