Yes. What does that have to do with criminalizing speech?
You tell us. It’s your country.
no one is criminalizing speech.
What would you call it when a person can be threatened with arrest for speaking?
This is how it work in Canada.
You can’t incite people protesting, etc into breaking the peace.
so let reverse this.
There was a very conservative MP running for election in 2019, people would show up to his event and call his supporters Nazi’s, getting in their faces, filming them without permission, etc.
those people would be in the same boat they are trying to incite a breach of peace.
He isn’t being arrested for speaking.
He is being arrested for filming people without consent, aggressively yelling at people for the sole purpose of getting them to response in a manner in which they break the law.
Canada doesn’t have the same open free speech laws,
you can’t incite people into breaking the peace that is it self a crime.
So you are not free to speak if someone thinks that what you say might inspire someone to act violently. Got it.
Filming people in public without their consent is a crime too!? Wow! It’s worse than I thought!
Words have consequences.
If that is your sole intent then Yes.
If I show up at a Trump rally and start yelling at people calling them Nazi’s, getting in their faces and filming them
the same rules apply.
Absolute correct response depending upon the circumstances.
Funny thing its lately its mostly the ANTFA liberal that get slapped with this minor law.
Conservative protesters rarely are openly confrontational.
Your post seems to indicate that you have not got it.
Your fight to free speech doesn’t surpass their right to peaceful assembly in Canada.
Sometimes, but if they really had freedom of speech the criminal activity authorities presumed could be incited by the speech would have to actually occur before there were any consequences to be held responsible for. It’s like yelling fire in the theatre, if nobody is harmed as a consequence, then there is no crime.
@CanadianJudo has quite clearly articulated what is allowable. What you assert in your post does not fit that.
Is it so hard to watch the video where the guy is interacting with people like he’s a social media troll?
They were not being denied their right to assemble peaceably by his speech. On the other hand, his speech was denied on the presumption that someone might react violently to it.
That sounds like prior constraint. The more you explain, it just keeps getting worse.
Yes … in a country with no freedom of speech.
