The private sector operates under its own guidelines. They have to comply by the laws, but they are also able to separate themselves from messages they disagree with. For example, in 1992, singer Sinead O'Connor was invited on Saturday Night Live. During her performance she changed the lyrics to the approved song, pulled out a picture of the pope, tore it up and stated "Fight the real enemy!". Ms. O'Connor faced no legal persecution for her protest. That said, Saturday Night Live banned her from their show as did many other networks and radio stations. Because television shows operate in the private sector, they are legally allowed to distance themselves from messages they feel may harm them or their reputation, as can any individual in the private sector.
This is where the conversation becomes a little less legal bound, and a little more cold splash of reality. Although the law is designed to protect and restrict every individual equally, it has never been a secret in any society that those of upper class operate under their own rules. Restrictions on freedom of speech almost seem to overlook certain people living in certain tax brackets.
As I promised, not all limitations on the Freedom of Expression are negative. In fact, I bet I can point out one law limiting this "freedom" that almost every single person is appreciative of. Regardless of background, social status, political association, religious belief, race, gender, sexuality and anything else I've forgotten, together we are all grateful for the Do Not Call list.
It may not be perfect, and yes, there is a loophole that does get exploited (if the caller is outside of Canada or the United States respectfully), but universally Canadians and Americans are grateful for the limits the Do Not Call Lists place on cold call advertising.
-The Private Sector-
The limitation we all agree to and love...
~ Being Rich and Well Connected ~
President Donald Trump is a living example of this ability to exploit his wealth and status to operate under his own rules. Case and point, while President Trump was running for election, he was informed by security that a protester may have concealed tomatos on them to be thrown. President Trump called on the crowd to "If you see someone with a tomato, knock the crap out of him! Seriously." This is a direct incitement of violence. Even though he would appear to be protecting himself, it is still illegal to encourage violence for any reason. Later during another rally, one man punched another protester unprovoked, believing that this was acceptable since Trump had encouraged this previously, had and even offered to pay the legal fees. The man that assaulted the protester was charged with assault, but President (at the time, candidate) Trump has faced no legal repercussions. He also did not pay the man's legal fees.
President Trump is also an excellent example of things you can legally say from a public position in America that you could not legally say in Canada.
Regarding the things he says about Mexicans and Latinos, Trump could have faced federal prosecution. Hispanics are a distinct minority group that he has isolated out and encouraged public dissidence against. In Canada, that behaviour is a violation of hate speech laws Section 318, Paragraph 1. Such wonderful examples include, but are not limited to:
-perpetuating the stereotype that Mexicans are criminals, drug addicts and rapists
--building a wall along the US-Mexican border
-accused Mexicans of drug trafficking
-accusing them of "stealing" American jobs
-blamed "blacks and hispanics" for increasing crime rates
-openly called Mexicans America's "enemies"
-accused them of terrorism
-did I mention the drug trafficking?...
Now, although people like Trump can get around legal limitations, both national free speech laws cannot protect those in wealthy backgrounds from being the target of ridicule. Trump himself has attempted to sue people over parody and other jokes directed at him, such as his case against The Onion, a satirical site. The Onion had written and article that Trump perceived as negative so he threatened legal action. Nothing came of the case. Later, Trump attempted to sue Comedian Bill Maher for $5 million. Mr. Maher was making a joke during his TV show which ended with the punch line offering Trump $5 million if he was able to produce his birth certificate to prove his father's identity. Since the offer was clearly a joke, it was protected under free speech and, therefore, there was no contract legalizing the $5 million offer.
Threats
Both in Canada and America, threatening someone with violence is a crime, even in a private conversation. At no time is it legal to threaten someone directly, or imply a threat to them or others. One example that skates around the legal line is an event occurring during the 2017 town hall held by Republican Senator Pat Toomey. During the question period, Simon Radecki implied a threat of kidnapping Sen. Toomey's daughter. Mr. Radecki was detained until the safety of Sen. Toomey's daughter was confirmed, and later, Mr Radecki was arrested and charged with disrupting a public meeting and disorderly conduct for this indirect threat.
Quebec
and secularism
The province of Quebec has a long history of holding secular values over that of freedom of religion. Historically, this was related to minimizing conflict between the Catholic and Protestant groups, however today has expanded to include criticizing other religions. One of the biggest questions that Quebec is continuously asking is whether or not to allow religious symbols in public. The most recent manifestation of this has been with the passing of Bill-62 which would prevent all public workers and those using public services from wearing religious garments that cover the face. Many critics would point out that this isolates one group of people within one religion, considering the bill was introduced specifically to outlaw the burka and niqab, garments worn specifically by Muslim women. Since this Bill was passed on October 17, 2017 it is too early to see how this law will be accepted into the Quebec society or Canada as a whole. It should be noted that some have challenged the legality of this Bill, but as of yet, the Bill is still in place.
Oil
In keeping with the theme of being wealthy and well connected, the oil and gas industry seems to override both the Bill of Rights and the Charter. Take, for instance, the Dakota Access Pipeline, or DAPL for short.
​
DAPL is a pipeline project that will move oil from Canada to America through North Dakota, specifically endangering the drinking water for the the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. Many, many people protested this pipeline, from residents of the reserve to local towns people. Even a national veterans group joined the crowd, hoping to put an end to this project. At no time were protesters violent or physically challenging to authorities or the oil company employees. They simply stood their ground and refused to move their blockade.
In response to what were clearly identified as armed people planted by the oil company, the government sent in what was called a military police force who blasted the crowd with water cannons, stun grenades, rubber bullets and other equipment designed to disperse the protesters and clear the area. After over a year of protesting and under new federal leadership, authorities moved in and cleared the protest camp, arresting any that remained on the premises.
It should also be noted that many journalists were arrested for trespassing while covering the protests.
This protection of oil over the right to protest is not limited to America. In Canada in 2014, the federal government approved putting through plans for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, running from Edmonton, Alberta to Vancouver, British Columbia. Many in the BC lower mainland area disapproved this pipeline and began protesting. Police began arresting these protesters for civil contempt. In 2014, over 34 were arrested and 7 more in 2016.
It should be noted that both the former and current provincial BC governments do not support the pipeline and, by extension, the arrests of protesters. This is a clear case of the federal government overriding the decisions of the province.
It would appear, Americans and Canadians have the right to protest freely, unless it conflicts with the oil and gas industry.
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 35
Fig. 39
Fig. 40
Fig. 41