“Freedom includes the right to say what others may object to and resent…The essence of citizenship is to be tolerant of strong and provocative words.”

This sounds funny coming from Canada. Canada has also become less free.

Brilliant and what one could expect from the best PM Canada ever had, the Canadian Disraeli in that sense. -- Former 2005 Mayoral Candidate for Vancouver, G■l■k Zolt■n Buday

Considering Canada has criminalized forms of "hate speech" such as speaking out against homosexuality, I believe this quote itself shows that citizenship is in decline within Canada due to the imposition of a state mandate to support a minority's viewpoint over the true freedom of all to freely speak their mind. Hate speech should never be considered such unless actually inciting violence. Of course, our own American Patriots would have fit that category during the American Revolution - go figure.

It's funny when Americans criticize Canada for liberty. Hate speech laws in Canada prevent people from saying things like "gay people should be put in jail or hanged". A just law. Yet Americans limit gay rights by preventing gay marriage, civil unions and other basic rights. How is citizenship on the decline in Canada again Protecting personal liberty requires limiting powers that only want to limit it.

Mack, what you speak of are state issues and have nothing to do with the US federal government.

Canada is still more free than the US. We do not need a Patriots Act to tell us how to live our lives.

If only the present Prime Minister administered those same thoughts.....

Mack, you have an agenda and disagreement with that agenda leads to the most vile attacks by those claiming to be tolerant and who originally asked for just that but now it is forced acceptance and using the power of the state which it always intended to do but this is not a civil rights issue. I could explain further but this is not the place for such a debate on this subject. Research Marshall Kirks book "After The Ball"

Mack, our Constitution does not guarantee someone the right to NOT be offended.

What good is a right to free speech if you cannot say things that may offend others? Whatever happened to 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'?

After reading this again today, I would have to give the entire quote a 2 stars (double speak word salad and all). The first sentence would remain a 5 star rating. The second would rate a thumbs down. Depending on the legal philosophy being used as a standard - the concept of citizenship through all definitions implies a lesser unit of a greater whole. The primary essence of citizenship then implies absolute obedience to the greater whole. If the director of the whole says to its citizen, “be tolerant of strong and provocative words” an obligation would be demanded - or, at least implied. Being heir to the Eternal King, I, as well as each and every child of God / any and all of my brothers and sisters, am/are sovereign(s) to all corporeal administrations / administrators of inalienable rights and liberty - as a faculty of birth.

I will never object to what is correct moral behaviour or expression.