This is the same city that charged a man for drawing a swastika in gravel with a pressure washer.
Attack and harass a random woman and her two daughters in public, traumatizing them. Proudly admit on camera that you are a racist and you face no legal consequences. Draw a stupid symbol and you’re charged with one count of offence motivated by hatred.
Obviously not a hate crime but
her hijab was incompatible with Christian values,
Religion has no place in public life. He should be charged with infringing on people’s freedom from religion for bringing up Christian values in public.
Obviously not a hate crime but
Idk… he says he’s racist. He’s proud of it.
Sure doesn’t seem like a love-crime either.
I’m all for freedom from religion, no blasphemy laws and all that good stuff. But wtf kind of double standards do we have where drawing an ancient symbol is illegal but attacking a random family for their religious dogma because of your own dogma is acceptable?
Why not use the actual title of the article for the post?
Then editorialize in the comments all you like.
It’s not editorialized. It cuts to the chase and gets to the point in fewer words.
In that case why bother with making a post that is a link to the CBC article? Write a post with your own text. You can link to the CBC article as a source.
It’s just bad etiquette to mix the two. Either post the article (with the original title) and add your comments underneath. Or post a text article of your own with whatever title and content as you like and cite the article and any other sources that make sense to you.
It’s lemmy… social media. Not an educational institution nor an assignment.
Which is why we ourselves must curate the conventions of our own communities, as opposed to some teacher. Which is why I talked about etiquette.
