FREEDOM of EXPRESSION

one has to distinguish the mare expression vs action. One thing is to say 'I do not like shrimp,' another think is to say 'all shrimp businesses should be closed and shrimp fishermen exterminated.' 

While the first example is an expression, the freedom to express being the universal one, the second example is an action, criminal at that, the Canadian Criminal Law makes that distinction very clear, one can express oneself but one can't interfere with the freedom of expression of the other or/and the other's well being.

If you gonna let the "do not say this and that or else" thing on the lose, many heads will start rolling as the demagogues will go nuts with rhetoric and accusations. 

This is a very simple issue and something that Idiosyntactix has already addressed decades ago. Just because the State is braking the laws does not mean that the laws are bad.

Freedom of expression is the human right and citizen's charter right, like it or not. This freedom of expression is limited to expression only and does not cover personal attacks and/or criminal acts of violence and/or hate speech, would it be done by an individual or a group such as the State itself. The State can also become criminal by ignoring the laws of the land and the world at large.

As far as the criminal people and the State is concerned, they come in all walks of life. There were all sorts of criminal governments: the fascist, the capitalist, the communist, the religious dogmatism, the dictatorship etc... What unites all the criminals is the crime and not their respective supposed ideologies. After all the Soviet and Chinese communist sensors killed and destroyed more innocent lives than all the Nazis in history ever did.

Farther distinction should be made between expressions of an individual and a group. 

The individual expresses oneself on the basis of being human with human rights and humanity of moral/ethical nature, citizen with charter rights and responsibilities, family and friends and community rights and privileges, business investor/producer/consumer rights and obligations, that that individual represents.

The group is focused in its expression to the mandate of the group, thus in case of the group being a government its expression is therefor limited in scope and focus to what the membership has decided, such as dealing with policies and regulations etc, representing without discrimination all the members, who are the citizens in the government case, thus it is prerogative of the government to be "politically correct" since it is up to the individuals to decide what is right or wrong as a human being with morals and ethics and then pass that judgement to the group, the government in this case would get citizen's vote or input in the politically correct process which the government is there to provide for all citizens. Such is the theory anyway.

Geoffrey Young wrote, John Clarke made a point, i dont know where i am on it, but it IS interesting.
"When free speech is reduced to an abstraction, divorced from the context of a society divided between oppressor and oppressed, upholding the 'rights' of those who deny the very humanity of others appears quite sensible."

Therefor it is paramount that the freedom of expression of the individual human beings is not mixed together with a criminal behaviour, those are two different concepts. 

One is free to express oneself without intruding into other people's rights of safety & privacy, association, opinion, etc. legal rights, as a citizen, business, and a human rights. If one is calling on to cause harm, such communication is treated as an action by the Canadian criminal justice system and not as an expression. 

Therefor it is important to keep criminal actions of both the zealous sensors of the oppressive State or dictatorship and those who use expressions for hate speech and criminal violence away from the human freedom of expression as such into its own category of corrupted morals and dogma.