we still have a crown appointed Governor General

and that (i believe) holds favour in high courts

laws stopped being influenced by the crown a couple of decades ago

I'm just wondering what would change to where it's so scary.

Would it be a symbolic loss that might affect defense or trade relations for example?

If we were to secede from the crown

We would be open to our country losing all freedoms that are implied right now

We have too many far left radicals in the media, our left wing is spineless

Our greens are commies and hate freedom

We already have “hate speech” legislation

I think that describes the entire anglosphere to be honest.

The US just lost it's strongest, largest defender of free speech, which means it's probably only a matter of time before it gets limited. Said defender already lobbies against firearms.

Possibly

Who’s that?

ACLU

Not in america, people confuse anglosphere with commonwealth, quite a bit.

It's technically worse than a loss. They're going to probably turn their cannons on the 1st amendment directly.

This is our hate speech law

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

@NETORAREMASSACRE I include US in anglosphere. It's all English-primary countries (including some upper class parts of India)

It’s the most subjective bs

It is part of the anglosphere, However, it seperated from the crown

Oh, I'm aware. I've seen editorials like this one: https://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/04/its-time-to-put-an-end-to-anti-choice-speech/

Literally discussing if abortion makes sense is "hate speech"

I don't really care what your stance is on abortion, discussing it is not something you just ban.

why it's weirder when US either bends to the church or the crown, it should be doing niether.

It’s so stupid man

The problem is the left rejects open discussion

Oh I know. Alot of that BS floats around the various "human rights" NGOs like Amnesty International.

"human rights" being a convenient mask to force behaviors. There's thousands recognized by the UN and they are all contradictory. So the tendency is to take whatever stance is convenient for the activist class.

@NETORAREMASSACRE how's the US bend to the church? The US has freedom of religion because it has never had any truly unified church whatsoever.

And Kennedy was highly controversial because it was feared he would bend the US to the will of the Pope.

(he didn't)

Previous candidates had a significant religious slant, as far as I am aware, and so does a significant portion of the current WH staff.

The human rights NGOs have lost their vision

Like the NAACP and ACLU

AND THE OTHER ONE

Soz caps

SPLC is the other one

SPLC is a scam.

It started out as a good and effective effort.