Sometimes, to deal with an earlier post, protests are useful & do achieve something. Ideally, people would try the other approaches first & there are lots of problems with organizing a protest, to keep agitators & so on out, to keep it a peaceful protest but they've been done & they do work.

It may be that *charging* for something can be zoned.  However, free association is just that.  I consider all of America (and England) a free speech zone.  I am an anti-authoritarian.  That's how I roll...

I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that Canada must have a very similar attitude to it as we do? I couldn't quote the exact piece of legislation but, basically, freedom of speech hasn't been taken to mean letting people, say, incite racism. The point will be the same whether it's racism, sexism, homophobia, religious extremism of the worst kinds or whatever. Unfortunately, trying to pin that sort of line down is notoriously difficult! Nobody here's going to argue that violent racist acts need to be stopped. From which leads to the people behind the scenes of such things, who've more sense than to go out doing it themselves & incite others to do it, instead. Which is, arguably, worse, if anything, rather than better. Meanwhile, this thread's gone off course, I'm sorry!

The key point here is "is the government acting because it's a disturbance or because it's a religious meeting?"

Regardless of the content of the meeting, if it's causing a disturbance it's legitimate to act upon, but if it's a small religious gathering of only a few people and the government acts merely because it's a religious meeting then personally i'd have a huge problem with that (regardless of religion - everyone has the right of free practice).

I'd have a hard time imagining anyone has the 'right' to practice Mantuanism. (ritualized infanticide)

Granted... I think of myself as Mantus for good reason

In Canada hate speach has to incite people to violence to be an hate speech. Like if i was saying: "go kick a black in the *** cause they deserve it", that would be hate speech. And a crime.

But if i say: "Jews are this and that", it's not hate speech. Still the Jews could sue my *** for it tought.

As for the Westboro baptist church, as long as they scream racist stuff, it's not hate crime, they dont incite violence, they dont tell anyone to actually go and kill other. They promote hate on a massive scale.

Whilst that's pretty daft, I guess it gets too difficult distinguishing, otherwise. As if a skilled communicator/ orator, etc, couldn't incite people to violence without spelling it out so clearly!

Actually Gareth is correct.  They are getting in to trouble because they are making a disturbance not because they are having a religious meeting.  

Most often people might act a certain way because of their religion.  Usually they find a way to obey the law and practice their religion at the same time.  The Amish and Mennonites will have electricity in their barns because they are required by law to refrigerate milk.  They just do not have it in their homes or disconnect it.  There are still some that do not want to have any electricity then they cannot sell their milk.    

The issue of polygamous marriages is also interesting.  Often only the first marriage in the series will be legal and the rest just common law.  The problems occur when the subsequent wives ask for legal rights.  Or these wives asking for welfare when it is impossible for a man to pay child support for 20 or more children.  

What is and is not hate crime in Canada is somewhat defined.  As for that notorious Baptist church.  They are American.  They would not be allowed to be a charity in Canada.

They would be allowed. Other group are and promote hate on the a even more massive scale. Jehovah witness published an article saaying all ex-jw are like criminal and have mental disease and are basicly retarded. They got in no problem at all. But about every religion can do it and still be considered charity. Muslim got a few Mollah comming here to promote speech that said women should be beat up because they are women and deserve it. They got 0 problem with the law.

In Canada religious groups can get away with some of that.  They get nailed for political activities.  Also if they fund other groups who are not registered charities.  Issuing improper tax receipts.  

Usually the hater ones are the cults.  I would not deny that JW is a cult.  

If the mullah is saying to beat up the women and then someone goes and does it.  It is a crime and they are going to be convicted.  Then someone could sue the mosque and the mullah for giving them bad advice.  Saying it is your religion to beat someone or kill them just does not hold up in Canadian court.  So people would be stupid to do it.  

Said Baptist church is mostly one family and they get altogether too much press coverage.

YUP - I was going to comment on that- but I don't like to comment on them...
I mean in the US, the religious label gets you out of some sales taxes and federal taxes - but I doubt that helps that bunch at all---(avoiding talking about scientology now) LAWS still do apply...  same as in Canada apparently.