Who gets to "impose morality"?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What don't you inderstand?

Specifically, I was confused over your use of the English language:

Person A has no right to demand such outrageous things if they are not rectricted by the constitution and the carter of rights and freedoms. Somehow they sometimes suceed and everytimes they do they ruin society.

To me, that leterally means: Person A has no right to demand [the banning of certain things] if [the bannings] are not restricted by the Constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms. Somehow [Person A] sometimes succeeds and [every time] [Person A] does [Person A] ruins society.

I interpreted it to mean what I posted earlier.

What don't you inderstand? If the person is trying to ban white people from let's say drinking, there's a charter here in Canada that prevents that from hapening. IF you want kick someone's shin, you can't because obviously that's assault, and may I add a piss poor example.

If someone like Hilary is trying to ban the game Grand Theft Auto, hypothetically, that would breach some law of needless censorship I'm sure, and so it's impossible. The constitution is not absolute though, so there's always gonna flexibility in what should banned and what shouldn't. But not that much.

This is also confusing to me. And I didn't think it was that bad an example.

Basically, what you are saying is "You can't impose your morality on me because that's against the law." Which is in itself an imposition of morality. On Canada.