So far, the USA has not declared Proud Boys 'a terrorist group' because they can’t. They are not a terrorist group under the definition of US law. They are unsavoury and fringe and undeniably damage democracy but they have a right to free speech under the constitution and law, regardless of personal opinion. ‘Hate speech’ and ‘speech you hate’ are two utterly different entities. It is safe to say the Democrat Party want 'freedom of speech' but on their terms only and they are demonstrating they are prepared to violate the constitution and law to silence free speech. We have seen this ramp up over the last year, with the eventual ‘deletion’ of the President of The United States of America. Based on opinion, not law.

“'Hate speech' and 'speech you hate' are two very different things.”

Canada declaring PB a terrorist group circumnavigates the US law as the Democrats can now argue that they are 'foreign terrorist group' and a different law can be applied. This is a move to silence freedom of speech. This is exactly the reason why Trump wanted ANTIFA to be declared a foreign terrorist group. ANTIFA fulfill the legal definition of a terrorist group in the US but the mainstream has gone to extreme lengths to remove them from their activities. "‘Antifa are an idea” mused Biden. ANTIFA are international and their movements in countries such as Turkey most definitely define them as a terrorist organization.

This is the US legal definition of terrorist activity.

"The statute defines a "terrorist activity" as any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a *778 governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any

(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or

(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing"

Opinion: ANTIFA and BLM taking over vast sections of a city, hijacking postal freight and killing people because they are “a Trump supporter” probably ticks at least 4 of these definitions. But they are ‘an idea’…