...just the start.

Next, Small Dead Animals.

Remember that we are talking about a country that jails a person for selling his own wheat to an American. Quoting scripture is equally nefarious.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

LEVITICUS 18:22

If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

LEVITICUS 20:13

Ladies 'n Gentlemen, presenting the "Mutt & Jeff" Comedy and Drama hour!

Seriously, one could think that a single group could use bit players to represent both sides in order to get rulings favorable to their agenda.

Anyone for crashing the "Skull and Bones" Christmas party?

For your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_admiralty_court

"Vice admiralty courts were juryless courts located in British colonies that were granted jurisdiction over local legal matters related to maritime activities, such as disputes between merchants and seamen. Judges were given 5% of confiscated cargo, if they found a smuggling defendant guilty. This gave judges financial incentive to find defendants guilty."

This kind of court was one of the aggravating factors behind the American Revolution. ("Gainful" indeed.) The other kind of juryless court in the British system of jurisprudence was the Star Chamber, used for cases of treason and - yes - "political libel." (Back in those days, truth was not a defense against a charge of "political libel.")

[Go to Wikipedia and enter "Star Chamber" - you'll get the details.)

Guess what both of these juryless institutions have in common? They were so aggravating that they prompted unrest and/or revolt.

Little Stefi Dion (see thread above on his life of poverty as a child) complains that he and his family were taunted for their secularism ('funny thing, however; he went to a Jesuit-run high school, which may be where he got any smarts he does possess).

What's happening to Jessica Beaumont, via our boot-jack HRC could be called Super-Size-Me-Taunting: five years in jail for quoting Scripture?

Where's our intrepid gang of members of the MSM on this one?

Thanks for the headsup, Kate. At least a handful of us Canadian sheeple will have a clue. Baa-Baad.

This is frightening.

The Left is taking away peoples' rights.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

LEVITICUS 18:22

If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

LEVITICUS 20:13

Is wanker Warman going to tackle the islamists next with their hate-filled korans?

The CHRC is a skid mark in Canada's undies....contained within this national scatological remnant, one faecal anomaly stands out.

..few people see or understand its operation. The medi still palys into this vulgar embarassment to Canadian freedom as if it is the church of Multicult. The reality is it has been used almost exclusively to abuse civil rights of the accused and to convict individuals of non crimes and levy penalties which ammount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Those who do understand how CHRC operates either denounce it for the witch hunting star chamber it is or profit from the ill-gotten swag to dispenses to its avaricious complainants.

As for the scatalogical anomaly in the CRT skidmark:
Also worth mentioning again is that of the complaints the CRTC has litigated the majority have been for one complainant who has not of the section 15 minority groups.

It is also worth mentioning that this single chronic CRTC complainer has indirectly attacked internet free speech with all his complaints ( which I believe to the the main motivation)

Google Richard Warman....then write your MP to end this xenophobic witch hunting and star chamber tyranny....innocent Canadians are having their lives and rights destroyed by this state sponsored personal axe grinding.

I am so disturbed by this ruling. We need to have a very public protest, and really the media will not cover it. Call your MPs and write hand written letters, they count far more than emails do.

As a homosexual with a brain and a love for freedom, I am greatly offended that this woman's free speech rights are being violated.

The only true way to fight this, is to find Canadians posting Koranic verses that espouse violence against women or homosexuals and file a human rights complaint.

The Human Rights Commission would NEVER put themselves at risk by censoring islamic hate speech. But they'd certainly have some explaining to do.

President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.
- - -
Put a sock in it, Sarnia Jim

I say we launch a class action lawsuit against the CHRC for behavior that threaten our rights to free speech and thought.

Oh Sparky,

That stuff doesn't count. You only have to follow the parts you want to follow.

Overall, though, there's no reason to jail anyone for exercising their right to free speech. As much as it irks me, I would probably donate to a defense fund. I don't like to the government regulating speech.

Is wanker Warman going to tackle the islamists next with their hate-filled korans?

He doesn't have the balls. Better to fight people who don't fight back.

Wow, quoting West Wing to make a point? What decade is it again? That's really deep.

All "President Bartlett" does in that speech is display his smugness and stupidity. Since he's a Nobel Prize winner I guess that is par for the course.

Instead of getting your biblical exegesis off old tv scripts on the internet, maybe you could actually read a book. Would that be too demanding on your brain?

Sparky, Sparky, Sparky. It is not what she said that I agree with but her right to say it. Subtlety is foreign notion to you I see.

Sparky, you are either an ignorant twit or disingenuous. Culture and context mean anything to you? The application intent of various laws? Why is it that when it comes to religion, so many people are proud of demonstrating their ignorance?

You got a problem with the verses quoted, do a proper job of it, don't set up straw men.

It is obvious to any thinking individual that the central reason certain people get all hot and bothered about these verses is to validate a lifestyle that does not bear sociological and medical scrutiny.

It’s not the verses. You want verses? Leviticus 20: 10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” Here’s another: Proverbs 11:1 “A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight.”

Now, there is a h*ll of a lot more adultery and financial hanky-panky going on than homosex. But, for some reason, the people involved do not commonly extort silence from those who point out their putative failings. I would really like to understand why.

Hey Sparky, I do not think you comprehend the gravity of your situation. Lemme 'splain it for you .

At the moment, the Left is in the ascendant position in the MSM and the Civil Service. Thus, the CHRC makes decisions which flow along with your prejudices and thus you are happy. I myself am not entirely unhappy, Jessica Beaumont was cruising for a bruising.

The problem, Sparky, is that things could change. Homosexuality and other Liberal sacred cows could easily become... unfashionable. In that case, the CHRC could be seen quoting Leviticus at YOU as justification for curtailing YOUR free speech.

Point is, controlling people's freely expressed opinions is not the government's job. It is in fact extremely important that the government be PREVENTED from any such control.

You see the problem now?

The Old Testament legal code was designed to teach the people of Israel the principle of clean vs. unclean, and to provide a picture of the stringent holiness that would have to be present for a holy God to dwell in the midst of human society.

The Old Testament was fulfilled and supplanted by the New Testament. At great personal cost to God.

It is the understanding of Christians that the moral dimensions of the Old Testament law, for example concerning adultery, homosexuality, theft, murder, etc. are still in effect, but the purely ceremonial aspects are no longer in force.

But, of course, those who prefer to ridicule the Bible and those who follow it aren't interested in such matters.

See, Richard knows.

Richard reads books.

Sparky no read book. Sparky make dummy out of self on interweb.

Get off that high horse, Kathy--I was directing that quote to Sarnia Jim for his bringing up Leviticus and stated so explicitly .
And quoting West Wing might not be 'culturally relevant' to you but you sure didn't deal with the Bible quotes in there. You dimiss the message 'cause you dislike the messenger?
You can state that the fictional messenger was smug and stupid, but you still didn't deal with what he stated--where's the fallacy?
And don't even start on "biblical exegesis"--you've obviously interpreted your 'good book' your way and nothing that anyone else will ever say will change that. That's blatantly obvious even by this exchange right now.

I believe that Jessica Beaumont has the right to free speech, even if it makes other people uncomfortable.

As to the CHRC, one should be able to tell them to respectfully take the proposition "straight to HELL"!
Which is where it probably belongs.

Should one for example quote Chairman Mao, Adolf Hitler, or Josef Stalin also be a crime?

The act of quoting is not a crime!!

This is like suggesting it is okay for secularists to decry the Judeo-Christian ethic, but it is not okay for Judeo-Christians to criticize the secularist ethic or rather lack of ethics.

Context might be an issue as well. I don't see Judeo-Christians storming Parliament demanding that homosexuals and adulterers be put to the sword in the town square.

I wonder how many MPs that would put under the death sentence?

Of course Canadians are delighted to learn that the CHRC obviously believes we are living in Mosaic times of circa 3000-1000 BC.

I wonder when Canadians last participated in a communal stoning?

Isn't there a Charter right to freedom of stupidity?

The New Testament also contains strong prohibitions against homosexuality. Presumably Jessica Beaumont is free to quote those.

In which case there will have to be another human rights tribunal.

At which point the tribunal will begin to look like a person playing the carnival game whack the gopher.

To try your hand at being a human rights tribunalist, go to

http://www.varietyclub61.ab.ca/KP-Gophers.htm

* * *

A very good case could be made that the entire Bible -- from cover to cover -- bears witness to the message that God created humankind in his image as male and female, male for female, female for male, and that homosexual attraction and behaviour is therefore incompatible with the Bible.

In which case it could be argued that the entire Bible should be banned.

"God Keep Our Land Glorious And Free"

Think about it

Is wanker Warman going to tackle the islamists next with their hate-filled korans?

He doesn't have the balls. Better to fight people who don't fight back.

Not only that, but they tend to be of fashionable ethnicities, be anti-individualist, and hate Americans and Jews - all unassilable positives amongst leftists, in addition to their propensity for "revolutionary, life-affirming" violence.

Jessica Beaumont should post some select quotes from the Koran and hadith, and dare the HRC star chambers to prosecute.

Of course, what we're really all waiting for is when the human rights tribuanal gets around to prohibiting verses from the Koran.

That should be fun to watch.

Richard Ball they do want to ban the entire bible in this one nation under god where section 2 of the uncherrypicked charter says you can't.

God Bless Trudeau for creating human rights tribunals. Wonder if the flames are hot down there?

Did the Parliament recently pass a bill abolishing Freedom of Speech? Or is it Freedom of Religion which has recently been taken out of the Charter without anyone noticing?

I think banning religious texts is exactly what people fear will come of this based exactly on extensions you have described, Richard.

All that must happen is for the definition of "hate" to be expanded and considered the same as offense, i.e. if someone is offended by a text then the text is hateful. Granted, there is a massive presumption of motive required to make such a leap, but it seems the CHRC does not consider there to be any other motive besides hate for opposing homosexuality in particular. Spreading opposition to homosexuality is presumed to be either driven by hate or highly likely to evoke hatred in some other person. Logic, history, even common sense matter not, it seems.

When SDA commenters point out bloodthirsty verses from the Koran, we're told that we don't understand the subtlety of Koranic interpretation and we're misrepresenting Islam, bla bla etc. etc.

When SDA commenters try to sum up centuries of theological interpretation of bloodthirsty verses in the Bible (chiefly: Jesus Christ's sacrifice removed the need for the ceremonial shedding of blood, and sin is still sin, but forgiven if forgiveness is desired, and removed from the doer's record by Jesus' sacrifice), we're told by bright athiests who may have read one book by Dawkins and watched a few TV shows that they know more about our Bible and how to interpret it than we do.

Koranic verses about killing the infidel "wherever ye shall find" them? Pshaw.

Bible verses about living chastly and non-pervertedly as God designed us to? Fiendish. Bigoted. We're interpreting them wrong. Away with us and our horrible religion, even if living as God asks us to means great families, no STDs, less trauma, healthier bodies and minds, inner peace.

Sigh.

Human rights tribunals are an egregious affront to civil liberties. When are people going to pull back the carpet and really examine these things?

The thing about Lefties that scalds me the most is their duplicitous nature.

Here we have an actual, bonafied, signed sealed and deeeelivered act of censorship by government. This is the Real Thing(TM).

Where's Sparky? He's with the censors! Because its one of those Christians, and they deserve to be censored. Nassssty Chrissstianss, we hatesss them!

Now, if it was some "artist" up in front of the CHRC for spreading hatred against Christians (like that would happen), where would Sparky be? Of course! Censorship is BAD! Free speech is GOOD!

This isn't about religion, Sparkster. Its about the 3AM visit from the Ministry of Love because you forgot to praise Big Brother today. Are you getting this, or is it that you like Big Brother?

Because if you like Big Brother, let me remind you, again, that Big Brother is fickle. He changes his mind. Back in the '70s you could go to jail for making homo art. Today you can go to jail for dissing homos on the internet, and the crucifix in the jar of pee is completely cool.

In 30 years Sparky, the "progressive" fashion may be jail for homo art again. Wouldn't it be nice if the government did not have the power to do that? Hmm?

Idiot!

Sparky, don't you know satyr when you see it?

Oh, and about your original blog, Kathy, I dug up something that you may want to read--
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=874&lg=_e&isruling=0

It's the actual ruling for poor little jessica--

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
richard warman
- and -
jessica beaumont

in which we find at the end the penalties for jessica's yippiness on the internets--

"I therefore see no reason to deny the order. Ms. Beaumont is ordered to cease and desist from communicating or causing to be communicated, by the means described in s. 13 of the Act, and particularly the Internet, any matter of the type contained in the messages at issue in this case that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination
. . .
In the circumstances, I therefore order Ms. Beaumont to pay the sum of $3,000 in special compensation, pursuant to s. 54(1)(b) of the Act.
. . .
Taking all of these factors into account, I order Ms. Beaumont to pay a penalty of $1,500. Payment of the penalty shall be made by certified cheque or money order payable to the "Receiver General for Canada", and must be received by the Tribunal within 120 days of the date on which this decision is served on Ms. Beaumont"

Hmmm, 2 financial payments and a cease and desist for writing "messages at issue in this case that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination"

So she can't talk on the internet about beating up people and killing blacks--"I told my sister already that I would kill him and then beat her up, she knows I would too...but she says `blacks look funny so I don't have to worry'".

She can't talk about how "It could get worse, lets just cross our fingers and hope they all die off from AIDS."

She can't diss our Canadian currency--"I haven't seen the new $50 bills, but the $20's and $100's I have seen. I have talked with a few people about them (who aren't WN) but they don't like the fact that there is native stuff on the bills. I mean, who wants to pay for something and be reminded of a chug? Not me!"

Oh, and then the bit that you guys seem to be so concerned about--
"Oh yes I can!

This type of sh*t just boils my blood. They are allowed freedom of "sexuality" but I can't speak my mind being freedom of speech AND religion? It says right in the bible that homosexual relations are punishable by death.

Quote: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

LEVITICUS 18:22

Quote: If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

LEVITICUS 20:13

So wouldn't that be infringing on MY religious beliefs? On MY freedomof speech?

Hell, they can be fags till the day they die, and I'll be with God for my life. But my thoughts should not allow them to get money for their "suffering". They should be getting a lot of money in hell then, they will be doing A LOT of suffering there.

I know my post should be I the theology section, but I think it should stay her, it is relevant."

So we're infringing on her freedom of speech when we tell her to stop calling for the deaths of homosexuals?

Is that your arguement? You're okay with her spouting off abut killing of blacks, the wanton spread of AIDS, but my god!! Don't deny her the right to post bible messages that call for the deaths of fags!!

Yeah, I think you're on the losing end of this one

Phantom I'm reading 1984 now and the similarities are scary. Hate month starts in just over 1 week.

Luckily they can cherry pick your rights if you are Christian in canada regardless of what section 2 of the charter says.

Ann what you are intrpreting wrong is that no Christian country stones people for adultry muslim ones do. m'kay.

No Christian country has slavery today muslims and commies both do TODAY. Because in a commie country everyone is a slave to the state.

That's not context or nuance thats the real world.

In the real world muslims do atrocities every day. In the pretend socialist/commie world the Christian hating socialists say Christians might do the same thing but we do not.

Thanks, ann.

Yes, homosexuality--which was debated and deliberately left out of the Charter--is now the Charter darling and trumps every other "right". It's taken 25 years for homosexuality to first be tolerated and then to become a jackboot, which stomps on anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep to its agenda.

Another place where "unorthodox" ideas on homosexuality are not tolerated are the public, secular education boards. Teachers, or other employees, who don't agree with the promotion and advocacy of homosexuality keep their mouths shut or risk the loss of their jobs. Check out Chris Kempling: exemplary teacher, his ideas--based on his Christian beliefs--expressed outside of school in a publication. He's lost all appeals, I believe. His Charter rights? Apparently, he doesn't have any--not in the face of homosexuals' hurt feelings.

Canada is no longer "strong and free". We're a country of the "grovelling and subservient". Virtually all Canada's public institutions have bought into the latter view of Canada. A majority Conservative government would be a fine thing and some help, but the brainwashing is so thorough--including most of the younger generation--returning the rule of law (vs arbitrary rulings) will be a very steep uphill battle.

But . . . a young person I know, the witness of the jackboot of political correctness regarding an innocent friend, whose life has been severely compromised by a false accusation by some miscreants from one of Canada's favoured groups, is outraged and has actually begun to question all his politically correct assumptions accrued via the education system.

Regarding freedom of religion, association, and speech, things are VERY bad in Canada. The light at the end of this tunnel could be that, as more and more individual Canadians have close friends and family members unfairly "convicted", the significant loss of our freedoms will become much more of a public issue. (However, the offending systems, which act like gulags--silencing, ostracizing, and intimidating their victims--will make sure that the counter offensive will be difficult. The gulag managers, who behave like the SS, won't give up their power easily.)

OK, Sparky - If you insist on spoon-feeding, I shall mush up the parsnips and yams…

These verses in the Christian scriptures that the foolish chortle about are treason laws applicable to a specific theocratic state. You don't like treason laws? Unsurprising. Few people these days understand duty and honour, commitment and consequence.

The reason (most) Christians do not advocate the imposition of these laws is that context and intent has evolved. Israel as a chosen nation has been superseded by the church. The church, if you will, now has better “tools” to deal with treason: mercy and peace because God in Christ said “My fault; the consequences of Sparky’s treason are mine. I’ll jump on the grenade he was playing with and take the blast meant for him.”

For some reason, many people find this free offer highly offensive. How about you?

Posted by: eliza at November 22, 2007 11:38 AM

"Sparky, don't you know satyr when you see it?"

I believe the correct phrase would be: "Sparky, don't you know a satyr when you see it"

Satyr -- a class of woodland deities, attendant on Bacchus, represented as part human, part horse, and sometimes part goat and noted for riotousness and lasciviousness.

Jessica's right to free speech ends where she threatens others, Phantom.
No where do I state that I'm against free speech. Your arguement--along with everyone else here who 'sides with Jessica'--is disengenuous at best.
It's as plain and mundane as ye ol' adage--you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre--stopping someone form shouting it has nothign to do with censorship or denying free speech and all of you know that.
So Sarnia Jim can post Bible quotes all he wants--no worries there. The second Sarnia Jim starts saying that perhaps we should, in this day and age, start acting on those verses is the problem.
And that's exactly what they found with Jessica. Since y'all are so keen on this here reading thing, go read it in its entirety--
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=874&lg=_e&isruling=0
and then come back here and say that what she posted wasn't hate speech--that what she wrote was perfectly acceptable in our society today.
Don't pick and choose from her texts, either. Do you see a theme? An 'Aryan' theme? Did you usee where she stated explicitly that she would kill black people?
This had nothing to do with limiting someone's free speech. This had everything to do with stopping someone from inciting violence towards others.
Do I agree with the case? Hell, by the smug, arrogant, and yet ever so obtuse and stupid responders to this blog, I'd have told whazzisname to grow thicker skin--it's the internets and that's the way people are.
But someone is trying to stop you idiots from shouting fire in the crowded theatre, before, y'know, someone gets hurt or killed.
But hurting and killing's what Jess wanted, anyway.

This is the specific subsection 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, under Hate Messages:

(1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

The 'prohibited grounds of discrimination' are:
Section 3;
"(1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."

Now, most of the offenses listed focus around employment, housing etc. Except for that interesting Section 13; Hate Messages.

The problem with this section is that it is, empirically, unprovable. Notice the claim. It is unlawful to state:

"any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt".

IS LIKELY. Not 'DOES EXPOSE', but 'is likely'. There is no need for actual proof of actually 'being hated' or 'being held in contempt'. None.

The only criteria for the Commission to render their decision is both hypothetical (It 'might' expose so and so); and subjective ('so and so 'might' feel hated'.

No need for proof that the statement DID actually have an effect of 'making X hated'. No need for proof that the statement DID actually make people hate X. None. There is no 'burden of proof'. None.

The only criterion is in the subjective perspective of the Human Rights Commission. They, themselves, make the decision, without evidence, that the statements 'MIGHT' have a result. Not DO have a result. But 'MIGHT' have a result of hatred and contempt.

Such powers of decision-making, unaccountable and unappealable, haven't been seen since the era of the Inquisition. No, wait - any dictatorial regime makes its decisions in just this same manner!! Personal, no need for evidence, entirely hypothetical, subjective. That's the Canadian Human Rights Commission - and that Section 13.

By the way - could someone explain Subsection 2 of this same Section 13, which declares:

"2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking."

Does this mean that the CBC can broadcast material that would violate Section 13, but an individual on their computer cannot? Or, does this mean that the CBC can broadcast violations of Section 13 on TV, but not on their web site?

ET, excellent questions. I'm keenly interested in the legal response.

Sparky dude, talk is cheap. I prefer to focus my attention on the people who actually kill and ignore the ones who just blab about it. It preserves me from morons who would like to style my pronouncements as dangerous, of which there are quite a few.

By the way, since when is posting on the internet the same as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?

I'd like to see the leach Warman take on somebody with money and a good lawyer. Though, I doubt that'll happen. It's a money making scheme in collusion with the CHRC.

Will the CHRC take on the Quran?

It's unbelievably racist and has been used to incite more than just hate:

Quranic verses 5:60 and 5:78 describe the Jews transformation into apes and swine (5:60), having been “…cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary’s son” (5:78). The Quranic curse (verses 2:61/3:112) upon the Jews for (primarily) rejecting, even slaying Allah’s prophets, is updated with perfect archetypal logic in the canonical hadith:

(Book 041, Number 6985):
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

The Jews’ ultimate sins and punishments are made clear in the Quran: they are the devil’s minions (4:60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam—the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)—they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and swine (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).

These racist Quranic verses are used to incite violence against Jews in Muslim madrassas and clerical sermons throughout the world, including Canada.

Historically, right before subduing the Medinan Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza and orchestrating the mass execution by beheading of 600 to 900 of their adult males, Muhammad addressed these Jews with hateful disparagement, as “You brothers of monkeys.” Some 4000 Jews were massacred in the 1066 Granada pogrom, inspired in part by an anti-Jewish ode containing the line, “Many a pious Muslim is in awe of the vilest infidel ape,” referring to the Jewish communal leader, the vizier Joseph b. Samuel Naghrela.

There are many more examples of Quranic and Hadith verses used to incite pograms against the Jews, Christians, Armenians, Animists, Buddhists and Hindus right up to the present time.

Lot's of sympathy in Canada for the

Fallun Gong, (No one knows what it is)

Islam, (Everyone knows but is in denial)

Buddism, (Collection of idioms and metaphors)

Secularism, (Collection of vile, hateful, ignorant twits)

But Christianity must be destroyed. It is based on common sense, decency, peace and love. That simply won't do. It's too restrictive and repressive.

Historically Christainity went through periods where it was repressive, but it has grown up and is the best fitting religion in the modern world.

Remember all you SPs out there. It wasn't so long ago that gays had to stay in the closet. Things change. Tolerance is the key. I don't mean the lock step kind that the Tribunals flog and enforce, but the individutal kind that says the best thing anyone can say in any society.

"LIVE AND LET LIVE"

That goes for the fetus too.

Sparky,

Let me explain this to you very simply. I find the person in the complaint horrifying. The things she said were nasty, hateful and offensive.

But Freedom of speech means nothing if you can't say things other people do not like to hear. Freedom of speech is useful if you can only say what conforms to other's demands.

The difference between violating people's equality rights and exercising one's own right to free speech is often subtle. For instance, it should be illegal to deny a black person, a woman, a Jew, etc. into you place of business. If you have a sign that says "No [fill in group here]" you are discriminating by preventing access to the public sphere to a group. If however, you do not prevent that person from going about their business but have a sign that says "I hate [same group]" then you are not discriminating but exercising your RIGHT to free speech. The person insulted then has the choice (and right) to take their business elsewhere or deliberately make their presence felt. The offended person is free to do what they want and to say what they want.

You miss the point about the scriptures. They are not the important point. The important point is that the constitution says we have the RIGHT to Free Speech, to Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association. The constitution DOES NOT say we have the right not to be offended or insulted.

The brownshirts of the CHRT are crushing the rights we have been granted in the constitution and the rights countless Canadians have fought and died to provide us and the left, the media, the academics, and the politicians ignore it.

I said Brownshirts in violation of Goodwin's law for a reason. Remember that the Brownshirts were not the Blackshirts. The brownshirts were fools and dubs who were violent thugs but they were not the ones throwing people into ovens. Their job was to consolidate power for their political masters and were in charge of oppressing the population's will to speak out. They intimidated those that would resist the Nazis consolidation of power enabling them to eliminate democratic control and enforce the totalitarian state. They laid the groundwork for the later atrocities. They were then betrayed to their deaths by the Blackshirts when they lost the support of their maniacal leader. The lesson is this: when you allow the rights of others to be violated, you set the precedent that others can do TO you. Remember that when you support the suppression of other people's rights by kangaroo courts just because you find other people's views distasteful. The proper response to hearing something offensive is a counter of speech, not the suppression of speech.

If this wasn't obvious before, you must be a leftard (or a religious extremist.)

WLMR, "The CHRC is a skid mark in Canada's undies...."
priceless!

Oh, as for your "fire in a theatre" song and dance, that's a specious analogy.

You can yell "fire" in an open field as there is no danger of a stampede. The same can be said of other speech. If there is not a direct danger caused, the reduction of harm excuse is not valid. You have to have a real link and it must be subjected to the "reasonable man" test, not the unreasonable fanatic test. No reasonable man would go on a mass murdering spree because some crank said she hates gays.

You can't just say that someone, somewhere might do something stupid. You have to be able have a direct linkage. If the creep in question said: "I hate X and as I'm talking to Y, would Y be kindly enough to kill X for me." That's direct. Merely stating your hatred isn't a solicitation of violence.

Leftards have been calling for the death of Bush and his rich, white, Christian, Republican Americans for 7 years. Should you all be in jail for hatred?

So, Sparky, what do you think of public school board's so-called "Equity" policies, which muzzle any teacher who's not in favour of reverse discrimination, e.g., preferred groups are given free rein (reign too!) to both propagate and advocate for their chosen ideologies in our public schools to children as young as four. (At the same time, such Christian—and most other traditional religions’—ideals as sexual responsibility—chastity, abstinence, fidelity—have been entirely driven out.)

Teachers who simply voice opposition to the new, politically correct, victim ideology are threatened with suspension, fines, re-education, or worse. Those are threats, Sparky. Do you support the boards' "rights" to do that? If so, explain your reasoning in a coherent paragraph. (I notice you seem to prefer generalities, minus documentation.)

I have written my views on the matter at my blog, and have also deliberately pasted in the same scriptural passages that Ms. Beaumont made, and is banned from making in the future:

http://burpnrun.blogspot.com/2007/11/human-rights-commission-grave-threat.html

Right after, I filled out a form at CHRC's site to clearly inform them of my "crime", and invited them to charge and prosecute me too.

Then I wrote my MP (CPC) with the blog link, the copy of what I sent to CHRC, and said this to him:

"The CHRC is acting like an unchecked kangaroo court. Do you begin to realize the implications of their Beaumont decision?

What do YOU and the Conservative government intend to do to reverse this kangaroo court's decision?"

I would hope that every other reader of Kate's blog entry take similar action. Just moaning and wailing at SDA won't accomplish anything.

When do all of you Right Wing wankers plan on commencing the execution of gay persons? Is that what you are advocating be in Harper's next throne speech? What a bunch of demented, deluded, wingnuts.

Which one of you will be the first to run out, do your god's work and murder a gay person?

Wankers!

Leftdog,

As usual your stupidity is overwhelming your last two functioning brain cells.

This isn't about hating gays. It's about freedom of speech and lack thereof you fricken retard.

For the record, I'm an atheist, libertarian who is in favour of full equality of gays including equal marriage. I'm also in favour of the rights of others to dissagree with me on that point without the fear that some brownshirted socialist a$$hole like you will try sticking the government's thugs on them.

And not one persone on this thread has called for violence against gays.

You worthless prick.

Whether or not someone is offended by the opinions or writings of a person matters not one bit in the realm of a reasonable and just society. Is Canada not a reasonable and just society? Is that not our wish, our goal or our reality?

Having a (quasi) judicial body such as the HRC and the tribunals ... which actually are extra-judicial by their nature and manner of creation goes well beyond what should be tolerated in a reasonable and just society. The HRC's are creations that should not be tolerated and it should be a matter of the highest priority that they be forever removed from existence.

If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms permits these bodies to be then it too must be either amended or eliminated.

How much does Karl Rove, or someone else on the Right, pay you, Leftdog? You do such a good job of making Lefties look like loser, nut cases.

leftdog:

I rather suspect you worship at a different temple; aptly described as:

"OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL OFFENSE"

Cheers

Hans,

He's no lady. More like "Our shrill harpie of perpetual offense"

warwick - many thanks for your posts. Excellent.

concerned canadian - good for you.

That's the problem with Section 13. It is focused on pure hypothetical speculation. You are guilty if your text/speech 'might'induce hatred. You are guilty if your speech/text " is likely to expose" someone to 'hatred or contempt" based on those criteria of discrimination.

Doesn't this mean, as irwin daisy points out, that an online Koran is in violation of this Section 13? Certainly, if sections of the Bible are deemed in violation, then, sections of other religious texts that are "likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt" on the basis of their "race, ethnicity, religion, gender..etc" are equally in violation.

Does this mean, for example, that the criticisms we so often make against 'the latte leftist crowd' are 'hate speech, because it might expose this group to 'hatred or contempt' on the basis of their membership in this group? [Or, are they exempt because the criterion of a leftist doesn't include 'race, ethnicity, religion, etc.]

As I said, I can see the point regarding actions..I repeat the word, ACTIONS, of discrimination in employment, housing etc. But, I have concerns when there is a statute, section 13, that is based on THOUGHT, on speech/text - and not on the actual thoughts or speech, but on the speculated RESULTS in the minds of others...of that text/speech.

There is no possible proof that a speech/text has results. That's the nature of the mind. Because X person(s) say such and such, and I behave in a manner that they might approve of, does not mean that X persons directly caused me to do such and such. Thought and the mind - are very difficult to analyze.

Speaking of which, John West, I'm an atheist. I presume that's a metaphor for 'secular'. Guess what: I'm not a 'Vile, hateful, ignorant twit".

ET,

I agree with most of what you say but there are instances where speech does have an effect. The prime example of that is a guy right here in Canada who is fighting deportation (and is being supported by the usual leftard activists) who was responsible for going on national radio in Rwanda and whipping the people up into genocide. Clearly this is the exception to the rule that free speech is paramount.

So there are instances but they are rare and must be directly linked and not general in order to justify crushing the most important right we have.

Freedom of speech is the right from which all others flow and all others depend on.

I really don't think there is any legitimate intellectually honest argument to justify this CHRC ruling...it is obviously wrong, unjust and at odds with what we perceive to be the right of free expression and practice of religious belief.

There was NO crime

There was no victim (aside from the defendant)

Quoting Liviticus does not equate to torch lit mobs looking to lynch faggots...other parts of the same book tell us to forgive the sinner, love the sinner and hate the sin....but I see apologists just pick the parts which support their anti-Christian bigotry.

I disagree with a lot of the dogma the gay and left lobbies spew but I do not actively stump to have their right to say what they believe made into "hate" speach to punish them with....we have to live with opinions we do not agree with or we enter into a tyranny which harms us all.

The bottom line here is that IF we have a quasi-judicial star chamber legal system which operates outside the purview of the courts, and outside the strictures of charter guaranteed legal rights....if it can repress a Christian for repeating the doctrine of her faith, it can also repress anyone for saying anything related to their beliefs.

A system dangerous enough to take every thing you have for saying things it personally interprets to be "criminal", is also powerful enough to interpret ANY communicated expression to be felonious...no speech or expression regardless of intent is safe from being deemed felonious by CHRC and its henchmen.

We are not talking about crimes here people...we are not talking about real victims with real damages from a criminal act...we are talking about WORDS and we are talking about a litigious cabal which operates outside charter oversight which claims it can OUTLAW CERTAIN WORDS amd destroy those who repeat them! We are also dealing with the fact we can never know exactly WHAT WORDS ARE SPECIFICALLY BANNED which we must not repeat because the list is made up on the fly...so it is really impossible to tell if you are saying something which may be illegal.

This is an issue that transcends race, color creed, belief, or sexual preference.

We have a star chamber tribunal actively denying Canadians of charter rights...outside the legitimate courts where your rights apply.

CALL YOUR MP AND HAVE THE CHRC BROUGHT INTO CHARTER TRIM AND STOP DENYING FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE TO DEFENDENTS!!

Lets get class action going on this...perhaps Connie From Free Dominion will facilitate it.

Since this is a "Law & Order" thread for some, let me quote a section from the Criminal Code of Canada:

"Public mischief

"140. (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by

"(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;

"(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;

"(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or

"(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.

"Punishment

"(2) Every one who commits public mischief
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

"(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

"R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 140; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 19."

FYI, the Website "SafeGay" makes any submitter of a victimization complaint acknowledge that he (or she) has read and understood this section of the Criminal Code, along with an explanation of it with a few examples.

I strongly support the right to free speech.

I also support shutting down those who actively espouse hatred and endorse harm to others because they disapprove of their lifestyle.

The problem,as I see it,is who do we trust to make decisions balancing these two very important principles?

I have no faith whatsoever in the CHRC,or any other group born of political correctness,to make these vital decisions.
Do not be fooled,political correctness is nothing more than a specific list of permissable bigotries.

After much soul-searching,I walked away from the christian faith 33 yrs ago.
However,I hold no prejudices towards it and firmly believe Christianity has been under constant attack in this country for the last many years.

We may currently have a conservative government,but the institutions of this country are still firmly entrenched in leftist ideals.

How utterly sad for the hundreds of thousands who fought and died to protect us against high-handedness such as this.

How can a Tribunal forbid a woman from posting scripture on-line. First off, who has the right to decide what scripture should not be posted - homosexuals? Even so, maybe the Tribunal should call upon God and stop him from having his Word spread. Really I am getting smarter everyday just because so many others are getting dumber in comparison.

Perhaps the Tribunal believes those scripture quotes are a hate crime against homosexuals. Well, let's bring out the Koran, and get this thing rolling.

warwick, I agree that speech DOES have an effect. Otherwise, quite frankly, our species would not 'have' the ability to speak.

The difficulty occurs because it is a conceptual rather than physical act, and therefore, it becomes difficult to, empirically, prove that X (speech) had Y (actions) result. You can do that in a physical interaction, where X (push) has Y (falling into river) result.

Our knowledge base, as a species, is based in 'words'. So, words contain information, and must have an effect. It's just difficult to link X and Y.

Freedom of speech is paramount, and, Section 13 violates Section 2 of the Charter. The Charter most certainly takes precedence to the HRCA. The major problem with Section 13, as also pointed out by WLMR, is that the 'offense' is hypothetical. There is no 'offensive action' actually taking place. There is simply speech/text that MIGHT give offense to some unnamed and unknown individual. That's all.

Who 'acts for' this 'unnamed and unknown individual'? The HRC members. They, without the necessity to actually find someone who is 'harmed' and/or 'offended (both highly subjective reactions)...decide whether your text/speech 'might, just might, or is likely to, or....incite hatred or give offense.
No actual hatred needs to exist.
No actual person who is offended needs to exist.

Only the unelected, appointed members of the Human Rights Commission make this decision.

WLMK is right. This IS a Star Chamber. Here. In Canada.

"it could punish offenders for any action which the court felt should be illegal even when in fact it was technically legal; however it also meant that the justice imposed by the Star Chamber could be very arbitrary and subjective, and allowed the court to be used later on in its history as an instrument of oppression rather than for the purpose of justice for which it was intended" (Wikipedia).

However, the issue of 'inciting hatred' must still be addressed. What does a people, a society, do, to deal with inciting hatred? What about imams who preach hatred and ask their congregation to commit jihad? What about neo-Nazi groups who do the same?

That is, these aren't analytical arguments, such as those arguing for differences in 'racial IQs' (an empirically unfounded argument but one made by a number of academics, eg Rushton, U of Western ontario). These are arguments exhorting action.

But what about the arguments that, online, discuss the religious edicts against, let's say, homosexuality. This could be a theoretical discussion by academics!

Do we draw the line at these arguments that exhort action? Or earlier, during the argument alone when no action is discussed?

This isn't a simple issue. The first requirement is for free speech. The next requirement is to reject violence against others. I don't think that a society can go much further than that. It cannot legislate what you feel, and what you think. As far as employment, housing, etc - yes, it can. But - that's enough.

Teddy, you can believe your first line OR your second line but not both.

There is no right not to be hated. There is no right not to be insulted or offended. There is no right to feel warm and fuzzy. There is no right that everyone must like, love or respect you.

There is only a limit to free speech when you try to actively get others to do actual harm or threaten to do so youself.

There is a difference between saying "I hate X and wish they were dead" and saying "I hate X and would you please ensure X is killed."

It's the difference between active and passive. If you don't solicit violence you should be free to speak your mind however wrong, however offensive and however anti-social and hateful.

Again, there are a lot of people who wish Bush dead but it isn't a crime to say so unless you are trying to talk someone into killing him.

OMMAG says, "Having a (quasi) judicial body such as the HRC and the tribunals ... which actually are extra-judicial by their nature and manner of creation goes well beyond what should be tolerated in a reasonable and just society." Amen!

The HRCs also presume the GUILT of the accused, who is put in the intolerable position--often at great personal cost--of defending him/herself. The HRCs also accept hearsay evidence. Often the "tribunal" consists of just one, always politically correct, politically appointed--mainly by the Liberals, BTW--ideologue. E.g., Has anyone ever heard of a conservative person taking or winning a case against a lefty? The HRCs are altogether one way streets. Hard left.

OMMAG also says, "If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms permits these bodies to be then it too must be either amended or eliminated." As the amending formula's almost airtight, amending the Charter’s next to impossible. However, if governments were willing to use the notwithstanding clause and to eliminate the HRCs, we’d be much better off, I think.

As it is, we’ve got a royal mess.

Lookout, it's even worse than that.

The kangaroo courts are charged with the roles of Advocacy and judgement which is a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

Justice is entirely absent from these witch hunts.

Homosexuality is not just a word, it is an act. Sorry, but besides the visual being horrific, if everyone practiced homosexuality and not bisexuality, we would just all die out. Really, if it wasn't for straight people, homosexuality wouldn't survive at all - they should thank us.

If Christians called for the killing of homosexuals, they would have to clean out their own closets first; that is why Christians may point out sins noted in scripture and leave judgment to Jesus Christ: No one wants a sinner pronouncing judgment on themselves. We are all so depraved, we wouldn't know a sin if it smacked us up the head. Is homosexuality just between two people or does homosexuality have a vast ripple effect touching everyone's lives negatively? At least when homosexuality was in the closet, we could pretend it didn't exist. I certainly do not pass judgment, but I have a pretty good idea how it may go down Judgment Day.

There was a comic routine of the seven things you can't say on television. Which you can now say on television.

If there is going to be a standard of what you can and cannot say, there should be a guidebook for us all. How about a "speech checker" reference file similar to a "spell checker" that we could use before posting any article on the internet?

Warwick, I altogether agree. The HRCs are utterly despicable in every way. Please, let's vote in a majority Conservative government!

ET Ponders:
"However, the issue of 'inciting hatred' must still be addressed. What does a people, a society, do, to deal with inciting hatred?"

We follow the traditional axioms in our rule of law...we don't let fleeting Zeitgeist alter time proven justice principles...part of that spirit of justice holds that there is no need to legislate a law which truncates civil rights if there is no demonstrable proof that a problem big enough to warrant that truncation does not in fact exist.

We have never has a problem with anti-social movements or people inciting violence directed at a group of people...now give that clarification a second thought...have we EVER had a person or movement directly incite and encourage violence or repression against an identifiable minority group????

Think about that...the only time it ever happened was in the 20s when the "Chinese" problem arose on the wast coast and the WW2 Japanese-Canadian issue was resolved with their interment...both times this was lead and actuated by government....not "hate groups"...perhaps it is government which we cannot trust and which needs some tight laws regulating its freedoms?

If we are worried about nazi and KKK groups forming ...if they openly or secretly advocate violence agaist anyone or any group, we have a criminal code charge called conspiracy which was sufficiently broad enough to lock them up for 15 years or more..

We needed minority specific "hate laws and CHRC star chambers like a 3rd foot.

There was no "problem" in Canada of such a size to warrant such a dire remedy as charter rights decimating hate laws... laws existed on the books to adequately deal with the miniscule anti social criminal hate groups we may have .

Lets not make the stupid mistake of falling into this dishonestly contrived idea that there was no law before fabian socialists started injecting identity politics into the criminal law....these hate laws are clearly the result of special interest lobbying giving them a quasi-legal "club" to use on ideological enemies...nothing more or less...and if they were repealed tomorrow I'm sure minorities would be as secure as they were under this bureaucratic tyranny.

Hate laws are redundant, abused and the CHRA is an affront to Charter legal rights.

@WL Mackenzie Redux (4:04 PM):

I agree with you on the third-foot point. It's a Yankee foot, as can be seen in the profoundly Americanized nature of the way 'human rights' are used by such people...if you count Jimmy Carter as an American, as I do. He, of course, did not originate the concept as it it used nowadays (which would shock the old liberals:

("Why would the law throw grit in the sand of my publication if I do not exercise what is clearly prior restraint?")

Postscriptual note: I was recreating an angry man in the 'quote' in parenthesies just above. Taken literally, of course, it doesn't make sense - as do many words expressed in anger.

Read the decision:

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=874&lg=_e&isruling=0

No doubt the SDA regulars are upset...now you have to be careful with your hate filled rants.

"Five years in prison for quoting Scripture"
or
$1500

But let's not sensationalize...

Iberia,

When you are fined for posting hate speech about george bush (or some future scapegoat for your leftard hate) and told you could be jailed for 5 years for doing it again, you'll change your tune.

Those who excuse the extinguishing of the rights of others deserve the same and more.

May you and anyone who thinks as dementedly as you develope a painfull, incurable infection in your genitals whose pain cannot be mitigated with any drugs and which pusses horribly through your cloths.

lberia - Jessica Beaumont's web postings are personal, minor and quite frankly irrelevant. She is not advocating or promoting violence; she is expressing what SHE thinks and feels. That ought to be protected by our Charter.

She is not stopping anyone from employment, not denying them housing, not stopping them from getting on the same subway line as herself. And so on.

Yet, this Star Chamber, our Human Rights Commission, and Richard Warman, are treating her as a criminal.

Consider the postings of various academics in Canada (eg Rushton) affirming that 'blacks' have a genetically determined lower IQ than other 'races'. Now, wouldn't that be a violation of Section 13? Nothing is done. Richard Warman does not take him to court.

Consider the preachings of various imams in their mosques in Canada, preaching violence against non-Muslims. Is anything done? Nope.

Consider the various postings on Canadian web sites, including SDA and Shotgun, by various people who claim that people from various African countries have IQs in the 70s and 80s. {An impossibility, but, that's another issue.] Is anything done? Nope.

Yet, this young woman, with her admittedly colourful language, is talking against homosexuals. Isn't that her right to have such an opinion? Against blacks as well. Again - her right to express her opinion.

These kangaroo courts have no right to make these subjective decisionso that are OPEN VIOLATIONS of our Charter. They must be shut down. And Richard Warman needs to seek counselling. Not legal counselling (he's a lawyer) but psychological counselling. Why is he on such a vendetta?

"No doubt the SDA regulars are upset...now you have to be careful with your hate filled rants."

Shove your accusatory bigoty up your quisling thought-orifice Iberia...people like you have no concept of civil rights. For ideologue scum like you rights are doled out on a basis or race, belief, sexual orientation and political alignment...you wear your brown shirt well.

I second 'Redux's retort to Iberia.

The Left is being exposed and is screeching like vampires exposed to sunlight. Or to a cross.

Note their ludicrous accusations of "hate" and so on. This is ALL they have to offer now that they have been caught being fascists taking away peoples' rights, including Charter rights!

The Left is becoming further and further unmasked. Recently, they showed their true fascist colors with their reprehensible behavior towards David Horowitz... now they demonstrate it in the wake of their sacred kkkangaroo kkkourt's showing the world what the Left really stands for.

The more this happens, the more people will LEAVE THE LEFT.

People have been leaving the Left in droves ever since the Left demonstrated its true nature in its reaction to the removal of Saddam and the liberation of the Iraqi people from his tyranny and sadistic butchery. And to the routing of the Taliban and the liberation of the Afghan people from their Islamofascist oppressors and tormentors.

warwick:

After you sober up, read the decision. Then, hopefully you won't be making idiotic statements like "5 years in prison".

ET:

Repeatedly making hate filled statements in a public forum violating Section 13 of the HRA.

Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter. [1976-77, c.33, s.13.]

If you disagree with this law, take it to court. Julius Streicher was hanged for this type of behaviour. Would you also be advocating for him?

wlmr:

Cry me a river. Commentators like Irwin Daisy and Warwick should think twice before ranting. And that will make the world a nicer place.

it's retarded on it's face. What's to prevent her from digging up quotes from a novel and posting them. crap.

Danial Ryan said:
"I agree with you on the third-foot point. It's a Yankee foot, as can be seen in the profoundly Americanized nature of the way 'human rights' are used by such people...if you count Jimmy Carter as an American, as I do. He, of course, did not originate the concept as it it used nowadays (which would shock the old liberals:"

Well said Daniel...Liberals were lead arounf by the nose..or rights, by some pretty degenerate philosophers...as you say, old liberals would shit if they knew who touted "human rights" before they did....for us normal folks who live by the tradition of rule of law in the British jurist convention, there are no such things as "human rights" as enunciated in western rule of law...there are "natural rights" of man..but the communist intelligentsia cartel who hijacked individual rights into collectivist group-based rights had to come up with a feel-good buzz word for the eradication of the rights of the individual (and thus ensure his subservience to the state)....a good start was group identity politics, driven by the group rights dogma contained in "humans rights" leftist lobbying.

The moment we as a society stopped respecting the sanctity of the individual for group identity politics, we lost our way in the defense of "natural rights"...which can only belong to the individual.

BTW I don't consider Carter an American...he's a globalist..he belongs to the global village...the transnational progressivist movement to global governing...these people have erased the sovereign borders of their respective nations.

When he croaks let the UN globalists bury him in the freekin' earth ark ;-D

lberia - There's no need to repost Section 13; if you had bothered to read this thread, you'd see that I had already posted it - and critiqued it - at 12.20, 1.48 and 2.53.

Now, what you ought to do, and haven't done, is to THINK about this section 13. Read it - and think about it. I critiqued it several times. Read Warwick's critique at 1.08, 1.22 and 2.55.

Don't just cut and paste and swallow, lberia. Think. Analyze what it means. Think - what does 'exposing a person to hatred or contempt' actually mean? Any comment about anyone can be interpreted as such. How about all the comments about Harper that you've made, all the comments about Conservatives, about SDA readers and so on? What does it mean? And how does this section conflict with Section 2 of the Charter? Think, lberia.

Read our posts on this thread before you make irrelevant comments.

If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

hate speech. one day, mcmillan, you'll be shut down.filth.

jeff - the right wingers here will never understand that when Jessica Beaumont publishes material that says 'God wants homosexuals DEAD' that guys like McKenney go our and feel totally justified in murdering someone like Matthew Sheppard.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/shepard1.html

To right wingers, they belief that free speech trumps inciting others to commit murder. No point trying to educate them. These are the same people who defend the police when they unnecessarily kill individuals with tasers. They are hopeless and only have anger, self righteousness and blind adherence to ideological nonsense

Amen to that, leftdog.

leftdog, you are STILL making left-wingers look like fools; WELL DONE!

That's incredible, leftdog. Speech can make someone actually do something. So, a text/speech that says X - means that you will actually do X. Wow.

But, but...leftdog..does it actually work out that way in real life?

When the posted speed limit is 100k, why is everyone doing 120k?

When the sign says: No strollers allowed on escalators - why do people put strollers on the escalator?

When the sign says: No smoking - why are people standing there under the sign, smoking?

When the sign says: Please don't litter; please throw your newspapers and garbage in the bin - Why are the walkways filled with litter?

When the blogger says - Ignore trolls..why do we still respond to the troll?

When the Bible says - Love thy neighbour - why do we hate that neighbour?

Please, leftdog, since you are so sure that what one person says, will MAKE another person carry out such an action - then, WHY, WHY, does so much of what we say - not happen in real life?

ET go home .... it's medication time ;)

For whom?

No, leftdog. I won't. Just because you tell me to do something - why should I?

ET:

I posted Section 13 once again specifically for you, since you are the one who needs to read and re-read it. It is a straight forward explaination of what hate messages are. If you are not happy with it, take it to court! (See, I'm repeating myself again.) See how your Monty Pythonesque twisting go over in court.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question: Would you advocate for Julius Streicher?

just found out that the ruling includes all messages of contempt and hate, and the verses are tacked on. yikes!
Has contempt always been there or is it the revealing of the slippery slope?

Iberia claims that just because it is written in the act that it is right!

Fool and coward.

Since you "own" that quote, Mr. Davidson - I'll be sure to tell them where you live.

no, lberia - you didn't repost section 13 for me. If you had, you would have said so when you posted it. You posted it because you hadn't fully read the thread and didn't realize I had already posted it.

Quite a few of us have critiqued that section. We don't, like you, simply read a text and swallow it. You have to THINK, lberia. What does that text mean - in actual practice? You haven't done that; you haven't thought about it.

Read it - but this time, read our critiques of that text, and you'll see that it isn't a 'straightforward explanation of hate messages'.

Do you know why, lberia? We've repeatedly answered that question. It's because the definition of 'exposure to hatred or contempt' is without evidence; it is entirely hypothetical.

THINK. Is it 'just' to declare a person guilty of 'inciting hatred and contempt' when there is no evidence that such hatred and contempt has actually resulted from one's words/text?

Yes, I would advocate for Streicher. I wouldn't enable his publications; I wouldn't fund them; I would speak out against them and would enable others to speak out and write against them.

Just a point, but from what I gather and the source article is not specific enough, but seems to me it's about "her" postings on other's web sites that is the problem because she chose to be a pest.

As I posted at quoted site, this ruling is not disallowing her to post her own website with what ever she wants to, but she forces her words on someone else's website and it's actionable, well then that's what happened. Loose example, like a political or religious salesperson at your door that won't go away when requested or won't stay away when requested. Not saying you can't say what you're saying just can't force me to listen to you at my doorway / home.

I'm not in favour that this went the heavy handedness way believe me, like a cbc make it up as you go documentary, for example, this 'contempt'? Define that please CHRT? This is a slippery slope, however personal property on-line should also be protected, which would have kept this in a civil-legal vein instead of the 'human rights' arena, all IMHO not a legal expert.

If scripture is not allowed on line by CHRT, then there's going to be a tonne of lawsuits being filed, because there's lots of it on line already.

"......feel totally justified in murdering someone like Matthew Sheppard." by leftdog

I'm sure if homosexuals were being murdered left and right, we would all be getting an earful, but we are not. Why is it that around the same time Matthew Sheppard was mudered, a young boy was raped multipled times by several men and murdered in the States? It seems this murder didn't fit the left agenda to warrant national attention. How many male homosexual pedophiles are raping and murdering boys? There is no need to be sanctimonious. I do not believe any one here is stating homosexuals should be killed, rather that the scriptures states in the Old Testament that they should be put to death and that a person has the right to quote from the Bible or any other book.

I would think that the sentencing of homosexual rapists and murderers would warrant more than a few years in jail, but hey, the victim is dead, and we must show mercy to the perpetrator. I certainly feel for Mr. Sheppard and his family, but what about the children. Why is the killing of a homosexual man considered to be a hate crime, but the raping and murdering of male children by homosexual pedophiles is not?

Of course ET, I didn't read the comments, and you're always right because you say you are. How could I forget.

Instead of whining about what an injustice this ruling is, why aren't you taking the HRC to court? They are obviously such complete idiots when compared to your massive intellect that your arguments should result in the immediate closure of the HRC. Sheesh!

At least Warman has the balls to follow up on his ideals.

Wonder if Mr. Davidson has the integrity to also call the Koran "hate speech".

"At least Warman has the balls to follow up on his ideals."

He does ?

Well thank God for that. Well I guess we can expect Mr Warman to target passages from the koran that do not jive with "Canadian values"

Beliveing that some religions, or groups are above criticism is not an example of "balls" it is an example of mushy Lib multicultural panty-wastedness

There is no right not to be hated. There is no right not to be insulted or offended. There is no right to feel warm and fuzzy. There is no right that everyone must like, love or respect you.

Warwick, I wish very much that I could agree with you.

Sadly, the very fact that this woman is facing jail time for offending gay people demonstrates that, for all the obvious, self-evident truth your words contain, they are not true in a legal sense.

Love yer nic. I'm a bass player and I only play Warwick basses.

"At least Warman has the balls to follow up on his ideals."

My question is: how can someone who actively searches for material they can deem offensive, actually be offended when they find it?

"but seems to me it's about "her" postings on other's web sites that is the problem because she chose to be a pest."

She was posting on Stormfront, and was not being a pest to the community there. If the community didn't want her posting, it's trivial to ban her and delete her posts. Unless of you happen to think Warman is an active participant/moderator over at that site. I'm sure he'd think that was pretty funny.

The HRC is a crock. One can take offence to just about anything. A vegan could take the manufacturer of hot dogs to the HRC because the packaging says that it uses beef, which they find offensive.

Buzzard and Chris:

You missed the point...Warman is doing something about what bugs him. Other than whining, what are you guys doing about what bugs you?

Voting out leftard moonbats.

"Commentators like Irwin Daisy and Warwick should think twice before ranting. And that will make the world a nicer place."

- I (need another) beria

A nice utopian place? You mean like what your hero Tommy Douglas proposed in his thesis? I don't know, that strikes me as hate speech, don't you think?

I post statements actually made by Mohammad in the Quran as well as his actions in the Hadith. If you believe that to be hate speech, I agree.

"Teddy, you can believe your first line OR your second line but not both.
There is no right not to be hated. There is no right not to be insulted or offended. There is no right to feel warm and fuzzy. There is no right that everyone must like, love or respect you."

Warwick,

Actually,you are wrong.

By virtue of the world being a vastly varying degree of gray shades,who is to say when these two thoughts are mutually exclusive?

Are you trying to state that,for example,a victim of bullying should have no rights to a peaceable life unless they are directly physically threatened?

Or what about slanderous comments?Not every member of our society is in the position to seek the protection of a lawyer.

My point being,freedom of speech,as well as any other freedom,carries with it responsibilities as well as rights.

I simply do not trust a product of biased political correctness to protect these freedoms.

Davison,

Jack-booted brownshirts (actual, not figurative) "shut people down" for speech.

There is zero difference between a communist a fascist and Toronto liberal except the power the former two were able to wield. I have no doubt that given the same power, you would add to the 100 million strong pile of corpses your Totalitarian sole mates have racked up. Oh, you'll deny and pretend otherwise. You'll say you'd be on the side of angels. But given the power, you'd be burning politically incorrect thought criminals every bit as fast at the ovens burned the Jews and Stalin starved the Ukrainians.

Leftards have a severely warped view of the fundamental freedoms which are outlined in our constitution (as opposed to the fictitious, fantasy-land agenda driven one as used by liberal judges.)

You have a right to free speech as written in the constitution. You have no right not to be offended, insulted or treated with disrespect.

The quote in question is abhorrent and written by a hateful, nasty person - and is entirely irrelevant. You don't get it. Your respect for rights and democracy is thin and dependent on your agenda. To you, there is only freedom to conform to your totalitarian mindset - which is no freedom at all. All those who commit thought crimes and speak heresies must be punished in your world. The proper response to someone who says something so offensive is to denounce them and debate them - loudly and publicly. If you crush their rights, who will defend yours when the winds change?

If you leftards can stack the courts, so can others - as you should be noticing south of us. Say nothing when the manipulation is in your favour and you will have nothing to say when the times change and things turn against you. Either you believe in freedom or you don't.

Leftards are no better than the extreme, hateful religious people you denounce.

Leftdog, you are sort of like Davison without the small amount of wit he possesses. And before you think I compliment Davison, the half-wit only looks good beside the retard.

Have you ever wondered why the maple leaf on the candian flag is RED all it needs now is aHAMMER AND SCYCLE

Just for the record, the "Joanne" in the above entries is not me; even though some on the left have been so intellectually dishonest as to jump to conclusions before even trying to get the facts.

Most of the above posters have made jackasses of themselves. Next time before you leap to accuse or defend something, be sure you read the source document(s). It is pathetically weak, in view of the content of the complaint, to try to characterize the HRC ruling as one against posting scripture.

The well-founded objections here are straightforward: the HRC should not exist because it is an insult to the basic ideas of justice we all (left, centre, right, up, down) profess to support; the point of having free speech rights is to express ideas which offend or make others uncomfortable, not to express ideas about teddy bears and lollipops; and defending the right of Nazi assholes to say what they please is not synonymous with being a Nazi asshole.