Canada is on the hunt for name-callers:
Two thousand leaflets attacking gays and lesbians have put a Christian activist in western Canada under investigation by Edmonton police for hate crimes.
“Attacking”? Like with a stick?
The flyers by Bill Whatcott of Regina refer to gay marriage as “sodomite marriage” and use graphic language to describe the alleged sex practices of homosexuals.
The handouts also used derogatory terms to describe federal Defence Minister Bill Graham.
Oh, that sort of attacking. Like what children do. Calling people names. Being rude.
Children get their feelings hurt, and run to their parents. Adults are tougher than that, and ignore the offensive person, or dish it back out. They don’t run to their…
No wait — this is Canada. We do run to mommy government:
“The material is offensive and it’s an affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence,” Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit, said.
Last month, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined [Bill Whatcott of Regina] $17,500 for handing out similar material.
They were “offensive” and “an affront”. Time to get the cops involved. Because an affront, which means “to insult intentionally, especially openly” must be pursued with the vigour and power of the state. It’s indicative of a bad thought that must be expunged for the good of all.
I better stop before someone comes after me for my doubleplusungood thoughts.
[Guest blogging for Kate: a slightly longer post is at Angry in the Great White North]
Check this out if you want a perfect comic illustration for Kate’s post. But when farce starts to imitate life, you gotta worry.
What about MY rights? MY sensibilities? MY tender feelings? I find the promotion of the gay agenda offensive to the extreme, and an affront to my entire belief system (which, incidentally, has absolutely nothing to do with religion).
Oh right, I’m not a liberal, so I don’t count.
“The material is offensive and it’s an affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence,” Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit, said”.
Don’t you find it outrageous that the police are out there censoring political expression? Why, because the crudeness hurt some notional ultra-sensitive person’s feelings? Give me a break, the real purpose of this legislation and the thought-police unit is to foreclose debate and eliminate public involvement in the political decision-making process. Even the most outrageous and biases expression is harmless when judged against the chilling of political speech its proscription necessitates, not to mention the inevitable expansion of criminaliztion to bar political speech the political elites find “offensive” (beacuse it threatens their exercise of disproportionate influence over the political process).
While crude, the speech at issue is overtly political and addressed to an issue of public policy. Accordingly, Canada’s “democracy” is a farce; the status of gay marriage is politically at issue and we have criminal sanctions prohibiting speech on the matter. I don’t see how anyone can hold that the use of the police here is not to limit political speech, to foreclose debate, to insulate your political overlords from the indignity of Canadians’ expression of widespread disagreement with the policies they are forcing upon an unwilling electorate.
Lets’s face it; you do not live in a democracy, and it is the toxic combination of Canadian’s passivity and the strucutral failings of the Canadian political structure that allows this affront to democracy to exist (the entire absence of any real checks and balances upon the executive’s powers and a pliant, politicized judiciary).
Why do I care if Const. Camp finds deems it offensive? Does he arrogate to himself the power to determine what political speech is offensive by virtue of a harmful and broadly worded criminal code provision? Whatever he does, I find the chilling of political debate his conduct implies far more offensive. He cites as justification what can be summed up as the nanny state “values” – empty rhetoric, contentless crap used to baffle simple Canadians into suppressing their urge to participate in the political process and express their dissent; all because the elites runing the frozen banana republic can’t tolerate the indignity of competing expressions of political speech and an engaged citizenry.
The criminalization of political speech is only one form in which the lieberal elites impair debate and deter the political involvement of Canadians. None of which will change until the farce that is the Canadian polity is fractured, thrown upon the “ash heap” and replaced by new political structures founded upon citizen involvement and checks and balances is formed from the ashes of the ugly Canada. Go western separation, go Quebec separation, go atlantic independence – freedom for all lies within your independence!
Its not like the political stooges that constitute the Canadian judiciary would ever disgrace themselves by championing political expression over content-less nanny state “values”.
When the Left denegrates all Christians for being bigotted, that is an afront to me.
Should I call the cops?
Scott In Cgy: if you call them, it’s YOU they’ll probably be arresting.
Queers Offended
Links to information on the SK tribunal rulings…
George Orwell missed it, not 1984 but closer to 2004.
Anyway, it’s happening. Approved speech only please.
It’s not like they were set down in front of a movie screen with their eyes wired open like the guy in Clockwork Orange. Reminds me of the old joke about the woman who complained to the police about an obscene phone call – “and it lasted two hours!”.
Scott in Cgy
When did the Left denigrate all Christians? Do only Christians who are against SSM count as ‘real’ Christians? Are Anglicans, Catholics or United Church members, etc. who are not against SSM count as Christians? What people of the Left and Right for that matter condemn are people who insult and discriminate against people simply because they are homosexual regardless of their religious affiliation.
Jay
So as long as your not forced to listen to it or read it, then hateful insults are ok? I hope you guys are the grassroots of the CPC – cuz if you are that party will have no chance in ever forming the gov’t.
What was that book called where all books were destroyed by the government and it was illegal to read. Farenheight something?
Do you think we may be getting to the point where the message will be controlled. If it is “anti” Liberal values then it is to be censored?
We already have the CRTC working hard on censoring /controlling the media.
Do the RCMP not have better things to do considering the last few days posts where 1/3 of all money laundering is not investigated due to lack of resources?
Yoiks.
Hank wrote: “So as long as your not forced to listen to it or read it, then hateful insults are ok?”
Bottom line? Yes.
If you don’t get that, then I hope you are not in a position now, or ever in the future, to defend my rights. Count yourself lucky that wiser people than you have defended yours in the past (though I have doubts about today).
Doug asked if “Anglicans, Catholics or United Church members, etc. who are not against SSM count as Christians?”
You are missing the point Doug. Christians who advocate SSM do so in dissent of Christian doctrine and are not representative voices of Christianity. Only the United Church has changed their mind on the issue they are not exactly in step with contemporary worldwide Christian thought. They may be Christian but are not advocating a Christian position.
In the past, gay apologists frequently like to point out that the gospels have nothing to say about homosexuality. But they have a lot to say abouot marriage. Christ himself defined marriage as heterosexual.
Given the choice of having the likes of Bill Whatcott ( and his ilk), or a raging queen for a neighbour, I know which one I would choose. (I already know which one would be trying to impose his agenda on me).
Dave that last comment is sheer nonsense.You have it exactly backwards. Gay activists have been shoving the culture down our throats now for over twenty years and it just goes on and on. Same with feminism. How is Walcott imposing an agenda?? You dont have to read his trash, but try getting away from Gay Activism. Is there a newscast anywhere that doesnt mention it??
Dave: So you don’t like Whatcott and his “ilk”. What does that have to do with living near him?
Do you know that he would try to impose his views on his neighbours? Maybe he prefers to keep his activism separate from his home? I don’t know and neither do you.
Sounds like a “raging queen” is more likely to be in your face about lifestyle choices than Whatcott, but I’m only speculating.
Anyway, you could always close the door.
Or is what is bothering you the idea of someone like Whatcott next door, thinking his thoughts, printing his papers, and no one taking him away?
You scare me Dave. You’re the kind of person who spends too much thinking about what his neighbours are doing in the privacy of their homes and apartments. Trying to make sure you have the right kind of neighbours.
Do you keep notes on your what your neighbours do? Log whatever hints of politically incorrect activities might be taking place? And when you get enough — BAM! — here comes the hate squad to show him love written on a $2500 fine.
Doubleplusungood on you Dave. Stop worrying about what the neighbours might be doing in their homes, and I won’t care what you do in yours.
God bless this rebel and his sacrifice for all our freedoms. We should be building a charter defense fund for him if this repulsive abuse of authority ensues.
As far as I’m concerned he should stand mute and refuse to answer to any charge issued by a quasi judicial farce like the HRC star chanbers.
As for the criminal code charge, I smell a wonderful charter challenge to this gay hate law BS. The court cannot legitimately support a law based in a legal premise that “sexual orientation” exists in the charter…it hase never legitimately been written there and in any even it sure as hell does not trump the GUARANTEED charter rights to free expression of personal conscience.
This could be a show down with the illegitimate Jurocracy that has ultra vires subverted our charter. If his charter challenge results in anything less than exoneration on exercising charter right to free expression, we ALL should refuse to recognise such a judgement at deem the courts to be illegitimate and operating ultra vires.
The Charter is NOT theirs…it is ours and it means what it says or it means nothing at all….and my copy of the charter has a guarantee of free speach but no such guarantee of sexual orientation written in it.
I refuse to obey laws which are not put in print through due process.
This one will be the people vs the Jurocracy….we do not expect to see justice when we present a case in which the Judiciary themselves are implicated in a constitutional breach.
Paul said: “George Orwell missed it, not 1984 but closer to 2004.
Anyway, it’s happening. Approved speech only please.”
Actually he was off by 2 years in Canada’s case. We lost our individual rights and sovereignty in 1982. This is the year your individual natural rights were made subserviant to an unelected, unaccountable Judicial body’s whim as to how much right you may have…via section one of the Charter.
Prior to this, a citizen of British commonwealth nationality under rule of law, had basic inviolable individual civil rights which were neither subserviant nor subject to any government body.
Essentially, section one of the charter made your inviolate rights mere “priviledges” to be subject to the whims of an unelected elite Jurocracy…the very nature of a “charter” is a decree from a superior authority to a subservient subject. A constitution ( which we really do not have except in name only) is a social contract between a sovereign people and their government clearly stating and placing limits on the government and chatrging it with upholding a stated set of inviolable civil rights of the sovereign citizens.
Free men have constitutional rights, state subjects and slaves have limited chartered privilege.
Perhaps Orwell’s statist nightmare only became physically apparent in 2004 but it has been in construction through a thousand rights eroding statutes since 1982.
The defendant is guilty; 10 years in joycamp. (Forced-labour camp).
*********************
Orwell, 1984
“The Principles of Newspeak”
Last sentence:
“It was chiefly in order to allow time for the preliminary work of translation that the final adoption of Newspeak had been fixed for so late a date as 2050.”
It is now 2005.
HappyDaze, it was Fahrenheit 451 (the temperature at which paper burns).
“HappyDaze, it was Fahrenheit 451 (the temperature at which paper burns).”
As opposed to Fahrenheit 911, which is the temperature at which the truth goes up in a puff of smoke.
Funny story about Fahrenheit 451. Ray Bradbury wanted to call the story Fahrenheit xxx, where xxx was the temperature at which paper will start to combust in the presence of oxygen (normal concentrations and normal pressure, of course). But he couldn’t find a reference that told him the number. He called university science departments all over, and they didn’t know either.
In the story, “firemen” were a paramilitary force of bookburners, not firefighters in our sense of the word. Bradbury had a flash and called his local firehouse. He asked, and within moments he had his number. Of course, firehouses keep references of empirically derived flash temperatures for different materials.
He always thought that was sort of ironic.
Dave passed the following brain-turd:
“Given the choice of having the likes of Bill Whatcott ( and his ilk), or a raging queen for a neighbour, I know which one I would choose. (I already know which one would be trying to impose his agenda on me).”
Dave’s comment implies that engageing in poltical discourse is “trying to impose an agenda” – I guess if you’re so vapid that any expression risks converting you to his agenda you seek shelter in outright bans.
The point is not that some speech is offensive to some, thin-skinned or not, it is that the proscription on speech necessarily chills legitimate political debate. Freedom of expression demands that, when faced with expression you find offensive, mature adults do one of two things (i) ignore it, it will fail to convince anyone if it is something so silly as hate speech, (ii) counter, by your own speech (the marketplace of ideas places the highest value on reasonable discourse, that which has the greatest potential to persuade).
But Canada is not a respectable democracy, nor is it populated by mature and informed citizens, as Dave’s purile comment confirms. So you’re faced with boorish speech. Grow up, counter it through your own expression, ignore it. Proscribing speech criminally (hate speech codes) or administratively by deliberately very costly star chambers(human rights tribunals) comes at the cost of an disengaged citizenry. But that’s exactly what these measures are designed to produce, see the above post. After, when you cannot defend your position, the only measure left is to proscribe debate on the question (taken from the liberal disingenous poltics playbook).
Where in heck are the indoctrination camps they send these cops to? Or is this our education system at work?
And since when was it a crime to make derogatory comments about politicians? – are we all to be sent to the gulag for re-education?
I would very much like to obtain a copy of the alleged offensive flyer – can anybody assist in obtaining one so that we can discuss this sensibly.
The implications of the cops comments are truly frightening. What was 6 June 1944 about if not to protect free speech.
In the Globe today, John Ibbitson made the point in his Globe column today that it is in the Liberal’s broad interest to keep this debate going. Even if it alienates some semi-influential Liberal MPs.
Also, new Decima poll released today.
Lib 37%
Con 23%
NDP 21%
The poll also shows the Tories falling to 3rd place behind the NDP in Ontario. I wonder if the Liberals will be the ones wanting to engineer a defeat of the government to call a snap election.
After having read the decision, I believe that the Catholics in Sask have a legitimate case to take before the same tribunal – namely, the hateful cartoon posted over at rabble.ca.
I am sure that this cartoon, widely distributed via the Internet, has caused hurt feelings.
I sincerely hope that Catholics in Sask files such a complaint.
By the way, apparently you don’t even have to be present to give evidence at the tribunal in order to cash in. I have posted the relevant exerpt from the decision here.
” Canada is not a respectable democracy, nor is it populated by mature and informed citizens, as Dave’s purile comment confirms”
Touche’ and bravo SEchappe!!
The entire thrust of the Ottawa/academic/ruling class left has been to limit or outlaw open free political discourse. and undermine democracy…I mean what’s the entire concept of the single party sate all about huh? Canada’s “natural ruling party”…sheeeeeit, whay have elections or debate!!
Questioning the policies and wisdom of the Immigartion Dept now makes one a “bigot” or “racist”
Questioning the subversion of both the Charter and rule of law by government funded radical special interest groups (with unconstitutional Charter shredding political agendas) makes one a “homophobe”, “Mysogynist”, Racist bitgot…yadda yadda
Actually questioning and wanting to openly debate ANY Lib-left social engineering dogma is met with slanderous accusation to shut down debate…or simply met with new Charter shedding statutes to shut down debate and arrest dissenters with “hate” crimes.
The fact that free expression rights and open political discourse has been stiffled and thus institutionalized in our media, is certainly an litmus test of the health of our Democracy…..and all indications are it’s fairly sick and on last life support.
Essentially an unelected political appointed elite in a series of star chamber tribunals control free political expression through the tyranny of quasi-judicial reverse onus and summary guilt.
Now, given the social engineering elite label all opposing political dissent some form of outlawed behaviour ( rascism, bigotry, hate crimes)and all it takes is mere innuendo to warrant charges and no burden of proof on the accuser for concrete injury ( hurt feeling are ciminally actionable in this surreal bizzaro quasi-legal sphere), in principle ALL political dissent to state policy is criminally actionable….you may not see jail but they can destroy you financially and your reputation and security with their unaccountable hate crimes-political witch hunt regime (HRC).
1984 is here boys and girls and it arrived as SEchappe has stated: Through the gaping holes in a democracy with low self esteem…. which is the direct result of the civil lethargy, political immaturity and cultivated ignorance of this nation’s citizenry…Ya know; the ones who were not “standing on guard for thee” when authoratarian statism invaded our legal/judicial/political system under the cloak of nontoxic social/cultural Stalinism …. they snored right through it.
“You get the government you deserve” has never rung truer.
Canadian Democracy?…stick a fork in it, it’s done like dinner.
shaken : Christians,Capitalists,the majority or any non-left entity don’t have rights …..just ask any souless utopian, state subsidized blood sucker from Rabble. 😉
in response to SEchapp’s reference to my ‘brain-turd’, ( and in particular reference to his ‘highest value on reasonable discourse’- consider this:
Get on the bus to go to work, take a seat, open my newspaper, and all of a sudden a hand, holding a pamphlet, is thrust between my face and the page!?! I looked at the guy, ( his eyes are rolling around in his head), and I sez, (POLITLEY): “No thank you!” In return, he moves it closer to my face!?! So I sez: “If you don’t take that out of my face, I am gonna stuff it right up your ass!” The bus driver heard it, stopped the bus, and ordered me to get off!?!
(This is actually the anniversary of the date that Orwell published his 1984- anybody remotely surprised?)
I got an inbox full of emails to my posting, telling me they do not approve of my posting, and not to answer the ones that they send to my inbox!?! Priceless!
Dave – that’s a pretty incoherent rant, it is no surprise to me that you’ve only obliquely addressed the many points raised in all the posts (believe me that’s a charitable interpretation). Maybe both you and that hapless pamphleteer were both having a crappy day and naturally the interaction assumed its ugly tone.
BUT let me try to read into this post what you might have meant. Some guy rudely refused to take no for an answer in expressing his speech – OK – that’s a great apology for criminalization of poltical speech, with its necessary and designed impairment of political dissent and the manifest harm that presents to canadian democratic health. The ultimate result is the widespread disaffection from politics (the liberals like it, better to remove anti-liberal votes from the pool, right?), as lethal to the canadian polity as the liberals manifest corruptness and ineptitude.
OK, so you appear to threaten some nitwit with violence (read up on assault – not wise to utter that threat, even if conditional) in response to his speech (commercial or political, who knows, you never took the paper right?) and are appropriately removed from the bus. BIg deal. If you read the earlier posts, you’ll see that while some speech is no doubt inconvenient, insulting or crass, these “cures” for such inconsequential injury presents a far greater injury to democracy (the chilling of reasonable and occassionally uncomfortable, but absolutely essential political speech).
Or someone emails you. So what, we should criminalize all speech, except yours of course, in response. Just don’t use a real email address and the debate will transpire in the elctronic public square (although given your earlier posts, you deserved to be tweaked).
Adulthood makes (or will make) certain demands upon you, including tolerating other nitwits with grace and a mature approach to others’ speech (there’s a veiled insult jokingly included in that sentence, see if you can find it).
Share your opinion (and justification) on the following (not inapposite anecdotes):
(i) what are the consequences to poltical speech of such human rights prosecutions and criminalization of speech?
(ii) what effect does that have on the health of canadian “democracy”.
(iii) Who benefits from such laws, directly and indirectly?
At least the bus drivers up there have a little sense.
Wish we had free speach as the states does. Sure, you then end up with your Neo-Nazi’s and all others sorts of racist bastards, but who cares. Those that listen and follow the loopy bastards are obviously too far gone anyway.
I doubt my true freedoms here in Canada more and more each day.
I’m going to have to stop reading this stuff.
It makes my stomach hurt to hear police talking like 7th grade Hall Monitors.
Not that we don’t have the same suppression of free thought and speech in the US – but at this level of stupidity it is (as yet) mostly in our Middle Schools.
CBC British Columbia
Youth in BC racist attack hoax won’t be charged, RCMP
Winnipeg Sun – 1 hour ago
RICHMOND, BC (CP) – No charges will be laid against a Sikh teenager who claimed that a group of white men had ripped off his turban and cut off his hair, the RCMP said Wednesday. The 17-year-old Indo-Canadian …
#############################
No kirpan under the turban? Too young? Not initiated? Smells fishy/ratty. OH, but wait; there was no attack; no kirpan; no turban; no hair cut; his manhood is intact. RCMP brass are idiots.
Get the words “Indo-Canadian”.
Not Canadian. Not Indo.
Are you a hyphenated-Canadian?
Liberal double-speak/newspeak.
Do we get equally upset about David Ahenakiw? When it comes to anti semitism are we suddenly all in favour of resticting peoples speach?
Ahenakiw: Actually, I get just as upset. Free speech should not mean freedom from consequences, with regards to Order of Canada, for example. But I’d check first why he was given the OoC and consider if his other opinions are relevant.
But any attempt by the state to control or suppress any speech, short of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre (and any similar incitements to criminal or dangerous activity) is wrong. Period.
Mike Somerville>>”In the past, gay apologists frequently like to point out that the gospels have nothing to say about homosexuality. But they have a lot to say abouot marriage. Christ himself defined marriage as heterosexual.”
So those other married people, the ones who are not christians, why would anything Jesus might have said have anything to do with the legitimacy of their marriages?
Christ himself gave us the example by rubbing spit and dust into somones eyes as a cure for blindness.
Should Kate’s uncle Arni be arrested or otherwise barred for performing cataract surgery since it is clearly not in line with Christ’s example?