If this doesn’t prompt you to lobby your MP to have “Canada’s Almost New Government” do away with these kangaroo courts, nothing will.
On October 27, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a precedent-setting cease and desist order which forbids Jessica Beaumont from posting certain Bible verses on the Internet. If this 21-year old woman posts the wrong Bible quotation online – even if it is on an American website – she could face up to 5 years in prison.
The gainfully offended Richard Warman makes an appearance, as might be expected.
…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!