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.
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.