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.
“At least Warman has the balls to follow up on his ideals.”
My question is: how can someone who actively searches for material they can deem offensive, actually be offended when they find it?
“but seems to me it’s about “her” postings on other’s web sites that is the problem because she chose to be a pest.”
She was posting on Stormfront, and was not being a pest to the community there. If the community didn’t want her posting, it’s trivial to ban her and delete her posts. Unless of you happen to think Warman is an active participant/moderator over at that site. I’m sure he’d think that was pretty funny.
The HRC is a crock. One can take offence to just about anything. A vegan could take the manufacturer of hot dogs to the HRC because the packaging says that it uses beef, which they find offensive.
Buzzard and Chris:
You missed the point…Warman is doing something about what bugs him. Other than whining, what are you guys doing about what bugs you?
Voting out leftard moonbats.
“Commentators like Irwin Daisy and Warwick should think twice before ranting. And that will make the world a nicer place.”
– I (need another) beria
A nice utopian place? You mean like what your hero Tommy Douglas proposed in his thesis? I don’t know, that strikes me as hate speech, don’t you think?
I post statements actually made by Mohammad in the Quran as well as his actions in the Hadith. If you believe that to be hate speech, I agree.
“Teddy, you can believe your first line OR your second line but not both.
There is no right not to be hated. There is no right not to be insulted or offended. There is no right to feel warm and fuzzy. There is no right that everyone must like, love or respect you.”
Warwick,
Actually,you are wrong.
By virtue of the world being a vastly varying degree of gray shades,who is to say when these two thoughts are mutually exclusive?
Are you trying to state that,for example,a victim of bullying should have no rights to a peaceable life unless they are directly physically threatened?
Or what about slanderous comments?Not every member of our society is in the position to seek the protection of a lawyer.
My point being,freedom of speech,as well as any other freedom,carries with it responsibilities as well as rights.
I simply do not trust a product of biased political correctness to protect these freedoms.
Davison,
Jack-booted brownshirts (actual, not figurative) “shut people down” for speech.
There is zero difference between a communist a fascist and Toronto liberal except the power the former two were able to wield. I have no doubt that given the same power, you would add to the 100 million strong pile of corpses your Totalitarian sole mates have racked up. Oh, you’ll deny and pretend otherwise. You’ll say you’d be on the side of angels. But given the power, you’d be burning politically incorrect thought criminals every bit as fast at the ovens burned the Jews and Stalin starved the Ukrainians.
Leftards have a severely warped view of the fundamental freedoms which are outlined in our constitution (as opposed to the fictitious, fantasy-land agenda driven one as used by liberal judges.)
You have a right to free speech as written in the constitution. You have no right not to be offended, insulted or treated with disrespect.
The quote in question is abhorrent and written by a hateful, nasty person – and is entirely irrelevant. You don’t get it. Your respect for rights and democracy is thin and dependent on your agenda. To you, there is only freedom to conform to your totalitarian mindset – which is no freedom at all. All those who commit thought crimes and speak heresies must be punished in your world. The proper response to someone who says something so offensive is to denounce them and debate them – loudly and publicly. If you crush their rights, who will defend yours when the winds change?
If you leftards can stack the courts, so can others – as you should be noticing south of us. Say nothing when the manipulation is in your favour and you will have nothing to say when the times change and things turn against you. Either you believe in freedom or you don’t.
Leftards are no better than the extreme, hateful religious people you denounce.
Leftdog, you are sort of like Davison without the small amount of wit he possesses. And before you think I compliment Davison, the half-wit only looks good beside the retard.
Have you ever wondered why the maple leaf on the candian flag is RED all it needs now is aHAMMER AND SCYCLE
Just for the record, the “Joanne” in the above entries is not me; even though some on the left have been so intellectually dishonest as to jump to conclusions before even trying to get the facts.
Most of the above posters have made jackasses of themselves. Next time before you leap to accuse or defend something, be sure you read the source document(s). It is pathetically weak, in view of the content of the complaint, to try to characterize the HRC ruling as one against posting scripture.
The well-founded objections here are straightforward: the HRC should not exist because it is an insult to the basic ideas of justice we all (left, centre, right, up, down) profess to support; the point of having free speech rights is to express ideas which offend or make others uncomfortable, not to express ideas about teddy bears and lollipops; and defending the right of Nazi assholes to say what they please is not synonymous with being a Nazi asshole.