Canada prepares to declare Bible 'hate speech' - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

BoCo · 09-17-2003, 05:40 AM

<hr>
'Bible as hate speech' bill nearing vote
With U.S. watching, Canada set to criminalize 'anti-gay' expression

Posted: September 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

As some U.S. Supreme Court justices look abroad for guidance on cases related to homosexuality, Canada is set to vote on a bill opponents say would criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

Introduced by self-described "gay" House of Commons member Svend Robinson, bill C-250 would add sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation.

As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents fear if the bill becomes law, the Bible will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.

The Parliament is scheduled to debate the bill today and likely will call a vote within the next few days. The legislation has the support of every provincial and territorial attorney-general in Canada.

The debate comes amid a battle over a government bill that would establish same-sex marriage. Yesterday, Parliament narrowly defeated a nonbinding motion reaffirming the heterosexual-only definition of marriage. The close margin in the Liberal Party-dominated House of Commons, 137-132, raised questions about whether the government bill would pass, especially if an election is called before it is brought to a vote.

Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says, ironically, his group's opposition to the homosexual marriage bill could be construed as a punishable offense under Robinson's legislation.

"Canadians who are speaking out against the redefinition of marriage are already being accused of 'hate' speech by homosexual activists," Rushfeldt said. "When C-250 is passed into law later this fall, the activists will begin to insist on prosecution to silence their critics with criminal sanctions."

He said many people are beginning to consider its potential implications.

"If my son went to school and said homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle, let alone a perversion or a sin, and they asked where did you hear that, there is the possibility I could be held liable," Rushfeldt said.

Alan Sears, president of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit legal group, says Americans should pay close attention to their northern neighbors.

"Why does what is going on in Canada matter?" he asked in an interview with WorldNetDaily. "Some of our own justices have already have told us they will be looking closely at how the 'wider civilization' handles these cases."

Sears notes Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a recent interview with ABC News that the world is growing together through "commerce and through globalization" and we will find out in coming years how our Constitution "fits into the governing documents of other nations. …"

In a speech last month, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the U.S. Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like homosexual rights and the death penalty.

"Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said during a speech Aug. 2 to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group, according to the Associated Press.

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who cited an international treaty in her June vote to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

"While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students, according to the AP. "We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others."

In the landmark case earlier this summer that overturned Texas's ban on sodomy, Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued against the previous precedent regarding sodomy, Bowers v. Hardwick, noting the "case's reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

Sears said the court's arguments in its "fabrication" of a "constitutional right to engage in sodomy" were so questionable that the court felt "compelled to appeal to European courts to justify the desired conclusion."

In his dissent of the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

Scalia wrote, "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some states choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct."

Religious defense?

Backers of Robinson's bill, C-250, argue statements against homosexual behavior for religious reasons are exempted in the current law. But opponents point out the law addressed by Robinson's amendment spells out three different types of actions or speech considered criminal, and only one can be excused by a religious defense. And even that one, opponents maintain, has not always held up in court, because its vagueness leaves wide discretion to judges.

The opponents argue the provincial human-rights commissions, which already include sexual orientation as a protected category, have penalized people for actions motivated by their conscientious objection to homosexual behavior.

"The trend in court decisions has been when religious rights and homosexual rights clash, the court favors homosexual rights," Rushfeldt said.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a Saskatchewan man was fined for submitting a newspaper ad with citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.

Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper:

Under the provincial Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.

The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the commission ruled the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owens's religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred, ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation."

If Robinson's bill passes, Owens and others would be considered criminals, subject to a jail sentence of up to two years in some cases and five years in others.

Two years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's request.

In British Columbia, a teacher was suspended for making "derogatory and demeaning" statements against homosexuals, according to the judgment of a teachers association panel. Though none of the statements in question were made in class, the panel cited letters to a newspaper that indicated veteran teacher Chris Kempling's attitude could "poison" the class environment.

One Kempling letter cited by the panel said: "Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."

The teachers panel said it does not need to find direct evidence of a poisoned school environment to determine that a member is guilty of conduct unbecoming.

The panel said, "It is sufficient that an inference can be drawn as to the reasonable and probable consequences of the discriminatory comments of a teacher."

In another case, a Christian couple in Prince Edward Island chose to close down their bed and breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts under their own roof, according to the National Post.

Along with the human rights tribunals, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council rules have been used to censure programs addressing homosexuality. In 1997, the council ruled that the airing of a James Dobson "Focus on the Family" program, called "Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction," violated the requirement that opinion, comment, and editorializing be presented in a way that is "full, fair, and proper."

The Vancouver teacher Kempling wrote a letter to the National Post last month, expressing his amazement that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association would choose to side with the teachers against him, noting "not a single gay or lesbian person registered any complaint about what I wrote, either to my employer or the B.C. Human Rights Commission."

"Now I know how Galileo must have felt," he said. "When civil liberties groups act like Orwell's thought police, true democracy is in serious trouble."
<hr>
Link

BoCo · 09-17-2003, 05:41 AM

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and Canada will surely pay for it in the future.

johnnymysto · 09-17-2003, 06:11 AM

Thank God for the First Amendment. This is censorship out of control. If a law makes it illegal to publicly express an opinion against an issue, we are all in trouble. This could apply to anything, not just homosexual behavior. I really hope that we don't ever decide to compromise our Constitution with something like this. To do so would jeopardize all of our freedoms.

Also, I'm concerned about the future of hate-crime legislation. ALL crimes are commited out of hate - hate of women, hate of authority, hate of someone who has something you don't. Hate-crime is a VERY grey area. When does a crime move from a 'normal' crime to a 'hate' crime, and who decides this stuff? If I kill a black man while robbing his house, does that make it a hate crime just because I'm white? And if I kill a black man, all the while shouting how I hate all black people, why does that merit special punishment and legislation? I think hate-crimes are just another feel-good attempt to provide special rights for minorities.

BoCo · 09-17-2003, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnnymysto
I think hate-crimes are just another feel-good attempt to provide special rights for minorities.

Exactly.

filtherton · 09-17-2003, 06:35 AM

If the shoe fits...

Quote:

Thank God for the First Amendment. This is censorship out of control. If a law makes it illegal to publicly express an opinion against an issue, we are all in trouble. This could apply to anything, not just homosexual behavior. I really hope that we don't ever decide to compromise our Constitution with something like this. To do so would jeopardize all of our freedoms.

I think you're overreacting, which is apparently the goal of the article, judging from the title. Canada has outlawed hate speech for a long time, this is just updating the law for the times.
They couldn't possibly classify the bible as hate speech. The hate speech comes in when some misguided thumper takes out an ad implying that homosexuals are perverts. Hate speech sums that act up quite nicely. I'll shed no tears at the thought of some bigot being robbed of his/her ability to spread a narrow-minded, hateful interpretation of the bible.

Quote:

He said many people are beginning to consider its potential implications. If my son went to school and said homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle, let alone a perversion or a sin, and they asked where did you hear that, there is the possibility I could be held liable," Rushfeldt said.

What business does this fella's fon have going to school and telling anyone that their lifestyle is "immoral" or "unhealthy"? What if his kid was going to school and claiming that all blacks were lazy and untrustworthy? This guy's a jackass, regardless of what he bases his beliefs on. It doesn't matter what what you believe, there is no reason to go into what should be a neutral setting and polarize it with hateful statements.

Charlatan · 09-17-2003, 06:55 AM

The author of this piece has a clear bias...

The truth of the matter is that there already *is* be a law against hate literature in Canada and what is being proposed by the member's bill is that it be expanded to include discrimination against sexual orientation.

At present if you write something that denys the Holocaust or something that attacks a racial group you can be charged with the disemination of hate literature.

I see no reason why this shouldn't extend to sexual orientation.

Clearly the bible itself is not under attack here. Any who thinks this is an idiot. What is under attack...and rightly so... is hate.

When what the bible says is used in the context of spreading hate. The person using it is wrong.

I can just as easily use the bible to attack jews and claim that they are evil for killing Christ and blah...blah...blah.

Even your first amendment has limits. Libel and slander are not permitted and I wouldn't be surprised to find precedece for so-called hate literature.

This isn't about hate crime per se... it is about hate literature. You can stand on the corner and spout all the evil filth you want and you won't get arrested (unless you are disturbing the peace).

As for opinion... no one is saying that someone cannot argue their opinion. It is all about context.

Is it OK to print an ad that says all Jews are evil? Blacks are lazy and stupid? These are opinions but ultimately what purpose do these opinions serve if not simply to spread ill will or hatred of those groups?

Slander and Libel can take care of an individual that is harmed by hateful literature but what law takes care to protect groups of people (minorities if you will)?

Sure we should be concerned when laws are enacted that will encroach on our personal freedoms... However, should we also not also defend our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? A document that protects ALL before the law?

Charlatan · 09-17-2003, 06:57 AM

And by the way... fuck off with the Canaduh...

I don't slander your country and I expect the same from other members of this board.

*edit:Title has been fixed.

seretogis · 09-17-2003, 07:17 AM

The very idea of categorizing crimes by the feelings of the criminal at the time, makes me shiver. I don't need to be "protected" from the bible any more than anyone else. If someone wants to drive around with a "god hates fags" bumper-sticker, by all means, feel free.

I'm not a Canadian, so perhaps those who are can explain the need for such laws?

johnnymysto · 09-17-2003, 07:30 AM

Charlatan, well said. But, slander and libel are and have been defined offenses for a long time. Why the need to add 'hate-speech' to this list? And again, who decides what qualifies as hate speech? I have never seen or heard a definition of that. I agree with Seretogis that if someone wants to slander a whole group of people, so be it - it's their right. What harm has that done to any individual? Hurt someone's feelings? Only idiots make these blanket statements anyway, so they're only showing their ignorance. Why do we need laws that say you must be punished for talking trash about a group of people? When I have have pointed the finger at one person in particular and said "you lousy so-and-so", then you can take issue with me.

BoCo · 09-17-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
And by the way... fuck off...

That's hate speech and I think I might have to sue you.

Charlatan · 09-17-2003, 07:46 AM

I just knew this one would get seretogis' shorts in a knot... he he

As for slander and libel being old laws... yes, that's true but so what? Should we not enact any new laws? Besides this is a law that is already on the books. What is being discussed is an amendment to that law.

As for who decides what is hate and what isn't... well let's ask who decides what is slander and what isn't... who decides what is libellious and what isn't. These questions are not as cut and dry either. Should we strike down these laws because they aren't universal in their scope? (actually slander and libel laws differ greatly from nation to nation).

It will be up to the legal system to interpret the law and judge each case individually (that's how our system works, no?).

maximusveritas · 09-17-2003, 08:00 AM

To me, hate speech is anything that directly incites violence or other lawlessness against a particular group of people. Anything else, no matter how ignorant or unpopular, should be protected by the first amendment.

Charlatan · 09-17-2003, 08:19 AM

Canada doesn't have a First Amendment...

We do have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 2(b) states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

This is however limited by Section 1.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This can go two ways: one it implies that Free Speech can be limited if that limitation is reasonable... however this works the other way as well (i.e. you can't limit if the limitation is unreasonable)

In other words Canadian law leaves room for interpretation of law.

Besides we have to keep lawyers busy somehow...

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-17-2003, 08:50 AM

I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this catch wind over in the 9th circuit within the next few years.

maximusveritas · 09-17-2003, 09:48 AM

My previous comment pertained to hate speech laws here in the United States. As far as Canada is concerned, I think this bill makes sense in the framework of its existing hate speech laws.

I just think we should be wary here in the United States of opening up to further interpretation what is protected speech and what is not.

Also, I'm not sure where that comment about the 9th Circuit Court is coming from, since the court has taken some courageous stands on behalf of free speech in the past.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-17-2003, 09:52 AM

On who's behalf though? It has also taken many stands against religion.

maximusveritas · 09-17-2003, 10:09 AM

When it comes to protecting free speech, the Court has ruled with neutrality.
For example, the case in Washington where a girl was not allowed to start a Bible club. The court ruled on her behalf on 1st ammendment grounds.

Thraeryn · 09-17-2003, 10:15 AM

Heheh. I think that people should be allowed to say whatever they believe, but also that the people who hear them should have free access to information about who the speaker is, where they work, etc. so that they can boycott the business. (Bet you thought that line was going to end on a criminal note, eh? Funny thing, though, is that I'm not generally a criminal.)

Lebell · 09-17-2003, 10:50 AM

On this board I've seen people who clearly state their hatred of religion and call those who believe in a god mindless sheep.

Should they be banned for hate speech?

I have seen people tell other people they are "bad parents" because they use a child harness.

Should they be banned?

I have also seen Democrats call specific government leaders "evil" as well as Republicans in general.

Should they be banned?

No, no and no.

My point is that it is easy to start banning speech that we don't like as "hate speech" but in reality, freedom of speech means that we will sometimes have to hear or read things that we don't like.

We tolerate this so that we have the same priviledge when it comes our time to speak.

As to individuals who call homosexuality "evil", I prefer to use education while these dinosaurs die off rather than try to legislate what they can say and think.

Charlatan · 09-17-2003, 11:09 AM

Point take Labell... I'm surprised you didn't just link everyone to my previous posts...

I agree that censorship is a very slippery slope. However, I think we can agree that there is a place to draw the line on freedom of expression... in fact I believe this very forum draws lines on a regular basis.

Child porn... Can I just take pictures of naked children and claim Freedom of Expression...no. Can I draw pictures of naked children and claim Freedom of Expression? That's a little more grey. What about writing stories about Children Having sex? That's arguably gray too...

Can I take out and ad that advocates that we should kill all Jews because they are Evil (assuming some idiot will run your ad in their paper or on TV)? Personally I don't think that should be allowed. What about you?

Should people be allowed to distribute literature to school children that argues the holocaust didn't happen?

The list goes on...

All I want people to realize is that Freedom of Expression isn't absolute (even in the US).

The issue becomes what is a "reasonable" limitation of that Freedom of Expression?

The answer isn't going to sit perfectly well with everyone... but that's democracy in a nutshell isn't it?

MuadDib · 09-17-2003, 11:19 AM

1) Hate crime isn't about the feelings of the victim, but the intent of the criminal. It is VERY similar to the distinction in murder 1 and murder 2.

2) This legislation would make GLBT folks a protected group and not outright make the Bible hate speech. Specific uses of the book could be considered hate speech, even here in America we have ruled that groups like the KKK have used the Bible in a manner that made what they said hate speech. This is not a threat to the Bible or Christianity

3) I agree that for the most part people should be able to say what they want. However, I agree with the Supreme Court of the US that when speech brings about a clear and present danger (such as FIRE in a theatre or enciting to violence against an individual or group) then it ought be restricted by law. Hate speech by definition tries to encite violence, in one form or another, against an individual or group.

4) I hope no one takes my arguments as offensive, but I do feel this is a simple and logical issue turned upside down by some reactionary journalist for a web magazine. He wants to make it appear that expanding marriage and civil rights to GLBT persons is a religious stand against Christianity. It is the same argument used when rights were expanded to women and African Americans in our country and furthermore it is not true. The Bible can be used for hateful things, its a historical fact and it needs to be prevented by law if necessary. But this doesn't spell the end of Christianity or the Bible nor their true purpose which is faith, hope, and love. If anything rulings against using the Bible for such things should strengthen Christianity by returning it to its more noble values.

sipsake · 09-17-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
And by the way... fuck off with the Canaduh...

I don't slander your country and I expect the same from other members of this board.

I agree with you...it was a pretty pathetic swipe at a great country.

Fortunately it reflects more on the poster than the country.

sipsake · 09-17-2003, 11:25 AM

Excellent response MuadDib.

Lebell · 09-17-2003, 11:27 AM

Charlton,

Of course we can agree that there is a line.

Child pornography (I'm not arguing just a little underage, but very underage) is justifiably illegal because children do not have the capacity to consent to such activity.

If you are asking me if *thinking* about it or drawing it or writing about it should be illegal, then I say "no".

Using this and your other examples point to where I think the line should be drawn: If a person or group of persons can reasonably feel threatened/endangered by such speech, then it is reasonable for society to ban it.

Using this as my personal guide, I cannot agree that publishing references to Biblical passages purportedly condemning homosexuality mets this criteria.

Offensive? Absolutely.

Illegal? It should not be in a free society.

debaser · 09-17-2003, 01:46 PM

A better point to ponder is why fundamentalists are so concerned with what other people are doing with their genetalia...

druptight · 09-17-2003, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debaser
A better point to ponder is why fundamentalists are so concerned with what other people are doing with their genetalia...

hahaha.... yes.

JcL · 09-17-2003, 04:19 PM

Personally I think that even hateful speech should be protected by the government. Its an unfortunate case that we have ignorant racists even now, however, they are entitled to have their opinions, as long as they do not trample the rights of others.

the KKK can continue to hate blacks and homosexuals for all I care, as long as they do not act out on their dilusional beliefs.

Flippy · 09-17-2003, 04:31 PM

For a little more information on this issue, take a look at Svend Robinson's Website.

Quote:

WE ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING THIS BILL because of the flood of e-mails and letters coming in to MPs from those who oppose the bill, mainly from the religious right. As well, Canadian Alliance MPs (who have voted against every bill that has ever come before the House to extend equality to gays and lesbians) are fanning the flames with outrageous attacks on the bill. They claim that the bill would make religious texts like the Bible illegal. This is absolutely false: both the Charter of Rights and the Criminal Code already protect freedom of religious expression.

That's it - straight from the horse's mouth.

Already, hate crime laws exist in Canada. All this bill is doing is adding discrimination against sexual orientation to the definition of a hate crime. Will people be prosecuted for voicing their opinion? No. Will people be prosecuted for voicing their opinion with the intent to instigate violence/hatred towards others? Yes.

The Bill's text:

Quote:

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

Definition of ``identifiable group''
(4) In this section, ``identifiable group'' means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation .

And here is the section of the criminal code that this would modify. Also reference section 319 on the same page.

Edit - btw, this bill just passed the commons vote - 141-110. So it is *very* close to becoming law.

filtherton · 09-17-2003, 05:15 PM

I don't get it. These anti-hate laws were allright as long as it was just a racial, religious, ethnic, color thing? We can all (hopefully) agree on that. However, once we add sexual orientation to this list the bible is illegal because it becomes hatespeech? Hmm... So these christians acknowledge that their religion, as they practice it, preaches hatred. Interesting.
"You can't make all this hate that we say illegal, cause then we'll get in trouble for saying all this hate"

JcL · 09-17-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Will people be prosecuted for voicing their opinion with the intent to instigate violence/hatred towards others?

Whats wrong with inducing hatred in others through speech?

edit:
er, don't take that the wrong way. Obviously there is something wrong with inducing hatred on the level of the individual, in a moralistic sense. I'm speaking in terms of legality.

Nizzle · 09-17-2003, 10:45 PM

Canada has a First Amendment?

smooth · 09-17-2003, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JcL
Whats wrong with inducing hatred in others through speech?

edit:
er, don't take that the wrong way. Obviously there is something wrong with inducing hatred on the level of the individual, in a moralistic sense. I'm speaking in terms of legality.

In the US we have a long held understanding that my right to flail my arms ends where your nose begins.

Do you think your right to speak hateful language should end at my ears?

Put another way: I have a right not to be punched in the nose by you, notwithstanding your right to flail your arms whereever you please.

Do you think I should have a right not to hear hateful speech about my lifestyle or person notwithstanding your right to speak?

Nizzle · 09-17-2003, 11:18 PM

Uh, guys? WorldNetDaily IS NOT A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE.

The proposed law says NOTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE. Why is this being discussed as if Canada were planning on banning the bible?

This article is nothing more than an attempt to muster up more hatred for homosexuals on the religious right (like that's even possible).

Charlatan · 09-18-2003, 06:04 AM

Exactly Nizzle...

By the way... again we don't have "First Amendment". Our Freedom of Expression clause was right in the Constitution from the start.

Thank you MuadDib for making the argument for this law that much clearer. Everyone who is having an issue with this after reading the odious article that started this thread should go back and read his post and stop being such a reactionary...

Labell... So you issue is not with the law per se but with the application of that law in the specific instance of the ad? If that is the case then I can generally agree with you.

JcL · 09-18-2003, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Do you think I should have a right not to hear hateful speech about my lifestyle or person notwithstanding your right to speak?

I have the right to call you whatever the fuck I want. Even if its hateful, racist, or sexist. They may be consequences - but not Federally legislated ones.

So are all the dems breaking the law right now because of the 'hateful' speak they use concerning Bush??

sipsake · 09-18-2003, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JcL
I have the right to call you whatever the fuck I want. Even if its hateful, racist, or sexist. They may be consequences - but not Federally legislated ones.

No, you have the ability to call me whatever you want...not the right.

Lebell · 09-18-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
Labell... So you issue is not with the law per se but with the application of that law in the specific instance of the ad? If that is the case then I can generally agree with you.

No, not quite.

Let me take another example.

I've had the unpleasant experience of being shouted at by anti-abortion protesters.

I've been told what a horrible person I am and how I am going to hell for helping kill babies.

Do I enjoy this?

No.

It is hateful, hurtful speech and frankly I've wanted to punch out the speakers on more than one occasion.

But the truth is I would rather live in a society where people can hold and speak hateful hurtful IGNORANT words than a society that bans speech and thought the second someone decides they are offended by it.

In other words, I fear your words far less than I fear the "thought police".

Nizzle · 09-18-2003, 10:31 AM

Hate-crime law are not intended to control what you think or say. They are to enforce stronger punishment on those who commit hate crimes. The idea behind this is to put a stop to things like KKK lynching, gay-bashing and the like. Where you might only get a night in jail for beating someone up, you might think twice before going to prison for it.

You can hate them all you want and say so, but if you commit a crime and the prosecutor can demonstrate it can be categorized as a hate crime, you are going to be held more accountable for your actions. I think it's pretty clear, just, and it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE nor BANNING FREE SPEECH.

Charlatan · 09-18-2003, 10:37 AM

I don't think we disagree at all Labell... and I don't believe that the Canadian law as it is written is anywhere even close to "thought police" or the various shades of paranoia that have been roilling through this thread.

I've just found a good link spelling out how Canadian Hate Laws work...

Lebell · 09-18-2003, 11:49 AM

Nizzle,

How can you say that when a man and a newspaper were fined for printing references to Bible passages that purportedly condemn homosexuality?

If that isn't punishing someone what what they say, then I don't know what is.

Charlatan, I agree.

(btw, if I were LAbell, I would be a girl

)

09-17-2003, 05:40 AM	#1 (permalink)
BoCo Fear the bunny Location: Hanging off the tip of the Right Wing	Canaduh prepares to declare Bible 'hate speech' <hr> 'Bible as hate speech' bill nearing vote With U.S. watching, Canada set to criminalize 'anti-gay' expression Posted: September 17, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Art Moore © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com As some U.S. Supreme Court justices look abroad for guidance on cases related to homosexuality, Canada is set to vote on a bill opponents say would criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior. Introduced by self-described "gay" House of Commons member Svend Robinson, bill C-250 would add sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation. As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents fear if the bill becomes law, the Bible will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality. The Parliament is scheduled to debate the bill today and likely will call a vote within the next few days. The legislation has the support of every provincial and territorial attorney-general in Canada. The debate comes amid a battle over a government bill that would establish same-sex marriage. Yesterday, Parliament narrowly defeated a nonbinding motion reaffirming the heterosexual-only definition of marriage. The close margin in the Liberal Party-dominated House of Commons, 137-132, raised questions about whether the government bill would pass, especially if an election is called before it is brought to a vote. Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says, ironically, his group's opposition to the homosexual marriage bill could be construed as a punishable offense under Robinson's legislation. "Canadians who are speaking out against the redefinition of marriage are already being accused of 'hate' speech by homosexual activists," Rushfeldt said. "When C-250 is passed into law later this fall, the activists will begin to insist on prosecution to silence their critics with criminal sanctions." He said many people are beginning to consider its potential implications. "If my son went to school and said homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle, let alone a perversion or a sin, and they asked where did you hear that, there is the possibility I could be held liable," Rushfeldt said. Alan Sears, president of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit legal group, says Americans should pay close attention to their northern neighbors. "Why does what is going on in Canada matter?" he asked in an interview with WorldNetDaily. "Some of our own justices have already have told us they will be looking closely at how the 'wider civilization' handles these cases." Sears notes Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a recent interview with ABC News that the world is growing together through "commerce and through globalization" and we will find out in coming years how our Constitution "fits into the governing documents of other nations. …" In a speech last month, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the U.S. Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like homosexual rights and the death penalty. "Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said during a speech Aug. 2 to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group, according to the Associated Press. Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who cited an international treaty in her June vote to uphold the use of race in college admissions. "While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students, according to the AP. "We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others." In the landmark case earlier this summer that overturned Texas's ban on sodomy, Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued against the previous precedent regarding sodomy, Bowers v. Hardwick, noting the "case's reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct." Sears said the court's arguments in its "fabrication" of a "constitutional right to engage in sodomy" were so questionable that the court felt "compelled to appeal to European courts to justify the desired conclusion." In his dissent of the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans." Scalia wrote, "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some states choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct." Religious defense? Backers of Robinson's bill, C-250, argue statements against homosexual behavior for religious reasons are exempted in the current law. But opponents point out the law addressed by Robinson's amendment spells out three different types of actions or speech considered criminal, and only one can be excused by a religious defense. And even that one, opponents maintain, has not always held up in court, because its vagueness leaves wide discretion to judges. The opponents argue the provincial human-rights commissions, which already include sexual orientation as a protected category, have penalized people for actions motivated by their conscientious objection to homosexual behavior. "The trend in court decisions has been when religious rights and homosexual rights clash, the court favors homosexual rights," Rushfeldt said. As WorldNetDaily reported, a Saskatchewan man was fined for submitting a newspaper ad with citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality. Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper: Under the provincial Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint. The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the commission ruled the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owens's religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred, ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation." If Robinson's bill passes, Owens and others would be considered criminals, subject to a jail sentence of up to two years in some cases and five years in others. Two years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's request. In British Columbia, a teacher was suspended for making "derogatory and demeaning" statements against homosexuals, according to the judgment of a teachers association panel. Though none of the statements in question were made in class, the panel cited letters to a newspaper that indicated veteran teacher Chris Kempling's attitude could "poison" the class environment. One Kempling letter cited by the panel said: "Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions." The teachers panel said it does not need to find direct evidence of a poisoned school environment to determine that a member is guilty of conduct unbecoming. The panel said, "It is sufficient that an inference can be drawn as to the reasonable and probable consequences of the discriminatory comments of a teacher." In another case, a Christian couple in Prince Edward Island chose to close down their bed and breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts under their own roof, according to the National Post. Along with the human rights tribunals, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council rules have been used to censure programs addressing homosexuality. In 1997, the council ruled that the airing of a James Dobson "Focus on the Family" program, called "Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction," violated the requirement that opinion, comment, and editorializing be presented in a way that is "full, fair, and proper." The Vancouver teacher Kempling wrote a letter to the National Post last month, expressing his amazement that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association would choose to side with the teachers against him, noting "not a single gay or lesbian person registered any complaint about what I wrote, either to my employer or the B.C. Human Rights Commission." "Now I know how Galileo must have felt," he said. "When civil liberties groups act like Orwell's thought police, true democracy is in serious trouble." <hr> Link __________________ Activism is a way for useless people to feel important. Last edited by BoCo; 09-17-2003 at 05:42 AM..

09-17-2003, 05:41 AM	#2 (permalink)
BoCo Fear the bunny Location: Hanging off the tip of the Right Wing	Re: Canaduh prepares to declare Bible 'hate speech' This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and Canada will surely pay for it in the future. __________________ Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

09-17-2003, 06:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
johnnymysto Overreactor Location: South Ca'lina	Thank God for the First Amendment. This is censorship out of control. If a law makes it illegal to publicly express an opinion against an issue, we are all in trouble. This could apply to anything, not just homosexual behavior. I really hope that we don't ever decide to compromise our Constitution with something like this. To do so would jeopardize all of our freedoms. Also, I'm concerned about the future of hate-crime legislation. ALL crimes are commited out of hate - hate of women, hate of authority, hate of someone who has something you don't. Hate-crime is a VERY grey area. When does a crime move from a 'normal' crime to a 'hate' crime, and who decides this stuff? If I kill a black man while robbing his house, does that make it a hate crime just because I'm white? And if I kill a black man, all the while shouting how I hate all black people, why does that merit special punishment and legislation? I think hate-crimes are just another feel-good attempt to provide special rights for minorities. __________________ "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request." - Capt. Barbossa

09-17-2003, 06:55 AM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The author of this piece has a clear bias... The truth of the matter is that there already is be a law against hate literature in Canada and what is being proposed by the member's bill is that it be expanded to include discrimination against sexual orientation. At present if you write something that denys the Holocaust or something that attacks a racial group you can be charged with the disemination of hate literature. I see no reason why this shouldn't extend to sexual orientation. Clearly the bible itself is not under attack here. Any who thinks this is an idiot. What is under attack...and rightly so... is hate. When what the bible says is used in the context of spreading hate. The person using it is wrong. I can just as easily use the bible to attack jews and claim that they are evil for killing Christ and blah...blah...blah. Even your first amendment has limits. Libel and slander are not permitted and I wouldn't be surprised to find precedece for so-called hate literature. This isn't about hate crime per se... it is about hate literature. You can stand on the corner and spout all the evil filth you want and you won't get arrested (unless you are disturbing the peace). As for opinion... no one is saying that someone cannot argue their opinion. It is all about context. Is it OK to print an ad that says all Jews are evil? Blacks are lazy and stupid? These are opinions but ultimately what purpose do these opinions serve if not simply to spread ill will or hatred of those groups? Slander and Libel can take care of an individual that is harmed by hateful literature but what law takes care to protect groups of people (minorities if you will)? Sure we should be concerned when laws are enacted that will encroach on our personal freedoms... However, should we also not also defend our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? A document that protects ALL before the law? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-17-2003, 06:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	And by the way... fuck off with the Canaduh... I don't slander your country and I expect the same from other members of this board. edit:Title has been fixed. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by redravin40; 09-17-2003 at 08:09 PM..*

09-17-2003, 07:17 AM	#8 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	The very idea of categorizing crimes by the feelings of the criminal at the time, makes me shiver. I don't need to be "protected" from the bible any more than anyone else. If someone wants to drive around with a "god hates fags" bumper-sticker, by all means, feel free. I'm not a Canadian, so perhaps those who are can explain the need for such laws? __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

09-17-2003, 07:30 AM	#9 (permalink)
johnnymysto Overreactor Location: South Ca'lina	Charlatan, well said. But, slander and libel are and have been defined offenses for a long time. Why the need to add 'hate-speech' to this list? And again, who decides what qualifies as hate speech? I have never seen or heard a definition of that. I agree with Seretogis that if someone wants to slander a whole group of people, so be it - it's their right. What harm has that done to any individual? Hurt someone's feelings? Only idiots make these blanket statements anyway, so they're only showing their ignorance. Why do we need laws that say you must be punished for talking trash about a group of people? When I have have pointed the finger at one person in particular and said "you lousy so-and-so", then you can take issue with me. __________________ "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request." - Capt. Barbossa

09-17-2003, 07:46 AM	#11 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I just knew this one would get seretogis' shorts in a knot... he he As for slander and libel being old laws... yes, that's true but so what? Should we not enact any new laws? Besides this is a law that is already on the books. What is being discussed is an amendment to that law. As for who decides what is hate and what isn't... well let's ask who decides what is slander and what isn't... who decides what is libellious and what isn't. These questions are not as cut and dry either. Should we strike down these laws because they aren't universal in their scope? (actually slander and libel laws differ greatly from nation to nation). It will be up to the legal system to interpret the law and judge each case individually (that's how our system works, no?).

09-17-2003, 08:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	To me, hate speech is anything that directly incites violence or other lawlessness against a particular group of people. Anything else, no matter how ignorant or unpopular, should be protected by the first amendment.

09-17-2003, 08:19 AM	#13 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Canada doesn't have a First Amendment... We do have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2(b) states: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; This is however limited by Section 1. 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This can go two ways: one it implies that Free Speech can be limited if that limitation is reasonable... however this works the other way as well (i.e. you can't limit if the limitation is unreasonable) In other words Canadian law leaves room for interpretation of law. Besides we have to keep lawyers busy somehow... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-17-2003, 08:50 AM	#14 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this catch wind over in the 9th circuit within the next few years. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-17-2003, 09:48 AM	#15 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	My previous comment pertained to hate speech laws here in the United States. As far as Canada is concerned, I think this bill makes sense in the framework of its existing hate speech laws. I just think we should be wary here in the United States of opening up to further interpretation what is protected speech and what is not. Also, I'm not sure where that comment about the 9th Circuit Court is coming from, since the court has taken some courageous stands on behalf of free speech in the past.

09-17-2003, 09:52 AM	#16 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	On who's behalf though? It has also taken many stands against religion. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-17-2003, 10:09 AM	#17 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	When it comes to protecting free speech, the Court has ruled with neutrality. For example, the case in Washington where a girl was not allowed to start a Bible club. The court ruled on her behalf on 1st ammendment grounds.

09-17-2003, 10:15 AM	#18 (permalink)
Thraeryn Loser	Heheh. I think that people should be allowed to say whatever they believe, but also that the people who hear them should have free access to information about who the speaker is, where they work, etc. so that they can boycott the business. (Bet you thought that line was going to end on a criminal note, eh? Funny thing, though, is that I'm not generally a criminal.)

09-17-2003, 11:25 AM	#23 (permalink)
sipsake Psycho Location: Memphis	Excellent response MuadDib. __________________ When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?" Henry Rollins

09-17-2003, 10:50 AM	#19 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	On this board I've seen people who clearly state their hatred of religion and call those who believe in a god mindless sheep. Should they be banned for hate speech? I have seen people tell other people they are "bad parents" because they use a child harness. Should they be banned? I have also seen Democrats call specific government leaders "evil" as well as Republicans in general. Should they be banned? No, no and no. My point is that it is easy to start banning speech that we don't like as "hate speech" but in reality, freedom of speech means that we will sometimes have to hear or read things that we don't like. We tolerate this so that we have the same priviledge when it comes our time to speak. As to individuals who call homosexuality "evil", I prefer to use education while these dinosaurs die off rather than try to legislate what they can say and think. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-17-2003, 11:09 AM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Point take Labell... I'm surprised you didn't just link everyone to my previous posts... I agree that censorship is a very slippery slope. However, I think we can agree that there is a place to draw the line on freedom of expression... in fact I believe this very forum draws lines on a regular basis. Child porn... Can I just take pictures of naked children and claim Freedom of Expression...no. Can I draw pictures of naked children and claim Freedom of Expression? That's a little more grey. What about writing stories about Children Having sex? That's arguably gray too... Can I take out and ad that advocates that we should kill all Jews because they are Evil (assuming some idiot will run your ad in their paper or on TV)? Personally I don't think that should be allowed. What about you? Should people be allowed to distribute literature to school children that argues the holocaust didn't happen? The list goes on... All I want people to realize is that Freedom of Expression isn't absolute (even in the US). The issue becomes what is a "reasonable" limitation of that Freedom of Expression? The answer isn't going to sit perfectly well with everyone... but that's democracy in a nutshell isn't it? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-17-2003, 11:19 AM	#21 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	1) Hate crime isn't about the feelings of the victim, but the intent of the criminal. It is VERY similar to the distinction in murder 1 and murder 2. 2) This legislation would make GLBT folks a protected group and not outright make the Bible hate speech. Specific uses of the book could be considered hate speech, even here in America we have ruled that groups like the KKK have used the Bible in a manner that made what they said hate speech. This is not a threat to the Bible or Christianity 3) I agree that for the most part people should be able to say what they want. However, I agree with the Supreme Court of the US that when speech brings about a clear and present danger (such as FIRE in a theatre or enciting to violence against an individual or group) then it ought be restricted by law. Hate speech by definition tries to encite violence, in one form or another, against an individual or group. 4) I hope no one takes my arguments as offensive, but I do feel this is a simple and logical issue turned upside down by some reactionary journalist for a web magazine. He wants to make it appear that expanding marriage and civil rights to GLBT persons is a religious stand against Christianity. It is the same argument used when rights were expanded to women and African Americans in our country and furthermore it is not true. The Bible can be used for hateful things, its a historical fact and it needs to be prevented by law if necessary. But this doesn't spell the end of Christianity or the Bible nor their true purpose which is faith, hope, and love. If anything rulings against using the Bible for such things should strengthen Christianity by returning it to its more noble values. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

09-17-2003, 11:27 AM	#24 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Charlton, Of course we can agree that there is a line. Child pornography (I'm not arguing just a little underage, but very underage) is justifiably illegal because children do not have the capacity to consent to such activity. If you are asking me if thinking about it or drawing it or writing about it should be illegal, then I say "no". Using this and your other examples point to where I think the line should be drawn: If a person or group of persons can reasonably feel threatened/endangered by such speech, then it is reasonable for society to ban it. Using this as my personal guide, I cannot agree that publishing references to Biblical passages purportedly condemning homosexuality mets this criteria. Offensive? Absolutely. Illegal? It should not be in a free society. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-17-2003, 01:46 PM	#25 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	A better point to ponder is why fundamentalists are so concerned with what other people are doing with their genetalia... __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

09-17-2003, 04:19 PM	#27 (permalink)
JcL Crazy Location: Simi Valley, CA	Personally I think that even hateful speech should be protected by the government. Its an unfortunate case that we have ignorant racists even now, however, they are entitled to have their opinions, as long as they do not trample the rights of others. the KKK can continue to hate blacks and homosexuals for all I care, as long as they do not act out on their dilusional beliefs. __________________ "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth then lies." - Nietzsche

09-17-2003, 05:15 PM	#29 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I don't get it. These anti-hate laws were allright as long as it was just a racial, religious, ethnic, color thing? We can all (hopefully) agree on that. However, once we add sexual orientation to this list the bible is illegal because it becomes hatespeech? Hmm... So these christians acknowledge that their religion, as they practice it, preaches hatred. Interesting. "You can't make all this hate that we say illegal, cause then we'll get in trouble for saying all this hate"

09-17-2003, 10:45 PM	#31 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	Canada has a First Amendment? __________________ Nizzle

09-17-2003, 11:18 PM	#33 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	Uh, guys? WorldNetDaily IS NOT A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE. The proposed law says NOTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE. Why is this being discussed as if Canada were planning on banning the bible? This article is nothing more than an attempt to muster up more hatred for homosexuals on the religious right (like that's even possible). __________________ Nizzle

09-18-2003, 06:04 AM	#34 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Exactly Nizzle... By the way... again we don't have "First Amendment". Our Freedom of Expression clause was right in the Constitution from the start. Thank you MuadDib for making the argument for this law that much clearer. Everyone who is having an issue with this after reading the odious article that started this thread should go back and read his post and stop being such a reactionary... Labell... So you issue is not with the law per se but with the application of that law in the specific instance of the ad? If that is the case then I can generally agree with you. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-18-2003, 10:31 AM	#38 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	Hate-crime law are not intended to control what you think or say. They are to enforce stronger punishment on those who commit hate crimes. The idea behind this is to put a stop to things like KKK lynching, gay-bashing and the like. Where you might only get a night in jail for beating someone up, you might think twice before going to prison for it. You can hate them all you want and say so, but if you commit a crime and the prosecutor can demonstrate it can be categorized as a hate crime, you are going to be held more accountable for your actions. I think it's pretty clear, just, and it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE nor BANNING FREE SPEECH. __________________ Nizzle

09-18-2003, 10:37 AM	#39 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't think we disagree at all Labell... and I don't believe that the Canadian law as it is written is anywhere even close to "thought police" or the various shades of paranoia that have been roilling through this thread. I've just found a good link spelling out how Canadian Hate Laws work... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-18-2003, 11:49 AM	#40 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Nizzle, How can you say that when a man and a newspaper were fined for printing references to Bible passages that purportedly condemn homosexuality? If that isn't punishing someone what what they say, then I don't know what is. Charlatan, I agree. (btw, if I were LAbell, I would be a girl ) __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!