HOUSE APPROVES “ANTI-HATE” BILL

"As for your slippery-slope, talk to me when the laws in Canada have actually been abused in that fashion. I'll be right there fighting for our religious freedoms here."

There are several incidents, maybe I'll get the time to look them up again.

Do you recall recently in Austraila where two pastors were put on trial because they tought a class that said the Koran tought hate for Christians. That was a recent event. Why can't they say this is they believe it. And who is the gov. to determine if it is right or wrong or hate or truth.

Not to offend, but are you homosexual?

 

Name one.

Where exactly was a handgun taken away from a good citizen by the Canadian government? Please name this person.

You know of one show that was cancelled through articles and feel that you can comment on the entire broadcasting system in Canada?

Because it is true a lot of the time. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.

If the laws were used to persecute any group, that group should include Muslims, Seikhs, Jews and many other religious groups opposed to homosexuality. The government explicitly stated an exception for religious groups so that there would be no confusion that this is not legislation intended for reverse persecution.

 

Nope. And I have no problem stating that the bible declares homosexuality as a sin. I am also strongly opposed to Christians who abuse the bible to promote hate. Just as Jesus rebuked those who used the Mosaic law in his time to hate and outcast sinners.

 

While they are wrong about the Koran, from your description, they should be free to state their misconceptions. I don't know this case so before I comment further, I should do some research. My initial guess is that it wasn't the content of their message but its delivery that was problematic. What was the ruling?

The government is in place to represent and protect all people, not just the ones who agree with you.

[ September 24, 2005, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

Gold Dragon,

If you are not homosexual, I can't figure out why you would think it ok to fine a man and a newpaper for simply saying that homosexuality is wrong and giving verses as their proof.

The Koran thing happened about 6 months ago. They were subject to a very stiff fine. I don't know how it turned out, but just having to go through that is travisty enough.

And why is it only Chrsitians and their speech that is comming under Gov. scrutiny. Lord knows that Muslims aren't afraid to vilify Christians and Jews. And do it regularly in their mosques in Canada and elsewhere.

 

" Muslims, Seikhs, Jews and many other religious groups opposed to homosexuality. "

Oh, but in the western nations, only Chistians have power and need to be controlled. It is not ultimately about the religion. It is about power and how to get it.

 

I'm not a Jew, but I would encourage fining and punishing an individual for publishing a star of David in a circle with a line through it and quoting John 19:7.

"The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

 

Nope. And I have no problem stating that the bible declares homosexuality as a sin. I am also strongly opposed to Christians who abuse the bible to promote hate. Just as Jesus rebuked those who used the Mosaic law in his time to hate and outcast sinners. </font>[/QUOTE]The fallacy in that argument is that a Christian who abused the Bible to promote hate would not be acting in a Christian manner, would he? So therefore we have a person who is not a Christian acting in a non-Christian manner but the Christian is being blamed for it.

 

I see that for you the issue is about power and how to keep it.

For me, the issue is about protecting the oppressed.

 

Nope. And I have no problem stating that the bible declares homosexuality as a sin. I am also strongly opposed to Christians who abuse the bible to promote hate. Just as Jesus rebuked those who used the Mosaic law in his time to hate and outcast sinners. </font>[/QUOTE]The fallacy in that argument is that a Christian who abused the Bible to promote hate would not be acting in a Christian manner, would he? So therefore we have a person who is not a Christian acting in a non-Christian manner but the Christian is being blamed for it. </font>[/QUOTE]I have yet to meet a Christian who is without sin.

Christians have promoted hate throughout history. Are you telling me that all the Baptists involved in the KKK were not Christians? That was a pretty large proportion of baptist in the south at that time.

Or that all Protestants promoting hate of Catholics were not Christians?

Christians act in un-Christ-like manners all the time.

 

"I'm not a Jew, but I would encourage fining and punishing an individual for publishing a star of David in a circle with a line through it and quoting John 19:7."

When did libarals stop insisting on absolute free speach? I quess when it stopped serving their purpose.

I see bumper stickers all the time with a boy pissing on a cross. Do you remember, "Piss Christ", the art of the homosexual Maplethorp, for which he recieved gov. grants.

"I see that for you the issue is about power and how to keep it."

Well that was uncalled for. I am saying that the reason we don't see these laws applyed against other religions is because their is alterior motives. I thought you were all about fairness. I guess not.

Christians have also been presecuated for centuries. In fact it is the rule and not the exception. But you and your idealogical comrades never seem to have any concern about that fact.

 

But these laws do apply to other religions. I'm confused about what your point is.

I readily admit the fact that Christians have been persecuted throughout history. That is not justification for persectution of others.

 

Just an fyi that the only times I have not voted for a Conservative candidate in an election since I have been of voting age is when no viable candidate existed.

I will definitely defend free speech. And Neo-nazis and the KKK can definitely speak about why they hold their positions. But there is a line of hate that they cannot cross.

 

I'de like to see this bill for myself. All other sources I've seen say that it does not violate free speech, it is only against actual crimes.

"Constitutionality
Hate crimes prevention legislation does not violate the First Amendment right to free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The hate crimes prevention legislation’s language does not apply to name-calling, verbal abuse, or expressions of hatred toward any group, even if statements amount to hate speech."

http://www.aauw.org/issue_advocacy/actionpages/positionpapers/hatecrimes.cfm

Apparently the bill doesn't apply to "hate speech", but only "hate crimes", which include violence or threats of violence.

I agree, an anti-hate law like the one Canada has is totally unconstitutional. But I don't think this is that kind of law.

 

I agree that Bill C-250 and the entire hate propoganda section would be unconstitutional in the US. But it does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.

 

Did a little digging and just wanted to fyi that the case in question is Hugh Owens v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled in June 15, 2001 and the appeal dismissed Dec 11, 2002. link

Bill C-250 was passed in the House of Commons in Sept 17, 2003. link

 

---"But these laws do apply to other religions. I'm confused about what your point is"

Show me where they have actually been applyed to other religions?

---"Apparently the bill doesn't apply to "hate speech", but only "hate crimes", which include violence or threats of violence."

Once this wall is boken down, it will not stop until it deals directly with speech. What you are doing in the end is making some people more special than others. If the constitution stand for any thing it is EQUAL protection for all. Not specail protections for some.

---"Just an fyi that the only times I have not voted for a Conservative candidate in an election since I have been of voting age is when no viable candidate existed."

A Canadian conservative is probably akin to an American Ted Kennedy. Look me in the eye and tell me you would have voted for Bush if you were south of the border.

---"I readily admit the fact that Christians have been persecuted throughout history. That is not justification for persectution of others"

The point is you never see this kind of philosiphy applyed to other religions. The government here paid Maplethorp to take photos of Christ in urin. I bet the HRC in Canada would not have bothered with that one. People can speak hatefully of Christians and no one does anything. The whole philosiphy is one sided and selectively applied

 

Since no one has ever been tried under this legislation, Christian or not, I can't provide any examples.

I disagree with many of Bush's decisions, but I agree with many of them too. It is hard to say what I would have done since I'm not eligible but I was probably 50/50 between Bush and Gore but would have had no problem voting for Bush over Kerry.

But it is applied to other religions. Speaking hatefully of Christianity is illegal under Canada's hate propoganda law. Forunately we haven't had to deal with these cases in Canada. Disagreement is not hate. There are many Muslims here in Toronto and they have not preached hate against Christianity here. But you seem to be very up-to-date with all the happenings in Canada so you could probably tell me about all the injustices our government dishes out.

 

----"Since no one has ever been tried under this legislation, Christian or not, I can't provide any examples."

We are talking about two things here. The civil law in Canada and the Recent criminal law passed here. We assume that the way things have gone in Canada, with the HRC and it tribunals, will give us insight into how these thing will turn out. BTY, didn't Canada just pass a law to make a criminal code concerning hate speech?

"There are many Muslims here in Toronto and they have not preached hate against Christianity here."

You have a very special brand of Musilum if absolutly none have ever preached hate in their mosque. But I don't think anyone should bother them if they do. As long as it remains speech. And if we are going to go this route, shouldn't we prosecute someone every time they say someting hateful about someone else. Like "I hate you, you SOB", (or does it only count if we add the word "fag"). Can you imagine how often that happens. Can we really go that route realisticly. We will end up, persecuteing people instead of controlling hate.

I showed you one instance where a Christian man was civily prosecuted for expressing his belief, and I can dig up some others if I have to. Show me one instance where another religion or group has been similarly prosecuted.

On this particular issue you are alot closer to Kerry than Bush.

 

I hear that there are 300,000 moslems in Toronto. When Arabs come to the west, they seem to refuse to assimilate. They fled the Arab League, but once they get away, then they want to turn the new land into an Arab nation. Here in the USA, Arabs seem more loyal to OBL than the USA.

By the way, Gold Dragon, you make the common error of liberals in overestimating the KKK. Also, you charged without evidence that the SBC had KKK members. Well, there was a church in Kansas that had a serial murderer but that had nothing to do with the church per se. And you never mention the racism of groups such as the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, for example. By the way, I am thinking that the head of the KKK was called the grand dragon.