... and throw Jesus lovers in prison
:?
http://cc.org/blog/ronald_reagan_christina_popa_and_religious_freedom
Quote"To those who would crush religious freedom, our message is plain: you may jail your believers. You may close their churches, confiscate their Bibles, and harass their rabbis and priests, but you will never destroy the love of God and freedom that burns in their hearts. They will triumph over you." These remarks were in President Ronald Reagan's speech to the National Religious Broadcasters on January 31, 1981, during his second week in office as president and a couple months before he was almost assassinated.
Undoubtedly, President Reagan was mostly speaking to the communist dictatorships in the world at the height of the Cold War. However, if he was president this year, he could well be speaking to Canada and Sweden, etc. which have thrown pastors in jail for preaching the Bible from their pulpits on politically-incorrect topics.
America is quite close to emulating these countries, so President Reagan could just as well be warning the ACLU-types and other left-wingers in America whose ultimate goal is to establish similar laws as Sweden, Canada, etc. using such laws as so-called "hate crime" laws to stifle religious freedom. Indeed, the United States Congress is very close to passing such a "hate crime" law which Barack Obama has promised to sign into law.
"PALIN TEAR DOWN THIS WALMART"
I'm actually on the article writer's side in this case, I think Canada's 'Hate Speech' law stifles too much free speech.
I would prefer to have someone's unpopular views be countered intelligently, and/or that person be mocked publicly, but tossed in jail for an unpopular view seems to me completely contrary to the view Canada tries to promote as a "free country".
Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech laws though.
Hate crimes are where you commit (usually violent) crimes against people due to them being part of a racial, political, religious or sexual orientation grouping. Hate crimes are more damaging than normal variations of the same crime, and there is English common law precedence concerning intent as well.
If you don't want to be found guilty of a hate crime, then its very simple: don't go beating up blacks, Jews, socialists and gays because they are black, Jewish, socialists or gay.
you can't be thrown in jail cause of hate speech in Canada...
the case the other is talking about happened in Saskatchewan and was a filling against the Christian Truth Activists, who were disputing fliers, which supposedly encouraged violence against Homosexuals... I think it was a ridicules fine, usually they are about 1000 dollars for hate speach but i think this one was about 17 000
Though I agree with you Hoopla in principle and in the case in question, this far, far from putting people in jail
But the problem is people DO get put in jail in Canada for Hate Speech, and people are also denied entrance to Canada for it. Hell, there's a group trying to get George W. Bush barred from entering Canada at the moment.
I don't have time to look right now, but I will get the citations tonight about that.
However, concerning hate crimes, I totally agree. I won't stomach violence of any sort.
OK, but I felt the distinction should be made because US fundamentalists have been muddying the waters when it comes to hate speech vs hate crimes, claiming both are the same thing and so attempts to enlarge the US hate crimes bill would be a charter for the arrest of Christians (in Obama's socialistic-Marxist UN inspired gangster ghetto NWO), which is patent bullshit and pathetically paranoid.
The first thing I thought of when reading the title of this thread was: ...and thats a bad thing, how?
GWB actually visited Toronto when I was up there, along with Bill Clinton. Some people I was staying with were writing things on shoes and getting ready for the protest.
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:06:10 PM
Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech laws though.
Hate crimes are where you commit (usually violent) crimes against people due to them being part of a racial, political, religious or sexual orientation grouping. Hate crimes are more damaging than normal variations of the same crime, and there is English common law precedence concerning intent as well.
If you don't want to be found guilty of a hate crime, then its very simple: don't go beating up blacks, Jews, socialists and gays because they are black, Jewish, socialists or gay.
doesn't this become a bit of a catch 22? if i get in a bar fight with a gay black Jew etc over unrelated reasons (including self defence) and stomp him sucsessfuly, i become a commiter of hate crimes and may be imprisoned, in a situation where if i did the exact same thing to a white chritian redneck i would be set free and maybe even be given a slap on the back for defending myself..
pathetically paranoid
actually on the large scale there seems to be a planned effort
of smashing any social grouping when it grows too large, in efforts to keep the majority where it is.
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:14:43 PM
OK, but I felt the distinction should be made because US fundamentalists have been muddying the waters when it comes to hate speech vs hate crimes, claiming both are the same thing and so attempts to enlarge the US hate crimes bill would be a charter for the arrest of Christians (in Obama's socialistic-Marxist UN inspired gangster ghetto NWO), which is patent bullshit and pathetically paranoid.
Agreed, I didn't mean to mix up the two.
The only ones I could think of Hoopla is Bill Whatcott and the prolifers who protested at the University of Calgary... but Bill was actually arrested by the Provincial police for "trespassing" on an abortion clinic.. and the protesters were arrested for the exact same thing... and probably wouldn't have been arrested if they dispersed when the police told them to.. then there was the famous case of the Albertan holocaust survivor... but that was appealed and the appeal was upheld by the supreme court... to a year a probation
Now I'm only familiar with the ones the Christian Right brings up, and in each of those cases the crime they were arrested for varies from what they say...
but of course I could be missing one....
EDIT: talking about people who actually served time
EDIT 2: i forgot about Brad Love who was put in jail for 18 months, but he also sent something like 20 000 letters out to public officials, many of them person threats.
If we're not putting this fuck in jail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Whatcott
I dont think the Christian Right has anything to worry about
subsequently...
if you ever want to talk to Bill
http://forums.prolife.org.ph/yabbse/index.php?PHPSESSID=vhsgcac6mnc8af8thehrkqub32&action=profile;u=710
Quote from: fomenter on June 22, 2009, 10:22:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:06:10 PM
Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech laws though.
Hate crimes are where you commit (usually violent) crimes against people due to them being part of a racial, political, religious or sexual orientation grouping. Hate crimes are more damaging than normal variations of the same crime, and there is English common law precedence concerning intent as well.
If you don't want to be found guilty of a hate crime, then its very simple: don't go beating up blacks, Jews, socialists and gays because they are black, Jewish, socialists or gay.
doesn't this become a bit of a catch 22? if i get in a bar fight with a gay black Jew etc over unrelated reasons (including self defence) and stomp him sucsessfuly, i become a commiter of hate crimes and may be imprisoned, in a situation where if i did the exact same thing to a white chritian redneck i would be set free and maybe even be given a slap on the back for defending myself..
Its really not that easy to get it labled a hate crime. There was what many would have considered a hate crime over the death of a gay man (apparently there was a fight about a cigarrette between two drunk men, and the one pushed the gay man over; he broke his neck on the curb and the other didn't find out till he was arrested). There was a phone call involved where this guy called the gay man a faggot, but he didn't know the guy was actually gay, and it was probably just drunken idiocy on his part. Many people really wanted to call this a hate crime but it wasn't.
Here's the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_W._Kennedy It gives only one account of what happened, of which there were several, and after discussing it with members of the campus GSA it became clear that no one really knows what happened. The point is, this wasn't considered a hate crime under the law because there ISN'T a hate crime law in SC. Many states don't have hate crime laws at all. Even if there was a hate crime law it may not have been considered for it.
Whatever your opinion of the case may be, its obvious that the librul bias throwing all the wonderful Christians in jail just isn't happening.
Quote from: fomenter on June 22, 2009, 10:22:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:06:10 PM
Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech laws though.
Hate crimes are where you commit (usually violent) crimes against people due to them being part of a racial, political, religious or sexual orientation grouping. Hate crimes are more damaging than normal variations of the same crime, and there is English common law precedence concerning intent as well.
If you don't want to be found guilty of a hate crime, then its very simple: don't go beating up blacks, Jews, socialists and gays because they are black, Jewish, socialists or gay.
doesn't this become a bit of a catch 22? if i get in a bar fight with a gay black Jew etc over unrelated reasons (including self defence) and stomp him sucsessfuly, i become a commiter of hate crimes and may be imprisoned, in a situation where if i did the exact same thing to a white chritian redneck i would be set free and maybe even be given a slap on the back for defending myself..
Intent has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
If you stomped a gay black Jew while saying "take
that you fucking faggot nigger kike" repeatedly, then you'd probably be charged. If you did it dressed in a KKK uniform with a Confederate flag over your back, and then posted the vid to Youtube, then you'd probably be charged. If you said "what the fuck is your problem?" and stomp him, chances are you wouldn't be.
It would be up to the prosecution to prove that the attack was motivated by those features and not by any other factor. Will some people try to abuse the system? Probably. But without evidence, it would seem to be tricky. Plus every colour, religion and orientation is protected, so you could easily counter-claim that their preoccupation with using their defining features betrays a certain mindset, which might explain the fight.
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:06:10 PM
Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech laws though.
Hate crimes are where you commit (usually violent) crimes against people due to them being part of a racial, political, religious or sexual orientation grouping. Hate crimes are more damaging than normal variations of the same crime, and there is English common law precedence concerning intent as well.
If you don't want to be found guilty of a hate crime, then its very simple: don't go beating up blacks, Jews, socialists and gays because they are black, Jewish, socialists or gay.
TITCM. If I get one more "Action Alert" from AFA about "our religious liberties will be taken away!!1" I swear to God I am going to mail them some bricks.
I should mention that there is also this meme that the hate crime law will somehow protect pedophiles. It's been making the rounds at Rapture Ready. For some reason they can't get it through their fucking skulls what the legal definitions of "hate crime" and "sexual orientation" are.
i can see it being harder to prove in court in a trial, i can also see a lot of opportunity to abuse if you are in a crowed of{x} and the whole bunch of them start shouting he said " racial comment" it ends up in a police report and then becomes a part of a prosecutors case..
Iason do you have link?
sounds like Ron Graham babbling incoherently again...
:lulz:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 22, 2009, 11:42:39 PM
Iason do you have link?
sounds like Ron Graham babbling incoherently again...
:lulz:
WingNutDail pushing the meme: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101393
Right Wing Watch debunking it: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/debunking-another-hate-crimes-lie
Quote from: Hoopla on June 22, 2009, 10:11:52 PM
But the problem is people DO get put in jail in Canada for Hate Speech, and people are also denied entrance to Canada for it. Hell, there's a group trying to get George W. Bush barred from entering Canada at the moment.
I don't have time to look right now, but I will get the citations tonight about that.
However, concerning hate crimes, I totally agree. I won't stomach violence of any sort.
barring W from entering Canada may have more to do with war crimes than hate speech.
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:54:16 PM
Quote from: fomenter on June 22, 2009, 10:22:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:06:10 PM
Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech laws though.
Hate crimes are where you commit (usually violent) crimes against people due to them being part of a racial, political, religious or sexual orientation grouping. Hate crimes are more damaging than normal variations of the same crime, and there is English common law precedence concerning intent as well.
If you don't want to be found guilty of a hate crime, then its very simple: don't go beating up blacks, Jews, socialists and gays because they are black, Jewish, socialists or gay.
doesn't this become a bit of a catch 22? if i get in a bar fight with a gay black Jew etc over unrelated reasons (including self defence) and stomp him sucsessfuly, i become a commiter of hate crimes and may be imprisoned, in a situation where if i did the exact same thing to a white chritian redneck i would be set free and maybe even be given a slap on the back for defending myself..
Intent has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
If you stomped a gay black Jew while saying "take that you fucking faggot nigger kike" repeatedly, then you'd probably be charged. If you did it dressed in a KKK uniform with a Confederate flag over your back, and then posted the vid to Youtube, then you'd probably be charged. If you said "what the fuck is your problem?" and stomp him, chances are you wouldn't be.
It would be up to the prosecution to prove that the attack was motivated by those features and not by any other factor. Will some people try to abuse the system? Probably. But without evidence, it would seem to be tricky. Plus every colour, religion and orientation is protected, so you could easily counter-claim that their preoccupation with using their defining features betrays a certain mindset, which might explain the fight.
Why is it worse to beat someone up for being black, Jewish, gay, or whatever than it is to beat them up becuase you are a violent person or because you want to take their money?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 23, 2009, 12:47:10 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:54:16 PM
Quote from: fomenter on June 22, 2009, 10:22:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 10:06:10 PM
Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech laws though.
Hate crimes are where you commit (usually violent) crimes against people due to them being part of a racial, political, religious or sexual orientation grouping. Hate crimes are more damaging than normal variations of the same crime, and there is English common law precedence concerning intent as well.
If you don't want to be found guilty of a hate crime, then its very simple: don't go beating up blacks, Jews, socialists and gays because they are black, Jewish, socialists or gay.
doesn't this become a bit of a catch 22? if i get in a bar fight with a gay black Jew etc over unrelated reasons (including self defence) and stomp him sucsessfuly, i become a commiter of hate crimes and may be imprisoned, in a situation where if i did the exact same thing to a white chritian redneck i would be set free and maybe even be given a slap on the back for defending myself..
Intent has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
If you stomped a gay black Jew while saying "take that you fucking faggot nigger kike" repeatedly, then you'd probably be charged. If you did it dressed in a KKK uniform with a Confederate flag over your back, and then posted the vid to Youtube, then you'd probably be charged. If you said "what the fuck is your problem?" and stomp him, chances are you wouldn't be.
It would be up to the prosecution to prove that the attack was motivated by those features and not by any other factor. Will some people try to abuse the system? Probably. But without evidence, it would seem to be tricky. Plus every colour, religion and orientation is protected, so you could easily counter-claim that their preoccupation with using their defining features betrays a certain mindset, which might explain the fight.
Why is it worse to beat someone up for being black, Jewish, gay, or whatever than it is to beat them up becuase you are a violent person or because you want to take their money?
Crime of mindless hate vs robbery. PC police have approved this message.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 23, 2009, 12:47:10 AM
Why is it worse to beat someone up for being black, Jewish, gay, or whatever than it is to beat them up becuase you are a violent person or because you want to take their money?
Hate crimes are politically based, much like terrorism. They are meant to teach a lesson to a particular group. By violently attacking someone based on his race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. you are telling the rest of the people in that group that they are not welcome and that they had better not try to make waves.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 22, 2009, 10:00:11 PM
I'm actually on the article writer's side in this case, I think Canada's 'Hate Speech' law stifles too much free speech.
Any restriction of free speech (as opposed to an overt act) means that you don't have ANY free speech, just speech they choose to allow you.
they wish to prevent the block wars of the future
Quote from: Kai on June 22, 2009, 10:15:38 PMGWB actually visited Toronto when I was up there, along with Bill Clinton. Some people I was staying with were writing things on shoes and getting ready for the protest.
you can't do that. see, for a "President of the USA", "doin it wrong for 8 years" is a political orientation, and throwing shoes at him would be a hate crime.
cause ask your friend, if he had not been President of the USA, or had not been doin it wrong for 8 years, would he have thrown shoes at him?
no?
see! HAET CRIEM
Interestingly political persuasion was going to be added to the list of things that come under genocide if you attempt to kill lots of people for it, after WWII, but Stalin vetoed the legislation, because he knew he was hella guilty of that one. And then everyone sort of forget about it, because COMMUNISTS!?!?! or CAPITALISTS!?!?! were attempting to undermine our fine democracy/workers paradise, and we might actually need to round them all up and kill them at some point.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 22, 2009, 10:11:52 PM
But the problem is people DO get put in jail in Canada for Hate Speech, and people are also denied entrance to Canada for it. Hell, there's a group trying to get George W. Bush barred from entering Canada at the moment.
I don't have time to look right now, but I will get the citations tonight about that.
Here's a good example of what I was talking about: Ernst Zundel was a citizen of Toronto, he was jailed many times for distributing anti-semitic pamphlets. As much as I find what he believes reprehensible, I consider that bullshit.
Zundel was arrested pre 1980, or before the charter... For those of you who doen't know Canada pre-1980 was using the British constitution as our own..
His other arrest resulted in him be first convicted then acquitted by the supreme court because the conviction violated the charter
Then his other arrests were because of immigration problems, cause he managed to get himself arrested in Germany and the US
Again I agree with you in principle, but again the problem doesn't lay with what Zundel would have you believe
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/zundel/
for those who don`t know who we`re talking about
of course another problem with Zundel's case is he's not a Canadian Citizen (his citizenship was denied/ and yes i do agree with you that maybe he shouldn't have been denied on his anti-semitism alone, but on the other hand the US also denied him)
and by the way I do agree with you and the reporter Bill Dunphy (sp?) that he should not have been deported
here I found it
YAY!
I agree with this and Im sure you do too Hoopla... I think youll like it :)
though I want to point out this about immigration laws, which is the tool the government used
QuoteBy Bill Dunphy
The Hamilton Spectator,
May 14, 2004
Our government has seized and branded Ernst Zündel, stripped him of his human rights, tried him in secret and found him wanting, and will now hand him over to a foreign government anxious to throw him in jail for the crime of speaking the horrible lies that roil in his twisted mind.
None, save the sorry band of self-deluded haters and malcontents who make up Canada's dysfunctional white racist "movement," has stood up for Ernst Zündel. None have decried the shameful abuse of power, the cynical political calculation that is this government's decision to label Ernst Zündel a "threat to Canada's security". This is wrong.
Today I stand up for this Nazi apologist. Today I stand with the haters, the anti-semites, the racists, the cruel and ignorant who are Ernst Zündel's natural constituency and his only friends.
Today I ask, who is the real threat to our freedoms, our ideals, our security: this aging hater, this semi-retired painter with his crumbling and ineffectual network of the deluded; or a cynical and mighty government that chooses to wield an immense, nearly extra-judicial power in secret, and to use it to crush a man few seem willing to defend?
As an investigative reporter I spent six years in the early 1990s monitoring and exposing the rapid rise and inevitable fall of Canada's white racist movement, an ugly, cyclical blooming that brought them to membership levels and influence they'd not seen in Canada since the mid-1930s.
Zündel and the burgeoning propaganda machine that was his three-storey downtown Toronto headquarters was one of a few key hubs the movement revolved around. I got to know Zündel personally and professionally. And while I never had access to the fruits of the phone and fax and e-mail taps the government employed, I did learn much about his work through open questioning, careful observation and, at different times, the reports of a number of informants who worked inside his bunker and would pass along what they'd seen and heard.
The international scope and depth of his network of supporters who gladly consumed his e-mails, faxes, newsletters, videos, satellite TV shows and radio shows was astonishing, but not dissimilar to the network of supporters developed by the evangelical Christian ministers whose techniques he studied with the rapt attention a six-year-old boy bestows on professional athletes.
He had an impressive amount of energy and he earned impressive amounts of alms from his supporters. But anyone who got close to him understood that despite the occasional sacrifices and gestures of monetary and moral support for others of his ilk, Ernst Zündel cared about one thing -- Ernst Zündel. It's what kept him from building a real movement, from exercising real power when it appeared he might have it.
But for all his power, and the power and numbers of the other Canadian white racists, for all the fear they struck into the hearts of the righteous, the white racist movement in this country accomplished little more than hobbling the Reform Party's rise and sparking pathetic street battles in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.
At every turn they were bugged, monitored and infiltrated by a host of well-funded and mostly honorable police and intelligence agencies. On every street corner they were out-hustled, out-organized and overwhelmed by their political polar opposites -- the anti-fascists, a fanatical but poverty-stricken coalition of street kids, high school students, anarchists and communists. For their part, mainstream anti-racists and human rights groups ensured Zündel, and the Heritage Front and their ilk, enjoyed no rest from legal challenges, charges and harassments. It worked.
As a political force, this so-called movement has been essentially spent for nearly eight years. Doubtless the haters will regroup, rise in some fashion and be crushed once more. Ultimately hate does not run deeply enough in Canadian society to nourish their shallow roots.
Throughout it all Zündel -- who did this country a favour by wiping off the books our disgraceful False News laws -- has never once been convicted of a criminal offence in this country, never once found to have violated the hate crime laws that rest snugly around the throat of free expression in this country.
His supporters say it is because he is an honorable man, a law-abiding man.
I look at his life and his lies and say the absence of criminal acts to support his supposed political principles is evidence of shrewdness or cowardice. But we could say the same about many of us. Many.
Still, in 1995, the government reached for the rarely used security certificate provisions of our immigration laws to brand him a threat to national security and deny him citizenship.
After exhausting his appeals and seeing clearly the Canadian government's intention to deport him from his home of 40 years, Zündel fled Canada for the arms of his love-sick American web-mistress. It matters not if he was motivated by love, or her American citizenship. They set up house in rural Tennessee, he slid into semi-retirement and prepared to open his own art gallery. His influence, reach and power has been waning for years.
But for some reason he bungled the slam-dunk of his American citizenship application and was arrested by the FBI and immigration authorities, who swiftly deported him to Canada where he made his absurd and insulting claim for refugee status. It was a bogus claim that would not survive for very long in a system that's dealt with much better frauds than he. But our government had no stomach for allowing that process to come to its inevitable conclusion, and promised to remove him swiftly.
"Just watch me," said Immigration Minister Denis Coderre in hollow echo of Pierre Trudeau's 1970 pledge to crush the terrorist cells of the FLQ (Front de Liberation du Quebec). Calculating correctly that there was no political cost, no "down side" to slipping on the jackboots to kick a reviled old man out of our country, our government cobbled together their best insults and innuendo, and Lord knows what secret "evidence", and branded Ernst Zündel a threat to national security.
I know this man, his local and international contacts and I know this movement. And after reading the 58 page "unclassified" summary of the government's case, I can assure you there is no justice here.
Their "evidence" is riddled with errors and misinformation, hearsay and inflammatory innuendo. Dead men walk again, and the shattered bits of shoddy secret networks long since collapsed under the weight of their own ineptitude are made whole and menacing once again. It is a shameful piece of dishonest, unreliable tripe.
So today I stand with my enemies, people who loathe me as much as I pity them, and I say we are governed by cowards. Freedom is much, much stronger than Ernst Zündel. But it may be no match for our complacency.
See Im not worried about the hate speech laws here, mainly cause they would never hold up on appeal, cause it's in clear violation of the charter and everyone (including prosecutors) know it. Politicians wont touch them, so they're just going to stay there in limbo, just like Britian's blasphemy laws, which I think violates their modern constitution as well, and all those stupid laws in the states - like you can't tie an alligator to a fire hydren in Michigan, ect. No one's prosecuted, so they are never challenged, so they just sit there
A little off topic but if there was one law I could get rid of in Canada today, it wouldn't be hate speech, drugs or anything like that. It would be our indecency laws, which for some reason the charter has never little say on, and people actually HAVE been convicted of those. They're interpretive, give the state powers in peoples personal lives, and no one other then the religious right seems to actually like them.
Second would be the immigration laws which are vague and allow for abuses.
It would seem that I had been misinformed. Glad to be corrected. Thanks Thornie!