Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphle

[FiveParadox]

I just want to mention how exciting it is that the Supreme Court of Canada continues to make wise and sound judgements, despite the current prime minister having appointed five out of nine of our puisne justices. Our appointments process for justices seems to work well; the contraints on the authority of the prime minister, in that he is forced by the judicial community to make credible appointments, is fantastic.

 

[petros]

Who is "Nutcase" supposed to be?

Bill Whatcott

 

[SLM]

Well I definitely think the provisions in the hate speech legislation that define hate speech as anything that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity" was far, far too broad. That being said, I'm of two minds regarding hate speech legislation in the first place. Actually to be more accurate, I can accept the existence of hate speech legislation as a reasonable limit to be placed upon society under section 1 of the Charter in instances where it extends too far. What I have an issue with is Human Rights Tribunals that so often seem to run amok and play fast and loose with compensation. To me it's not that true hate crimes or hate speech don't exist, they do. The problem is that every slight offense seems to get labelled with that moniker in our society. So, once again, those that abuse the intent of these provisions in society are the ones who end up defining it. And that angers me to no end.

If the HRT's would apply the same balanced approach as the courts do between the rule of law and basic human compassion and consideration, I'd have no problem with them. But they don't seem to do that, at least not a lot of the time.

 

[DaSleeper]

The CHRC , when It was started was a very noble enterprise, but it quickly turned into a boondoggle, a platform for the politically correct to push their agenda on the taxpayer's dime and a waste of money if the supreme court has to make a final decision....just an end run around sensible law.

 

[taxslave]

I just want to mention how exciting it is that the Supreme Court of Canada continues to make wise and sound judgements, despite the current prime minister having appointed five out of nine of our puisne justices. Our appointments process for justices seems to work well; the contraints on the authority of the prime minister, in that he is forced by the judicial community to make credible appointments, is fantastic.

It is precisely because Harper has appointed responsible judges that we are getting responsible judgements. They are based on the facts instead of some touchy feely PC crap that some of the previous extreme left judges dished up.

 

[Colpy]

Ezra Levant skewers the Supremes supremely....

Blazing Cat Fur: The top court’s Whatcott decision is a setback for freedom - Canadians Demand List Of Prohibited Hate Facts

 

[petros]

Whatcott's INTENT is why he lost Colpy. Again Levant is out to lunch.

 

[karrie]

Ezra Levant skewers the Supremes supremely....

Blazing Cat Fur: The top court’s Whatcott decision is a setback for freedom - Canadians Demand List Of Prohibited Hate Facts

Levant calls the Supreme Court's slippery slope argument 'truly science fiction fantasy land'. Has he never cracked a history book?

Aside from that and the bit where he says the Supreme Court gets to read the documents that they HAVE to read to try the case, 'because they're better than us', he made a fairly sound argument against the ruling imo.

 

[gerryh]

Gerryh • 6 minutes ago

If the SCC really supported censorship to the level that levant implies they would have shut levant down ages ago. The fact that levant is able to continue his rants is proof that "free speech" is alive and well in Canada.

 

[karrie]

Gerryh • 6 minutes ago If the SCC really supported censorship to the level that levant implies they would have shut levant down ages ago. The fact that levant is able to continue his rants is proof that "free speech" is alive and well in Canada.

In practise they don't no, but I really can't help but think they made a sloppy, poorly reasoned ruling with this one. When it comes to the law, that doesn't work.

 

[Spade]

Levant, Whatcott, Flanagan all take their right-wing ideology ad absurdum.

 

[taxslave]

Levant, Whatcott, Flanagan all take their right-wing ideology ad absurdum.

But they don't like anyone left of them (most of society) having the same rights.

 

[Colpy]

Levant, Whatcott, Flanagan all take their right-wing ideology ad absurdum.

Absolutely....as is their right.

So, what's next??

Will it be illegal to pass out literature calling abortion murder, abortionists murderers, and demanding the re-introduction of abortion laws??

If not, what is the difference??

Gerry, I'd love to hear you weigh in on that one.

 

[taxslave]

Absolutely....as is their right.

So, what's next??

Will it be illegal to pass out literature calling abortion murder, abortionists murderers, and demanding the re-introduction of abortion laws??

If not, what is the difference??

Gerry, I'd love to hear you weigh in on that one.

If that literature called for murdering abortion doctors or women that have abortions it would probably be labeled as hate speech.

 

[petros]

So, what's next??

Will it be illegal to pass out literature calling abortion murder, abortionists murderers, and demanding the re-introduction of abortion laws??

If not, what is the difference??

INTENT!!!
Wanting somebody dead or removed from society with true outright hatred is the difference.

 

[Colpy]

Levant, Whatcott, Flanagan all take their right-wing ideology ad absurdum.

But they don't like anyone left of them (most of society) having the same rights.

Not true.

Levant, at least, has consistently defended the right of neo-Nazis to post anti-Jew rants, and he is a Jew. He cheerfully debates anyone that offers a different viewpoint, and steadfastly defends their right to speak.

 

[karrie]

Absolutely....as is their right.

So, what's next??

Will it be illegal to pass out literature calling abortion murder, abortionists murderers, and demanding the re-introduction of abortion laws??

If not, what is the difference??

Gerry, I'd love to hear you weigh in on that one.

Personally, I think handing out literature, taking out public ads, etc., that encourage stripping any group of law abiding citizens of their rights and freedoms under the charter, should be illegal.

anti-homosexual, anti-religion, anti-abortion, anti-atheist.... none of it should be tolerated as propaganda campaigns in our communities.

There are times and places and ways to address political concerns. Cold calling and spreading hate shouldn't be one of them.

I've always loathed the 'negative sell'. If you can only try to sway me to your cause by telling me what you hate, then your cause is likely bankrupt.

 

[Colpy]

INTENT!!!
Wanting somebody dead or removed from society with true outright hatred is the difference.

Whatcott never incited violence against gays, in the same way that pro-life activists never incite violence against abortion doctors.

In fact, I think Whatcott was considerably further from that line of inciting violence than are some of the pro-life people.

Personally, I think handing out literature, taking out public ads, etc., that encourage stripping any group of law abiding citizens of their rights and freedoms under the charter, should be illegal.

anti-homosexual, anti-religion, anti-abortion, anti-atheist.... none of it should be tolerated as propaganda campaigns in our communities.

There are times and places and ways to address political concerns. Cold calling and spreading hate shouldn't be one of them.

I've always loathed the 'negative sell'. If you can only try to sway me to your cause by telling me what you hate, then your cause is likely bankrupt.

Then Karrie, you are a very dangerous individual.

As someone said, it is the speech on the fringes that needs protection.....popular speech doesn't NEED to be protected

 

[taxslave]

Whatcott never incited violence against gays, in the same way that pro-life activists never incite violence against abortion doctors.

In fact, I think Whatcott was considerably further from that line of inciting violence than are some of the pro-life people.



Then Karrie, you are a very dangerous individual.

As someone said, it is the speech on the fringes that needs protection.....popular speech doesn't NEED to be protected

I seem to recall news reports in the US of anti abortion groups both calling for and murdering abortion doctors.

 

[petros]

Whatcott never incited violence against gays, in the same way that pro-life activists never incite violence against abortion doctors.

In fact, I think Whatcott was considerably further from that line of inciting violence than are some of the pro-life people.

Whatcott only wants segregation and removal from society with prejudice, other than that he's a nice guy?