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

[DaSleeper]

This nutcase was not preaching Gospel by equating Homosexuals to Child Abusers.
He could have quoted Gospel, he could have made his point in any number of ways and been protected under Freedom of Religion.
He chose not to.
In my opinion he targeted a specific group with hatred by what he stated. And he did it on a number of occasions.
No helping idiots now is there.

My point is still valid..there is no need for the CHRC..... If anyone feels that he has been wronged...they can swear a complaint with a crown attorney / real court, to get redress of grievances...

 

[L Gilbert]

My point is still valid..there is no need for the CHRC..... If anyone feels that he has been wronged...they can swear a complaint with a crown attorney / real court, to get redress of grievances...

.......... decades later.

 

[Spade]

I remember when men went to the moon.

 

[CDNBear]

and there we have it ladies and gentlemen. A prime example of Bear being frustratingly obtuse.

Are you confusing me arguing to defend someone whose core beliefs are an affront to mine, for me being obtuse?

What would he have to state to reach the level of Hate Speech.

If you don't call for murder or violence, it ain't hate speech as far as I'm concerned.

Or do you subscribe to the US version of Free Speech?

Of course I do.

They hadn't been ....

Full stop.

Yeah. IMO, he can spew whatever he wants as long as it doesn't bring negative effects onto homosexuals.

See what I said to Goob's.

Really? Why?

Because some clown said it stands for racism.

I think it depends upon what causes the hatred.

Now we're getting close to controlling peoples emotions.

Um, besides the fact that it is a pretty strong emotion and sometimes overrides good sense, I mean.

I agree, but I full believe that most people can deal with it. I mean I haven't clubbed the pizza guy yet.

Jeez. I just get annoyed and use a different pizzaria.

I would if they weren't the tastiest ones in town.

EAO ain't a group that I'm aware of, just an individual.

Is that supposed to matter?

Could be.

We have a different idea of what hate speech should be defined as.

Why should that be required?

1, Because you're talking about controlling peoples emotions.
2, You're dismissing the general publics intelligence.

Former teacher Jim Keegstra fined for promoting hatred against Jews. | Calgary Herald

Completely different.

1, He had a captive audience.
2, He was in a position of authority.
3, He abused that position, ie: he put his crazy beliefs on tests.

The problem is that he's not simply attempting to change the law. He shouldn't have to stop talking to the government about his views. He shouldn't have to stop freely associating with others who share his views. He shouldn't have to stop speaking his views.

You can't have that with out the highlighted below...

I just think he should be prevented from publicly evangelizing and attempting to coerce people into stripping gays of their rights.

How is he coercing people?

The important aspect of free speech is freedom to access the government with your views, and freedom of association grants you the right to congregate with others who think like you.

And if you can't speak publicly, you drive him and the like minded underground, where there will be no dissenting opinion.

What I have yet to see in any 'free speech' advocacy, is any reasoning behind forcing the public at large to consume slander, advocating for the removal of their rights.

There's no force.

 

[Goober]

Are you confusing me arguing to defend someone whose core beliefs are an affront to mine, for me being obtuse?

If you don't call for murder or violence, it ain't hate speech as far as I'm concerned.

It was not that long ago that groups of people went on beating up gays for fun.
Where did they get that inspiration from?

 

[CDNBear]

It was not that long ago that groups of people went on beating up gays for fun.
Where did they get that inspiration from?

From being idiots.

Unless someone says clearly, "go out and beat gays", it ain't hate speech.

 

[Goober]

From being idiots.

Unless someone says clearly, "go out and beat gays", it ain't hate speech.

Question - In the US that phrase can be charged a tad, still mean the same darn thing and not fall afoul of any US law. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

 

[CDNBear]

Question - In the US that phrase can be charged a tad, still mean the same darn thing and not fall afoul of any US law.

Like?

 

[Goober]

Like?

I am not a word smith. Reason I asked. I know what my limits are. And I am grammatically challenged.

 

[CDNBear]

I am not a word smith. Reason I asked. I know what my limits are. And I am grammatically challenged.

So if I said...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We declare our right on this earth...to be white a proud, to be respected as white and proud, to be given the rights of the superior race in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."[/FONT][/FONT]

Would that be inciting violence?

 

[Goober]

So if I said...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We declare our right on this earth...to be white a proud, to be respected as white and proud, to be given the rights of the superior race in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."[/FONT][/FONT]

Would that be inciting violence?

Thank you.
No mention of violence, no mention of others, no comparing others to a disgusting subset of the population.
I would say that under US Law it would be protected under Free Speech.
In Canada I would hazard a guess it would also be protected under Free Speech.
As you mentioned earlier and I somewhat agree the intent of the group- person.

Yes, No, Maybe???

 

[FiveParadox]

So if I said...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We declare our right on this earth...to be white a proud, to be respected as white and proud, to be given the rights of the superior race in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."[/FONT][/FONT]

Would that be inciting violence?

I think that this would depend, in part anyway, on the context in which the statement was made.

In the Canadian context, the statement that "[they] intend to bring [the rights of the superior race] into existence by any means necessary" might be problematic. The context in which the statement is made will inform whether this could be interpreted to include or to promote violence. If, for example, this statement was made in a militarised and armed rally environment, then absolutely, this could be deemed hate speech against visible minorities.

 

[CDNBear]

Thank you.
No mention of violence, no mention of others, no comparing others to a disgusting subset of the population.
I would say that under US Law it would be protected under Free Speech.
In Canada I would hazard a guess it would also be protected under Free Speech.
As you mentioned earlier and I somewhat agree the intent of the group- person.

Yes, No, Maybe???

Today it could be taken as inciting violence, it certainly was when it was said.

"By any means necessary" leaves little to the imagination with me and its author.

Here's the original quote...

"We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."

Malcolm X.

I think that this would depend, in part anyway, on the context in which the statement was made.

In the Canadian context, the statement that "[they] intend to bring [the rights of the superior race] into existence by any means necessary" might be problematic. The context in which the statement is made will inform whether this could be interpreted to include or to promote violence. If, for example, this statement was made in a militarised and armed rally environment, then absolutely, this could be deemed hate speech against visible minorities.

It was intended to include violence, if necessary...

MALCOLM X: BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY - YouTube

I don't know about you, but he seemed pretty worked up.

Are you aware of the legacy his words left on militant black Americans?

 

[DaSleeper]

If a race or other minorities were demeaned or otherwise subjugated in the past, does it give them more rights now, than the rest of us???
Just askin'...

 

[CDNBear]

If a race or other minorities were demeaned or otherwise subjugated in the past, does it give them more rights now, than the rest of us???
Just askin'...

That's sort of my point...

But it doesn't even have to pertain to the minority group, for that minority group to get a pass. All that's really needed is for the identifiable group to have an already negative image.

I'll cite Jews and Israel as an example of the group with a negative image, and QAIA as the minority forwarding what is actually hate speech under Canadian law.

 

[Colpy]

Expect to hear much more from Mark Steyn on this, but this is a good beginning

Supremacist Courts - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online

 

[karrie]

You can't have that with out the highlighted below...

How is he coercing people?

And if you can't speak publicly, you drive him and the like minded underground, where there will be no dissenting opinion.

There's no force.

Ending public flyer campaigns is not the same as ending his right to speak his views.

Anytime you have someone putting literature into your home, it is coercive, it is forcing you to engage with their view. It's bad enough that we have to put up with it for advertising purposes. Marketing purposes. Religious purposes. We should not have to tolerate people coming to tell us they hate us and want to remove our rights.

'Hate speech' shouldn't be 'illegal' in my view... Whatcott is a lunatic but he should still be allowed to tell his government his concerns.... but it should be kept to a civil distance from those it targets, and preventing the papering of homes would at least be a step in that direction.

 

[CDNBear]

Ending public flyer campaigns is not the same as ending his right to speak his views.

Although I agree, but interfering with one, is as bad as interfering with the other.

No one is forcing you to read his pamphlets.

Anytime you have someone putting literature into your home, it is coercive, it is forcing you to engage with their view.

No it's not, and if you really think so, I think you're being overly sensitive.

'Hate speech' shouldn't be 'illegal' in my view... Whatcott is a lunatic but he should still be allowed to tell his government his concerns....

So you wish to just limit his freedom of speech, gotchya.

Slippery slopes...

 

[skookumchuck]

I had dealings with Bill 10 years ago, i asked him if he considered me to have the same freedom of speech as he demanded, and would i be free to talk about religious nuts like him as he spoke of those who did not have his religion or his new sexual choice. He refused to answer me.
I completely believe in free speech, i also believe in the result.

 

[karrie]

Although I agree, but interfering with one, is as bad as interfering with the other.

No one is forcing you to read his pamphlets.

No it's not, and if you really think so, I think you're being overly sensitive.

So you wish to just limit his freedom of speech, gotchya.

Slippery slopes...

I think that if you think you could put up with an anti first nations flyer in your mail box, without engaging in it, you're being naïve.

And yeah, I totally would limit his freedom of speech. I know you're trying to be insulting about it, but I would.