Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphle
- Thread starter SLM
- Start date
the ones about the kirpan and first nations charter rights?
Because I said, ' it's an issue of venue not content'.... I'd hold the same standard of no door to door 'sales' for those issues too. Just like in another post I 'bumped' where I said 'anti-religion', 'anti-abortion', 'anti-atheist'.... all of it falls into the same boat for me. Public flyer campaigns are unnecessary, and I fail to see who they serve a purpose or are protecting anyone's rights in these cases.
No, it's just a typical small city
Yep...
No, because you said...
What it boils down to, is they should be stepping in only where someone is advocating stripping someone of their rights under the charter (and that's what they put a stop to in WHatcott's case), or causing bodily injury (which still applies to the charter right statement)
There's nothing in there about door to door evangelizing or venue. That's the part I'm having difficulty getting past. I can even quote the whole post to show I made no attempt to cherry pick it either.
It's a form of media. Which is actually mentioned in name in the Charter.
OK, so how does that translate into...
Freedom of speech does not necessitate that the public from whom you are attempting to strip rights, needs to be open or receptive to your message.
Because that sounds like he's targeting a gay community.
Not that that was all that my post contained.
I get that, but that statement is pretty clear, with or without your caveat.
Yeah, it's a form of media, but it's one they're hobbling based on feelings.
If they're going to be writing laws hobbling media, get to the bones of what society is objecting to, and get to the bones of what NEEDS protecting. Write concise rulings that make these things clear.
What they can't do is keep people from associating freely. They cant stop someone from holding a view. They can't stop someone from talking to the government about their views. What it boils down to is that if you're going to be trying to publicly push an agenda to strip someone of their rights and dropping flyers in their mail boxes telling them as much, you're going to run into these pesky 'feelings laws'.
If they're going to keep trying to rule against this behaviour, they'd better get concise, and clear about it, and I think this is the only path that's open to them to write truly clear, concise, and even remotely fair ruling regarding it.
Any community you walk into has gay members, they are part of the community. They are part of the public.
Bear, if you're not willing to take a clarification, have fun.
Ok, but when you wish to do the same, what are you basing your opinion on?
I agree.
And they shouldn't be impeding the ability to reach the general public either, by any means necessary.
By trumping the Charter?
Well that makes spreading ones word problematic, by your measure.
Since part of your position (As I read it) is to not target people from whom you wish to strip their rights from, IF, they do not cease their campaign.
Fair enough. But I still stand by the fact that your caveat doesn't clarify what you said, as much as it changes it completely.
Is it trumping Charter when it's already written into the Charter that there are times they can trump it? And yes, part of my reason is not to target the people whose rights you are trying to strip. And that is the public. Gays don't exist outside the public, they are the public. I can't think of many 'hate campaigns' that would exist in the format I'm discussing, that wouldn't be trying to strip public rights. Very rarely does a 'special interests' group exist in a vacuum.
Yes.
The caveat is...
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.
I fully believe what they have done is the exact opposite. Where Whatcott is demonstrably justified in taking his beliefs door to door, the hurt feelings of the gay community have no bearing here.
One sub group of it though. One that Whatcott sees as pushing a campaign on kids that he thinks is abhorrent.
He can think it's abhorrent all he wants. Gays are pushing for their own rights, not the removal of other people's rights. Whatcott on the other hand is advocating the removal of their rights, undermining their right to security, liberty, and equal rights at their own front doors.
You and I both know it's not just a matter of hurt feelings.
From what I've read, he simply has a problem with the Gay special interest groups pushing homosexuality on kids in schools.
No, he said if they don't stop doing X, we should do Y.
Just like one of our centuries greatest men, Malcolm X said, "By any means necessary".
From what I've read here, it is just that, hurt feelings.
He wants homosexuality to be illegal. He has a long history of that being his stance.
Again... pushing FOR rights, versus pushing to remove rights. They're not comparable.
Ok, but that isn't what you and I have been discussing.
We were talking about his belief in stripping homosexuals of some of their rights.
An opinion he forwarded, in the posted material, with the caveat, if they don't stop pushing their agenda on children.
What I read here that GL posted, says clearly, that Whatcott is against what the homosexual special interest groups have forced into lower school curriculum.
Can you show me where in the Charter we are guaranteed a right to push our socio-political agenda on young children?
Advocating stripping them of their rights 'if' or 'because' is splitting hairs. It's an attack on their equal standing in society.
Every last person is allowed a say in the curriculum of our children. No one has told him to stop advocating for the removal of those issues from curriculum. But he's using other people's rights and equality as leverage to do so. That's unnecessary.
Malcolm X used the same splitting of hairs in his speech ending in "By any means necessary".
Those hairs are an integral part to the legality of the statement.
He meant to include violence, but only if violence was necessary. But for violence to be necessary, violence would have to be used against the black community first.
Which is the result of what Whatcott sees as the unequal right they are given to forward their agenda as a special interest group, in the classroom. To a captive audience. Who have from my experience, not been allowed to question it.
LMAO!!!
Ya, I have a son that simply said the homosexuality was ok, but he didn't think it was natural since to procreate you need a man and woman. He was silenced for his opinion, in such a wonderful way when dealing with young inquiring minds.
So you see, gay rights trump all other rights in the classroom.
I have a problem with that too.
No, they've just shut him down by making it illegal.
Kind of like we do with criminals?
is it?
I think not.
Last edited:
And see, that's what we need to start clarifying.
What, when, and where, concisely, and spelled out in a way that makes legal and ethical sense, is the reasoning behind silencing someone's opinion.
I get that the SCC wants to prevent hate, inciting violence, etc. But it's pretty simple to state when speech should be limited, and when it ought to be legally protected as a function of public discourse/debate/learning.
As Levant points out, this ruling leaves us all guessing as to what does and doesn't cross the legal line the SCC is trying to draw. That's a bad ruling.
The best weapon to fight racism and bigots is to educate people. Teaching that Homosexuals have the same rights and privilege as every Canadian does is not making them a special interest group.
Both tolerance, ya dont have to like it, do it, agree with it and racism are both a learned and taught behavior.
You know very well that wasn't the part of his literature that they took exception to.
Passing laws of the land and removing an individual's rights for breaking them, is not the same as advocating the removal of rights from an entire portion of our citizenry, due to their being identifiably one of that group, and not necessarily having anything to do with their personal stance or conduct.
Does that mean you agree that the gay community shouldn't be allowed to forward their agenda in schools?
I agree.
But you can't do that when you silence dissension.
I agree, but is that all they are teaching kids?
I know it isn't.
And they're equally abhorrent.
Actually I don't know.
Was it the stripping of their rights?
Equating them to child molesters?
Or something else?
Because neither of those two are demonstrably hate inciting.
I was merely pointing out the legitimacy in leveraging ones rights for abhorrent behavior.
In which aspect? Homosexuality's 'agenda' touches almost every corner of education in some way shape or form because it is a varied problem. And, which issues are considered the 'homosexual' agenda, and which are considered liberal adaptations of society? Not every aspect that a conservative like Whatcott could object to, is the sole pervue of 'gays'.