If HRCs are upholding our rights then they are doing what they are designed to do.
“2083 – A European Declaration of Independence”
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
Stop being silly.
You know full well they are an affront to free speech. From trying to stifle legitimate news to combating those terrible BC comedians.
And to the HRC I say, "I farrrt in your generrral dirrrection!"
I am free to express myself thusly... right?
I am free to express myself thusly... right?
I'll give you a minute to do a little digging and make sure you're right, before I address your post.
You can express whatever you want as long as the content meets certain limitations. How you express something and what you express (content and meaning) are two different balls of wax.
Freedom of speech and expression are synonymous.
The HRC's use Canada's ambiguous hate speech laws to aid those with an agenda, in attacking free speech in Canada.
I can think of two cases, that involved "muzzies" as you put it. That were simply an abuse of our ambiguous laws, to attack our values.
...
So true.
I had that paragraph in mind when I posted the link....but figured you'd find it...
Hate speech is a restriction on freedom of expression therfore it's not a wide open to say what you want.
It is limited free speech.
It is limited free speech.
Yes, there are limits on free speech.....you can't scream "fire" in a crowded theatre......but that is the cause of immediate and very serious physical harm, and could hardly be considered expression of a political opinion...........you can't libel someone, but that is a civil, not a criminal offense.
The HRCs enforce restrictions on political speech, applied outside the normal justice system.
That is why Section 13 has to go....
There either is free speech......or there is not.
Only a statist idiot believes that political speech should be restricted to what is government approved.
Based on someones opinion of what is hate speech.
As I said earlier, our laws are ambiguous and are being used against us. By those with an agenda.
Richard Warman v Paul Fromm.
Last edited:
It does limit free speech. And that's why it's wrong.
For starters, who gets to determine what is hateful and what is not? An expression, any expression, can seem perfectly reasonable to one individual but seem absolutely hateful by another. So who gets to choose what qualifies? The government of the day? You? Me? Who chooses?
I personally would much rather have people expressing their thoughts and opinions freely and openly. I would much rather have the ability to confront the opinions of those I disagree with head on in the cold light of day than banish them to some dark corner. How can we collectively, as a nation, as a society, as a civilization, evolve and grow if we don't know how each of us feels and thinks about that society?
Censorship and suppression only breeds discontent.
The CHRC does make freedom of speech irrelevant......
CHRC legal brief: Steacy was right, freedom of speech is "an American value" - Ezra Levant
Yep, it does. And again, that's why it is wrong. Not illegal but wrong.
CHRC is an abuse (or to be fair, is too easily used to abuse fundamental freedoms) and is contrary to the established due process of our legal system.
Is Anders Breivik a `Christian' terrorist?
(RNS) The mass murders in Oslo have raised a host of agonizing questions, but few have such an ancient lineage and contemporary resonance as whether Anders Behring Breivik, the right-wing extremist behind the attacks that killed 76 Norwegians last Friday (July 22), is a Christian.
Breivik claimed that he is a Christian in various forums, but most explicitly and in greatest detail in the 1,500-page manifesto he compiled over several months and posted on the Internet. "At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised [sic] and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."
But he also fiercely disagrees with the politics of most Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church. "Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man," he writes. "I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
Breivik fashions himself a "cultural Christian" and a modern-day crusader in a resurrected order of the medieval Knights Templar, riding out to do battle against squishy "multiculturalism" and the onslaught of "Islamization" -- and to suffer the glory of Christian martyrdom in the process.
Not surprisingly, conservative pundits who share some of Breivik's views and also consider themselves Christians quickly sought to distance themselves from Breivik by declaring, as Bill O'Reilly did on Fox News, that "Breivik is not a Christian."
"That's impossible," O'Reilly said Tuesday. "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the 'net, but he is certainly not of that faith." O'Reilly blamed the "liberal media" for "pushing the Christian angle" in order to demean Christians like himself. But O'Reilly's point was taken up by any number of commentators and religion scholars.
Mathew N. Schmalz, a professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross, wrote in a Washington Post column that Breivik's vision "is a Christianity without Christ" because the attacker rejected a personal relationship with Jesus.
Writing in The Guardian, Andrew Brown wrote that "even in his saner moments (Breivik's) ideology had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on an atavistic horror of Muslims and a loathing of `Marxists,' by which he meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan."
Arne H. Fjeldstad, a longtime Norwegian journalist and Lutheran minister of the Church of Norway, wrote a lengthy analysis of Breivik's references to Christianity and also concluded that "his view is framed entirely by politics, with strong political and cultural opinions, which also include religious views."
"Breivik's religious position is rather distant from any Christian faith commitment," Fjeldstad wrote.
But others pushed back against such a carefully cordoned-off interpretation of Breivik's faith, or Christianity itself. "If he did what he has alleged to have done, Anders Breivik is a Christian terrorist," Boston University religion scholar Stephen Prothero wrote on CNN.com. "Yes, he twisted the Christian tradition in directions most Christians would not countenance. But he rooted his hate and his terrorism in Christian thought and Christian history, particularly the history of the medieval Crusades against Muslims, and current efforts to renew that clash."
"So Christians have a responsibility to speak out forcefully against him, and to look hard at the resources in the Christian tradition that can be used to such murderous ends." Andrew Sullivan, the popular blogger and Catholic, also expounded on that point, writing that "it is obvious that Christians can commit murder, assault, etc. They do so every day. Because, as Christian orthodoxy tells us, we are all sinners. To say that no Christian can ever commit murder is a sophist's piffle. ... Do the countless criminals who have gone to church or believe in Jesus immediately not count as Christians the minute they commit the crime? Of course not."
Sullivan said Bill O'Reilly's argument "is complete heresy in terms of the most basic Christian orthodoxy."
And Sullivan is right, though for some 2,000 years Christians have still battled fiercely over who is a "real" Christian and who is not, or who is a "good" Christian and who is a "bad" Christian.
Is Christianity about being baptized or joining a particular church? Is faith a matter of true belief (orthodoxy) or just actions (orthopraxy)? Or some alchemical combination of the two? And what is the right belief? Or the right thing to do?
Many argue today that President Obama, for example, can't be a true Christian despite his profession of faith because of the liberal policies he proposes. Or that Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a Tea Party favorite, can't be a real Catholic because he embraces the atheistic libertarianism of Ayn Rand in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Yet as far back as the fourth century, Saint Ambrose spoke of the church as a "casta meretrix" -- the "chaste harlot" who welcomes all comers while remaining pure herself in order to sanctify her members.
That analogy still holds true.
Anders Breivik may have been a bad Christian, perhaps the worst one can imagine, as well as a confused man who cherry-picked from Scripture and history to justify his un-Christian form of Christianity.
But proof-texting the Bible and using faith to rationalize one's favorite political and cultural views is something most believers -- Jewish, Muslim and Christian -- are guilty of at one time or another. So kicking Breivik out of Christianity in the end might be an ominous sign for all Christians.
Is Anders Breivik a `Christian' terrorist? | The Christian Century
(RNS) The mass murders in Oslo have raised a host of agonizing questions, but few have such an ancient lineage and contemporary resonance as whether Anders Behring Breivik, the right-wing extremist behind the attacks that killed 76 Norwegians last Friday (July 22), is a Christian.
Breivik claimed that he is a Christian in various forums, but most explicitly and in greatest detail in the 1,500-page manifesto he compiled over several months and posted on the Internet. "At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised [sic] and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."
But he also fiercely disagrees with the politics of most Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church. "Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man," he writes. "I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
Breivik fashions himself a "cultural Christian" and a modern-day crusader in a resurrected order of the medieval Knights Templar, riding out to do battle against squishy "multiculturalism" and the onslaught of "Islamization" -- and to suffer the glory of Christian martyrdom in the process.
Not surprisingly, conservative pundits who share some of Breivik's views and also consider themselves Christians quickly sought to distance themselves from Breivik by declaring, as Bill O'Reilly did on Fox News, that "Breivik is not a Christian."
"That's impossible," O'Reilly said Tuesday. "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the 'net, but he is certainly not of that faith." O'Reilly blamed the "liberal media" for "pushing the Christian angle" in order to demean Christians like himself. But O'Reilly's point was taken up by any number of commentators and religion scholars.
Mathew N. Schmalz, a professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross, wrote in a Washington Post column that Breivik's vision "is a Christianity without Christ" because the attacker rejected a personal relationship with Jesus.
Writing in The Guardian, Andrew Brown wrote that "even in his saner moments (Breivik's) ideology had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on an atavistic horror of Muslims and a loathing of `Marxists,' by which he meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan."
Arne H. Fjeldstad, a longtime Norwegian journalist and Lutheran minister of the Church of Norway, wrote a lengthy analysis of Breivik's references to Christianity and also concluded that "his view is framed entirely by politics, with strong political and cultural opinions, which also include religious views."
"Breivik's religious position is rather distant from any Christian faith commitment," Fjeldstad wrote.
But others pushed back against such a carefully cordoned-off interpretation of Breivik's faith, or Christianity itself. "If he did what he has alleged to have done, Anders Breivik is a Christian terrorist," Boston University religion scholar Stephen Prothero wrote on CNN.com. "Yes, he twisted the Christian tradition in directions most Christians would not countenance. But he rooted his hate and his terrorism in Christian thought and Christian history, particularly the history of the medieval Crusades against Muslims, and current efforts to renew that clash."
"So Christians have a responsibility to speak out forcefully against him, and to look hard at the resources in the Christian tradition that can be used to such murderous ends." Andrew Sullivan, the popular blogger and Catholic, also expounded on that point, writing that "it is obvious that Christians can commit murder, assault, etc. They do so every day. Because, as Christian orthodoxy tells us, we are all sinners. To say that no Christian can ever commit murder is a sophist's piffle. ... Do the countless criminals who have gone to church or believe in Jesus immediately not count as Christians the minute they commit the crime? Of course not."
Sullivan said Bill O'Reilly's argument "is complete heresy in terms of the most basic Christian orthodoxy."
And Sullivan is right, though for some 2,000 years Christians have still battled fiercely over who is a "real" Christian and who is not, or who is a "good" Christian and who is a "bad" Christian.
Is Christianity about being baptized or joining a particular church? Is faith a matter of true belief (orthodoxy) or just actions (orthopraxy)? Or some alchemical combination of the two? And what is the right belief? Or the right thing to do?
Many argue today that President Obama, for example, can't be a true Christian despite his profession of faith because of the liberal policies he proposes. Or that Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a Tea Party favorite, can't be a real Catholic because he embraces the atheistic libertarianism of Ayn Rand in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Yet as far back as the fourth century, Saint Ambrose spoke of the church as a "casta meretrix" -- the "chaste harlot" who welcomes all comers while remaining pure herself in order to sanctify her members.
That analogy still holds true.
Anders Breivik may have been a bad Christian, perhaps the worst one can imagine, as well as a confused man who cherry-picked from Scripture and history to justify his un-Christian form of Christianity.
But proof-texting the Bible and using faith to rationalize one's favorite political and cultural views is something most believers -- Jewish, Muslim and Christian -- are guilty of at one time or another. So kicking Breivik out of Christianity in the end might be an ominous sign for all Christians.
Is Anders Breivik a `Christian' terrorist? | The Christian Century
The Oslo nutjob may have been ethnically Christian, but he wasn't observant. He seldom if ever went to church. He religious beliefs had nothing to do with his actions. In fact if he was an observant Christian, he might have observed the commandment regarding "Thou shalt not kill".
He definitely had some right wing ideas, but the term is right wing extremist is not specific. Right wing ideology does not include an irrational fear and hatred of Muslims.
Since the Oslo nutjob's primary motivation for killing innocent people was based on extreme neoconservative sources which promoted irrational fear and hatred of Muslims, he is correctly labeled a neoconservative extremist. I understand why neoconservatives would not want to be associated with this nutjob. But he is their creation. If any of his neoconservative sources/influences advocated violence, they may be criminally liable for the actions of people like the Oslo nutjob who heeded their call.
But if neoconservatives don't like the term neoconservative extremist, then we could call this nutjob a neoconservative fundamentalist, implying that all neoconservatives are fundamentally as crazy as this person. That's why neoconservatives call Muslim extremists "Muslim Fundamentalists", implying that all Muslims are fundamentally extremists, rather than extremists being the extreme exceptions.
Also anyone with a memory and common sense can see how this story is being buried by the neoconservative media. I guess the nutjob's neoconservative ideology hit a little to close to home for these people.
BTW, ignoring neoconservative extremism isn't making us safer. I predict that in time, we will see more acts of extreme neoconservative inspired violence. The odds are far more likely that neoconservative inspired violence will occur in Canada and the US, than Norway.
He definitely had some right wing ideas, but the term is right wing extremist is not specific. Right wing ideology does not include an irrational fear and hatred of Muslims.
Since the Oslo nutjob's primary motivation for killing innocent people was based on extreme neoconservative sources which promoted irrational fear and hatred of Muslims, he is correctly labeled a neoconservative extremist. I understand why neoconservatives would not want to be associated with this nutjob. But he is their creation. If any of his neoconservative sources/influences advocated violence, they may be criminally liable for the actions of people like the Oslo nutjob who heeded their call.
But if neoconservatives don't like the term neoconservative extremist, then we could call this nutjob a neoconservative fundamentalist, implying that all neoconservatives are fundamentally as crazy as this person. That's why neoconservatives call Muslim extremists "Muslim Fundamentalists", implying that all Muslims are fundamentally extremists, rather than extremists being the extreme exceptions.
Also anyone with a memory and common sense can see how this story is being buried by the neoconservative media. I guess the nutjob's neoconservative ideology hit a little to close to home for these people.
BTW, ignoring neoconservative extremism isn't making us safer. I predict that in time, we will see more acts of extreme neoconservative inspired violence. The odds are far more likely that neoconservative inspired violence will occur in Canada and the US, than Norway.