Okay. I was just curious as it said in the Nutcase in the quote, instead of the name of the person who you quoted.
Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphle
- Thread starter SLM
- Start date
Okay. I was just curious as it said in the Nutcase in the quote, instead of the name of the person who you quoted.
Okay. I was just curious as it said in the Nutcase in the quote, instead of the name of the person who you quoted.
I just assumed he was quoting the article or something out of the article. Which brings up a point actually that whoever posts an article in an OP and gets quoted, particularly if it's only a passage from the article, it makes it look as if we've actually said that! Sometimes I've come across a quote of a part of an article that I've posted and done a double take, like "What? I said that!?! When did I say that!" Lol.
Just a little hiccup in the system, I guess.
I get over it fairly quickly. I'm resilient that way.
That's why I dislike their ruling and the way they worded it.
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) But they worded it so poorly and based it on feelings, that people like Levant feel justified in comparing his pamphlets to satire. They aren't satire, they're far from it.
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) But they worded it so poorly and based it on feelings, that people like Levant feel justified in comparing his pamphlets to satire. They aren't satire, they're far from it.
Maybe someone should bring a complaint against the CBC to the CHRC.....just to see if they will take it....It's free....not like hiring a lawyer to bring someone to court.....
Of course I'd engage the author, that's the whole point, and certainly who I am.
While SCB who's come across more than her fair share of racism, simply turns her nose up at it and walks on.
Of course I'm being insulting, your opinion is abhorrent to me and strikes at the very core of my values and principles.
Not really, but he's pretty close.
Why can't we talk about stripping people rights?
Is championing the banning of the Kirpan now off limits? That's a right.
Is championing the stripping of First Nations Charter rights now off limits?
That's why I think he was close, but not 'exactly correct' as Colpy put it.
I said public flyer campaigns advocating the stripping of rights.
I said people should be able to take these views to their gov. They should be able to practice freedom of association in expressing these views. But they shouldn't be able to cold call people's houses telling them they want to strip them of their rights.
That's not all 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)
I completely disagree with you up to your opinion on violence.
They should be able to take them to the streets.
The govt's don't listen to lone voices.
How do you do that when the only thing you're allowed to talk is the gov't?
Why not?
And while I'm asking questions again, how come you didn't answer my questions? They weren't rhetorical.
I didn't feel the need to repeat myself completely in each and every post. I figured people could extrapolate from one post to the next, or ask for clarification.
And I never said anyone need be lone voices.... I pointed out that freedom of association is a right too. I addressed solely the repugnancy of door to door flyer campaigns advocating the stripping of the rights of citizens within the community. No one has yet to be able to explain to me how door to door recruitment like his (aimed at stripping fellow citizens of rights) is a necessity.
Now which questions did I miss that you're taking exception with?
In my defense, I was told recently not to bring an opinion on other peoples opinion into the argument.
But that still doesn't change the fact that this...
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)
Has nothing to do with flyers.
"He can tell it to the gov't"
While you start the slippery slope of where he can spread his word and gather support.
Today door to door, tomorrow the street corner...
Where do we stop?
Of course it's repugnant. But that's because you think his opinion is repugnant.
Do Girl Guides get the same reception?
Politicians?
It's his right.
Got it, they made you to uncomfortable to answer.
you're trying to tell me what my opinion is, and make assumption rather than answer me as to which questions were missed. Sorry bear, I'm not in the mood to play today, I'm in the mood for discussion not war. Let me know if you feel like a discussion, I'll be around.
No I`m not, and you can save that nonsense for someone else, you use it so often it's lost its weight with me.
My bad, the only other alternative is, you don't give my posts the same respect I give yours.
Good to know.
That must be why you bulk caption my posts and don't actually read them.
Got it, you don't like getting called on what you say.
Good to know.
Last edited:
Just a quick overview of all the stuff I haven't bothered repeating ad nauseum to catch up on what I was actually trying to say.
And I'll repeat it. I don't think publicly recruiting for your viewpoint is necessary in political issues where one is directly attempting to strip another of their rights. There are clubs, religions, associations, where people with similar concerns can congregate and raise an issue to the government through advocacy or even demonstrations.
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.
I 'bulk caption' everyone's posts. I tend to assume if you need to pick apart a post sentence by sentence, then that post was not concise enough and needs clarification. It's a difference in posting style, not a personal slight.
And I'll repeat it. I don't think publicly recruiting for your viewpoint is necessary in political issues where one is directly attempting to strip another of their rights. There are clubs, religions, associations, where people with similar concerns can congregate and raise an issue to the government through advocacy or even demonstrations.
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.
I 'bulk caption' everyone's posts. I tend to assume if you need to pick apart a post sentence by sentence, then that post was not concise enough and needs clarification. It's a difference in posting style, not a personal slight.
That's ridiculous, and gives further proof to how I take what you've said.
Ya so?
Are you saying he was targeting gay communities?
The only group he said should have their rights stripped, IF, they didn't cease their campaign, was the gay community.
That still doesn't explain how you missed two question smack dab in the middle of my reply to you.