In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Lincoln]

It seems to me that the trend in Canada now (and the US will no doubt follow) is that whoever screams the loudest gets to be more equal. Old people are abused everyday but they usually are ignored because they are too weak to defend themselves. They deserve protection even though they do not demonstrate in the streets for special rights. Everyone however weak or unorganized or politically inactive they may be deserves equal protection under the law. Not just the loud mouths.

[Ben Kenobi]

but the alternative is worse, so I guess we have to live with it.

Why? I fail to see why we should not stand up for our rights to speak freely, especially when groups such as the feminists like to censor disagreeable speech.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why? I fail to see why we should not stand up for our rights to speak freely, especially when groups such as the feminists like to censor disagreeable speech.

I meant live with it when it isn't too bad. In your case I'd fight it since the rule is clearly not being applied impartially, but as a means of suppressing dissent rather than hate.

On the other hand this is student politics which tends to be dominated by callow egomaniacs for whom the good war hallows every cause.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Sez you. I'm with Alexandra Kollentai on the revolution and sexuality.

I'd forgotten about her.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Sez you. I'm with Alexandra Kollentai on the revolution and sexuality.

If you guys had stuck with that free sex guy from the 19th century, you'd rule the world by now.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lincoln
It seems to me that the trend in Canada now (and the US will no doubt follow) is that whoever screams the loudest gets to be more equal. Old people are abused everyday but they usually are ignored because they are too weak to defend themselves. They deserve protection even though they do not demonstrate in the streets for special rights. Everyone however weak or unorganized or politically inactive they may be deserves equal protection under the law. Not just the loud mouths.

Have you ever heard of someone inciting violence against the aged?

That is what our hate laws are intended to head off. Extreme cases of 'loud mouths' who are saying and writing things that are likely to result in others taking up the fight against some minortiy group or other.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Have you ever heard of someone inciting violence against the aged?

That is what our hate laws are intended to head off. Extreme cases of 'loud mouths' who are saying and writing things that are likely to result in others taking up the fight against some minortiy group or other.

Yes, I am sure that the intention was honorable. The problem is that the concept is flawed legally because any group can claim that they are being abused and deserving of special protection. That is why equal protection under the law is the best way to protect everyone. And yes, I have heard of people who desire old people to be killed at a certain age or degree of infirmity.

[St Leo]

Homer, stop reading that Ross Perot pamphlet.

[Lincoln]

Off to bed. Night all...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Yes, I am sure that the intention was honorable. The problem is that the concept is flawed legally because any group can claim that they are being abused and deserving of special protection. That is why equal protection under the law is the best way to protect everyone. And yes, I have heard of people who desire old people to be killed at a certain age or degree of infirmity.

Actually, I agree that it would be better if ANY identifiable group was covered by the legislation, for those instances where the odd thing happens.

[Ben Kenobi]

On the other hand this is student politics which tends to be dominated by callow egomaniacs for whom the good war hallows every cause.

It's one thing for the student governement, it's another for the BC Supreme court. We lost our case challenging these restrictions this summer.

No money to pursue an appeal, since everything we do relies upon donations.

[Boris Godunov]

I"m waiting to hear what groups get special protections in Canada. I haven't seen that elucidated on yet.

[Berzerker]

What does the legislation actually say?

Does it say people can be punished for speaking out against what they believe to be immoral behavior or does it say people can face differing punishments based on what politicians currently employed as prosecutors perceive to be the motive of the culprit who physically attacks another person?

1) a black homosexual male attacks a white heterosexual male
2) a white heterosexual male attacks a black homosexual male

The prosecutor decides if the attacks were motivated by hate (as if assault in either case can be motivated by love or indifference). Does anyone really think (1) would be a "hate" crime while (2) would not?

[Ben Kenobi]

I"m waiting to hear what groups get special protections in Canada. I haven't seen that elucidated on yet.

Done, earlier in the thread.

This amendment to the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code would expand the current definition of protected groups that now include "colour, race, religion or ethnic origin" to also include "sexual orientation" or homosexuality.

[Boris Godunov]

What if a white lesbian attacked a black heterosexual Jew?

[Ben Kenobi]

http://canada.com/national/story.asp...8-251FF13E3CC1



Two for two.

OTTAWA (CP) - MPs voted 141-110 on Wednesday in favour of a bill to extend hate-crimes protection to gays and lesbians.

Bill C-250, a private member's bill introduced by New Democrat MP Svend Robinson, would amend the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code to add homosexuals to a list of groups legally protected from incitement of hatred and genocide.

The hate propaganda law, passed in 1970, bans incitement of hatred on the basis of colour, race, religion and ethnic origin, but not "sexual orientation."

Gays have long protested the omission, citing the fact that homosexuals are frequently targeted for verbal and physical attacks.

The law carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

The bill passed Wednesday still requires Senate approval and royal assent before becoming law.

It was the second contentious vote in two days on gay rights. On Tuesday, MPs narrowly defeated a motion to maintain the traditional definition of marriage - an attempt by the Canadian Alliance to scuttle the government's plan to allow same-sex unions.

The Alliance and many church groups say they fear that extending hate-crime protection for gays could criminalize religious texts, including the Bible, that condemn homosexuality.

Not so, said Liberal MP Derek Lee. He pushed for a change to the bill that unanimously passed in the Commons three months ago. The amended bill exempts from the hate crime section anyone expressing an anti-gay belief based on a religious text.

That change removed a handy excuse for those who would unjustly refuse equal protections to homosexuals, Robinson said.

"What this bill is about, fundamentally, is sending a message to the gay bashers. It's about sending a message to those who promote hatred and violence and death of gay men like Aaron Webster who was beaten to death with a baseball bat in Vancouver."

Fears that freedom of speech and religion will suffer are unfounded, Robinson added.

"It's a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why they don't want to include sexual orientation in the law."

Robinson said he regularly receives hateful e-mails and his constituency office in Burnaby, B.C. was trashed in 1988 when he became Canada's first openly gay MP.

Conservative MP Scott Brison, representing Kings-Hants in Nova Scotia, came out of the closet last winter. He too has been verbally threatened and physically attacked for being gay, he said.

Alliance MP Brian Pallister, representing Portage-Lisgar in Manitoba, voted against the bill. He resents being called "homophobic," and said he has fought for equal economic rights for gays in the past.

"It's unhelpful to label people just because they disagree with you."

Physically and mentally disabled Canadians, along with other identifiable groups, are also hate-crime victims but aren't specifically protected under the law, he said.

"Where do you draw the line?"

To suppress free speech only drives bigots and abusers underground, he said.


"You want those people out in the open," Pallister said, "Then they show how stupid they really are."


The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association, representing 28,000 front-line officers, support the bill.

Police have so far been powerless to prosecute the likes of Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan. who runs a virulent anti-gay website.

Supporters of Phelps have entered Canada twice in recent years to stage anti-gay rallies.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Done, earlier in the thread.

And how are those "protected groups" exclusive of anyone?

Doesn't everyone have a color? Race? Religion (or lack thereof)? Ethnic background? Sexual orientation?

If the law doesn't single out a particular group for protection, claiming it's granting special rights to a group is disingenuous.

[Ben Kenobi]

When was the last time a crime against a white person fell under the category of a 'hate' crime?

In theory, it ought to protect everyone equally. In practice, hate crimes only come into play when involving a minority group.

[monolith94]

"If you are born straight, white, and male, you are more equal than others. If you chose to be Protestant, that's a bonus."
Looks like I got my bases covered! I didn't ask to be a member of the entitled class, you know.

"What if a white lesbian attacked a black heterosexual Jew?"
I'd have a laugh.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When was the last time a crime against a white person fell under the category of a 'hate' crime?

In theory, it ought to protect everyone equally. In practice, hate crimes only come into play when involving a minority group.

Then the quibble is with the common practice of the law, not the law itself? I mean, the law itself is clearly all-encompassing and doesn't single out any particular group for special rights over another.

I know that in the U.S., prosecutors have gone after black people for racially-motivated crimes, albeit in less high-profile incidents than, say, James Byrd. A recent example was the Cincinnatti riots, after which the D.A. vowed to pursue hate crimes charges against such perpetrators.

So long as the law encompasses all people, I don't see why anything that adds to the potential punishment of a violent offender should be objectionable. If prosecutors aren't doing their job and going after certain groups of perpetrators, then they need to brought to task.

I also noted the religious exception for anti-gay speech. Seems the moralizing busy-bodies will be safe.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monolith94
"What if a white lesbian attacked a black heterosexual Jew?"
I'd have a laugh.

Only you could laugh at the thought of Ellen DeGeneres beating the snot out of Sammy Davis, Jr.

[Ben Kenobi]

I also noted the religious exception for anti-gay speech. Seems the moralizing busy-bodies will be safe.

We shall see. I'm still reading the article.

[Boris Godunov]

Huked on foniks werked fer me, 2

[Berzerker]

What if a white lesbian attacked a black heterosexual Jew?

More liberals invited to the riot?

[Ben Kenobi]

Huked on foniks werked fer me, 2

I'm checking to see when the amendment was proposed. Seems it was three months ago. Funny, the religious groups still had concerns after the amendment.

I want to see the extent that this amendment protects religious speech, outside of the church, in public.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm checking to see when the amendment was proposed. Seems it was three months ago. Funny, the religious groups still had concerns after the amendment.

Gee, could that be because they don't want to pass anything that might remotely do good for gays?

[Ben Kenobi]

Read your history Boris.

How did sexual orientation enter Section 15 of the Charter in the first place? I don't like judicial activism, and what the judges might do with this bill.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.victoews.com/speech1.asp?ID=97

"When the Department of Justice officials appeared on Bill C-250, they could not give a definitive answer to the question of whether religious publications would be subject to censorship or even prohibition."

[Uncle Sparky]

As Obiwan18 pointed out, we want to be able to prosecute hate literature. Go to godhatesfags.com if you'd like to see the type of stuff we don't want.

If a black lesbian physically attacks a white hetero Jew, she would be charged with an assault related crime; if she were burning a Torah and screaming "Hitler was right !" then she could also be charged with a hate crime.

Can saying "All white males should die!" be criminal under current Canadian legislation ? Theoretically yes. But first someone would have to be insecure enough to ask that charges be brought against the person(s) uttering the statement. The USA (and to a much lesser extent Canada) currently is using so called anti-terrorist legislation to discriminate, sometimes very harshly, against people who aren't part of the Christian white majority and express such views against the majority.

I'm sure Lancer agrees that it is wrong for America to prosecute someone who sais "All Americans must die !" and that all of those poor chaps held illegally in Guantanamo Bay should be freed and sent back to their families.

Generally, I think that hate crime legislation, like drunk driving laws are good both on their own, in some cases, and when combined with other laws in other cases.

[Berzerker]

Gee, could that be because they don't want to pass anything that might remotely do good for gays?

Like banning anal intercourse?