jefferiah

Now back to you Jennie Would you rule in favour of a white man who was offended by denigrating comments about white people made by the defendant in a case in your court, if he could prove that the offending comments were made and all that?

Posit himself used the word law. And the definition of sin is a transgression of law. So therefore if this is a law, then to eat pork would by defintion be a sin.

Once again you are off base with this accusation. I was not denigrating another's religion, I was making this as a comparison to Posit's own semantics about sin and a law with which to guide themselves. Use your noggin Jennie. This was not directed at any Muslim or intended to put out the idea that believing pork is unclean is silly. Re-read the posts surrounding this one, and then think. Posit said that pork eating is not sin, but it is a law with which to guide themselves. So I was not making fun of Islam, I was poking fun at Posit's semantics. I compared his statement to the statement: "No officer, its not an open liquor bottle, its a glass container with old grape juice inside." I was not using this statement to parallel anything in Islam. Do you understand Jennie?

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." I Corinthians 6:9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." and of course the much harsher Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I know this is harsh but nonetheless it is part of the Bible and no one adheres to it. Levitical law would have each of us put to death.

What? It was a good example. The RCMP is not society at large either. What do you think Sikh RCMPs did before the ruling?

Once again Jennie I must point out that you introduced this topic because in your original post you quoted the person who used this very example as an illustration on the radio. You then said that because he thought that such people who make these complaints should complain less and shut up and be grateful to be here, that he was a bad role model. And I proceeded to explain that people who disagreed with this decision have a perfectly good reason for doing so, that it is not racist to expect people to wear the RCMP uniform when everyone else must, and that therefore this man was not necessarily off base or a bad role model for having this opinion. I do not know him personally, so perhaps he is for other reasons. But based on the fact that he believes this (and believe you me a good percentage of the people in Canada agree) I would not say he was a bad role model. It seems perfectly reasonable.

I dont buy this excuse, I dont think anyone else does, and I dont think you do either.

Your crucifix point is still off base. I can still wear the entire Uniform of the RCMP which includes a hat and wear a crucifix. Righto? There is nothing pig-headed about expecting that anyone who wants to join the RCMP should have to wear the same uniform as anyone else. Sorry, but that is the truth, Visionseeker. I understand full well that when one does not like wearing a yarmulke at synagogue you dont go. If you don't like swimming you don't become a lifeguard. If you don;t like the McDonalds uniform no one is forcing you to work there. And if you don't like the RCMPs uniform you dont have to join. And if you do, you only have to wear it while you are on duty. For the rest of the day, you can wear fishnet stockings and rubber boots if you like. If I want to join the US navy I do not get to decide upon what aspects of the uniform I like and which I don't like.

Lol. No officer this is not an open liquor bottle, its a glass container with old grape juice inside.

They have happened Jennie. You are a racist if you believe that only white people can be racist. so come on Jennie, quit avoiding a simple question.... And your get some experience argument has no merit and does nothing to change the fact that for some reason you cannot answer this question: You are a judge presiding over a case in which a white person is suing the defendant for pain and suffering caused by comments the defendant made which denigrate white people......will you rule in the white person's favour if he can show that indeed the comments were made? You are cornered Jennie. One has to wonder why you keep pleading the fifth on this one.

Agreed Jennie.

Ah, see you have just uncovered one of the great aspects of free speech Jennie. If he had said blacks are ugly and stupid, would you have voted for him? But lets say there were a law in place which said "Anyone who says the words "Blacks are ugly and stupid" shall be subjected to fines of 20,000 dollars, he might not have said it. And perhaps you would have elected a man who thinks blacks are ugly and stupid. By support Jennie, I meant would you be in favour of the plaintive's case? Would you hope that a white person would collect cash in the end if indeed a person had made denigrating comments about white people? I am sure you were quite aware of what I meant though. You are still dancing around the question Jennie. Lets put it this way then: A white person is offended by comments that denigrate white people. The comments were made by a person in "public". They are pretty much equal to the ferocity of other comments you have said should require fines or payment. You are on the bench Jennie. Will you rule in the white man's favour?

I am not a minor. And this was when I was twenty. I am 26 now and I no longer smoke pot. Believing and stating things publically are two different things, this is true. For instance, even though I believe homosexuality is wrong I may not always choose to say that. I don't feel the need to say "hey homosexuality is wrong" when I see a homosexual. But if he were to ask me I would give him my honest answer. So I understand completely that you do not say everything publically in order to prevent offense. Well, that is your choice, and I completely understand it. And yes we all do that to some degree. But just because you and I choose to do so or consider it indecent in some situations does not mean that it is a crime to do otherwise. People have a right to express their opinions. If their opinion is not one you like, you can ignore it, but it does not infringe upon your own rights, no one has to agree with you or silence their own opinions for someone else. It is not someone else's right to demand that another person not speak his mind. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. And therefore to you I am a criminal, because I have said it. What do you mean not responding to "any more" made up scenarios? YOu haven't even responded to the single one that I gave you. You don't believe that people make denigrating comments about white people perhaps? And this is what you mean by made up? I am not sure. But if so, then you need to get a little more life experience yourself, Jennie. And if you support a lawsuit one way, it would be racist to not support it when a white person is offended. So which is it Jennie?

No it wouldn't. I would not be offended over it. Why should I? A kid drawing a picture of Mohammed or Jesus is not forcing religion upon anyone. He is just expressing himself. A few years ago I was reading this story about a 1st Grade classroom where the kids were asked to draw a picture of things they were grateful for. One kid drew a picture of Jesus and above it wrote something like "I am thankful for Jesus". All the pictures were hung but his was removed. Why? So what? That's a far cry from instituting a state religion. And it would be the same with a Muslim kid as well. A few years ago I was reading about the case of a young person who brought his Bible to school to read during recess in his own time. Well the fact that other students could see him reading the Bible in school was apparently too influential on other students I guess, or so another child's parents complained. And the school demanded the boy keep his Bible at home. Why? I would not be offended if someone brought the Koran. When I was in high school I used to read the Gita in my spare time. I am glad no one saw fit to complain about that either. In some places, I have read (this may be in the US) a teacher cannot be seen carrying a Bible. Apparently this is too influential. And in some places they have banned moments of silence, believe it or not, because even though silence itself is secular, it could be an invitation for someone to engage in prayer. I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the cross displays since I think it is a more prominent symbol of Rememberance Day than you do. Every year at Rememberance Day services since I was young I say people go up and lay crosses with poppies stuck in them for their families. It is a symbol of the grave markers. And if you look at half the pictures drawn by kids every year on Rememberance Day they are in them.

And those laws are ridiculous is what I am saying. Someone believing what you do is wrong is not denigrating. Look, it is not against the law for someone to say they believe drinking is wrong. But according to the formula you have devised for hate speech (as pertains to the moral judgements aspect), it would be. You said that the line should be between espousing something for yourself or for others. So therefore when my parents said it was wrong to smoke pot, they were commiting a crime. I know you would not support punishment for that, but why in the case of gay people. It is no one's right that they should have a right to silence another person's opinion. Having the right to do something does not mean having the right to silence opposition. No one has this right. Now, hmmmm lets ask you a question shall we..... Hmmm I dont know....lets see here.....some hypothetical situation....hmmm Oh yes I have one!!!! How about, lets say, there was a white person who was offended by denigrating comments made about white people and he decided to sue the person who made the offensive comments, would you be in support of that lawsuit?

I'll go over it again Jennie, to make you see it better. I have a legal right to drink. Gays have legal right to be gay. If someone says drinking is bad and its immoral (ie Drea has said this in another thread, and by your own definition earlier in this thread, that would be hate speech.), I will stay have the legal right to drink. It is my right to drink. But it is not my right that everyone should agree with me. And it is not my right to demand that they have their opinions in private. For instance, if they were to start a religious group centered on the ideal of teetotalerism how would you expect them to communicate their beliefs. How would they publish their religious documents, since espousing any kind of morality is a hate crime by your own definition? If someone says being gay is immoral, privately or publically, that is their right. We all have a thing called freedom of conscience and freedom to profess that conscience. Professing your conscience publically does not infringe upon another persons rights, because the law does not demand that you have to do whatever another person thinks is right for you. So if a person were to say I believe that homosexual sex is immoral he would not be infringing upon someone else's right. It will still be their right to be gay, but it is not their right that everyone should have to agree with it, or that everyone who doesnt agree with homosexuality cannot be vocal. Where on Earth did you get the idea that it is someone's right that people cannot have a moral opinion about what they do? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Dont you understand that when you think your rights include someone elses opinion and where they can say it that is a perfect example of someone' expecting his right to "not" end where someone else's rights begin. Your Laurier quote supports what I am saying. And by the way Jennie, I was just wondering something: Let's say....hmmm...well I dunno, lets say a white person were to be offended by a denigrating comment about white people, would you support his lawsuit against the person who made the offensive remarks?

This is a ridiculous statement. Completely and utterly ridiculous.

Thats ridiculous. Someone saying they believe homosexuality is wrong does not infringe upon a gay person's right at all. They can still be gay. It is not their right that everyone has to agree with them. Your own quote backs up what I am saying more than it does what you are saying. How can you not see that? Believing that homosexuality is a sin does not take away from a person's right to be homosexual. When a homosexual demands that everyone must condone it, they are infringing upon the rights of the rest of society. No one has the right to have people condone what they do. That's completely ridiculous, Jennie. If ever I do something you think is wrong or immoral you have a perfect right to express your opinion. And if I dont like it I can ignore it or tell you to mind your own beeswax. But I do not have the right to tell you its wrong to say you think what I am doing is wrong. If you say I think what you are doing is wrong to me, it does not infringe upon my rights at all. Gays have the right to be gay. I have the right to drink. But I don't have the right to take away another person's right to say he believes drinking is wrong for himself or everyone else. If I did that I would be infringing upon his right to speak his mind, and his speaking his mind does not infringe at all upon my right to drink. Cmon Jennie, I know you can grasp this. Use your noggin.

I am still awaiting Jennie's answer to the question: If a white person were offended by someone who made demeaning comments about white people, would you then support his lawsuit against the person who offended him? Personally I wouldnt, but that is because I do not believe in legal action over such matters. But since Jennie supported the aforementioned case, I wonder does she also support it when racially demeaning comments are made about white people. Jennie, have you come up with any answer yet?

Refraining from punishing someone does not mean that sin does not exist. I am not saying that I think there should be punishment for homosexuals either. I myself have committed adultery before. But I recognize that it is a sin according to my faith. And I know that what I did was wrong. The fact that God is merciful does not mean that sin does not exist. When Jesus said let he without sin cast the first stone, he later told the woman who committed adultery go and "sin" no more. The fact that he believed in mercy rather than punishment in her case does not mean he was saying she had not sinned. Whether you agree with me or not on the sinfulness of homosexuality is irrelevant. No one is saying that you have to agree with me. But if I am of the opinion that something is wrong I have a right to that, and I have a right to share that opinion as well. No one has to agree with me. And I am not infringing on anyone else's right by doing so. And I am not encouraging violence or ill treatment of homosexuals either. Gay people can still be gay no matter what I think. The same way I can still have a beer if someone tells me they think drinking is wrong.

I agree with you that insult is not the best way to solve problems, Xul. But I firmly oppose the idea of giving government power over speech so that people who insult others can be punished by law. This is too much power for government to have and it creates more problems than it does good. What you fail to see is that when you do this the door is opened for anyone to claim offense over anything. You are making the assumption that it is good based upon the other assumption that the law can make a reasonable decision about what is insulting enough. I would rather you call me a pig than have you arrested for it. Simple as that. If you were to do something more maybe then I might take legal action. But I dont want courts and the law to get involved in what people say. You say you would not support the lawsuit against the man who said he believes homosexuality is a sin. But what you don't understand is you don't get to make the decisions on how to rule in these cases. I am telling you that lines from the Bible which refer to homosexuality as a sin have been officially deemed hate literature in some courts. Do you understand? Hate laws and the way they work do not conform to the idea you have of them. And no if you said all white people were pigs I dont think you should ever be sentenced for that. That is ridiculous. I would deal with it by debating it or ignoring you. Its as simple as that. No need to fine people for thousands of dollars over trivialities like this.

It doesnt matter though Posit. For instance Muslims believe it is wrong to eat pork. They do not have to prove this to anyone. But it is part of their faith. Same with Christianity. I am not saying that everyone has to accept it, but if this is what a Christian sect teaches, that it is a sin, they should have the right to say that. It does not have to be debated. It is a belief. And as long as people who believe this practice it and do not commit violence against other who are homosexual or promote it there is no reason to censor it. If someone who believed drinking was bad went and assaulted someone who is a drinker, would you then think it reasonable to take legal action against all people who say they believe it is bad. That would be ridiculous. This guy was not using it in Canadian debate. He was asked his views concerning homosexuality. He answered quite respectfully. He said he respects their decision to be homosexual, but he himself does not condone homosexuality. He did not seek to pass legislation to raid homosexuals bedrooms. The same way a person who believes in being a teetotaler might not try to stop people from drinking, but is free to express the opinion that drinking is wrong. Expressing that opinion does not take away someone's right to have a beer. Or to think otherwise on the morality of beer.

Did I say it would? But nonetheless the crosses were yanked from the display. Must we now also change the line "beneath the crosses row on row".

Personally I think you are overanalyzing the comments. When you are angry about government money spending on festivals for every minor little group that demands the cash, you might say every half-assed festival. Complain about spending large amounts of money on a non-majority group to have a lavish party (which we must do or else we are all bigots apparently) and you can actually end up in front of a tribunal. When you are waiting in line forever at emergency you can remember that you wanted to pay for every half-assed festival. I would say 1/8th assed is an even better assessment since we subsidize cultural parties for people who make up this or even less than this of the population. Sort of like the 1/80th assed programming on CBC. It's 1/80th assed because thats the amount of people who enjoy half of these shows that we all must pay for. Do you dig? If this were not true about the CBC then they could simply become privatized today and make tons of cash right? And then when Betsy mentions frustration you say well the KKK were frustrated too. Cmon JB, you are going overboard again. And people are smart enough to see through it. Are you though? Everytime someone gets frustrated lets compare them to the KKK. Come off it.

It happened a few years ago.