jefferiah

Still though, Visionseeker. Hate crime is excessive. There are no love crimes. If you were to gather in a group and call for the beating of Joe Blow that is already a crime. It could be conspiracy to commit assualt, etc. This is illegal anyway, whether he is white or black. So why do certain groups need extra protection? I do not trust it and I do not support it. It's silly and excessive. And there should be no protected groups versus others.

You missed the meaning there, Jennie. I was saying that I was citing cases where homosexuals were offended but there was no call to violence in any of them. So even though I did not provide examples of race related offenses it is reasonable to assume, despite Hardner's assurance that it would never happen, that people can sue because they are offended without their actually being a call to violence. Do you understand now?

Beside the point. There should not even be a case. If you can be sued over incidents like this, regardless of the ruling, that is a huge drain on society. Check out the case of the politician in BC who was asked his views regarding homosexuality in an interview. He was asked. So he said you know they are people like everyone else, but personally I am a Catholic and to me it is immoral. That's it. Pretty tame. No call to violence. He was sued for 1000 by a couple who were offended. Now, I have to concede that he settled it before the trial and agreed to pay. How much would his lawyer have cost? Cases like this should not even be considered. This is ridiculous.

He was referring to his tax dollars funding homosexual activist groups, a seperate issue from the homosexuality being taught to children.

You might be surprised. Check out the case of Stephen Boissoin who has had a case pending before the HRC for a few years now. He was a pastor in a small Alberta town and wrote a letter to a Red Deer newspaper about his concern over homosexuality being taught in schools and his tax dollars funding homosexual activists. Whether you like his opinion or not, or even his choice of words. He never actually recommended any violent action or anything like that. Nonetheless he is being sued for 5000. This is only one case. There are others. Bill Whatcott (a self-proclaimed ex gay) was sued for handing out pamphlets at a gay pride parade about how being gay is sinful and that homosexuals can change. Whether you like his views or not, he was not encouraging any violent act, but some people claimed they were offended and brought to tears when they read his pamphlets and so....... These are both gay cases I know, but I mean whats good for the goose....It can work with anything...race, sexual orientation....whatever.

deleted

Saying you hate someone or putting down another ethnicity, race, whatever this should never be criminal. It may be distasteful, but people should have a right to speak their minds. It is different when you encourage someone to commit a crime against people of another race. When you do that you are directly commanding and inciting violence. This is already a crime anyway. So.......

A Federal Court of Canada hearing was told the breakfast included three pieces of bacon, two eggs, three slices of toast, jam, ketchup, milk, coffee, juice and cereal. Without the bacon that is still more than anyone in my family eats for breakfast.

I am with Betsy on this one AW. You are bringing up another topic which has nothing to do with this one. She was right to dismiss it. If it happened in the States it has nothing to do with the Canadian judicial system. That's not an insult or an affront to you personally. It just is. Like if you said well they give Jews kosher meals in Zimbabwe how would that have a bearing on whether it is fair or not to demand it here. You can't say it would be inconsistent to deny a Muslim a replacement for a few strips of bacon here because in the US Jewish prisoners demanded kosher food. That has nothing to do with Canada. The point is look. This guy was served a plate complete with eggs, toast, breakfast cereal, etc. Three pieces of bacon were included. Thats hardly one corner of the plate. You know if you don't like the cole slaw that comes with your take-out you just don't eat it right? It's a frivolous lawsuit. I mean if they served pork roast morning noon and evening every day of the week, that would be different. In this situation it was three pieces of bacon. All he had to do was say hold the bacon, give me another egg. Courts should have no time for trifles like this. It's completely ridiculous.

ok now explain to me why this is worth 2000 bucks?

You think it is a great thing that there was no violence in this case or jihad? What does that have to do with the fact that the government panders to certain criminals who seek to victimize themselves at every turn? You don't need to have vandalism, violence, or jihad. You just have to complain. Liberal judges eat it right up. The criminal is never responsible. He is society's victim. It would be too much to ask the pour soul to ask for extra eggs. No, what he needs is 2000 bucks. He deserves it after the pain he has endured. Now how about the prison itself? Were they committing any acts of violence or anti-Islamic jihad, by serving a regular meal which happened to include 3 pieces of bacon, which could have easily been refused? Cmon knuckleheads. Do you ever order something at a restaurant and discard something in the platter you don't like? Cole slaw perhaps, tomatoes, the olives on your pizza?

Well worth it. Do you think we should set a precedent where inmates can now complain about every little meal or even side dish as if it were some sort of abuse? Actually you are right FTA, it was not worth going to court. It should not have even gone to trial. This is nonsense. 2000 bucks. Some people don't even get that much when suing for medical fees after a minor assault. And you think it is reasonable to give a man 2000 bucks because he could not ask to hold the bacon? I can just imagine the pain and suffering he went through. Oh the horror. I am not ciriticizing the guy as if he were starting jihad. It's not simply a muslim issue either. It's a matter of federal courts pandering to silly complaints by criminals. Seriously, 3 pieces of bacon on a plate. 2000 bucks cause he doesn't like the way they serve the majority. Do you people have anything between your ears?

I think the point, Peter, was that the Federal Court is whacked, not that its judgements are anything to use to set the standard of reason. Seriously three pieces of bacon on a plate with eggs, toast, cereal, etc. All he has to do is say "hold the bacon". Like my friend who hates tomatoes. He gets a burger at Burger King. He takes his tomato out. He doesn't ask for 2000 bucks because that is the way Burger King makes their burgers. Seriously 2000 bucks for three pieces of bacon. And you love it? Get real!

It should all be free speech unless someone is calling for and conspiring to commit acts of violence. I do not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they should not be able to express their opinions. We should trust people to make their own judgements about what they hear and read.

Isn't oral tradition basically hearsay times 100?

Here you also got my parallel backasswards. I never said being Canadian means you can't believe in folk medecine. I said not being Canadian takes away your entitlement to the medicare system.

I never said it was, I said Canadian medicare for Canadians. Jennie claims natives are non-Canadians. I never said anyone had to vote, I said if someone is non-Canadian then they should not be allowed to vote. When it suits her purpose she uses the argument that they have their own nationality and never wanted to be Canadian. But when asked about voting she says well maybe some will vote and some won't. Would this be a good argument for letting Albanians vote in our elections---the fact that maybe some of them won't vote? And I am not basing the medicare argument on voting, but on whether someone is Canadian or not.

No lets say we were to ask which of you are Canadian and make them decide, so that we can ensure we don't have non-citizens participating in our elections. And then we can move on to denying them medicare. And they can be healed with tobacco smoke. Canadian medicare for Canadians. Medicine men for the rest.

But if it were to be dealt with you would fully support it?

Andalusia has a lot of bagpipers. Celts lived all through Europe. They did not always live there or in any one place but neither did the natives nor most people on the globe, as JBG points out. What makes natives indigenous. From what I understand they moved to America as well. They are no more native than I am. Not a single one of them. I was born here. Before the expulsion of the Acadians, the peaceful neutral Acadians paid off some peaceful Micmac to kill men, women and children in the settlement at Dartmouth. Reparations for their descendants please? Now back to the real question, Jennie. How can we determine and sort out which natives are Canadian and which ones aren't so that we won't have non-Canadians voting in our elections?

So then you would support land claims and a tax free status for Jews in Palestine? Celts in Spain?

Oh ok so some are Canadians and some aren't. I see. How convenient. How are we supposed to know which ones are and which ones are not Canadian citizens. And what about the ones who aren't...should they have the legal right to vote if they are not Canadian? So basically they get to pick and choose how Canadian they want to be and when it comes voting time non-Canadians can instantly become Canadians until they have cast their ballot. I didn't know this was commonplace. I am going to start voting in other nations elections now. Look Jennie, you are being completely ridiculous on this. You say well maybe they won't vote. So what. If they are not Canadian citizens should they even have the option. I can't vote in American elections. Lets say you were arguing for the right of Albanians to vote in American elections. Someone points out to you that it would be ridiculous to allow any non-Americans to vote. Would you then use the defense--- "Hmmm well some Albanians might not vote. It depends on the individual feelings of the Albanian. There is no one answer." A defense you have used to multiple arguments is that they never wanted to join Canada. So you have to decide. Are you Canadian or not? And if not, why should you be allowed to vote in our elections? Or enjoy medicare, etc?

Hmmm but you haven't given any answer. Anyone who is not Canadian is not allowed to vote in a Canadian election. Some do, some don't is not an answer. Some Canadians vote and some don't. But if you insist that they are not Canadian then why should some be able to vote.

Now you put yourself back in the position of having to answer the voting question....if they are not Canadians then why should they be able to vote? Either you are a Canadian or you aren't. I don't think Americans, Russians, Spaniards and a multitude of other non-Canadians are usually allowed to vote in our elections.

Well there are women who wear the Burqa of free will. So you can't call it slavery. But nonetheless your comparison to crosses, yarmulkes, etc is out in space. Some of the burqas provide pretty good cover, with nothing exposed except a narrow slit for the eyes. So in essence you got a variation of the ninja suit. That could be a man under there. I am not saying this would be a common thing, but security demands that show your face in certain situations, right? Crosses, and yarmulkes don't create that much of a disguise. Unless you are one of those fictional people who can't recognize that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person because of the spectacles. Reminds me of a corny old joke: Q: What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming over the hill? A: "The elephants are coming over the hill." Q: What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming over the hill wearing sunglasses? A: Nothing, he didn't recognize them.