jefferiah

Hmmmm....then you would have no problem with Mike David being issued a band card then, if he applied?

That's ridiculous Higgly. Of course right wingers are in the army. And people who believe in free enterprise are not necessarily fat cats, either. I know a lot of people who are not high on funds but believe in ecomonic freedom versus socialism. The problem the right has with the left is that in their attempts to try to control every aspect of life to make things fair, they are not actually helping. You cannot even out life by making a few numbers and end results pan out evenly. It is a logical fallacy. When you enact a policy which seeks to create fairness there are always problems with it. So it's not that people on the right do not believe in fairness, but that they don't believe leftism creates the most fair result. It is better to have the individual freedom to be fair or unfair than to have a legislated "fairness" which ends up not being fair.

Well perhaps labor day would be pronounced lay-bore not lay-boor. "Laber Day" would probably be close to how most people pronounce it. Also I don't know if you could say "bour" equals bower because that would mean bourbon ought to be pronounced bower-bun, and tournament would be tower-nament. Perhaps with words "our", and "hour" the pronunciation is the same as what you have suggested, but you must also consider the number "four" or the word "pour".

Don't care about attractive. Being right and being attractive are too different things, Jennie. Sorry, but the UN can shove it. If signing documents the UN comes up with is integral to being attractive, then very soon there will be no such thing as sovereign nations. Sorry, but the wording of a document can have a lot of implications, and I don't want to be bullied into signing something that may have a cleverly worded clause in there. If they found that nothing new was needed and all that, then I have to wonder why would they feel it necessary to "pull together" this declaration for the rights of indigenous peoples, especially when you say that they found that human rights were more important than a certain groups rights. Indigenous peoples is just a term used to make not signing it unnattractive. I don't trust it.

Yeah, why indigenous people's rights? Why not left-handed chain-smoking pianists rights? Rights are rights. If you have human rights, then those rights should be good enough. I don't care if it looks bad. It's right. That's the truth. Let us look bad. The UN is not infallible, you know.

Hate laws can affect more than the KKK. That is why I don't like them. And I think they are a wedge to a slippery slope of even stricter offense laws. You can silence credible dissent by twisting the dissenter into a bigot. I do not know much about the free speech areas, but as I have said I can understand keeping protesters at a distance when a public appearance or a rally is taking place. But I have read something about restrictions being placed on cameras and media interviewing protesters in those free speech areas. I do not know much about this, American Woman, but this is a good place to start your complaint. I can't see the free speech zones up here in Canada so I can't comment on them--ie if the distance is ridiculous, etc, etc. I can't see this. I can't see the area where these events take place. So whether the zones are fair or not are all just hearsay to me. But if there have been actual restrictions placed on media coverage of protesters you have my support.

The best post so far!!

Wasn't it at CBC where reporters and staff were given a memo about 5 or 6 years ago to stop using the terms "terrorism", "terrorist attacks", etc? But still we don't know enough yet to say either way. So....

Hate speech and hate laws only apply to certain protected groups. And I do not complain about it because of that. I don't think it should apply to any. The only case where speech like this should be restricted is where violence is directly incited by command and that is already a criminal act without hate laws in place.

You can oppose the president on television, in literature, anywhere. No one gets their head cut off for opposing the president. People do it everyday on the internet, in the media. But let's say I am president. I am going to give a public address somewhere in your city. There are television cameras and people ready to hear my speech. There is a crowd of supporters cheering my arrival and a crowd of protestors with signs shouting slogans. Who do you think is noisier when I actually begin to give my address? Do the supporters scream like Beatle fans over my speech so that I cannot be heard and so that the cameras cannot pick up my speech? If you watch Canadian Parliament you will observe an interesting phenomenon. When a person from one party gets up to speak, people from the other parties begin to grumble and shout so that he cannot be heard. It is very annoying when you are trying to listen to a person speak. Sometimes supporters of the person speaking make a little noise, claps and the occasional "here here". But this does not override the person speaking, because supporters are not going to try to do that. So the speaker of the house rises and tells the protesting MPs to shut it, thus stifling their free speech momentarily so that an individual can make his point.

Of course not. Flags on sports products are quite common. American Flag Soccer Ball American Flag Soccer Ball Product Details: Made from patented machine stitch technology soft touch composite PU cover. Laser holographic red/white/blue material. 1-Year unconditional guarantee against all defects. Available in size 3, 4 and 5 Price: $21.99 Buy Product Online | Visit Store Home and there is a nice picture of the ball on this link http://www.soccersaurus.com/browseproducts...occer-Ball.HTML Now if they make these balls it would have to be assumed that they will expect people to be kicking them. That would include prospective radical immigrants in the US who are free to purchase one. Kicking a ball with a flag on it or shooting a hockey puck with a maple leaf on it is not usually considered to be desecration. It is very common. http://www.epier.com/store/outpostflags/Ca...ry.asp?cat=5019 So therefore, I would say that this slight (a very slight "slight" mind you) was not an intentional one. On that last link you will see an Arab World soccer ball with flags of Arab countries. Now you make the comparison to Talibaners gleefully kicking an American flag soccer ball. Well since the product exists people have to assume that someone they don't like may end up kicking the ball. And even at that your comparison is off by a thousand miles. Because Americans are not gleefully kicking the Arab ball. They gave an Arab World ball to kids from the Arab world, which would be comparable to giving an American an American flag ball.

I think that 10 per cent figure has been admitted to have been tweaked. I think that originated with the Kinsey reports, which I think are highly untrustworthy.

No, I think that analogy is stretching it, to be honest. The footballs did not have a flag plus a picture of Mohammed. The Saudi flag itself contains a quote from the Quran. I did not know this myself, since I did not even know the flag nor can I read Arabic, anyway. And as I understand it was sort of an international football with a collage of flags on it. One of them happened to be the Saudi flag. So basically you have flags on a football. One of which happens to the Saudi Flag with a quote from the Quran. I would not call this deliberate. If it were so, it would be very elaborately deliberate wouldn't it. But when something is very elaborately deliberate and so subtle, you are going to have a much harder job proving that. I don't buy it. Sorry. If you think the footballs were in bad taste, OK. But it wasn't deliberate. Rather than believe that it was some ploy to stir up chaos by having a the Saudi Flag placed on a ball with a sort of an international feel, I would just assume that maybe they were giving footballs to kids. Is that such a hard concept to accept? If the American flag was on a football/soccerball I don't think anyone would give a damn to be honest. As for provocation and being upset--mass crowds of people from some of those nations applauded 9/11. American flags have been burned and booed. Their own anthem has been booed at hockey games on our side of the border. In light of that I don't think Americans would worry about their flag being on a ball.

Inciting violence is already a crime without hate laws in place. As for defamation and slander against a group, then why only certain groups? Republicans are a group. So when someone says Republicans are stupid weasels should they be liable to an offended Republican? Hate laws are excessive. For being critical of some feminist groups and individual feminists I was called a misogynist. And alot of people in higher positions of power than I hold, think this way--whether it is over your non-support of a feminist lobby cause, or whatever. If you disagree with these people on any point you are a bigot, racist, sexist, etc. And so therefore, where American Woman places great importance upon freedom to dissent, it is important to realize that hate laws are the novel best way of silencing it. The thing is sometimes people of a certain group can be wrong. When an issue comes to a head sometimes you have to deal with it---when it affects more than the said group. So if it is bigotry to be critical of a certain group and a certain agenda they lobby for, then what you call dissent, they will call a crime. Where it may not be important to her now, she may someday realize her ideas come to a head with someone else's and they will call her a bigot for that. By the same token there are people on here who have committed defamation (by your standards) against Americans. Would it be logical to hold them legally responsible for making generalizations?

Margrace? I did not "know" this. Do you really know this?

It's called security. In Canada we have had a Prime Minister who got pied in the face. America is a much larger country in terms of population and in it's global impact. Your president needs alot of protection. Some of them have been shot. It was not so relatively long ago that someone took a pop at Reagan. You have a higher degree of free speech down there than we do in Canada. Hate speech is not simply about hate either. I understand you don't feel the need to use hate speech. I know what you mean by that. But alot of people conveniently define what hate speech is. Hate speech is not always guaged by how much you hate someone. Rather it seems to also be measured by how offended and hated a person can claim to be. And this effects politics because accusations of "hate speech" can be used to silence credible dissension.

Great post JBG.

The Saudis made a complaint to FIFA, I understand, about something similar, not to the US government. I didn't know about that either until last night. FIFA is not the big deal to North Americans that it is internationally. I'd rather watch a hockey game or a baseball game anyday. I am not saying the balls are right or wrong. I am saying I think calling it an intentional offense is a bit much. Maybe just maybe, they wanted to give out some soccerballs to some kids. Presumption of innocence???

Big difference Buffy. The balls had flags on them. Among the flags was the Saudi flag. That flag happens to have a Koranic verse on it. But it was not a religion oriented soccerball. It was more like an international ball. So it is a lot different than putting a Jesus face or even a Mohammed face on the ball. I would not have guessed that a ball with flags on it would have been offensive. I would not know what the writing was or where it came from. I would not even know it was the Saudi Flag.

No, I honestly think she wouldn't. And nor would I. A man was sued earlier this year for saying "I believe it is wrong". 1000 dollars. There was a thread here in the winter concerning the matter. He settled out of court though. But he was asked his views in an interview and he basically said "I think they should be treated like anyone else, but I am a Catholic and I believe it is not natural." He was a city counsellor in Kamloops I think. Di Cicco...something like that. Alberta Pastor Stephen Boission has had a case pending for a quite a few years now concerning a letter he wrote to a small town newspaper complaining about his tax money funding gay groups and teaching it in schools to young children. He is being sued for 5000 by a non-homosexual man who was offended. He is requiring that some of the money be sent to gay rights groups, as well.

Well if the footballs are "insensitive", that could have been an expensive mistake....the purchase of the footballs that is. I don't know how many they gave away. Did they get any back, I wonder?

That's an expensive mistake, I think.

Well, Rue, for future reference, Jesus was Jewish, so were his original followers who brought the faith to Europe. The Romans were present. The Romans flogged Him, and nailed Him up. The point of the Passion (maybe not Mel's version...I do not know) in general is not that Jews killed Jesus. Although it has been portrayed that way. But if anyone says this stuff to you, you can point out to them that Jesus was Jewish and so were his followers. The whole New Testament was written by descendants of Jacob. I think if you believe in Jesus, you have to understand that he would have met the same end anywhere else in the world. It just so happens he was an Israelite.

I didn't watch the video because it takes time for me to download them on my slow internet. I get the idea that it is a gay bashing video and to me that is irrelevant. I don't need to watch a gay bashing video to know what you are saying. Here is the thing. In order for a charge to be made a Human Rights complaint must be filed. So of course not all examples are going to end up before a tribunal. But they can. And that is the danger.

I did not watch your video CLRV. I clicked on the link, and when I saw the name I declined. You are being irrelevant. What Betsy is talking about is the freedom to profess the belief that it is a sin. I do not condone the violence that was used at the art display. And I know that pointing the finger at Muslims for being worse has nothing to do with the topic. I do not condone violence or vicious name calling or ill-treatment toward homosexuals. Yet, I do believe it is a sin. But calling it that is becoming dangerous and expensive. As for your video, judging by your tone in the short post which introduced it, I suspect that you care more about making your point than you actually do about gay people. You are using them. The "little something to cheer you up" says to me that this is more about being against Betsy and co. than it is about being for someone else.