jefferiah

I dont think Drea's analogy was on the money at all. I certainly dont think it is fair to say he is saying that he feels homosexuals are the scum of the earth. I am familiar with the mindset Michael Coren speaks for, it is my own mindset. I do not think homosexuals are the scum of the earth. And I do think of it as more like an addiction to a bad behaviour. When you've realized there are no grounds against a man speaking his opinion, your next course of action is to put words in his mouth and say well he meant disease as if to say "homosexuals are scum" and equate it with racist hate speeches. I know what I think, and I think Coren and DiCicco are of the same school. I cant prove it, but I am sure of it. So if I am asked my opinion on homosexuality and I say that I think they should be treated like anyone else and be given jobs, etc, but that I feel it is a sin and I do not condone it-----do you think I should have to pay 1000 dollars to every homosexual who does not like my opinion?

I dont think his use of disease was from a hate perspective either. And in any case no one needs to charge him 1000 dollars for voicing his own opinion just because it is not your opinion Catch Me.

My comparison would be the Catholic Church with the Czar, not with Communism.

I know people who believe smoking is wrong, but they don't hate smokers. I know people who believe drinking under age is wrong, but they dont think their children are scum of the earth when they catch them. Saying you believe something is wrong is a far far cry from hating someone.

Now look here Drea. This guy says he believes homosexuals should have rights, that they are people, that they can be good people, but he believes personally it is immoral. There is little in that to be compared with spewing out "Homosexuals are scum of the Earth." Be realistic. While you may not agree with his view of homosexuality being sinful, he seems like a person who honestly sympathizes with people he views as having a problem. The same way we could sympathize with anyone struggling with any sort of weakness (mind you I am using this from his point of view, since I know you dont think of it as that). You have to admit there is a huge, huge difference in that. In the case I mentioned earlier of the Alberta Pastor who was put before a Human Rights Tribunal for a some letters to an editorial, even homosexuals came out in his support. Those who met with him found he was very friendly and not the sort that looks upon himself as better than others. They felt (even though they may have not agreed with him, or maybe they had) that he was genuinely concerned about homosexuals and was not preaching his message from a standpoint of hatred. Given the words Michael Coren used (as I am not completely sure about DiCicco's) there is nothing there to be equated with "Homosexuals are scum of the Earth." Be reasonable.

My point is that you righties can't whine about how expression rights are being trampled because the right never got tested in this case. The topic of the complaint should be about how expensive it is for the non-wealthy to access justice. The only whining here Figleaf comes from two people who feel the need to whine for 1000 bucks cuz they dont like another fellow's opinions.

Drea, the sentiment was that he felt homosexuality was a sin because he is a Catholic. He never said anything about them being the scum of the Earth. I have had weaknesses for things the Church calls sins as well. I am glad that there are people who dissent in life, and profess a moral standard beyond the law. I am sure DiCicco is aware that his church believes that everyone is a sinner----so he never called homosexuals scum of the earth. The term disease is a term we use for alcoholics, gamblers, etc----and we probably all have a disease of some variety----that doesn't mean he is calling them scum of the Earth. Today I saw an ad on TV about a guy in a supermarket meeting a guy with aids and telling him "well you are a fairy and you deserved it". That is pretty rude. But the thing is believing homosexuality is a sin does not mean you think like that guy.

What difference does it make if he is a public figure or a some joe working at a hot dog stand? Do not public figures have opinions Drea? Are they not allowed to say what they think? I'll tell you right now, I think homosexual acts are sins-----do I now owe 1000s of dollars?

Why Drea? Why cant a person say what he thinks? You keep saying its none of his business. Well he is not stopping people from being gay. When a man gets charged 1000 dollars for voicing his opinion that is when someone is barging in on someone else's business. What business is it of yours to say this man owe's 1000 for voicing what he believes? You are not far off from legislating what opinions a man is allowed to have.

Figleaf you know what Kimmy said is true. What difference does it make what he said. He said it in an interview and a homosexual couple charges him 1000 for their own personal offense. Come off it, Man. Have some bloody sense.

Drea you are not even making a point. Why should a guy have to pay a thousand bucks for saying he thinks homosexuality is a disease?

What difference does it make? If a guy cant say he think homosexuality is abnormal what kind of freedom do we have. I mean you can debate whether or not its natural all you want, no one has to accept your view, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, why cant this guy have his. He never promoted violence or incited any riot. He just said what he thought. What is wrong with that?

The Pope isnt forcing anyone to follow the Bible though, Slavik. He is just saying what he believes, which is what we all do on here. He doesn't sound frantic at all. I dont think he was running around like a rabbit with a vest on, grasping at his pocket watch saying "Dear Me, I'm late, I'm late."

There's a tension in the lives of public servants between voting or speaking what you believe and voting the will of the majority of a political district. Representatives who stray too far from the view of their constituents risk not being re-elected. Anyhow... I am gay and think this guy should be allowed to speak his mind. If he opens his mouth, he might just prove to all that he's an ignoramus. Or he might educate. I'm also an American and sometimes wonder what it is about Canadians that they have to legislate away offensiveness. Are you all so fragile and victimized that you need to construct some legal framework that keeps your ears free from offense? Wasn't it a Canadian who said something like if you aren't occasionally offended you aren't living in a free society? Thank You Liam, you show yourself to be a man of respect.

What exactly is your gain??? My gain?

Also there was the case of the lesbian couple who were denied a Knights of Columbus Hall for their reception. The Knights of Columbus did not attack them. They did not prevent them from being able to get jobs. They said no, sorry we cant allow this here it is against our faith. We do not want to be party to this union. But they were charged. Now to me, I think either these females were completely ignorant, or they have a complete lack of respect. I would not go to a synagogue and say Rabbi, either you allow me to hold a ham dinner here or else I will have you charged for discrimination against those of the pork-eating orientation. Just because the Church does not condone things does not mean they are discriminating against people.

The Human Rights Commission are not always the most logical bunch. An Alberta Pastor was brought before a human rights tribunal a few years back for writing a letter to the editor of a Red Deer newspaper which called homosexuality "immoral and dangerous". He never said homosexuals should be whipped, and tarred and feathered. He just expressed his belief that it was wrong. A professor at the Uni of Calgary brought the complaint against him. He was faced with fines of a few thousand to the professor (for his pain I guess), and also some of his money was to go to a gay rights org. I am not exactly sure of what happened in that case as I have not heard of it for a long time, but even homosexuals came out in support of the Pastor. Those who met with him agreed that he was not vindictive towards homosexuals or hateful, but simply that he believed it was wrong and that he was concerned for them.

Politicians are not paid to spout their own beliefs, and have them stand for anything, they are there too respresent the voters who are from ALL walks of life. Their comments should be within the contextual laws of the land and not as a platform from their own bigoted belief system. Don't imagine he campaigned upon "I hate homosexuals" now did he? Parliamentary priviledge does NOT extend to bigotry, nor the breaking of any of the Laws of the Land such as making bigoted, sexist or racist comments, actually kimmi. He is accountable to the Human Rights Commission, they up hold the laws of the land in breaches of HUMAN RIGHTS kimmi. Even if his whole voting district were bigots, that does not give him the right to breach the laws of the land by expressing bigoted personal opinion. The voters would be in the wrong as well if they wanted him to. A politicians duty is to adhere to the Laws of the Land, in ALL areas, and represent ALL voter demographics NOT a select few and to act upon the mandate as expressed in their campaign. Saying that he believes homosexuality is a disease does not mean he hates them. People think alcoholism is a disease, or gambling. Does that mean we hate them? He never breached a Human Right. He is not stopping people from being gay. The only right being breached was his right to express his opinion on the matter.

And when someone decides you are garbage, Frogs?

Wow Kimmy!!

Ill point to the abortion argument in this case. I am not in favour of abortion, but I also realize that there are cases where women's lives are in danger. I would not disown someone who had an abortion, but if someone was going to ask me whether I condone it or not, I would say no. I dont think it is right. You can distinguish between this and bombing a clinic or some sniper shooting a doctor. Believing that something is wrong does not mean you hate that person. You dont have to condone everything everyone does or says to be friends with them. Do any anti-smokers have friends who smoke?

Good point J. It would be nice to see more of the details of the case. Nonetheless the gist of Michael Coren's message that believing something is immoral should not be a hate crime is one I completely agree with. There is a distinction between believing something is wrong and wanting to inflict harm on those who do it.

I agree with Coren's article.

Yes. He should have the right to say that. He has a mouth, Sir, and you dont get to decide what comes out of it. He is not inciting violence against homosexuals because he says they should be treated like anyone else, but that he views it as something which is not moral. A lot of people see things as not being moral. It does not mean they will raise up a militant movement to combat that which they see as immoral. Now while you may not agree with his morality, I dont see why he should not have the right to profess what he believes.

because* not become----sorry