BigGunner Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Free Speech is a constitutional right. Defaming the character of another person is not only against the law, its morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderate Centrist Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 I believe it's largely an issue of free speech and I don't believe posts of this sort are taken seriously anyway. Many of us, myself included, do not use our real names on this site. This in itself diminishes the weight of our posts. I've been responding to Alliance's posts from time to time having disagreed with him on almost every issue. However I don't believe he is promoting hatred against Gays. If someone is offended they should respond directly and then take the matter up with Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alliance Fanatic Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 Well, in my defense, I never said go out and kill gay's, I think that every single human life is of values. My comments were on Svend Robinson's character, which I can judge. Most people have concerns about Svends positions, why not judge him on his record. Bill C-250 could very well protect NAMBLA under law, while persecuting people of various religions. Why cant I attack Svend Robinson for going to a rally in support of a group that believes that September 11th was a great day in history, and believes its okay to kill jews. Why cant I attack Svend Robinson for wanting that age of consent lowered to 14, actually in one case, a 15 year old girl was forced into prostitution by a 26 year old man, who hooked her on drugs and forced her into prostitution, and she was later killed mind you. Thats why I has strong feelings on this issue, because of that girl that was killed because Svend Robinson wants to lower the age of consent, for perverts. What about that woman that he helped commit suicide. Is'nt that murder. By the way the link between NAMBLA, and ILGA is on this website, http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research322.html shut them down, their the ones who made the claim. So Big Gunner, get rid of the crush on Svend, and come to the realization that I was judging his character, and not the gay community, hell I have a relative that's gay. One question, how has Svend Robinson made other peoples lives better, here is a little advice find a new hero, maybe one that tries to get drug addicts off drugs, and prostitutes out of danger. I know alot of good gays, and I am not a homophobe, so call the police, and tell them to arrest all of the people who try to help children who are abused. Did'nt Svend Robinson defame all Christians, Stockwell Day, Preston Manning, Larry Spencer, and many others. Stop being a hypocrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGunner Posted March 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 If 'AF' wants to debate the issues, great! I can debate just about anyone on any given topic. But the behavior of AF went beyond a political disagreement - he attempted to pin Svend as pro-paedophile. That is obviously a defamitory and slanderous allegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 If 'AF' wants to debate the issues, great! I can debate just about anyone on any given topic. But the behavior of AF went beyond a political disagreement - he attempted to pin Svend as pro-paedophile. That is obviously a defamitory and slanderous allegation. I take his attacks as not against mr.robinson, but against me as well. I've made my points quite clear, and greg know's I am not pleased with this recent attack. I am still waiting for action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 I'll be blunt. I'll open up, and explain myself in full. I never had a girlfriend till I was almost 18. I never kissed, hugged, or did ANYTHING with a girl before her. Why? simple. I had that stolen from me, I had that chance, that right, robbed from me by bullies, a@@holes, and jerks, in middle school and high school. I've never had one of those "cute" little realaitonships. That's all I've ever wanted, but now, to be blunt, its a little to late for that. I am basacally, still young when it comes to sex, and sexual related activites. I know people who ARE 12 who have done more then I have. Now, while I wouldent want a life like they live, my point is still valid. I am young in experince. if I wanted to go out with someone who is 14 (and I asked a lawyer, that's legal) I dont think that any of you have the right to say no. Now personally, I probably would not go out with a 14 year old, I'd probably only go with someone about 16. In some ways, I feel like I was raped. due to some people from my past, I never lived an entire part of my life. I am sorry if I get a little angry when someone, not only tells me that I can never have that, and that they want they want to change the law to make me a lawbreaker, but that somehow I am in the wrong? somehow I am "sick"? NO. sorry. that does not fly with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alliance Fanatic Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 First of all, I dont really like Svend Robinson's version of equality, he thinks that equality means he should be allowed to do a 14 year old kid, and engage in anal intercourse, which could very well damage somebody, hey in my town I'm 16, and I know a 14 year old who is fairly good lookin, but I would never engage in a relationship because that is morally wrong, here's my philosophy half your age plus 7. I might have gone over the top with abit of my stuff, but still, alot of people detest some of the stuff that Svend Robinson does, even Pelly, at one time said that Svend Robinson should be thrown out of the New Democrats. By the way, Biggunner you do not want to debate the issues, you want all people who differ from your viewpoint to be thrown in jail, I think that if I went on to the Rabble.ca site right now their are a bunch of nuts who will say anybody right of center is evil, and should be put in a concentration camp. I actually kind of think that we should ship people on Rabble.ca over to Cuba, if they like socialism so much, they should go over their and live the dream. By the way Pelly, Biggunner, this is'nt the Soviet Union, where anybody you do not agree with is put in a work camp in Siberia, if you wanted free speech to be outlawed go to rabble.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGunner Posted March 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 First of all, I dont really like Svend Robinson's version of equality, he thinks that equality means he should be allowed to do a 14 year old kid, and engage in anal intercourse, which could very well damage somebody, hey in my town I'm 16, and I know a 14 year old who is fairly good lookin, but I would never engage in a relationship because that is morally wrong, here's my philosophy half your age plus 7.I might have gone over the top with abit of my stuff, but still, alot of people detest some of the stuff that Svend Robinson does, even Pelly, at one time said that Svend Robinson should be thrown out of the New Democrats. By the way, Biggunner you do not want to debate the issues, you want all people who differ from your viewpoint to be thrown in jail, I think that if I went on to the Rabble.ca site right now their are a bunch of nuts who will say anybody right of center is evil, and should be put in a concentration camp. I actually kind of think that we should ship people on Rabble.ca over to Cuba, if they like socialism so much, they should go over their and live the dream. By the way Pelly, Biggunner, this is'nt the Soviet Union, where anybody you do not agree with is put in a work camp in Siberia, if you wanted free speech to be outlawed go to rabble.ca No, this might not be Cuba or the USSR, but those who do break the laws in this country do have to spend time in jail...that includes, in the most extreme cases, promotion of hate literature, and extreme cases of criminal defamation of character...similiar rules apply in America too. It is because of free speech that Rabble.ca exists. ------ I'm not in total agreement with Svend on everything he has said in the past either. I also disagree with several conservative politicians too - but I have never suggested that they wish to pass laws against minorities or misrepresent their views in a way that makes them sound like demons. (your Svend/paedophelia comments) ------- If you want to discuss age of consent, thats cool. I think it should be 16. That puts me at odds with a lot of others, but I don't think that many young people that are 15 or younger have the capacity to understand and appreciate the consequences of such actions...it is heartbreaking to hear of yet another teen mom thats been abandoned by the teen dad and is forced to live in the *system*. But then, there are several adults that are equally immature about lifestyle choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seveneighty Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 So what'd he say, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 does anybody actually have any FIRST HAND information like a section of a bill, or a transcript of a speech, or some real account of some Svend Robinson promoting the abuse of small children? this whole notion of equating civil rights to gays with abuse of children is really desperate and not worthy of discussion. there is no reasonable argument to be made that canada is in danger of being dragged along into something that it doesnt want to do because some MP wants to protect free speech or something. if society changes then society does so because it chooses. MPs are not going to come to your house and make you sin. people have free choice. and AF have you considered that option that whatever legal defintion we put on the age of consent will not change society? maybe age of consent laws are not being enforced and will not be enforced? maybe the only people being prosecuted are 18 yr old boys for sleeping with 15 yr old girls by mutual consent and that is an option that is an option that canadians need to be able to change. maybe we need to discuss it and society will come to its own conclusion. and by the way the only thing on that site you link to is NAMBLA has recently caused some concern in Canada due to its connection to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). ILGA was recently given support for observer status by two Canadian delegates to the United Nations. The concern is not over the support for ILGA itself, but over its connection to NAMBLA. which is not only unqualified, but useless and vauge. this is meaningless and by no sane means shows a link from anybody to anybody. it weakens your stance to claim this stuff without backing it up, especially factual claims. and if you really want to discuss the age of consent thing, why not post the proposed bill, some stats by health canada on youth sex trends, and some figures from the fed gov on prosecution of these crimes. they are all public information i would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 just for the sake of information, this was a section of bill c-20 first reading 151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of fourteen years (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. 152. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. 153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person , and who (a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or ( for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person. (2) Section 153 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. (1.2) In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, the judge shall consider the nature and circumstances of the relationship between the person and the young person, including the following: (a) the age difference between the person and the young person; ( the evolution of the relationship; and © the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted March 8, 2004 Forum Admin Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 This is the wrong way to address the issue of freedom of speech. In the future, if anyone is going to start a new thread, please avoid singling out one particular poster. I don't particularly care if any of you agree or disagree with Alliance Fanatic's recent posts, it's not your place to consider his punishment or whether there will even be a punishment. If you find a post offensive, please use the "Report this Post" feature and I will review the post and decide whether to take action. Do not use this forum to discuss the particular posting behaviour of a fellow forum member. It is important that we all read over the rules and guidelines and remember that each one of us is responsible for the content of our messages. Greg Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts