Liberals need to move left

[segnosaur]

You see, here's the problem... the term 'incide hatred against a group' is an extremely vague term. If I said 'group X is evil', is that inciting hatred? Why or why not?

I think the law as written is well written.

Well, I have a perfect argument for that: Ezra Lavant.

A case was brought before a human rights tribunal over cartoons. Granted, this was a tribunal (not a court), and Lavant was cleared; however, the case wasted hundreds of man-hours, and cost the defence thousands of dollars. All over 'hate speech'.

If we really held the idea of 'free speech' to be so important, the courts and/or human rights tribunals would never have even bothered hearing the case.

This case involved hate speech against a religous group; rather than add yet more groups to the list who could complain, shouldn't we take steps to, you know, strengthen the concept of free speech?

I think you can say "Homos are evil and their fashion advice should be taken with a grain of salt."

But why? If I call them 'evil', is that not promoting 'hatred'? Could not someone who is imprssionable take that part of my statement (even ignoring the 'fashion advice' part) and use it to justify in their own minds that violence is OK?

If you want to ban some speech as being "hate speech", then where do you draw the line?

[normanchateau]

If you want to ban some speech as being "hate speech", then where do you draw the line?

Apparently Harper draws the line at hate speech as it refers to homosexuals. He has no problem with hate speech legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion.

[normanchateau]

Freedom of speech and of the press is paramount.

That's an argument against all hate speech legislation but Harper is not opposed to all hate speech legislation. Only that which refers to gays and lesbians. That's what makes his position despicable.

[Mr.Canada]

That's an argument against all hate speech legislation but Harper is not opposed to all hate speech legislation. Only that which refers to gays and lesbians. That's what makes his position despicable.

Why are you spamming two topics with this off topic stuff?

[segnosaur]

Apparently Harper draws the line at hate speech as it refers to homosexuals. He has no problem with hate speech legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion.

Just out of curiosity, are you psychic? How are you able to know exactly why Harper voted the way he does? Can you read his mind?

I can think of at least 4 reasons he might have opposed to bill C-250 (even if he thought hate speech was wrong)...

- He may be against all hate speech legislation (since it violates free speech). However, since there was no vote on repealing ALL hate speech legislation, his only option was to oppose making a bad law worse

- He may have felt that the wording in C-250 was inadequate. (C-250 talks about "sexual orientation"; while the assumption is that it refers to homosexuality, that word is never used in the bill, and thus some may be concerned that it might be applied to things like polygamy or pedophilia)

- He may be concerned that C-250 doesn't give enough protection to religious speech (if you read section 319, only SOME religious speech is protected, not all; the list of exemptions applies only to subsection 1, not subsection 2)

- He may have voted against C-250 because he felt his constituents would have disagreed with it. (After all, that IS the whole point to this thread, isn't it? That politicians, in order to get / maintain power, have to follow what the voters want)

Any one of those would be a logical and valid reason to vote against C-250, even if the person were opposed to hate speech in general and even anti-gay speech.

[White Doors]

The Liberals need to move left? Wow, I hope they think so as it will assure the Conservatives of another win.

Obviously they will be moving to the right if they are savvy. They used to be savvy but haven't been showing the same political instincts in the past 3-4 years, or basically since Chretien left

[Wild Bill]

Just out of curiosity, are you psychic? How are you able to know exactly why Harper voted the way he does? Can you read his mind?

<snip>

Ah, Mr. 'Saur! You must understand the "logic" of the "progressive" political mind!

First, accept the premise that anyone who doesn't share your political views must be inherently evil. The higher up the political food chain you find a particular "evil" person, the more evil they must be. Leaders of nations like Harper are obviously the most evil of all!

Once you've accepted them as evil you then can make any accusation as to their motives and character you wish. People in your own choir will be impressed! The more you put someone "evil" down the more they will raise you UP!

Don't worry about people not in your choir. By definition, they must be evil too!

No need for psychic powers! Just the strength of your self-defined moral character and the comfort of having a peer group that will automatically agree with you!

Please, just accept the poster's position as gospel! I wouldn't want to think that you have gone over to the Dark Side!

[normanchateau]

- He may have felt that the wording in C-250 was inadequate. (C-250 talks about "sexual orientation"; while the assumption is that it refers to homosexuality, that word is never used in the bill, and thus some may be concerned that it might be applied to things like polygamy or pedophilia)

I think even Stephen Harper knows how sexual orientation is defined:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ual+orientation

Perhaps you're suggesting that his less educated supporters do not know how to define terms, phrases and words. In my opinion, if uneducated Harper supporters cannot define race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other terminology employed in hate crime legislation, they should educate themselves.

[Oleg Bach]

Liberals are so far left they are facist rightist - as far as Ignatius is concerned - He is not an intellectual but simply an American trained Trotskyite - It irks me when they talk about how educated this guy is - I listen to him speak and I do not hear anything intelligent - Just rehashed acedemic psudeo intellect. Dealing with liberals in the court system all I saw was a lieing bunch of facists - and as Hitler said - "Give me control over the woman and I have the child - then the male will follow like a lonely dog" - to paraphrase - Liberals are rightists!

[normanchateau]

Any one of those would be a logical and valid reason to vote against C-250, even if the person were opposed to hate speech in general and even anti-gay speech.

And I suppose it's just a coincidence that Harper voted to prevent same sex marriage in 2005. No doubt it was also mere coincidence that in December, 2006, Harper introduced a motion designed to take away the right of marriage of those whose sexual orientation he did not approve of.

I'm sure Harper and his supporters can come up with a list of numerous reasons why he attempted, in December 2006, to take away people's right to marry. I'm confident that homophobia, religious beliefs and social conservatism will never be mentioned. It's probably a mere coincidence that he's opposed both to same sex marriage and to hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. As Harper supporters themselves acknowledge, Harper's not stupid enough to state why he actually votes the way he votes.

[segnosaur]

He may have felt that the wording in C-250 was inadequate. (C-250 talks about "sexual orientation"; while the assumption is that it refers to homosexuality, that word is never used in the bill, and thus some may be concerned that it might be applied to things like polygamy or pedophilia)

I think even Stephen Harper knows how sexual orientation is defined:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ual+orientation

Perhaps you're suggesting that his less educated supporters do not know how to define terms, phrases and words. In my opinion, if uneducated Harper supporters cannot define race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other terminology employed in hate crime legislation, they should educate themselves.

First of all, that's a medical definition, not a legal definition. (If the bill were meant to refer to only homosexuality, then why did they not use something along the line of "sexual orientation as defined by..."? would have cleared up the problem right then and there.

Secondly, keep in mind that that is not the only definition of "sexual orientation" out there. WebMD has a definition that includes body morphology and gender role. The AMA has policies that lump transgendered people in that definition.

http://dictionary.webmd.com/terms/sexual-orientation

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html

And I suppose it's just a coincidence that Harper voted to prevent same sex marriage in 2005.

I've already dealt with that issue. Opinion polls at the time showed that the majority of Canadians did not prefer the same-sex law proposed by the liberals. Most Canadians preferred either an outright ban on Marriage, or some form of recognized 'civil union' that wasn't labeled 'marriage'. At the time, the Conservative policy was closer to what the majority wanted.

Your mistake is assuming that just because you and the party you support have certain policies and beliefs that all Canadians share those beliefs. I've pointed out time and time again that many (but not all) of the policies of the conservative party are actually closer to what the majority of Canadians want (whether just policies are justified or not).

No doubt it was also mere coincidence that in December, 2006, Harper introduced a motion designed to take away the right of marriage of those whose sexual orientation he did not approve of.

First of all, if I remember correctly, the motion was not to take away the right of marriage, but to only reopen discussion on the issue. (Its splitting hairs, but some might think that distinction is important. I could be wrong on this point however).

Secondly, it was an election promise. In most cases, its considered a 'good thing' to follow through on election promises.

Lastly, this was actually several years ago. It is not a part of any conservative policy to reopen the debate on same sex marriage. Its no more relevant to bring up that last vote than it is to bring up the fact that the liberals themselves voted against same sex marriage laws back in 1999. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/international/americas/09cnd-cana.html)

[normanchateau]

First of all, if I remember correctly, the motion was not to take away the right of marriage, but to only reopen discussion on the issue. (Its splitting hairs, but some might think that distinction is important. I could be wrong on this point however).

Secondly, it was an election promise. In most cases, its considered a 'good thing' to follow through on election promises.

First of all, of course the purpose of Harper's December, 2006 motion was to take away from a significant number of Canadians their right to marry. Harper is not stupid enough to propose a motion "to take away the right to marry". Instead he called it a motion on "revisiting the traditional definition of marriage."

Secondly, yes, it's a good thing to follow through on election promises. Here's a list of Stephen Harper's broken promises:

http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

[normanchateau]

First of all, that's a medical definition, not a legal definition. (If the bill were meant to refer to only homosexuality, then why did they not use something along the line of "sexual orientation as defined by..."? would have cleared up the problem right then and there.

Secondly, keep in mind that that is not the only definition of "sexual orientation" out there. WebMD has a definition that includes body morphology and gender role. The AMA has policies that lump transgendered people in that definition.

First of all, what evidence do you have that the legal definition of sexual orientation is inconsistent with the medical definition? If you have such evidence, please present it. Do you seriously believe that pedophilia is part of either the medical or any legal definition of sexual orientation? That's what you suggested in a previous post.

Secondly, how would including transgendered people in a medical definition of sexual orientation change my interpretation of Harper's opposition to C-250? You aren't seriously suggesting that Harper opposed making it a hate crime to advocate the murder of homosexuals because he felt that it would inadvertently take away his right to advocate the murder of transsexuals. Or are you?

[Mr.Canada]

First of all, what evidence do you have that the legal definition of sexual orientation is inconsistent with the medical definition? If you have such evidence, please present it. Do you seriously believe that pedophilia is part of either the medical or any legal definition of sexual orientation? That's what you suggested in a previous post.

Secondly, how would including transgendered people in a medical definition of sexual orientation change my interpretation of Harper's opposition to C-250? You aren't seriously suggesting that Harper opposed making it a hate crime to advocate the murder of homosexuals because he felt that it would inadvertently take away his right to advocate the murder of transsexuals. Or are you?

Why are you spamming two topics with this off topic stuff?

I don't believe that you listen to anyone else. Why not go back to Rabble.ca if you aren't prepared to listen, that's how they behave over there.

The language in this bill was dangerous and not at all clear and concise. It left far too many loopholes and compromised freedom of speech. The majority of Canada doesn't care about this and think that there are far more productive things the government can be doing than worrying about what 5,000 gay people think of it in a country of 35 million.

Just because the gays, the "poor" and the teachers cry the most and the loudest doesn't mean that they are the most important. There are many more of the silent majority than there are of your kind you should hope that we never decide to protest.

EDIT- If the bill would have just said, Include gays in the hate laws, it would have passed but it didn't. It contained dangerous language. BTW there were only 99 Tories in the house at that point so who else voted it down? Go and make a post about that as well please. Our PM Mr. Harper is one vote. He certainly couldn't veto the bill all by himself. He wasn't even PM at the time.

Edited October 31, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[segnosaur]

First of all, what evidence do you have that the legal definition of sexual orientation is inconsistent with the medical definition?

I do not have any evidence that it is either consistent or inconsistent. But here's the thing.... neither do you.

That is the issue... A law should, when necessary, be as unambiguous as possible. There is no guarantee that any court in the future will rule the way you want. Personally, I want judges to actually, you know, interpret the law rather than giving them the ability to make up whatever they feel like because our MPs were too lazy to actually write in "sexual orientation=gayness" on the bill somwhere.

Do you seriously believe that pedophilia is part of either the medical or any legal definition of sexual orientation? That's what you suggested in a previous post.

The definition of 'sexual orientation' from WebMD included the concept of "morphology" (body form) in their definition of sexual orientation. Morphology (or "Form") is another term that is not perfectly defined, but most people would argue that children have a different body shape/form than adults.

Is it a serious concern? Probably not. But the thing is, the concern is not non-existant, and I don't want even a tiny chance that the bill will be mis-applied. (Heck, I don't even want to see any legal challenge, even if such a legal challenge ends in failure, if its going to waste the court's time.)

Secondly, how would including transgendered people in a medical definition of sexual orientation change my interpretation of Harper's opposition to C-250?

The reason I included transgendered people is to show that your initial definition (that sexual orientation was only about hetro vs. homosexual) was not universally accepted.

Frankly, I find it rather pathetic that you would spend so much time and effort picking on this particular issue. Even if you did not think there was a problem with the use of the phrase "sexual orientation", I gave several other reasons why someone would be opposed to C-250, even if they weren't anti-gay.

And of course, its getting way off topic from the original topic of the thread and my arguments: That the conservative policies are often closer to the ideals of the "average Canadian" than the parties on the political left. and that its not really necessary for either the Liberals or the Conservatives to move to the left of the political spectrum to gain support.

Edited October 31, 2008 by segnosaur

[normanchateau]

Frankly, I find it rather pathetic that you would spend so much time and effort picking on this particular issue.

And I find it pathetic that you ignored this other issue:

First of all, of course the purpose of Harper's December, 2006 motion was to take away from a significant number of Canadians their right to marry. Harper is not stupid enough to propose a motion "to take away the right to marry". Instead he called it a motion on "revisiting the traditional definition of marriage."

Secondly, yes, it's a good thing to follow through on election promises. Here's a list of Stephen Harper's broken promises:

http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

[segnosaur]

And I find it pathetic that you ignored this other issue:

First of all, of course the purpose of Harper's December, 2006 motion was to take away from a significant number of Canadians their right to marry. Harper is not stupid enough to propose a motion "to take away the right to marry". Instead he called it a motion on "revisiting the traditional definition of marriage."

Ah, I get it...

So, even though the motion that he introduced said something, you are pretending it meant something else. Brilliant. So, just how psychic are you?

And I didn't ignore the issue... I already pointed out that, even though the Conservatives did initially vote against the same sex marriage law, at this point in time they have no plans to reintroduce the issue. Its no more relevant to bring up the topic than it is to bring up the fact that the Liberals themselves voted against same sex marriage less than a decade ago.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever vote for the Liberals prior to 2005? (Can't remember if you ever expressed any political affiliations in the past...) If you did vote for either Martin or Chretien's Liberals prior to that part, do you consider yourself a hypocrite?

Secondly, yes, it's a good thing to follow through on election promises. Here's a list of Stephen Harper's broken promises:

http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

You know, I could respond to this by pointing out tha no political party is perfect, and that the Liberal's record of broken promises was more severe than that of the Conservatives. Or I could point out that many of the items in that list of 'broken promises' are factually inaccurate, and that many 'broken promises' were the result of unexpected changes in the economy.

But I won't. Why? Because I recognize that you posted this for one reason... you lost the argument.

I pointed out that the conservative's social policies were not really far outside of what mainstream Canada supports. Instead of dealing with that, your only recourse is to post this list, like it somehow magically makes people forget that you were unable to actually deal with the actual issue that this thread was supposed to discuss.

If you want to discuss broken promises, why don't you start another thread? Rather than highlight your ignorance over the topic of discussion here, you can go and post whatever lists you like in that other thread.