Ekos Pollster Biased?

[Argus]

On the issue of C-250, however, a majority of Liberals voted to make it a hate crime to promote the murder of homosexuals on all readings of the Bill.

It does indeed make it a hate crime to promote murder. But it also makes it a crime to "incite hatred" and leaves it entirely up to a judge as to what constitutes that. Furthermore, there is no protection for churches or people reading from religious texts.

Here is a legal opinion which states as much.

At least one judicial decision in Canada (Owens v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission), (2002) 228 Sask.R. 148 (Sask. Q.B.) ) has held that certain passages in the Bible expose homosexuals to hatred. There is no reason to believe any parallel passages in the Koran the works of Buddha or any Hindu writings would not be similarly characterized. Bill C-250 will give activists the power to enter a religious service with a recording device and effect the arrest of a religious speaker who is speaking about the moral aspects of homosexuality.

Criminal Code Amendment C-250

[ToadBrother]

It does indeed make it a hate crime to promote murder. But it also makes it a crime to "incite hatred" and leaves it entirely up to a judge as to what constitutes that. Furthermore, there is no protection for churches or people reading from religious texts.

Here is a legal opinion which states as much.

At least one judicial decision in Canada (Owens v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission), (2002) 228 Sask.R. 148 (Sask. Q.B.) ) has held that certain passages in the Bible expose homosexuals to hatred. There is no reason to believe any parallel passages in the Koran the works of Buddha or any Hindu writings would not be similarly characterized. Bill C-250 will give activists the power to enter a religious service with a recording device and effect the arrest of a religious speaker who is speaking about the moral aspects of homosexuality.

Criminal Code Amendment C-250

I'd like first of all to say that I don't particularly like hate crime legislation. That being said, I doubt very much reading from the book of Romans alone would end you up in the dock. It would seem the threshold would be considerably higher than that. But if you have some case law to cite that shows simply reading from passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality can end you up in a world of legal pain, please do so.

Now, if you're doing so while preaching some raging anti-homosexual invective along the lines of demanding the death of homosexuals, it's quite possible you could. Mind you under the old Common Law notions of conspiracy or incitement, you could still be charged anyways. I mean, Non-comformists were imprisoned in Elizabethan and Stuart England for spouting Scripture. It wasn't so much that they were reading passages from the Bible, it was the context in which they were read.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd like first of all to say that I don't particularly like hate crime legislation. That being said, I doubt very much reading from the book of Romans alone would end you up in the dock.

There was an HRC case, as I remember, where somebody published a passage from Leviticus wherein death was prescribed and the defendant was found to be in the wrong.

[ToadBrother]

There was an HRC case, as I remember, where somebody published a passage from Leviticus wherein death was prescribed and the defendant was found to be in the wrong.

There really isn't enough detail here to convince me that simply reading some of those nasty passages from the Bible, in and of themselves, would lead to charges. The HRCs, of course, are dubious exercises at best, but I'm thinking more criminal proceedings here. As I said, long before the invention of HRCs or hate crimes legislation, one could easily envision contexts in which reading from the Bible could have lead to charges.

[Argus]

There really isn't enough detail here to convince me that simply reading some of those nasty passages from the Bible, in and of themselves, would lead to charges.

You have a legal opinion which says that it is entirely possible that a priest or rabbi could be arrested for reading their religious texts in their church/temple. That would seem to mean it is entirely possible. That same legal opinion basically stated the law adds no value or protection - that it is, in effect, nothing more than a political demonstration by craven politicians eager to curry favour with the gay community and show how liberal they are.

Given my own distaste for laws of this nature I see no reason why anyone of moral substance or integrity would vote for this law.

[Michael Hardner]

You have a legal opinion which says that it is entirely possible that a priest or rabbi could be arrested for reading their religious texts in their church/temple. That would seem to mean it is entirely possible. ...

'legally possible' is such a tentative term. I am wary of scare-mongering, and too many "what if" scenarios. This phenomenon happens on all sides of the political spectrum, too: I remember the scare-mongering that went up at the time of of NAFTA - and Ross Perot predicting millions of jobs lost.

Given that the courts have already interpreted "groups" to include sexual orientation, I don't see what this would change - other than to formally recognize that group.

[ToadBrother]

You have a legal opinion which says that it is entirely possible that a priest or rabbi could be arrested for reading their religious texts in their church/temple. That would seem to mean it is entirely possible. That same legal opinion basically stated the law adds no value or protection - that it is, in effect, nothing more than a political demonstration by craven politicians eager to curry favour with the gay community and show how liberal they are.

Given my own distaste for laws of this nature I see no reason why anyone of moral substance or integrity would vote for this law.

We have a pretty empty legal opinion, to my mind. Given how our system worked even fifty or sixty years ago, there was still the potential for charges for reading Bible passages, depending on the context. I don't actually believe that simply reading passages from a holy book could lead to charges. I could well imagine, for instance, reading St. Paul's condemnation of homosexuality as a means of incitement could lead to charges, or of reading passages out of the Koran dealing with Jihad to a bunch of guys about to strap nail bombs to their bodies could lead to charges. Again, as with all things in law, it's as much about context and intent. A preacher simply saying "Homosexuality is wrong" and then reading Romans 1:27 isn't going to be charged, under current laws or the old way of dealing with incitement.

[Wild Bill]

We have a pretty empty legal opinion, to my mind. Given how our system worked even fifty or sixty years ago, there was still the potential for charges for reading Bible passages, depending on the context. I don't actually believe that simply reading passages from a holy book could lead to charges. I could well imagine, for instance, reading St. Paul's condemnation of homosexuality as a means of incitement could lead to charges, or of reading passages out of the Koran dealing with Jihad to a bunch of guys about to strap nail bombs to their bodies could lead to charges. Again, as with all things in law, it's as much about context and intent. A preacher simply saying "Homosexuality is wrong" and then reading Romans 1:27 isn't going to be charged, under current laws or the old way of dealing with incitement.

I disagree, TB. You're right if you read the present legal situation literally but in the real world I don't have any confidence that's the way things would work.

When Harper's gay marriage Bill was being debated we heard talking head after talking head in the MSM telling us it would NOT mean that any priest or minister would be FORCED to marry a gay couple against his or her own personal values! Scarcely had gay marriage become legal when one gay couple DID take issue against being refused a wedding at their local church of choice! I haven't heard how it worked out but the minister involved was liable to be brought before a Human Rights Commission.

This sort of social engineering works by "gradualism". Lobbyists will say or do anything to get their next step passed into law. Once that is achieved, all the former rhetoric seems to get forgotten. To be fair, in this case gays are all individuals and cannot be expected to act as some sort of group or organization. Once set of individuals may get gay marriage passed. Another gay couple with no connection to the first may want a church wedding and is perfectly willing to bring a priest who will not comply up on charges.

When such a thing happens, the media doesn't remind everyone that the promise was made to never put a religious figure in such a position. That doesn't sell papers and besides, it makes the gays look like the bad guys. That's not politically correct. Instead, the issue becomes one of that church's stand on gay marriage being simply homophobic and should not be allowed!

That's just human nature! It's also human nature to move too fast towards such goals. Look what just happened with McGuinty backtracking on his new sex-ed curricula for Ontario schools. If you read into it you immediately see that it was the product of some gay and lesbian activists. That in itself is not necessarily a problem but they tried to use their political power to achieve to much at once and provoked a backlash among mainstream parents and Ontarioans. If they had have taken smaller steps at a slower pace they may well have eventually achieved their goals. Now they have done it to themselves, putting themselves back at least 5-10 years.

Laws are one thing. Human nature is quite another.

[ToadBrother]

I disagree, TB. You're right if you read the present legal situation literally but in the real world I don't have any confidence that's the way things would work.

Oh come on. If a preacher was charged for reading a sermon about the evils of homosexuality and reading passages like Romans 1:27, he isn't going to be charged. Since I suspect that in any number of more socially conservative churches this kind of sermon is probably heard at least a few times a year, the fact that no one has been charged speaks volumes.

I'm not defending hate legislation, mainly because I feel that it duplicates remedies the Crown has long had against speech that constitutes incitement. I still think that some guy holding a Bible up, spouting off passages from Leviticus and Romans and telling the listeners to go beat up homosexuals should be charged, but inciting a mob to violence has long been a serious offense.

This is nothing more than a FUD legal opinion, designed explicitly as a worst case scenario and then foisted on us as a likely scenario. It's hyperbolic and very much unlikely. I think, even if the hypothetical preacher waving around questionable Biblical passages, or heck even some Mullah preaching against all us non-Muslims using the Koran, the Charter would very much protect them, and the onus would be on the Crown, even with our hate laws, to demonstrate intent to incite.

As to the rest of your post, just how many red herrings do you think it takes to fill an empty argument?

Edited April 27, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

Oh come on. If a preacher was charged for reading a sermon about the evils of homosexuality and reading passages like Romans 1:27, he isn't going to be charged.

Why? He's inciting hatred against homosexuals in a public place. On what basis do you state he would not be charged?

I can distantly recall when obscenity legislation was being passed years back. Detractors claimed it was so broad and sweeping it would allow art galleries to be raided and artists arrested. Of course, the people who were supporting the bill - liberals and feminists - ridiculed that claim. The very first prosecution under the legislation was a gallery owner. The second was a feminist book store.

[ToadBrother]

Why? He's inciting hatred against homosexuals in a public place. On what basis do you state he would not be charged?

I can distantly recall when obscenity legislation was being passed years back. Detractors claimed it was so broad and sweeping it would allow art galleries to be raided and artists arrested. Of course, the people who were supporting the bill - liberals and feminists - ridiculed that claim. The very first prosecution under the legislation was a gallery owner. The second was a feminist book store.

He wouldn't be charged because it would be all but impossible for the Crown to prove intent to incite hatred. I have no idea why you're pressing the point. You know as well as I do that the Crown isn't crazy enough to try to give the go-ahead, and that a Charter challenge on something like this couldn't end in any other way than acquittal. This is simply a sort of hyperbolic rhetoric, coupled with red herrings like "I vaguely remember obscenity charges..."

[normanchateau]

Oh come on. If a preacher was charged for reading a sermon about the evils of homosexuality and reading passages like Romans 1:27, he isn't going to be charged.

You are correct. Bill C-250 adds to the present definition of an "identifiable group" by including any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation. It further adds to section 319(3) b - of the Criminal Code (the "Code") by providing for the defence of expressing an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.

Section 319 - Public incitement of hatred

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

b - if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.

Thanks to the amendment to Section 319, the Bible, the Koran and other religious texts are free to continue to promote hatred towards homosexuals, people of other races, people of other religions and other identifiable groups.

Edited April 28, 2010 by normanchateau

[Dave_ON]

When such a thing happens, the media doesn't remind everyone that the promise was made to never put a religious figure in such a position. That doesn't sell papers and besides, it makes the gays look like the bad guys. That's not politically correct. Instead, the issue becomes one of that church's stand on gay marriage being simply homophobic and should not be allowed!

The major issue with the whole gay marriage debate is that it shouldn't have been a debate to begin with. What we have is an institution that as far as the state is concerned is purely a legal matter. As with all things legal, morality and by proxy religion, should never really enter into the equation. Religion has no place in civil law in a secular society.

For the record, being gay myself, I would never choose to get married in a church. Nor would 99% of the other gays I know. Not to mention the fact that there are more than enough gay friendly churches out there that are more than willing to perform these ceremonies if the couple feels the need to have a religious wedding.

Ontarioans.

What is the proper term for folks from Ontario? Ontarioans doesn't roll off the tongue. Ontarians? Ontarioites? Ontariogonians?

[bloodyminded]

The major issue with the whole gay marriage debate is that it shouldn't have been a debate to begin with. What we have is an institution that as far as the state is concerned is purely a legal matter. As with all things legal, morality and by proxy religion, should never really enter into the equation. Religion has no place in civil law in a secular society.

For the record, being gay myself, I would never choose to get married in a church. Nor would 99% of the other gays I know. Not to mention the fact that there are more than enough gay friendly churches out there that are more than willing to perform these ceremonies if the couple feels the need to have a religious wedding.

I hear you, in large part because I have a gay family member who feels a little ambivalent about the whole matter for similar reasons. (As well as, unrelated, that she simply doesn't care much about marriage.)

But I think one of the primary reasons it became such a debate issue was the largely unspoken but always very-much-implied desire--among gays and those who support their rights--for a society-wide normalization of homosexuality.

Which, in my opinion, is on its way. And same-sex marriage might aid in this, for what it's worth.

Edited April 29, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Paul Desbiens]

          Frank GRAVES the president of EKOS Research has showed his unabashed totally biased opinion of Pierre Poilievre. How can the President of a supposedly objective polling company have any credibility when displaying such deep seated distaste for an incumbent candidate of a Political Party. I guess it is possible but I would not trust a thing coming out of EKOS. Here Poilievre has not even won the Conservative Leadership and Graves is already on the attack calling him a populist and dictating that he will never lead the country. He has shown that by his rabid leftist opinions that the results of his polling is suspect. If he and his company want to be trusted he should keep his big mouth shut. Most people are not interested in his venom and just want information they read and hear about to be trustworthy. I have no faith or interest in reading about the results of his polls because I can’t trust them.

[Nefarious Banana]