The Treatment of Linda Gibbons

[kimmy]

In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

I think most people would assume "color" refers to "visible minority." I don't think "whites" are "distinguished by color."

In theory white people are an identifiable group. In practice, probably not so much.

However, I'm not really aware of a big anti-white hate-propaganda problem in this country anyway.

-k

[Scotty]

Regardless of your opinions of abortion, this story should make you sick.

This kind of travesty defies all forms of logic.

who ordered the arrest after Gibbons did not respond to their requests to obey the injunction and leave the area.

I rarely feel sympathy for grossly stupid people.

[Guest American Woman]

In theory white people are an identifiable group. In practice, probably not so much.

I was speaking in terms of "practice." If everyone is covered under the law, seems to me it would be clearer to have a law against inciting hate. Period. But I have to wonder if it would be considered against the law to incite hate against white supremacy groups, for example.

[Shwa]

I was speaking in terms of "practice." If everyone is covered under the law, seems to me it would be clearer to have a law against inciting hate. Period.

No it wouldn't.

But I have to wonder if it would be considered against the law to incite hate against white supremacy groups, for example.

Well it wouldn't fall under section 318, genocide, but it could be considered under section 319:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty...

[kimmy]

I was speaking in terms of "practice." If everyone is covered under the law, seems to me it would be clearer to have a law against inciting hate. Period. But I have to wonder if it would be considered against the law to incite hate against white supremacy groups, for example.

I think prohibiting the incitement of hate, period, would be far too broad. It could have made (for example) the social media websites that outed Vancouver rioters illegal. I don't think inciting hate against serial killers or gangsters or rapists or white supremacists should be illegal. If those people don't like being hated, they should stop rioting, killing people, shooting up Surrey, raping people, and marching around in white sheets (respectively). Hating people based on who they are is wrong; hating people based on what they do isn't.

I think enumerating race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation makes it clear that the law is intended to prevent people from being hated for their inalterable characteristics.

When I expressed skepticism that white people would be covered "in practice", I simply meant that I think the law would not be nearly as vigilant in enforcing these rules if the target of the alleged hate were not some group perceived to be a persecuted minority.

-k

[Bonam]

I think enumerating race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation makes it clear that the law is intended to prevent people from being hated for their inalterable characteristics.

Small point... since when is religion an "inalterable characteristic"?

When I expressed skepticism that white people would be covered "in practice", I simply meant that I think the law would not be nearly as vigilant in enforcing these rules if the target of the alleged hate were not some group perceived to be a persecuted minority.

I am equally skeptical.

[Guest American Woman]

I think enumerating race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation makes it clear that the law is intended to prevent people from being hated for their inalterable characteristics.

Yet the law says "identifiable groups," it doesn't specify "inalterable characteristics," and some may find some sects of Islam's unequal treatment of women (or worse), for example, as distasteful as white supremacy groups - while there are some who would only find one or the other distasteful. So who determines what "identifiable groups" are to be protected and which ones aren't?

When I expressed skepticism that white people would be covered "in practice", I simply meant that I think the law would not be nearly as vigilant in enforcing these rules if the target of the alleged hate were not some group perceived to be a persecuted minority.

I doubt if "hatred of whites" would ever be a consideration, yet I do believe it exists on some levels - which was my point.

[pinko]

If you're a white heterosexual male, you can't get one (except by changing one or more of those basic attributes). Otherwise, you're automatically "certified".

You need a violin to accompany your perceived victimhood.

[kimmy]

Small point... since when is religion an "inalterable characteristic"?

Poor choice of words on my part, maybe, but I think the idea is clear enough. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in Canada, and one shouldn't have to change their religion to escape hatred.

Yet the law says "identifiable groups," it doesn't specify "inalterable characteristics," and some may find some sects of Islam's unequal treatment of women (or worse), for example, as distasteful as white supremacy groups - while there are some who would only find one or the other distasteful. So who determines what "identifiable groups" are to be protected and which ones aren't?

The meaning of "identifiable groups" is clarified in the law itself:

In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

"White" is a color or a race. Islam is a religion. White supremacist beliefs aren't covered by any of it.

As for whether the law actually gets enforced, that's kind of up to the people doing the enforcing.

I doubt if "hatred of whites" would ever be a consideration, yet I do believe it exists on some levels - which was my point.

I don't disagree. If a minority is victimized by a white person, people are quick to claim hate. If the situation is reversed, people attempt to rationalize it in some other terms.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

The meaning of "identifiable groups" is clarified in the law itself:

In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

"White" is a color or a race. Islam is a religion. White supremacist beliefs aren't covered by any of it.

Yet we have The World Church of the Creator - a Religion Based on White Supremacy, which would - or wouldn't? - be protected .......

I just think it's pretty ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

[Shwa]

Yet the law says "identifiable groups," it doesn't specify "inalterable characteristics," and some may find some sects of Islam's unequal treatment of women (or worse), for example, as distasteful as white supremacy groups - while there are some who would only find one or the other distasteful. So who determines what "identifiable groups" are to be protected and which ones aren't?

Judges.

I doubt if "hatred of whites" would ever be a consideration, yet I do believe it exists on some levels - which was my point

.

So long as it doesn't exist on the level of a public forum in a wilful way, there is no problem hating on whitey... or darkie, or chickie or ... {fill in the blank}

[Oleg Bach]

Regardless of your opinions of abortion, this story should make you sick.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/linda-gibbons-arrested-for-silent-witness-outside-toronto-abortion-mill/

In a country where people on the left protest on the drop of a hat, sometimes violently, this lady quietly protests what she believes is the evil of abortion, and she's labelled a criminal.

It's actually offensive to all my sensibilities. If she was screaming at people going into these clinics and threatening them, well that's one thing. But she just stands there with a sign and she's been in jail more than some murderers in this country.

This kind of travesty defies all forms of logic.

There is some strange and nasty feminist eccetric judge who is probably a delluded Trostkite - who never got over the idealism of leftist thinking - that they were exposed to in univeristy ....sits and in sheer spite and who holds a plain mean spirited position on woman's rights has lost sight of the big picture which is human rights - to hold this poor woman for technical reasons and not for moral ones smacks of evil in high places - whether you are pro-choice or not.

[Oleg Bach]

There is some strange and nasty feminist eccetric judge who is probably a delluded Trostkite - who never got over the idealism of leftist thinking - that they were exposed to in univeristy ....sits and in sheer spite and who holds a plain mean spirited position on woman's rights has lost sight of the big picture which is human rights - to hold this poor woman for technical reasons and not for moral ones smacks of evil in high places - whether you are pro-choice or not.

If abortion is evil or not evil - this proves that the support of abortion for political reasons is pure evil.

[Oleg Bach]

For sure there are a few power crazed single old ladies sitting on the bench that ...are assisted by men sitting on the bench who dispise real and good woman...It is the forces of evil in high places that keep Linda Gibbons confined - because she is good and they are bad..simple as that.

[bloodyminded]

I doubt if "hatred of whites" would ever be a consideration, yet I do believe it exists on some levels - which was my point.

Again: hatred of whites--or anyone else--is not even faintly illegal. The issue is one of behaviour, not of feelings and inclinations.

Personally, I think the HRC's are outrageous, an awful idea.

But they're not particularly selective.

Hell, even Mark Steyn--who was forced to face this ridiculous thing personally--has repeatedly made this point. They're "fair," albeit within a sort of lunatic framework of statism.

Edited August 29, 2011 by bloodyminded