Criticizing religion.

[taxme]

I've literally never heard anyone say one demeaning or mocking thing about Islam ever. It's only Christianity that gets that treatment.

Nor Judaism or Sikhism ever get mocked. But blame that on Christians who lack any guts to stand up to the attacks. They will take a slap on one cheek, and then turn their face around and tell whomever to go slap this side. They deserve the mocking they get from Hollywood and the media.

[Guest]

Nor Judaism or Sikhism ever get mocked. But blame that on Christians who lack any guts to stand up to the attacks. They will take a slap on one cheek, and then turn their face around and tell whomever to go slap this side. They deserve the mocking they get from Hollywood and the media.

That's the whole point, isn't it? The slapping and the turning thing?

[msj]

The Charter of Rights can be manipulated anyway the government or lawyers want too, to suit their purpose. If they want you bad enough, they will get you. They can make a mountain out of a mole hill. The game is rigged, folks. The COR protects minorities at the expense of the majority. #3 means nothing as far as I am concerned.

Not sure what you are getting at.

Section 296 is rarely used because it's a stupid law.

Even if a person is being asinine about it, one should have the right to say "stupid" things about Jesus, Mohammd or any other high mucky muck that they want.

It's a BS law that has been on the books from a time when too many people were indoctrinated into believing stupid things like virgin births, turning water into wine miracles, prophets rising up on a winged horse etc.....

Why should the CoR protect a Christian from hearing an obnoxious atheist say, for example, that the Virgin Mary got around?

I don't think that's why we have the CoR in the first place.

Yet we have a blasphemy law on the books that could be used to jail that atheist. What a waste.

[taxme]

Not sure what you are getting at.

Section 296 is rarely used because it's a stupid law.

Even if a person is being asinine about it, one should have the right to say "stupid" things about Jesus, Mohammd or any other high mucky muck that they want.

It's a BS law that has been on the books from a time when too many people were indoctrinated into believing stupid things like virgin births, turning water into wine miracles, prophets rising up on a winged horse etc.....

Why should the CoR protect a Christian from hearing an obnoxious atheist say, for example, that the Virgin Mary got around?

I don't think that's why we have the CoR in the first place.

Yet we have a blasphemy law on the books that could be used to jail that atheist. What a waste.

And the same should also go for a Muslim or a Sikh. Their religions should not be protected from hearing obnoxious remarks about their gods. Works both ways or at least it should. But in Canada today, that doesn't seem to work. The media will go ballistic if someone says anything bad about those religions mentioned but will ignore anything bad said about Christianity. Personally, I think that we just have too many laws on the books. Many of them bad laws.

[msj]

Um, yeah, hence my referencing "Mohammed" and a "winged horse" which is a direct reference to Mohammed ascending to heaven on a winged horse - which, let's face it, is as stupid as believing in zombie Jesus exiting the cave on day three.

People should be allowed to say whatever they want though the "fire" in a crowded theatre example also needs to be considered. Context does matter in rare circumstances.

Which is probably why section 296 is so rarely used.

People are smart enough to ignore the jokes about religion because so many of us think religion is, to a certain degree, a joke.

[msj]

Well, after seeing this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CauFWaQXEAADntn.png:large

I can't help but wonder if any of our "speech" can be protected.

I mean, is anything we write on here or on Twitter or Facebook etc "necessary?"

If that is the standard then we may as well shut down the intertubes and all become monks.

[Argus]

Well, after seeing this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CauFWaQXEAADntn.png:large

I can't help but wonder if any of our "speech" can be protected.

I mean, is anything we write on here or on Twitter or Facebook etc "necessary?"

If that is the standard then we may as well shut down the intertubes and all become monks.

It's the OPP, also known as the black shirts of the Ontario Liberal Party. The OPP union actually took out ads in support of her re-election last time around, in exchange, I'm sure, for promises that she would do nothing to end the ludicrous mediation system in Ontario which continues to see their salaries balloon.

[overthere]

Why are you singling out Quebec?

It's already illegal in Canada. Do you have an issue with the Canadian criminal code

Section 319 (2) of the Criminal Code:

"Identfiable group" includes religion.

If I was to say I hated plumbers, a group identifiable by both smell and prominent ass crack, would the police be at my door?

[The_Squid]

If I was to say I hated plumbers, a group identifiable by both smell and prominent ass crack, would the police be at my door?

"Identifiable group" means a group identified within the legislation. You can go and check the link I posted to see if plumbers are one of those groups. Let us know what you find.