Conservative Minority in View

[sharkman]

And at the end of the day, that bill menaces religions, go back and reread what Kimmy said. There were not all kinds of amendments from religious groups or the Conservatives would have supported it.

[normanchateau]

And at the end of the day, that bill menaces religions

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the minds of religionists perhaps but their irrational fears are not a necessary nor sufficiently strong reason to exclude gay bashing from hate crimes legislation.

[sharkman]

Okay, here's what Kimmy said to you already, it seems you can't remember or don't want to bother:

Norman continues to peddle misinformation as to what Bill C-250 actually contains. Bill C-250 amended the sections of the criminal code that deal with hate speech. There's no mention of physical gay bashing, or broadening the definition of hate crimes. Bill C-250 is irrelevant to the prosecution of gay-bashing incidents unless the perpetrators gave public speeches on the topic beforehand.

QUOTE(Bill C-250)

    An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)

    Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

    1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

    (4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

    2. Paragraph 319(3)(b ) of the Act is replaced by the following:

    (b ) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

for reference:

QUOTE(the newly amended Criminal Code section 319.3b)

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

  (b ) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

That doesn't sound so bad, right? Bill C-250 expressly protects religion, right? These religious types must be worried about nothing, right?

Let's have a closer look. Or at least have some lawyers have a closer look for us.

QUOTE(Carters & Associates - barristers at law)

Media reports indicate that the proposed changes to the Code will exempt anyone expressing an anti-same sex perspective based on a religious text. The Bill's author has repeatedly assured the public that religious leaders will continue to have this protection as a result of the exemption in subsection 319(3). However, even a cursory examination of subsection 319(3) clearly indicates that this protection only applies to someone charged with the "promotes hatred" offence under subsection 319(2), not in relation to the "communicating" offence under subsection 319(1). Further, the "promotes hatred" offence has an additional legal safeguard in subsection (6) which requires the consent of a Provincial Attorney General. In contrast, the "communicating" offence in subsection 319(1) requires only that a peace officer have reasonable and probable grounds or that a private citizen is able to convince a Justice of the Peace to commence the criminal process. What follows from these observations is that free speech, or "communicating" about sexual orientation within a church or religious organization will not be protected.

(emphasis added by me)

(source: http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2004/chchlb02.htm )

In other words, Bill C-250 expands the definition of "identifiable groups", and protects religious speech from punishment under 318.2, but does not protect religious speech from punishment under 319.1.

QUOTE(Criminal Code 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 of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b ) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In summary, the religious groups worried about Bill C-250 had reason to be concerned. (\quote)

Norman, the protection for religions are incomplete. That's why Harper wouldn't support it. Lawyers and judges can find all kinds of loop holes in this porous document.

[normanchateau]

Bill C-250 is irrelevant to the prosecution of gay-bashing incidents unless the perpetrators gave public speeches on the topic beforehand.

This is also the case for bashing of racial groups. In all cases, the person must have previously stated their racist position at least to someone (i.e., a witness) before the accused can be convicted of a hate crime. It need not be a speech to a large audience. Same holds for the other criteria, i.e., religion, ethnicity and now sexual orientation.

[sharkman]

Unless you are a lawyer or a judge, I don't think your opinions can be given equal weight to the lawyer's analysis contained in Kimmy's post. Section 319 leaves the door open.

[normanchateau]

Unless you are a lawyer or a judge, I don't think your opinions can be given equal weight to the lawyer's analysis contained in Kimmy's post.  Section 319 leaves the door open.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The door was open long before C-250. Just as the Bible doesn't paint an exactly tolerant view towards homosexuals, neither does it paint a tolerant view towards women, various races and various ethnic groups. I don't recall religious groups being worried that their "religious freedom" was threatened by hate crimes legislation based on gender, race or religion. I will no doubt be accused of bashing religionists but the Bible clearly views women as second class citizens yet hate crimes legislation extends to women.

[sharkman]

I'm afraid when you wander into religious territory, you expose the limits of your knowledge. At any rate, you have no answer for a legal firm's analysis of c250 except to say that religion is intolerant.

[normanchateau]

At any rate, you have no answer for a legal firm's analysis of c250 except to say that religion is intolerant.

As I said, their analysis applies to hate crimes legislation per se, not merely the inclusion of sexual orientation. Sorry that you misunderstood my response.

[southerncomfort]

I'm afraid when you wander into religious territory, you expose the limits of your knowledge.  At any rate, you have no answer for a legal firm's analysis of c250 except to say that religion is intolerant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm not as intolerant or misguided as the many one sided intolerant posts on here. IMO most voters don't give a darn about religion, its only the christiaphobes who keep pushing the issue by trying to stigmatize a party. It isn't flying this time around, there are nore important issues, they will become apparant when voters become more engaged in the process.

[shoop]

You are attacking the Bible as intolerant? Pot - kettle - pot! You won't be allowed to bring this board down with your one issue rants normie, so give it up.

The door was open long before C-250.  Just as the Bible doesn't paint an exactly tolerant view towards homosexuals, neither does it paint a tolerant view towards women, various races and various ethnic groups.  I don't recall religious groups being worried that their "religious freedom" was threatened by hate crimes legislation based on gender, race or religion.  I will no doubt be accused of bashing religionists but the Bible clearly views women as second class citizens yet hate crimes legislation extends to women.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>