Liberal family values for our children

[Black Dog]

Ultimately its not much better.

But given facts on child development and ego development 16 is less obscene than 14.

Really? When the age of consent law was put in in 1890 (under Conservative John A. McDonald) 14 was considered prime marrying age. So are you tellling me that kids are less informed and capable of making decisions today than they were 115 years ago?

Black Dog, how can you support the Liberal position on this? You are in a socially and morally untenable position.

Who said I did? I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, save that the distinction between 14 and 16 is arbitrary and that no law will prevent kids from being exploited by someone who is inclined to do so.

You can admit that Martin was wrong on this and still be a Liberal.

Who said I was a Liberal? In fact, I made a point above of stipulating I am not.

You socialists are never happy with a level playing field. You seem to feel that by flaunting victimhood you are entitled to special treatment and special legislation...all obtained by undermining the rights of others and all part of the "culture of entitlement" now under attack by Harper and the Conservatives. The tables are turning, get used to it.

Way to put the notion of a Conservative "hidden agenda" back into play, champ.

[Gord S.]

Ultimately its not much better.

But given facts on child development and ego development 16 is less obscene than 14.

Really? When the age of consent law was put in in 1890 (under Conservative John A. McDonald) 14 was considered prime marrying age. So are you tellling me that kids are less informed and capable of making decisions today than they were 115 years ago?

Women weren't allowed to vote in 1890 - should we go back to them times???

In 1890, the life span was much younger, people got married, worked and raised their children at a very young age.

In 2005, perverts are not wanting sex as "part of the package"; they are using 14 year olds for their personal pleasure.

It is inconcievable that any parent could support that...

.

[Gord S.]

Black Dog,

Considering your signature has these words: "Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them."

I thought you would be the first person to support raising the age of consent...

[Black Dog]

Women weren't allowed to vote in 1890 - should we go back to them times??? 

In 1890, the life span was much younger, people got married, worked and raised their children at a very young age.

In 2005, perverts are not wanting sex as "part of the package"; they are using 14 year olds for their personal pleasure.

It is inconcievable that any parent could support that...

As I said, perverts will be perverts whether their prey is 14 or 16. And there will always be 14 year olds who think they are mature enouh to have sex. Not much will change that.

Frankly, the more I look at this, the more I start to think this "moral" outrage is a red herring. F'r instance, I'm willing to bet the same people who want the AoC upped are alos opposed to comprehensive sex ed in schools (I'm looking at you, Focus on the Family). The issue isn't about perverts (I'd be interested to know just how much of an issue the proverbial codger/teenybopper coupling really is) as much as it is about sex itself.

[normanchateau]

ahh ok i see now, its a bill against threatening (implied or directly) against individuals or groups based on sexual orientation.  Basically they can label it a "Hate crime"  and therefore provide stiffer penalties?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada has had hate crimes legislation in place for years. Previously, hate crimes included factors such as race, ethnicity and religion. So if you committed a crime against someone that was motivated by race, ethnicity or religion, you would receive a stiffer penalty than those penalties normally in place for that crime.

What bill C-250 did was add sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Calling someone a fag is not a crime and C-250 didn't change that. Religious fundamentalists, extreme evangelicals, the religious right, the Christian Heritage Party and Stephen Harper opposed C-250. They have no problem with hate crimes legislation based on race, religion or ethnicity but they have a problem with protecting gays and lesbians under hate crimes legislation. Verbal gay bashing was not a crime prior to C-250 and it's not a crime after C-250. However, if you physically assault or kill someone merely because they're gay, C-250 stiffens the penalties. Stephen Harper voted against that as did most members of his party. The NDP, BQ and Liberals all voted in favour of C-250 and view Harper's opposition as motivated by his irrational fear that C-250 will be used against the churches and their more extreme members, many of whom are Harper supporters. Most Canadians are far more socially tolerant than Harper and his religion-driven opposition to C-250 has come back to haunt him.

[scribblet]

Ultimately its not much better.

But given facts on child development and ego development 16 is less obscene than 14.

Women weren't allowed to vote in 1890 - should we go back to them times???

In 1890, the life span was much younger, people got married, worked and raised their children at a very young age.

In 2005, perverts are not wanting sex as "part of the package"; they are using 14 year olds for their personal pleasure.

It is inconcievable that any parent could support that...

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is isn't it, 'liberal value' are certainly not necessarily Canadian values.

[Guest eureka]

Gord, I don't think you were correct in your assessment of what would be Hate Crimes. The one that could be is the teacher who writes a letter to an editor.

That would be only if the expression was offensive to Homosexuality and not simply opposing SSM. That is the right of anyone and the right of expression is not so easily abrogated.

[Gord S.]

That would be only if the expression was offensive to Homosexuality and not simply opposing SSM. That is the right of anyone and the right of expression is not so easily abrogated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why was Bishop Henry taken to the Human Rights Commission in Calgary???

[Guest eureka]

Why was he?

[newbie]

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2005/03...and-censorship/

[Guest eureka]

The point, I think, is that it was merely a complaint: whether it was justified is the issue. I believe that the complaint was dropped or not heard.

My point is that it is not so easy to convict anyone of Hate Speech. We still do have freedom of speech and those instances suggested by Gord are not situations that would lead to a conviction.

To be for or against SSM or homosexuality is not something that law can proscribe.

[lovecanada]

The point, I think, is that it was merely a complaint: whether it was justified is the issue. I believe that the complaint was dropped or not heard.

My point is that it is not so easy to convict anyone of Hate Speech. We still do have freedom of speech and those instances suggested by Gord are not situations that would lead to a conviction.

To be for or against SSM or homosexuality is not something that law can proscribe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be for marriage = one man one woman

Union = one person to one person

now we can't even call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree it's a Holiday tree. Where has common sense gone??

[sharkman]

Don't you know, lovecanada? Common sense is not that common.

[normanchateau]

The point, I think, is that it was merely a complaint: whether it was justified is the issue. I believe that the complaint was dropped or not heard.

My point is that it is not so easy to convict anyone of Hate Speech. We still do have freedom of speech and those instances suggested by Gord are not situations that would lead to a conviction.

To be for or against SSM or homosexuality is not something that law can proscribe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed it was nothing more than a complaint, unjustified in my opinion, to the Alberta Human Rights Commission...and it appears that the complaint was not sustained. The Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act has included sexual orientation as an unacceptable grounds for discrimination since 1998, following a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. This has nothing to do with C-250 which came years later.

No crime was committed in the above case. By contrast, bill C-250 is concerned with hate crimes. C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation and Harper and his party vehemently opposed it for religious reasons. This makes them extremists by the standards of most Canadians. And far more so than merely opposing C-38 which was opposed even by some nonConservatives. C-38 opponents can at least use the argument of maintaining traditional values. But even most who support traditional values view gay bashing as a hate crime. Harper doesn't. He voted to exclude physical assaults against gays, i.e., gay bashing, from hate crimes legislation.

[scribblet]

That would be only if the expression was offensive to Homosexuality and not simply opposing SSM. That is the right of anyone and the right of expression is not so easily abrogated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why was Bishop Henry taken to the Human Rights Commission in Calgary???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's this case in BC, there may be more to it I don't know, but EGALE has said it will pursue these issues, and will even sit in church pews taking notes in order to press charges against ministers. (I lost the link)

It won't stop here, I suspect we'll see more of this type of thing, and more erosions of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1129?hub=Canada

B.C. tribunal awards lesbian couple damages

CTV.ca News Staff

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has awarded damages to two lesbian women who claim they were discriminated against by a Catholic men's organization when they booked a hall for their wedding reception in the fall of 2003.

However, the tribunal also ruled Tuesday that the Knights of Columbus could have refused to host the party if it was in a manner contrary to its "core religious beliefs."

[scribblet]

I guess Freedom of Speech is alive and well in Sweden.

http://365gay.com/Newscon05/11/112905sweden.htm

(Stockholm) Sweden's highest court on Tuesday acquitted a Pentecostal pastor accused of hate speech for having denounced homosexuality as a ``cancerous tumor'' in a sermon.

Ake Green's contentious sermon in 2003 was protected by freedom of speech and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court said in a 16-page ruling.

Green, 64, became the first clergyman convicted under Sweden's hate crimes legislation when a lower court found him guilty of inciting hatred against gays. An appeals court overturned the ruling earlier this year, but Sweden's chief prosecutor appealed the acquittal at the Supreme Court.

Green said the Supreme Court ruling was a relief both for him and for other preachers.

"This means we can continue to speak the way we have, and therefore it feels very good that they have ruled in a way that there should not be any infringement in our way of preaching," he told Swedish public radio.

[...]

The case attracted widespread international attention, with some religious groups saying a conviction would be a threat to freedom of religion and speech. Others said an acquittal would open the door to fiercer attacks against Jews, Muslims and gays.

[sharkman]

The problem with c-250 is the wording is religious organizations are not protected from being able to speak their conscience. It's up to the judges to decide one way or another. 10 years from now judges will be less willing to let freedom of religious speech carry the day in these rulings.

c 250 is bad legislation.

[Black Dog]

The problem with c-250 is the wording is religious organizations are not protected from being able to speak their conscience. It's up to the judges to decide one way or another. 10 years from now judges will be less willing to let freedom of religious speech carry the day in these rulings.

Incorrect. The proposed legislative amendments state that "No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) if... in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text."

[Slavik44]

Liberal values allow women to drink and take drugs while pregnant. Thousands of children are born with physical and mental defects.

Really???? is that so, cause you know I think you might be wrong. Just an inkling, but what do you suggest, that any Parent who has a child with FAS gets 5 years in prison, cause you know every one knows they are pregnant within ten seconds of conception, so clearly anyone who has a baby born with FAS, drank alcohol with the full knowledge that they were pregnant. You know I just don't think so.

Sure Maybe we could introduce a bill that states after having sex you must be strapped to a chair and monitored 24/7 for three weeks and if you are found to be pregnant your must remain for the remainder of the pregnancy, if not...well you will be back in a day. Of course we don't really know when everyone is having sex...so in every Bedroom, bathroom, backseat, and kitchen(hey thats where sex starts right) we can place a sentry. Other than that, what do you propose to ensure no women can drink alcohol while pregnant???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Posting responses with such faulty logic only hurts the credibility of the poster - it definitely doesn't damage the point I put forward.

I notice that the part you clipped in my original post was:

Of individuals with FAE between the ages of 12 and 51,

· 95% will have mental health problems;

· 68% will experience trouble with the law;

· 55% will be confined in prison, drug or alcohol treatment centre or mental institution;

· 52% will exhibit inappropriate sexual behaviour

http://www.fasworld.com/facts.ihtml

I consider that to be serious child abuse.

Manitoba tried to lock up a pregnant glue sniffer a few years ago to protect the unborn child. (That woman had already produced damaged babies.) The system lost.

Last year I had a pregnant tenant in my suite who was stoned daily on crack cocaine. I went to the police and social services. The police said they could not do anything under the law; social services said they would take the baby away after it was born - and they did...

Is it just me that believes ruining a child's life before it comes out of the womb to be disgusting???

How in the world can any caring individual think otherwise???

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong again.

First off I did not clip out the stats as a way to avoid them, and your inferences that I did are simply false. I clipped out those stats because at previous times when I posted here I recieved a number complaints, some about my spelling and others about how I needlessly quoted huge documents when a couple sentences would suffice. Infact I was told that needlessly quoting text was more offensive than saying Fuck You to a poster, being the polite person I am I am not going to say "Fuck You gord" and I certainly wouldn't want to be more offensive than that so I simply cut out a portion of the text that took up alot of space to avoid complaints. My intention was not to avoid the statistics just keeping more post down to a more managable size.

Secondly, while you can consider those statistics child abuse, I do not know how many cases of FAS were caused by people not knowing they are pregnant. Lets face it it takes a while for people to find out. As well it hasn;t been until recently that scientific advancement has tuaght us about nutritional practices and therefore there could be a lag time in statistics, the statistics obviously are following children who must be atleast 18 years old. Therefore we are looking at a society from 20 years ago, not today and 20 years ago was well 20 years ago and in 20 years alot has changed. In your haste what you have done infact is use present day information to draw and quater a parent from the 1970's and 1980's. It is then very hard for any rational person to cast judgement that all or even most cases of FAS are caused by evil parents. When there are many factors surrounding the situation that would prohibt such a judgement from being made. Although a very serios matter none the less you are using it out of context as a means to advance a political smearing.

Of this you should be ashamed of yourself, what you ahve done is not further the cause of suffering children you have used suffering children to further your own cause, and that is dispicable. These children are not the priority of your post but a casualty of your post you have used them to make inciteful remarks agaisnt the Liberal party of Canada. to be honest with you, I fell that if you truly cared about the children you should have made a non-partisan and non-sensationalist thread about what the government could and should do to stop this very serious problem. But Instead you refused to take the high road or the moral road, you used it to launch a sensationalist attack, shame on you.

As for the manitoba case, it is just that a case, meaning one, you know before two and after zero. As you might have gathered I am not one who is into this whole sensationalism binge the canadian media has put us on. One case is not enough to base a whole arguement, niether is two or three cases. There are thousands and thousands of babies born every year in Canada, and of that you can pick out one case of abuse, one case of failure??? And based on this you are going to call a whole political party a bunch of prostitute loving, child hating, daughter fuckers????

As for your story, it remains just that a story, we are on an onlien message board, I can tell stories about anything. I coudl tell people last night I saw you sodomizing a thirteen year old boy and therefore you are a hipocrite. But the fact is I can't actually proove it...it is plain and simple hearsay, and just like sensationalism I am not willing or interested in making an arguement based on hearsay or allowing someone else to make such an arguement. For someone who remarked about my faulty logic I feel I must remind you about throwing stones while living in a glass house.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.

If you state you are opposed to Same Sex Mariage, that is "gay bashing".

If you (as the owner of a print shop) refuse to print literature because what is being goes against your religious beliefs, you lose at the Human Rights Commission.

If you as a teacher, write a letter to the editor in a local newspaper stating you are opposed to Same Sex Marriage, you get fired from your job.

These are not theoretical examples; they happened prior to "gay bashing" being put into legislation. That is why the Conservatives opposed that legislation...

Wow you are a very Liberal person, I never would have guessed, or is it that you just liberaly interpret laws you don't like so as to give yourself an avenue to attack them????

Because what bill C-250 did was include sexual orientation under hate crimes. If you look at previous cases of hate crimes you would find your worries to be expelled. For instance I will use James Keegstra(simply because I have it infront of me) A quick background woudl be that in this case an Albertan teacher told his students that the holocaust never happend, he was charged with commiting a hate crime. He applied to the queens bench to have the charge dismissed on the gorunds that it violated his freedom of expression under S. 2( of the charter. This request was denied, he was tried and convicted. On his appeal his arguements were accepted. The reason for their acceptance was that

The promotion of hatred in this case does not assume a form which falls outside the protected sphere of s. 2(. The accused's communications were offensive and propagandistic, but they do not constitute threats in the usual sense of that word. The accused's statements did not urge violence against the Jewish people. They were not made with the intention and do not have the effect of compelling Jewish people or anyone else to do one thing or another. Nor do the accused's statements constitue violence...violence conotes actual or threatend physical interference with the activities of others. Moreover, statements promoting hatred are not akin to threats or violence. There is nothing in the form of such statements which subverts democracy or our basic freedoms in a way in which violence or threats of violence may. Finally to suggest that speech, like ahte propaganda, which undermines the credibility of speakers belonging to particular groups doe snot fall within s. 2( of the charter, is to remove from the protection of the charter an enormous amount of speech which has long been accepted as important and valuable.

In other words unless your speech incites violence against the gay community you have nothing to worry about, you will not be held criminally responsible. You can write a newspaper and say you do not support homosexual marrige or even homosexual acts. You are still free to do so, under the condition that you don't write P.S next monday at seven we should meet at McDonalds with some guns and go kill gay people. Just like, as has been demonstarted, you can say the holocaust never hapened. The Precedent has been set that as long as your speech or writing does not incite violent acts it is not a hate crime. Personally my values and apparently the values of the Liberal party do not include protecting someones right to incite violence.

[sharkman]

Incorrect. The proposed legislative amendments state that "No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) if... in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BD the question is who decides if the religious person is being in 'good faith' or not. The judge, that's who. There is already a climate of intolerance towards religious comment toward gay topics in Canada and examples have already been cited where non religious comments have been slapped down. Soon the question will rise why can the religious types say things about gays that everybody else can't.

[scribblet]

The Liberals have brought the Charter and the justice system into disrepute through their gross manipulation of the justice system using appointments to judgeships.

There is nothing in the Charter about gay rights. These are an invention of the judiciary.

Major changes in law such as this should be decided in Parliament. They should certainly never be decided by a provincial judge, appointed or otherwise. (Martin claims that his hands are tied by court decisions).

Knowing that the Toronto Sun as already taken a position that it is time to remove the federal Liberals I find two polls interesting.

At this stage, the majority are voting to reopen the debate on marriage and the majority are saying that they will vote Conservative.

Of course, all of this is subject to change .....

[Black Dog]

There is nothing in the Charter about gay rights. These are an invention of the judiciary.

Sure there is.

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination..."

I assume "every individual" includes homosexuals.

Major changes in law such as this should be decided in Parliament

I don't think a law affecting a minority of Canadians can reasonably be considered a major change.

BD the question is who decides if the religious person is being in 'good faith' or not. The judge, that's who. There is already a climate of intolerance towards religious comment toward gay topics in Canada and examples have already been cited where non religious comments have been slapped down. Soon the question will rise why can the religious types say things about gays that everybody else can't.

Uh...I'd say the line is pretty clear. It's one thing to say "the Bible opposses homosexuality": that's an example of a argument in good faith. The opposite of good faith under this law would be soemthing along the lines of "the Bible opposses homosexuality, so we should stone us some queers." It's a clear difference.

You also seem to be confusing the issue of hate speech with the issue of human rights tribunals.

[Argus]

Regarding family values - the difference between the Liberals and CPC is like night and day. If the party pushed nothing but this issue, we would win the election...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, the difference is like night and day. The leader of the CPC voted to exclude gay bashing from hate crimes legislation, i.e., Bill C-250. It's not clear whether he was motivated by homophobia or the irrational fear that gays and lesbians would use C-250 to take away "religious freedom".

Bill C250 had nothing to do with gay bashing (unless you mean verbal bashing) and I suspect you know that. It was an amendment to hate propaganda laws which could have led to priest being arrested for quoting from the bible in sermons at their own churches (this has happened in Europe). Harper was right to oppose it.

[Argus]

A couple of points. First, Bill C-250, as I've said earlier, had NOTHING to do with commiting violence against gays. It had to do with criminalizing unflattering opinions about homosexuals. I have steadfastly opposed all limits on freedom of speech. I find "hate speech" laws to be a dangerous infringement on freedom of speech. They are all the more dangerous because of being pointless. We risk our freedom of speech - perhaps our most important freedom - for the sake of preventing people from being offended by opinions they don't like.

A couple of links on stories I've seen over the last couple of days show how dangerous hate speech laws can become under the Socialists. The first link is about a Pastor in Sweden who was charged with hate speech because of a sermon he gave at his church. Note that he was only finally acquitted because the Supreme Court feared the European Court would overturn it anyway.

Pastor Acquitted

the second is about the situation vis a vis hate speech laws in France. It really is pathetic how people have sacrificed their freedom to prevent small minorities from feeling offended by unflattering opinions.

France's Censorship Laws

There is no question that politically active, and generally very left wing homosexual groups will use the hate speech addition to try and have religious figures arrested if they say anything bad about homsoexuality.

[Argus]

I guess Freedom of Speech is alive and well in Sweden.

http://365gay.com/Newscon05/11/112905sweden.htm

(Stockholm) Sweden's highest court on Tuesday acquitted a Pentecostal pastor accused of hate speech for having denounced homosexuality as a ``cancerous tumor'' in a sermon.

Ake Green's contentious sermon in 2003 was protected by freedom of speech and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court said in a 16-page ruling.

Green, 64, became the first clergyman convicted under Sweden's hate crimes legislation when a lower court found him guilty of inciting hatred against gays. An appeals court overturned the ruling earlier this year, but Sweden's chief prosecutor appealed the acquittal at the Supreme Court.

Green said the Supreme Court ruling was a relief both for him and for other preachers.

"This means we can continue to speak the way we have, and therefore it feels very good that they have ruled in a way that there should not be any infringement in our way of preaching," he told Swedish public radio.

[...]

The case attracted widespread international attention, with some religious groups saying a conviction would be a threat to freedom of religion and speech. Others said an acquittal would open the door to fiercer attacks against Jews, Muslims and gays.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You should note that the only reason Sweden's Supreme Court overturned the conviction was a fear of being overruled by the European Court. So credit Sweden's courts with nothing. As for Canada, we have no overriding authority to monitor our Supreme Court - which has been stacked with extremely liberal individuals whose primary qualification for the court is their political beliefs - not any great degree of wisdom or legal knowledge.