"Tories Plan To Protect Same-Sex Opponents"

[BubberMiley]

We've been doing it all along, it's called democracy. Remember Sunday shopping? That's other people's busniess. The Olympics in Vancouver? the same...

Restrictions on local businesses, like Sunday shopping, were created because they were seen to be in the community interest, and therefore everybody's business. You may want to open a 24-hour casino next to me. It's your business, but it also affects me, making it my business too.

And the Olympics are publicly funded. Didn't you hear the sucking sound of billions of taxpayers' dollars when they announced the games?

[Remiel]

I still hope for the day we stop calling people black and white... When was the last time you referred to anyone as red or yellow? And those terms can be incredibly misleading as to a person actual background.

[August1991]

I still hope for the day we stop calling people black and white...

PC Alert.

Describe the colour as you will (beige and brown?) but people have different skin colour and it is plainly false to pretend they don't.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Your (unusually lengthy) post above was one of the best I have read from anyone here in a long time.

Frankly, I think that we have made an utter mess of these issues in Canada and I fear that we will face contradictions in the future.

Amen to that. If the gov't (read: lawmakers and/or moral majority) faced the issues as honestly as you did in this post, we would be miles ahead of where we are now.

When the State tries to change people and stop them from discriminating, it just turns people into liars. Such is political correctness.

Testify! )))hand clapping syncopation(((

Liars on lots of levels.

As to your individual points, I'll have to address them later. A quick comment on pt.#!:

First, I don't think this legislation is necessary or even constitutional (and now it appears that the whole thing was either a trial balloon or a Liberal attack point).

I expect it was an attack point and I find it both repulsive and typical.

[Hicksey]

And in the words of the ever-knowing Bubber Miley below (I put it there because I knew it would be useful one day ... that day is today) "If someone doesn't mind being known as a crack whore, let them do crack and be a whore." So if someone doesn't mind being thought of as an intolerant bigot let him spew his lunacy.

But the victims of crackwhorism come only as a result of criminalization. Neighbourhoods are destroyed, diseases are spread, and organized crime flourishes, but that's just because their activity is unregulated, not because they choose to get high and have sex for money.

I'm all for free speech and freedom of movement until it hurts another person, and encouraging hatred of a particular group hurts other people.

That's the difference.

We are not advocating nor encouraging people to hate. But we are allowing them to speak their mind. If they want to open their mouths and remove all doubt about how much of an idiot they are, then let them. And if that lunacy costs them their job, oh well. Why? Because as I have said over and over ... we are free to do, not from the consequences of doing. I don't feel for that guy one bit.

The point is that no matter how much you try, all you will ever achieve by this legislation is to further anger those affected and make them resent the party they already resent now -- more.

And for another day ...

The crack whore is only victimized by her own decisions. She knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If you can't deal with the consequences of an action, then don't do it.

[betsy]

I still hope for the day we stop calling people black and white... When was the last time you referred to anyone as red or yellow? And those terms can be incredibly misleading as to a person actual background.

Why should I think there's anything wrong or shameful if I am called a "brown?" Unless I myself think my own skin color is inferior and shameful.

I hope for the day when people of all colors be proud of their own races' skin colors!

[betsy]

I can understand why somebody would be concerned about SSM.

What I can't understand is why opponents spend so much time and energy trying to prevent people they don't know from doing something that will have _zero_ affect on their lives.

Isn't there a contradiction between the two statements?

[BubberMiley]

The crack whore is only victimized by her own decisions. She knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If you can't deal with the consequences of an action, then don't do it.

I'm not sure why you raised the crackwhore issue because it just demonstrates your hypocritical double standard. You think people should be free to spew as much hate as they want, even if it hurts other people, but the crackwhore still can't go about her business, even though she's just hurting herself.

[betsy]

The crack whore is only victimized by her own decisions. She knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If you can't deal with the consequences of an action, then don't do it.

I'm not sure why you raised the crackwhore issue because it just demonstrates your hypocritical double standard. You think people should be free to spew as much hate as they want, even if it hurts other people, but the crackwhore still can't go about her business, even though she's just hurting herself.

Please what is the meaning of a "crackwhore?"

Is it a person who is a whore in order to support the crack habit?

[Chrissy1979]

We are not advocating nor encouraging people to hate. But we are allowing them to speak their mind. If they want to open their mouths and remove all doubt about how much of an idiot they are, then let them.

Hicksey, you seem terribly confused. If you’re going to bring up a position to justify your own position (i.e., BM’s crack whore comment), you kind of have to agree with it yourself. Otherwise you’re compromising your own argument.

And BTW, WTF does a crack whore taking responsibility for her own actions have to do with anything? You’re using fill-in-the-blank responses that don’t even fit the context of the debate.

[M.Dancer]

The crack whore is only victimized by her own decisions. She knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If you can't deal with the consequences of an action, then don't do it.

I'm not sure why you raised the crackwhore issue because it just demonstrates your hypocritical double standard. You think people should be free to spew as much hate as they want, even if it hurts other people, but the crackwhore still can't go about her business, even though she's just hurting herself.

Please what is the meaning of a "crackwhore?"

Is it a person who is a whore in order to support the crack habit?

The modern updated versions of bar slut and booze hound.....

[Hicksey]

The crack whore is only victimized by her own decisions. She knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If you can't deal with the consequences of an action, then don't do it.

I'm not sure why you raised the crackwhore issue because it just demonstrates your hypocritical double standard. You think people should be free to spew as much hate as they want, even if it hurts other people, but the crackwhore still can't go about her business, even though she's just hurting herself.

Please what is the meaning of a "crackwhore?"

Is it a person who is a whore in order to support the crack habit?

The modern updated versions of bar slut and booze hound.....

Its an inside joke between Bubber Miley and I. History basically. The history is contained in the legalizing of marijuana thread.

[Hicksey]

The crack whore is only victimized by her own decisions. She knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If you can't deal with the consequences of an action, then don't do it.

I'm not sure why you raised the crackwhore issue because it just demonstrates your hypocritical double standard. You think people should be free to spew as much hate as they want, even if it hurts other people, but the crackwhore still can't go about her business, even though she's just hurting herself.

We're highjacking a thread here. Like I said this is a subject for another day.

The point was that there are going to be people who think what she is doing is wrong no matter what you legislate and she will we subject to their opinions should she continue the behavior.

You simply cannot legislate away hate. Anyone that thinks so is naive. All it causes is yet more resentment and hate.

IMO it hurts nobody. If you are proud of who you are it should not matter to you what other people think. I know who and what I am. I am perfectly happy to spread your ignorance about and let everyone know what kind of idiot you are if you choose to spew anything about me. I am proud of who and what I am and what I believe. If you think that being against gay-marriage is bigotted, then I am proudly bigotted. What ever happened to the day when people stood on their character? Do we really have to legislate character?

Why is it that people want the government need to intervene in every little thing in our lives? Are we such brittle creatures that we need people legislating what we can and cannot say because we are afraid of hurting peoples' feelings? Its nonsense.

IMO If people took responsibility for their lives, it wouldn't be necessary.

[Figleaf]

f/this

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[geoffrey]

OTOH, if we were truly serious about protecting gay rights, we would have a constitutional amendment to include explicitly the term "sexual orientation" in the Charter of Rights. This term should never have been added by Supreme Court fiat if only because a future Court could just as easily take it away.

This suggests a slightly mistaken impression of Charter s.15. Its language sets out a universal right to equality, then lists certain examples. The examples are not exhaustive. The court didn't make up the universal equality right, they merely acknowledged that homoseksuals are, obviously, included in the set of 'everyone'.

What about pedophiles? Or criminals? Terrorists?

Are they everyone? Are they free to pursue their lives?

There obviously needs to be restraint on what s.15(1) applies to. Saying it applies to everyone so it protects gays is outrageous. Everyone can't be protected.

And anyways, bit of a fact for you under Canadian law, only the government and it's agencies are bound by the Charter. I don't have to respect equality ever.

[Figleaf]

O

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[BubberMiley]

What about pedophiles? Or criminals? Terrorists?

All of these people do harm to others. Just as I don't think the state has a right intruding into a grown adult's affairs if they are doing no harm to others, I think it has every right intruding into activities that do harm others. You might say words will never hurt you, but the Jews who lived in Germany while Hitler was rising to power would likely disagree.

I also think people can be too sensitive on this issue and some tend to label every generalized criticism of a group as "hate speech." In the end, reasonable people will decide what speech goes too far, and I think most of them would agree that the church in Canada, for the most part, hasn't crossed that line in its criticisms of homosexuality.

Ultimately, I just think this legislation is unnecessary and the motives behind it are likely more political thank practical.

[betsy]

More legislations on Freedom of Religion could open up another can of worms.

But I would like to see the protection of Freedom of Speech. We should abolish the Hate Laws....they are redundant. They don't further rights in general and in fact, they infringe on free speech rights for everyone....they're only for special groups. Rights should be for everyone. The current laws that protect our rights in general...also protect the rights of special groups.

That's why we have the Charter of Rights. It is far from perfect as it is. Meddling with it is only going to make it worse.

[betsy]

OTOH, if we were truly serious about protecting gay rights, we would have a constitutional amendment to include explicitly the term "sexual orientation" in the Charter of Rights. This term should never have been added by Supreme Court fiat if only because a future Court could just as easily take it away.

This suggests a slightly mistaken impression of Charter s.15. Its language sets out a universal right to equality, then lists certain examples. The examples are not exhaustive. The court didn't make up the universal equality right, they merely acknowledged that homoseksuals are, obviously, included in the set of 'everyone'.

But I was told that when they were discussing and writing up the Charter of Rights, they had all decided NOT to include gay rights. They were SPECIFICALLY LEFT OUT. This was during the time of Trudeau.

That the Charter was changed by the Supreme Court without going through Parliament.

[BubberMiley]

I think they specifically left out midgets too.

[scribblet]

This whole thing is simply part of a liberal smear campaign to try and discredit Harper, they have nothing concrete to get him with, so simply make it up. Notice this came up after Graham had to apologize for his comments about Reid...you know - whoops wrong Reid.

[BubberMiley]

But, Hicksey, what about the missionaries from godhatesfags.com? They like to go to funerals of dead American soldiers and cheer because they feel God is punishing the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality. Are they just harmlessly exposing themselves for the fools they are, or is there a point where free speech becomes harassment?

[betsy]

But, Hicksey, what about the missionaries from godhatesfags.com? They like to go to funerals of dead American soldiers and cheer because they feel God is punishing the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality. Are they just harmlessly exposing themselves for the fools they are, or is there a point where free speech becomes harassment?

Maybe there's grounds for complaints against such loonies. I don't know much about the intriciacies of the law...but if it falls under harrassment, they've got something to answer for. Restraining orders? Incarceration? Psychological testings?

[Topaz]

I can't believe the amount of energy going into this topic by the government! I would think ALL Canadians are protected by the Charter of Rights. IF they find a way around this, the Gay community only has to have one of their own, have a license to do the marriage themselves. IF this government rather spend millions of $$$ on this topic, then they NEED to be voted out. There's a war going on and the last count is going to cost us 35 BILLION which will come out of the "General Budget" NOT the military. There goes the socail programs for everyone!

[Hicksey]

But, Hicksey, what about the missionaries from godhatesfags.com? They like to go to funerals of dead American soldiers and cheer because they feel God is punishing the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality. Are they just harmlessly exposing themselves for the fools they are, or is there a point where free speech becomes harassment?

I would be the ultimate hypocrite to campaign for free speech and then whine when people say things I don't like. So as you would expect I would not censor them. But I think that in order to protest within the cemetary limits they should need the permission of the executor of the dead person's estate. Otherwise they should be restricted to picketing the gate of the cemetary.

They shouldn't be able to interrupt a private engagement, but there should be no restriction against them picketing reasonably outside the gate.

On a related note, if I recognized one of our cemetary protesters that applied for a job from me, I'd laugh his ass out the front door. Who wants people like that around them?

I love free speech because we find out what people are really all about.

There's a reason for the saying "Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an ass than to open it and remove all doubt." Remember the thing I said about consequences? It applies everywhere. If our protestor doesn't like the conequences of the action in which he made a conscious decision to portake, then he should refrain from doing it.

We may have to tolerate a few idiots to have free speech, but once we all realize who they are we can avoid them like the plague. And as well we should.