Harper is no Bush Clone

[Argus]

For some reason, Mr. Harper felt compelled to vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for it.

It's been pointed out to you by numerous people many, many times that this is a lie. You never challenge that, but you go on repeating it.

Numerous people denying the truth does not make the truth false.

Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Bill C-250 states that killing people because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime. Now tell me which of these three statements is a lie.

The last two.

Bill C-250 was about hate SPEECH. It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH VIOLENCE. The provision in the criminal code which deals with sentencing is 718.2. It was amended to include sexual orientation in 1995 by Bill C-41

[Canadian Blue]

Once again that is the problem with democracy is the constant smear campaigns instead of actual debate.

Lets take hate crime legislation for example.

You can be opposed to any hate crime laws based on libertarian principles. These include freedom of thought, speech, religion, and expression. You might not be a racist, yet you will be pinned with labels like homophobe, racist, xenophobe, anti-semite, etc. All because you were more libertarian on that issue.

[normanchateau]

I have never accused Harper of approving of gay bashing including killing of gays. Such an accusation would indeed be reprehensible and despicable. I have, however, pointed out that he voted against legislation which made it a hate crime to kill people based on their sexual orientation.

Yes, but you were lying through your teeth when you did, which is also reprehensible and despicable.

What was the lie?

[normanchateau]

How about ridiculing a homosexual opposition member in parliament, as Harper did, by making a joke alluding to his sexual orientation? Is that homophobia or just totally inappropriate behaviour?

It isn't necessarily either. Please provide the context...

Here it is:

http://cupe.ca/www/EqualityPride/4192

[Ricki Bobbi]

Here it is:

http://cupe.ca/www/EqualityPride/4192

Ahhhh.... the fact that Harper said something about Svend Robinson's arrest for THEFT was spun as homophobia.

That one was also quite open to interpretation.

As for your question it was neither homophobic nor totally inappropriate behaviour.

[normanchateau]

Here it is:

http://cupe.ca/www/EqualityPride/4192

Ahhhh.... the fact that Harper said something about Svend Robinson's arrest for THEFT was spun as homophobia.

That one was also quite open to interpretation.

As for your question it was neither homophobic nor totally inappropriate behaviour.

This happened before the theft. It does not surprise me that you view the comment as neither homophobic nor totally inappropriate.

[normanchateau]

Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Bill C-250 states that killing people because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime. Now tell me which of these three statements is a lie.

The last two.

Bill C-250 was about hate SPEECH. It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH VIOLENCE. The provision in the criminal code which deals with sentencing is 718.2. It was amended to include sexual orientation in 1995 by Bill C-41

"Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of the members of a group based on colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to the list."

Here's the source:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

[scribblet]

That one was also quite open to interpretation.

As for your question it was neither homophobic nor totally inappropriate behaviour.

C-250 is an Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda) Maybe we need to rename this thread – Spinning Normie’s Web

Objections to Bill C-250 have always been about hate speech, nothing else, in fact this is the only place I’ve seen it interpreted in such a way. It is quite a malicious leap to infer that Harper or anyone else condones gay bashing or murder because they object to it.

2. 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;

http://tinyurl.com/y3yygq Senate Debates

The terms of the legislation are imprecise and unclear, such as "sexual orientation," "hatred" and associated terms like "religious subject." As these definitions evolve, as "marriage" has, they may create further difficulties for religious expression. "Sexual orientation" includes homosexuals and lesbians, of course, but does it also include bisexuals, transsexuals and cross-dressers, as well as pedophiles or bestiality? What about polygamy? How will a court subsequently define the expression "sexual orientation?"

The bill threatens to infringe on long-standing freedoms of expression and religious belief, including the freedom to express reasonable disapproval of homosexual behaviour. The defences incorporated in the Criminal Code have been shown to be unreliable protection for religiously motivated speech.

Bill C-250 attempts to give the members of special interest groups and the politically correct activist judiciary the power of criminal law sanction to persecute those who dare to disagree.

Freedom of speech must be extended not only to those with whom we agree but also to those with whom we disagree. Prosecution, or threat of persecution, will deter the human right to freedom of expression from prevailing.

Madam Justice McLachlin, with the concurrence of Mr. Justice John Sopinka and Mr. Justice Gerard LaForest, described "freedom of expression" in the Charter as the "right to let loose one's ideas on the world." She referred to the "chilling effect" on the exercise of this freedom of expression by law-abiding citizens because of the subjective concept of "hate." In her opinion, criminal sanctions do not operate as a deterrent to hate-mongers, while they chill the free expression of the ideas of "ordinary individuals who,

by fear of criminal prosecutions and because of the inherent vagueness of the provision, will refrain from exercising their freedom of expression."

She also said:

Section 319 imposes limits on freedom of expression in relation to the search for truth, vigorous and open practical debate and the value of self-individualization.

In her opinion:

The hate propaganda provision raises serious questions as to whether it furthers the principles and values of social peace, individual dignity, multiculturalism, and equality.

To most Canadians, the principal intent of Bill C-250 appears to be that the expression of "hurtful" words about one's sexual orientation must not be uttered; that, in effect, punishing, hurtful opinions will suppress civil liberties and truth.

[Ricki Bobbi]

This happened before the theft. It does not surprise me that you view the comment as neither homophobic nor totally inappropriate.

I was wrong about the timing. Of course it shouldn't surprise you. The comment wasn't homophobic nor totally inappropriate.

Your hypocrisy on the issue of inappropriate comments is galling. If it is a leftist group that says something, ie. the attack on Ambrose's hair, no harm no foul. But if it is anything directed at Svend then of course it was bad.

If you want to be credible you should behave in a credible manner.

[normanchateau]

That one was also quite open to interpretation.

As for your question it was neither homophobic nor totally inappropriate behaviour.

C-250 is an Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda) Maybe we need to rename this thread – Spinning Normie’s Web

Objections to Bill C-250 have always been about hate speech, nothing else, in fact this is the only place I’ve seen it interpreted in such a way. It is quite a malicious leap to infer that Harper or anyone else condones gay bashing or murder because they object to it.

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

( 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;

http://tinyurl.com/y3yygq Senate Debates

The terms of the legislation are imprecise and unclear, such as "sexual orientation," "hatred" and associated terms like "religious subject." As these definitions evolve, as "marriage" has, they may create further difficulties for religious expression. "Sexual orientation" includes homosexuals and lesbians, of course, but does it also include bisexuals, transsexuals and cross-dressers, as well as pedophiles or bestiality? What about polygamy? How will a court subsequently define the expression "sexual orientation?"

The bill threatens to infringe on long-standing freedoms of expression and religious belief, including the freedom to express reasonable disapproval of homosexual behaviour. The defences incorporated in the Criminal Code have been shown to be unreliable protection for religiously motivated speech.

Bill C-250 attempts to give the members of special interest groups and the politically correct activist judiciary the power of criminal law sanction to persecute those who dare to disagree.

Freedom of speech must be extended not only to those with whom we agree but also to those with whom we disagree. Prosecution, or threat of persecution, will deter the human right to freedom of expression from prevailing.

Madam Justice McLachlin, with the concurrence of Mr. Justice John Sopinka and Mr. Justice Gerard LaForest, described "freedom of expression" in the Charter as the "right to let loose one's ideas on the world." She referred to the "chilling effect" on the exercise of this freedom of expression by law-abiding citizens because of the subjective concept of "hate." In her opinion, criminal sanctions do not operate as a deterrent to hate-mongers, while they chill the free expression of the ideas of "ordinary individuals who,

by fear of criminal prosecutions and because of the inherent vagueness of the provision, will refrain from exercising their freedom of expression."

She also said:

Section 319 imposes limits on freedom of expression in relation to the search for truth, vigorous and open practical debate and the value of self-individualization.

In her opinion:

The hate propaganda provision raises serious questions as to whether it furthers the principles and values of social peace, individual dignity, multiculturalism, and equality.

To most Canadians, the principal intent of Bill C-250 appears to be that the expression of "hurtful" words about one's sexual orientation must not be uttered; that, in effect, punishing, hurtful opinions will suppress civil liberties and truth.

You are referring to the provisions in C-250 which resulted in changes to Section 318. I was referring to the provisions in C-250 which resulted in changes to Section 319. Of course religionists are opposed to the latter.

Oddly, I've never heard religionists opposed to the idea of religion, race or ethnic origin being enshrined in hate legislation, only sexual orientation. Yet churches, synagogues and mosques regularly discriminate against people on the basis of religion. Why do opponents of C-250 think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not on the basis of religion?

[Higgly]

Once again, it is odd that somebody who had shown opposition to religion and social conservatism being at the core of party politics would have a sudden change of heart.

The core of party politics?

People's positions change.

During the last Liberal leadership Paul Martin said he was definitely not in favour of SSM.

Times change. People change their minds.

Please keep trying to push *scary* *scary* *scary*.

Accountability. What's that about? Who said they would deliver?

[gerryhatrick]

Here it is:

http://cupe.ca/www/EqualityPride/4192

Ahhhh.... the fact that Harper said something about Svend Robinson's arrest for THEFT was spun as homophobia.

“I am sure the picture of the honourable member of the NDP is posted in much more wonderful places than just police stations.”

You don't see the sexual reference in that?

[Argus]

Here it is:

http://cupe.ca/www/EqualityPride/4192

Ahhhh.... the fact that Harper said something about Svend Robinson's arrest for THEFT was spun as homophobia.

“I am sure the picture of the honourable member of the NDP is posted in much more wonderful places than just police stations.”

You don't see the sexual reference in that?

When did it become vorbotten to even hint at an insult which involved gender or sexual orientation? I mean, tall and short, fat and thin, ugly, bald, and all sorts of other things are perfectly acceptable, but if anyone jokes about a tiary for Bill Graham everyone goes all goggle-eyed and has hissy fits.

[Argus]

Oddly, I've never heard religionists opposed to the idea of religion, race or ethnic origin being enshrined in hate legislation, only sexual orientation. Yet churches, synagogues and mosques regularly discriminate against people on the basis of religion. Why do opponents of C-250 think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not on the basis of religion?

Because all religions decry homosexuality, their utterly clear and obvious worry is that litigants will be able to use hate provisions against "sexual orientation" to attack them and their holy books.

BTW, all hate speech is the product of mental weaklings and intended to benefit mental weaklings by "protecting" them from words which will, no doubt, instantly influence them to start attacking people.

The people who push such legislation don't think of themselves as mental weaklings, of course. But that is what they are. All of them.

Hate speech laws are a far more basic asault on human rights than someone calling a gay man "fag" or whatnot.

[Argus]

Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Bill C-250 states that killing people because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime. Now tell me which of these three statements is a lie.

The last two.

Bill C-250 was about hate SPEECH. It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH VIOLENCE. The provision in the criminal code which deals with sentencing is 718.2. It was amended to include sexual orientation in 1995 by Bill C-41

"Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of the members of a group based on colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to the list."

Here's the source:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

That is what I just said. It is about hate speech, not beating up fags in the park.

[Higgly]

When did it become vorbotten to even hint at an insult which involved gender or sexual orientation? I mean, tall and short, fat and thin, ugly, bald, and all sorts of other things are perfectly acceptable, but if anyone jokes about a tiary for Bill Graham everyone goes all goggle-eyed and has hissy fits.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

[Argus]

When did it become vorbotten to even hint at an insult which involved gender or sexual orientation? I mean, tall and short, fat and thin, ugly, bald, and all sorts of other things are perfectly acceptable, but if anyone jokes about a tiary for Bill Graham everyone goes all goggle-eyed and has hissy fits.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Entirely irrelevent, but sure, I agree.

But the state also has no business telling me what I am allowed to write or say.

[normanchateau]

Oddly, I've never heard religionists opposed to the idea of religion, race or ethnic origin being enshrined in hate legislation, only sexual orientation. Yet churches, synagogues and mosques regularly discriminate against people on the basis of religion. Why do opponents of C-250 think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not on the basis of religion?

Because all religions decry homosexuality, their utterly clear and obvious worry is that litigants will be able to use hate provisions against "sexual orientation" to attack them and their holy books.

The question was why do opponents of C-250 think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not on the basis of religion? You've purposefully ignored the second part of the question. Religionists have no problem with religion being a criterion in hate crimes legislation. Why are religionists not worried "that litigants will be able to use hate provisions against..." religion "...to attack them and their holy books".

Churches, synagogues and mosques regularly discriminate on the basis of religion. Try getting married in one of these institutions if you're of the wrong religion. Why should religionists be protected by hate crimes legislation and homosexuals not?

[Argus]

Oddly, I've never heard religionists opposed to the idea of religion, race or ethnic origin being enshrined in hate legislation, only sexual orientation. Yet churches, synagogues and mosques regularly discriminate against people on the basis of religion. Why do opponents of C-250 think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not on the basis of religion?

Because all religions decry homosexuality, their utterly clear and obvious worry is that litigants will be able to use hate provisions against "sexual orientation" to attack them and their holy books.

The question was why do opponents of C-250 think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not on the basis of religion? You've purposefully ignored the second part of the question.

Bill C-250 has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals. It has to do with hate speech.

[geoffrey]

I hate to ever agree with Argus, but I agree here yet again. The State does have no right to limit what I say.

As well, I'm kind of sick of this concept that people shouldn't be free to discriminate in their personal dealings. The Charter protects people from a discriminatory government, not individual discrimination. I'm free not to be friends with blacks, gays or whatever simply on that basis (I'm not that redneck though, but the option is there).

Are you saying that I should be forced into being friends with these people? Are you saying I should be forced to only say good things about those people? What about when they sad bad things about us like when those hooligan Muslim leaders insult all Canadians calling our women promiscuous because they've advanced past the dark ages?

Personally, I think protection from discrimation should end at the government. Personal dealings and personal speech should be a free domain, I don't see how the government can have authority over my opinions.

If people are stupid enough to believe hate speech, then that is their own fault. Most Canadians need to grow up and stop thinking that the government should be protecting everyone at all times. People need to learn to make choices and decisions about material on their own. If they are incapable, then they are also likely incapable of making choices to act upon that material.

[normanchateau]

I hate to ever agree with Argus, but I agree here yet again. The State does have no right to limit what I say.

As well, I'm kind of sick of this concept that people shouldn't be free to discriminate in their personal dealings. The Charter protects people from a discriminatory government, not individual discrimination. I'm free not to be friends with blacks, gays or whatever simply on that basis (I'm not that redneck though, but the option is there).

You are referring to hate speech laws in general. I have no problem with getting rid of ALL hate speech laws. My problem with Harper is that he specifically wants to exclude sexual orientation but is fine with all other hate speech laws relating to race, religion and ethnicity.

Harper voted against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals but he did not oppose hate speech legislation in general.

[southerncomfort]

Harper voted against legislation because there was no opt out portion it was all or nothing. Are you particularly thick or something, or are you willfully misinterpreting why people oppose it. Keep spinning tho, you might wear out your keyboard.

[Argus]

You are referring to hate speech laws in general. I have no problem with getting rid of ALL hate speech laws. My problem with Harper is that he specifically wants to exclude sexual orientation but is fine with all other hate speech laws relating to race, religion and ethnicity.

Harper voted against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals but he did not oppose hate speech legislation in general.

If you don't think hate speech laws are necessary then why whine about Harper not wanting to put gays on the list?

BTW, how do you know he wouldn't have opposed all hate speech legislation had it come up while he was an MP?

I would have opposed it, but presuming I was only in office recently, I would have only had the opportunity to vote against the recent widening of thie protected groups to include gays. If the whole thing came up for renewal, of course, I would vote against it.

The Tories might be philsophically opposed to the hate speech legislation itself, but it's not politically possible for them to move to have it removed, nor would they have the numbers to accomplish this if they tried.

[normanchateau]

You are referring to hate speech laws in general. I have no problem with getting rid of ALL hate speech laws. My problem with Harper is that he specifically wants to exclude sexual orientation but is fine with all other hate speech laws relating to race, religion and ethnicity.

Harper voted against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals but he did not oppose hate speech legislation in general.

BTW, how do you know he wouldn't have opposed all hate speech legislation had it come up while he was an MP?

I don't. But Harper never gave any indication that he opposed such legislation during the lengthy parliamentary debates when he lead the Canadian Alliance attacks on C-250.

[Canadian Blue]

I believe once again the major concern was with religious freedom. As for hate speech, well, we'll haven't had a real debate on that yet.