August1991 Posted January 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 For the record, it's not clear what the councillor said exactly: At issue are remarks made by DeCicco in June about homosexuality. John Olynick and Greg Koll allege the two-term councillor expressed hatred or contempt toward homosexuals during an interview with a television reporter. In that interview DeCicco said he was unsure if homosexuality were “a disease,” or something else, adding “it’s not normal or natural, I don’t care what they say.” Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 He is also mentions DiCicco comparing homosexuality to a disease... an aspect of the tribunal that neither Michael Coren nor the Catholic Civil Rights League thought merited any mention.That somehow implies that it is acceptable to say that homosexuality is "not normal or natural" but it is unacceptable to say that it's a "disease".I suppose there's a distinction but it's slight. Do we really want a tribunal making such distinctions where free speech is concerned? Coren said "I use the words carefully and precisely because this is what John DiCicco, a city councillor in Kamloops, B.C., said and why he has been forced to pay $1,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal." But if his intent was to replicate the circumstances under which DiCicco was fined, neglecting to mention "disease" is rather opposite to the "care and precision" he claims, isn't it? I see two likely reasons why Coren would omit the mention of the "disease" angle. He suspected his readers would feel the distinction was more than slight, and he thought it would weaken his argument. Or, he suspected his editors would feel the distinction was more than slight, and ice the whole column. I am not generally in favor of fines and penalties being imposed for anything except the most flagrant abuse of the freedom of speech. However, downplaying the difference between Coren's version of events and the version described by Councilman Singh or reported in Kamloops This Week as a "slight distinction" strikes me as inaccurate. You could also say that there's only a slight distinction between "negro" and "n****r", but in the real world we know that the one word is merely archaic while the other is intensely inflammatory. The difference between "not normal or natural" and "a disease" is the same sort of inflammatory characteristic, which I suspect Coren recognized, and his editors and readers would have recognized, and Singh recognized, and DiCicco ought to have recognized. I don't feel the fact that he said it makes him a criminal, but I do think it suggests that he's not very smart. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 People need to grow up. I think free speech should be an absolute. It is in my country and it works quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 Exactly jbq. If someone is to believe the horseshit that comes from some people, they are beyond the help of any law anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Politicians are not paid to spout their own beliefs, and have them stand for anything, they are there too respresent the voters who are from ALL walks of life. Their comments should be within the contextual laws of the land and not as a platform from their own bigoted belief system. Don't imagine he campaigned upon "I hate homosexuals" now did he? There's a tension in the lives of public servants between voting or speaking what you believe and voting the will of the majority of a political district. Representatives who stray too far from the view of their constituents risk not being re-elected. Anyhow... I am gay and think this guy should be allowed to speak his mind. If he opens his mouth, he might just prove to all that he's an ignoramus. Or he might educate. I'm also an American and sometimes wonder what it is about Canadians that they have to legislate away offensiveness. Are you all so fragile and victimized that you need to construct some legal framework that keeps your ears free from offense? Wasn't it a Canadian who said something like if you aren't occasionally offended you aren't living in a free society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Politicians are not paid to spout their own beliefs, and have them stand for anything, they are there too respresent the voters who are from ALL walks of life. Their comments should be within the contextual laws of the land and not as a platform from their own bigoted belief system. Don't imagine he campaigned upon "I hate homosexuals" now did he? There's a tension in the lives of public servants between voting or speaking what you believe and voting the will of the majority of a political district. Representatives who stray too far from the view of their constituents risk not being re-elected. Anyhow... I am gay and think this guy should be allowed to speak his mind. If he opens his mouth, he might just prove to all that he's an ignoramus. Or he might educate. I'm also an American and sometimes wonder what it is about Canadians that they have to legislate away offensiveness. Are you all so fragile and victimized that you need to construct some legal framework that keeps your ears free from offense? Wasn't it a Canadian who said something like if you aren't occasionally offended you aren't living in a free society? Thank You Liam, you show yourself to be a man of respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 I believe that homosexuality is not normal and not natural. Semantics. There are perfectly reasonable definitions of 'normal' that would exclude homosexuality, but likewise others that include it. There is no denying that it appears to be a sexual orientation shared by a minority of the population. But what of it? What does 'normal' matter anyway? As to natural, this seems to be mere denial on the part of anti-homosexuals. Homosexual behaviour is found among animals, and appears to have existed among humans from time immemorial. But again, what of it? What consequence do people expect should flow from labelling it natural or not natural? I believe that homosexuality is not normal and not natural. I use the words carefully and precisely because this is what John DiCicco, a city councillor in Kamloops, B.C., said and why he has been forced to pay $1,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. The settlement allows DiCicco to avoid a full Human Rights hearing after it accepted the complaint from a homosexual couple who were offended by the councillor's remark. There is a troubling inconsistency between the words in bold, there. We will never know whether DiCicco violated the human rights code, because he CHOSE to settle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 I believe that homosexuality is not normal and not natural. I use the words carefully and precisely because this is what John DiCicco, a city councillor in Kamloops, B.C., said and why he has been forced to pay $1,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. The settlement allows DiCicco to avoid a full Human Rights hearing after it accepted the complaint from a homosexual couple who were offended by the councillor's remark. There is a troubling inconsistency between the words in bold, there. We will never know whether DiCicco violated the human rights code, because he CHOSE to settle. I believe one of the legitimate concerns about situations like this is that because of legal expenses, challenging a ruling would cost more than just accepting the fine. How much "choice" one has in accepting a settlement under such conditions is somewhat debateable. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 I believe one of the legitimate concerns about situations like this is that because of legal expenses, challenging a ruling would cost more than just accepting the fine. How much "choice" one has in accepting a settlement under such conditions is somewhat debateable. The same 'choice' applies throughout our legal system, of course. Most litigants don't have the benefit of a city budget to back their procedings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 What difference does it make? If a guy cant say he think homosexuality is abnormal what kind of freedom do we have. I mean you can debate whether or not its natural all you want, no one has to accept your view, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, why cant this guy have his. He never promoted violence or incited any riot. He just said what he thought. What is wrong with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogs Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Why can't someone say bestiality is not normal and a diseased behavior (assuming the animal is consenting)? If you say this, does this mean you hate dogs, goats or sheep? Or does it mean one is jealous? Or attempting to deprive the animals of an alternative sex life? What if it's normal for a certain group of people? Is a person's brain diseased if he/she loves animals so much. If he/she was born that way? Is it illegal to speak at any time of certain opinions? Because, it might incite hatred in some? Like selling hammers that a person might buy to conk a head somewhere? We are all to be responsible for what other people think? Now, that makes sense!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 What difference does it make? If a guy cant say he think homosexuality is abnormal what kind of freedom do we have. I mean you can debate whether or not its natural all you want, no one has to accept your view, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, why cant this guy have his. He never promoted violence or incited any riot. He just said what he thought. What is wrong with that? We'll never know, since he settled rather than defend himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogs Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 "The settlement allows DiCicco to avoid a full Human Rights hearing after it accepted the complaint from a homosexual couple who were offended by the councillor's remark." ~~~~~~~ Now that makes sense! So all homosexual couples should send me $1000 each because I am personally offended by homosexuality! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 You been peekin' in peoples' bedroom windows? If not, how on earth do you know what they do in there? Maybe they just hold hands and sing Kumbaya... Damn gays and women, eh! Ruinin' the wurld fer yah strate wite geyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 You been peekin' in peoples' bedroom windows?If not, how on earth do you know what they do in there? Maybe they just hold hands and sing Kumbaya... Damn gays and women, eh! Ruinin' the wurld fer yah strate wite geyes. Drea you are not even making a point. Why should a guy have to pay a thousand bucks for saying he thinks homosexuality is a disease? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 You been peekin' in peoples' bedroom windows? If not, how on earth do you know what they do in there? Maybe they just hold hands and sing Kumbaya... Damn gays and women, eh! Ruinin' the wurld fer yah strate wite geyes. Drea you are not even making a point. Why should a guy have to pay a thousand bucks for saying he thinks homosexuality is a disease? Ask DiCicco, he's the one who decided to pay it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Figleaf you know what Kimmy said is true. What difference does it make what he said. He said it in an interview and a homosexual couple charges him 1000 for their own personal offense. Come off it, Man. Have some bloody sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 You been peekin' in peoples' bedroom windows? If not, how on earth do you know what they do in there? Maybe they just hold hands and sing Kumbaya... Damn gays and women, eh! Ruinin' the wurld fer yah strate wite geyes. Drea you are not even making a point. Why should a guy have to pay a thousand bucks for saying he thinks homosexuality is a disease? The point being -- as long as people are not having sex in the middle of the mall it is no one's business.A public figure making statements such as this deserves to pay for his idiocy. $1000 is a pittance IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Why Drea? Why cant a person say what he thinks? You keep saying its none of his business. Well he is not stopping people from being gay. When a man gets charged 1000 dollars for voicing his opinion that is when someone is barging in on someone else's business. What business is it of yours to say this man owe's 1000 for voicing what he believes? You are not far off from legislating what opinions a man is allowed to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 What difference does it make if he is a public figure or a some joe working at a hot dog stand? Do not public figures have opinions Drea? Are they not allowed to say what they think? I'll tell you right now, I think homosexual acts are sins-----do I now owe 1000s of dollars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Personally you could have knocked me down with a feather when I found out that Coren was straight. That being said I am not surprised in the least he holds those opinions. He is after all one big fat ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 The point being -- as long as people are not having sex in the middle of the mall it is no one's business.A public figure making statements such as this deserves to pay for his idiocy. $1000 is a pittance IMO. DeCicco was stating this opinion in response to questions about why he voted no in a vote on having a "pride day" type event in Kamloops. DeCicco wasn't speaking against people doing what they wish in their bedrooms, he was discussing a vote about a parade on Main Street. (or, more likely, "Business Frontage Road", from what I've seen of Kamloops ) -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Figleaf you know what Kimmy said is true. My point is that you righties can't whine about how expression rights are being trampled because the right never got tested in this case. The topic of the complaint should be about how expensive it is for the non-wealthy to access justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 The topic of the complaint should be about how expensive it is for the non-wealthy to access justice.I agree.Furthermore, a Human Rights Tribunal has the tax-payer's endless pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 and what if I think Jews are "bad"? Am I "allowed" to stand on a soapbox and shout it to the world? What if I think that all blacks, asians and arabs are the scum of the earth -- am I allowed to shout it from a soapbox? Am I allowed to promote hatred of these people or should I shut up and keep my opinion to myself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.