Harper's plan to court the immigrant vote

[normanchateau]

You can't ever legislate tolerance. If individuals don't like homosexuals for whatever reason, you can't pass a law that changes that.

I agree. To the best of my knowledge, no one has attempted such legislation.

[sharkman]

The fact that you consider a sexual preference to be the equivalent to an ethnic group.

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further?

Boy you sure do love to get into gay debates norman. Yes, the analogy is plain. But false, since gayness is not a ethnic group. Say, why don't you bring up your gay agenda in more FEDERAL POLITICS THREADS, even if it has nothing to do with the topic, it's easy to derail a thread.

[normanchateau]

The fact that you consider a sexual preference to be the equivalent to an ethnic group.

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further?

Boy you sure do love to get into gay debates norman. Yes, the analogy is plain. But false, since gayness is not a ethnic group.

No one said gayness is an ethnic group. Homosexuals and brown-skinned people have both been discriminated against. That's the analogy. Get it?

[geoffrey]

No one said gayness is an ethnic group. Homosexuals and brown-skinned people have both been discriminated against. That's the analogy. Get it?

There is a signficant difference.

Brown people are obviously brown. No one has to know a gay person is gay.

Gay people are unreasonable to expect people to just treat them like 'normal' when they aren't. I'd probably give someone a weird look if their hobby was to dance around their house drinking goats milk while balancing on one of those balance balls. Alternative lifestyles are different in action. Brown people and white people are essientially equal in all ways, their actions should define them.

That's the difference. Defining people by actions is legit, defining people by colour is not. Saying that homosexuality is a undesirable is not reasonable either, but criticising the flamboyancy of a gay pride parade or the flaming gays you see sometimes is completely reasonable.

Bottom line. Being critical or offended by action is justified. Being critical or offended by something someone can't change is not.

[BC_chick]

Gay people are unreasonable to expect people to just treat them like 'normal' when they aren't.

Oh no you didn't.

[normanchateau]

No one said gayness is an ethnic group. Homosexuals and brown-skinned people have both been discriminated against. That's the analogy. Get it?

There is a signficant difference.

Brown people are obviously brown. No one has to know a gay person is gay.

Gay people are unreasonable to expect people to just treat them like 'normal' when they aren't.

To me, the issue is not whether they are "normal" or not. Prior to 1967, homosexuals were incarcerated for engaging in homosexual behaviour. Putting people in prison isn't quite the same as merely discriminating or being intolerant of homosexuality.

Why apologize to Sikhs today because illegal immigrant Sikhs were sent back in 1914 and not apologize to people who were imprisoned for engaging in homosexual behaviour? It seems to me that neither deserve apologies or both deserve apologies.

[geoffrey]

Gay people are unreasonable to expect people to just treat them like 'normal' when they aren't.

Oh no you didn't.

Please. In context!!!

No one is completely normal. People are always apprehensive of our difference. I get weird looks when people see my bike race photos amongst my pictures at work. No different than a gay guy getting a weird look when he talks with a lisp (why do they all do that???? this is a fair criticism) and has a fauxhawk.

[normanchateau]

No different than a gay guy getting a weird look when he talks with a lisp (why do they all do that???? this is a fair criticism)

No they don't all talk with a lisp anymore than all Albertans wear cowboy hats.

[NovaScotian]

No different than a gay guy getting a weird look when he talks with a lisp (why do they all do that???? this is a fair criticism) and has a fauxhawk.

I have known gay men that are extremely masculine and ones that are feminine. Sexual orientation is completely separate from how masculine or feminine a guy is.

However, anyone with a fauxhawk should expect some criticism. Silly guys!

[geoffrey]

No different than a gay guy getting a weird look when he talks with a lisp (why do they all do that???? this is a fair criticism)

No they don't all talk with a lisp anymore than all Albertans wear cowboy hats.

I shouldn't have said all, that was rude of me. I am well aware that not all gays speak with lisps. That was a slip.

But why do some? I leave this question standing.

Gays that are obviously gay should expect some pressure. People sometimes criticise my lifestyle as a pretty hardcore outdoors athelete sometimes. "Oh, those crazy climbers/hikers/bikers in tight clothes/ect." Sometimes it's degrading, sometimes it's funny. But if I put that face out there, I expect people to judge me on it.

When people are flamboyantly gay, then yes, they are going to take some flak for it, and I don't think that's a big moral faux pas.

I have known gay men that are extremely masculine and ones that are feminine. Sexual orientation is completely separate from how masculine or feminine a guy is.

Exactly. The lifestyle choice is up for criticism, the sexual orientation is not. Gay guys can express their sexuality in a reasonable manner and not cause any trouble (like anyone else, I can't stand straight people all over each other in public either).

[normanchateau]

I shouldn't have said all, that was rude of me. I am well aware that not all gays speak with lisps. That was a slip.

But why do some? I leave this question standing.

There actually has been research on this question:

http://members.tripod.com/Caroline_Bowen/codemix.htm

[scribblet]

Boy you sure do love to get into gay debates norman. Yes, the analogy is plain. But false, since gayness is not a ethnic group. Say, why don't you bring up your gay agenda in more FEDERAL POLITICS THREADS, even if it has nothing to do with the topic, it's easy to derail a thread.

Too easy it seems, thread drift is normal, but deliberately hijacking it with some gay agenda (or any other) is against the rules.

[normanchateau]

The fact that you consider a sexual preference to be the equivalent to an ethnic group.

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further?

Boy you sure do love to get into gay debates norman.

Yes, I continue to delve into the rationale of supporting apologies to illegal immigrants turned back in 1914 versus no apologies, or even attempts to remove legislated rights from another minority in December, 2006.

This topic certainly does seem to rile Stephen Harper supporters. Could it be that after Stephen Harper's latest failed attempt to deal with this in the House of Commons as recently as December, 2006, his supporters are praying that the topic will quietly be forgotten before the next election.

[BC_chick]

What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore:

(1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals?

(2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill?

Technically, the Alliance voted against it. 68 out of 69 members.... the other one was absent.

(BTW, that wasn't a justification - IMO it's even worse)

[normanchateau]

What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore:

(1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals?

(2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill?

the Alliance voted against it. 68 out of 69 members.... the other one was absent.

I believe Stephen Harper was then leader of the Alliance. Do you have the numbers for the other parties? My recollection is that the Liberals, NDP, BQ and approximately half the PC MPs, including Joe Clark, voted for it.

[noahbody]

Putting people in prison isn't quite the same as merely discriminating or being intolerant of homosexuality.

Should merely discriminating or being intolerant of homosexuality be considered a hate crime, then?

[normanchateau]

No. The legislation is quite clear. It's advocating or promoting the killing of homosexuals which makes it a hate crime.

[noahbody]

No. The legislation is quite clear. It's advocating or promoting the killing of homosexuals which makes it a hate crime.

The legislation is more than that clause. It also includes the following:

"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

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

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

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

( 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;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...

[BC_chick]

I believe Stephen Harper was then leader of the Alliance. Do you have the numbers for the other parties? My recollection is that the Liberals, NDP, BQ and approximately half the PC MPs, including Joe Clark, voted for it.

Yes, he was (leader of the Alliance at that time), I doubled-checked before throwing the numbers out. The bill was voted on late September, the merger took place in October and became official in December.

As for the voting record, I have the breakdown per party, but not per MP:

http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/fedvotes/

Scroll down. I made a mistake though, it was 62 and 1 absent, not 68 and 1 absent.

Strangely enough (tongue-in-cheek) I couldn't find Harper's vote on that bill elsewhere on the internet.

But it's a moot point given the Alliance's vote.

[Guest chilipeppers]

No. The legislation is quite clear. It's advocating or promoting the killing of homosexuals which makes it a hate crime.

The legislation is more than that clause. It also includes the following:

"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

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (clipped here)

You beat me to it, again this thread not about the immigrant vote and has been derailed?

Normanchateau has a history of successfully derailing threads with the same old disengenous arguments so much so that it does lead one to believe it must be a obsessive compulsive disorder, part of a more broader Harper derangement syndrome and so again we are led back to this 'gay thing' He/she would certainly be a terrific spinmeister for the Liberal party.

This bill's effects on free speech and religious rights are ignored in his/her underlying assertions that opposition to this bill is advocating hatred or actually killing of homosexuals. On searching this is regurgitating the same old normanchateau spin

The Harper "so-con" argument doesn't hold water when you look at Harper's pro-choice and less than strong stand on SSM plus his known neutrality on other issues such as abortion. Somewhere there was a slick little mention of a church Harper attended which seemingly gave weight to the so-con argument. It is not my business what church anyone attends or anyone elses.

The vote against the hate crime legislation is a much weaker argument as intelligent informed people know that the vote against Bill C-250 was because of a well founded fear of free speech limitations a valid point as the Charter of rights allready protects minorities.

I would not say that voting against Bill C-250 is equivalent to promoting the death of anyone, nor is it condoning hate, neither would I say that those opposed to same sex marriage are somehow equivalent to racist bigots, or that they are all conservatives. The CPC is a broad tent as is the Liberal party, both parties hold members with similar viewpoints as did an NDP MP.

http://www.tomwappelmp.ca/Speeches/C-250.htm as Tom Wappel (Lib) said,

want to close by saying there is no point reinventing the wheel. I want to read some of the comments of Lorne Gunter which appeared in the Edmonton Journal on June 5. He stated:

Technically, his bill amends only Section 318 of the Criminal Code, the clause which forbids anyone to advocate or promote genocide against �an identifiable group.� Pretty basic and non-controversial, it would seem

But the danger from altering Section 318 comes via what it does to Section 319. By adding �sexual orientation� to the protected categories enumerated in 318, Robinson's bill has the effect of altering the definition of �identifiable groups� in 319. And while 318 deals only with genocide, 319 makes it a federal offence to �communicate statements in any public place� that would �wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group.�

Covered in Section 319 are all forms of hatred, not just the promotion of genocide. All forms of communication are covered, too, except �private conversation.� Broadcasting, publishing and advertising are all covered; so are postings on the Internet. Indeed, speaking out against homosexuality would be forbidden in all �audible or visible means� of communication. One day, even sermons delivered by priests, rabbis and imams could conceivably be forbidden to refer to homosexuality as sinful. Talking on the telephone could be covered, too, since telecommunications are federally regulated

I see no further reason for pointing out to normanchateau that he is simply regurgitating old spin that has been thoroughly debunked in numerous other threads which I found on a search, as I am sure he will continue to do so and people will continue to go for the bait. Speaking for myself I find no satisfaction in trying to dialogue with someone who obviously has OCD and a personal agenda, so I guess I'll lurk for a while or wait until the forum is back on track.

Have a great day all.