The new face of hate

[jefferiah]

With regards to your case, it hasn't even been ruled on yet from what I can see.

Beside the point. There should not even be a case. If you can be sued over incidents like this, regardless of the ruling, that is a huge drain on society.

Check out the case of the politician in BC who was asked his views regarding homosexuality in an interview. He was asked. So he said you know they are people like everyone else, but personally I am a Catholic and to me it is immoral. That's it. Pretty tame. No call to violence. He was sued for 1000 by a couple who were offended. Now, I have to concede that he settled it before the trial and agreed to pay. How much would his lawyer have cost? Cases like this should not even be considered. This is ridiculous.

[jefferiah]

about how being ___ is sinful and that _____ can change.

I am not sure it works with race ... jk

You missed the meaning there, Jennie. I was saying that I was citing cases where homosexuals were offended but there was no call to violence in any of them. So even though I did not provide examples of race related offenses it is reasonable to assume, despite Hardner's assurance that it would never happen, that people can sue because they are offended without their actually being a call to violence. Do you understand now?

[jennie]

He was referring to his tax dollars funding homosexual activist groups, a seperate issue from the homosexuality being taught to children.

my bad

I see ... I didn't read it carefully enough I guess.

[kengs333]

With regards to your case, it hasn't even been ruled on yet from what I can see.

Whatever the case, it's religious persecution.

[jefferiah]

Being sued or called before the HRC is not the same thing as being charged under 319; different standards, different level of offense.

Still though, Visionseeker. Hate crime is excessive. There are no love crimes. If you were to gather in a group and call for the beating of Joe Blow that is already a crime. It could be conspiracy to commit assualt, etc. This is illegal anyway, whether he is white or black. So why do certain groups need extra protection? I do not trust it and I do not support it. It's silly and excessive. And there should be no protected groups versus others.

[jennie]

Beside the point. There should not even be a case. If you can be sued over incidents like this, regardless of the ruling, that is a huge drain on society.

Check out the case of the politician in BC who was asked his views regarding homosexuality in an interview. He was asked. So he said you know they are people like everyone else, but personally I am a Catholic and to me it is immoral. That's it. Pretty tame. No call to violence. He was sued for 1000 by a couple who were offended. Now, I have to concede that he settled it before the trial and agreed to pay. How much would his lawyer have cost? Cases like this should not even be considered. This is ridiculous.

I would have to agree with that one UNLESS he said or implied that it would be immoral FOR HIMSELF.

I think the dividing line is between espousing something for yourself, and placing judgments on others who do it.

I like dill pickle chips, you hate them. Do you say you won't eat them, or do you say nobody should eat them?

It's a matter of who it is directed at, in my opinion.

Saying homosexuality shouldn't exist is offensive to those who are.

If you are not, why does it matter to you?

To them, though, as a population at whom hate crimes are directed, it is part of the atmosphere that validates that.

Only in insane criminal minds perhaps, but denying their right to exist is a bit extreme even just verbally.

Edited September 24, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

Whatever the case, it's religious persecution.

That's an exemption:

(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;

[Visionseeker]

Still though, Visionseeker. Hate crime is excessive. There are no love crimes. If you were to gather in a group and call for the beating of Joe Blow that is already a crime. It could be conspiracy to commit assualt, etc. This is illegal anyway, whether he is white or black. So why do certain groups need extra protection? I do not trust it and I do not support it. It's silly and excessive. And there should be no protected groups versus others.

Protection of the individual in civilized society is paramount. One cannot be held to consent to dominion if one is to be a lesser member within it. That which seeks to lessen the individual is harmful to the dominion and must be prohibited for the benefit of the dominion and all individuals. This is the rationale that underscores hate crimes legislation.

Those who argue against it (directly or indirectly) favour a collectivist interpretation where given collectives consent to dominion while others shall be subordinated to it.

Maligning groups maligns the individual. IMO, one shouldn't waste their energies opposing anti-hate laws as it is in their best interests to oppose professions of hate.

[Wilber]

QUOTE(Wilber @ Sep 23 2007, 08:20 PM)

We need immigration because too many of us chose not to renew our population.

Yes repeat the news paper articles. Please do.

The Canadian birth rate is 1.57 per woman. The bare minimum required to renew the population is 2.1. Two to replace the parents and .1 for unforeseen mortality. Lets round if off to 1.5 per couple. If every two couples average 3 children in their lifetimes, that is a drop of 25% per generation. Who needs a newspaper article to figure that out.

[jennie]

The Canadian birth rate is 1.57 per woman. The bare minimum required to renew the population is 2.1. Two to replace the parents and .1 for unforeseen mortality. Lets round if off to 1.5 per couple. If every two couples average 3 children in their lifetimes, that is a drop of 25% per generation. Who needs a newspaper article to figure that out.

It's important to understand that. We are diminishing ourselves ... except perhaps in Newfoundland, now.

Some country somewhere recently celebrated "conception day" a national holiday for ... conceiving children.

Hmm ... that February McHoliday ... Family Day? ... or making family? Nice thing to do in winter.

But ya, and we have a lot of baby boomers going to be old folks, and we need enough people to support that.

I think that is the main issue.

[Michael Hardner]

Beside the point. There should not even be a case.

Jefferiah, and Kengs,

It seems to me that your complaint is with the justice system in general. Suits or complaints have to be pursued once filed, that is the process.

Conrad Black was, back in the day, accused of causing 'libel chill' when he subpoenaed every person who was associated with a writer, who was working on an unauthorized biography.

Your complaint is with the general process, and doesn't have anything to do with human rights complaints in particular.

[Wilber]

It's important to understand that. We are diminishing ourselves ... except perhaps in Newfoundland, now.

Some country somewhere recently celebrated "conception day" a national holiday for ... conceiving children.

Hmm ... that February McHoliday ... Family Day? ... or making family? Nice thing to do in winter.

But ya, and we have a lot of baby boomers going to be old folks, and we need enough people to support that.

I think that is the main issue.

Aging boomers are going to aggravate the situation but they are not the main issue. The declining birthrate is the real problem. Even the boomers had more kids per capita than people do now.

Mikedavid wanted news references. Here are a few.

National Post

CTV

CBC

Edited September 24, 2007 by Wilber

[jennie]

Aging boomers are going to aggravate the situation but they are not the main issue. The declining birthrate is the real problem. Even the boomers had more kids per capita than people do now.

Mikedavid wanted news references. Here are a few.

National Post

CTV

CBC

Interesting when you think about where the support for immigration must come from. Developers and builders, for example, are reaping 'boom times' building houses for former immigrants. They certainly are not calling for reduction in their numbers. Who is the segment of society that decries immigrants? It is likely not the profit-makers. Who then? And why?

[jennie]

Firstly, modern immigratns drain or welfare state which is a proven fact... (edit: ... in Canada. Other countries benefit from immigrants.. an no. most of theirs are not from China, Pakistan and India. That is a Canadian specific phenomena).

I find your singling out certain peoples extremely distastefull, and you are absolutely wrong about the 'drain' on the welfare system: Immigrants put more money into the economy that they take out. Period. Case closed.

[kengs333]

I find your singling out certain peoples extremely distastefull, and you are absolutely wrong about the 'drain' on the welfare system: Immigrants put more money into the economy that they take out. Period. Case closed.

That's why Canada wants immigrants, because of their money, and then they come here and they don't receive the benefits that they were promised, the money runs out, and they go on social assistance, or go back to their homeland. Like it or not, Canada is largely an English speaking country and many of the immigrants who come here don't speak English that well. It's not the good old days when they could get land and live isolated from the rest of the world in ethnic communities on the Prairies. The options for people who can't speak English well in a service-oriented economy are minimal. I personally would like to see an emphasis put on securing immigrants from Europe and the Commonwealth where one can expect people to have a good understanding of the English language.

[ScottSA]

I find your singling out certain peoples extremely distastefull, and you are absolutely wrong about the 'drain' on the welfare system: Immigrants put more money into the economy that they take out. Period. Case closed.

You seem to think it's quite alright to single out people based on race.

[mikedavid00]

I like dill pickle chips, you hate them. Do you say you won't eat them, or do you say nobody should eat them?

It's a matter of who it is directed at, in my opinion.

Saying homosexuality shouldn't exist is offensive to those who are.

If you are not, why does it matter to you?

It's beginning to dawn on me that you're a first year University student who thinks your opinion is 'more correct' than ours because you are in school and feel that you are somehow in a higher place in society.

Lol..

When you get older you'll look back at some of your writings and laugh at how silly you were. That's why people don't take students seriously anymore. They are far too young, have wild social liberal communist idealisms, and are taught by poeple who never worked a day in their life.

(assuming you work in the private sector and learn the cold, cold realities of the world).

Oh no.. was this post a sexist hate crime? Let's examine.

HEHEHE!!

[Leafless]

I find your singling out certain peoples extremely distastefull, and you are absolutely wrong about the 'drain' on the welfare system: Immigrants put more money into the economy that they take out. Period. Case closed.

In 2001 only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15-years and higher were working in 2001, so obviously there is a drain on the system if 56% are not working.

The 2006 census update is not available yet, so we will have to wait to see if there is an improvement.

[M.Dancer]

In 2001 only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15-years and higher were working in 2001, so obviously there is a drain on the system if 56% are not working.

The 2006 census update is not available yet, so we will have to wait to see if there is an improvement.

How many of the 15 to 22 year olds were doing something you yourself should do?

Like getting an education?

Anyone who has a full time job before they are 20 are likely to be a drain....if not a pain.

[guyser]

In 2001 only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15-years and higher were working in 2001, so obviously there is a drain on the system if 56% are not working.

No need to worry. 24% of Canadians aged 15 and up were not working this past year.(not including those that were not actually looking so it is easily higher)

What a drain.Boot 'em out....oops cant they were born here.

[Guest American Woman]

In 2001 only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15-years and higher were working in 2001, so obviously there is a drain on the system if 56% are not working.

The 2006 census update is not available yet, so we will have to wait to see if there is an improvement.

This article states, according to a Statistics Canada study:

"...2006 unemployment levels among immigrants who arrived in Canada between 2001 and 2006 was 11.5 per cent, as compared with 4.9 per cent among the Canadian-born population.

The study notes that unemployment rates in 2006 fell to 7.3 per cent among immigrants who had been in the country between five and 10 years."

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks for the statistics, AW.

Can somebody back up the claims about welfare next ?

[old_bold&cold]

I find it really strange that I have to agree with Jennie in this thread, but in other threads find her way off base. Today we have boomers retiring and not enough labour force to support the retirement. So what we need is middle aged families with children, hopefully 3-4 children, to come and make Canada there home. Back in the 90's we had a chance to take in many of the business people from Hongkong, but did not open our arms to them, rather we put obstacles to there being accepted. These were the kind of immigrants that would have opened businesses and hired people. They would have invested in our industries. But we did not push to get them. Now I wish we had many times more then we did get. With the break up of the Iron Curtain countries we have many immigrants that would have been god for Canada. Scientists from all these countries were eager to go any where that would recognize their abilities and education. We did not do this so we lost a good portion of these immigrants. Canada seems to have a very high British immigrant population, but they also seem into the One child is enough type mind. To me immigration is the only way Canada can go forward. It is not a case of if we need it, but rather how fast we need it. The west is probably now getting way more of the immigrant then they ever did before due to the well paying jobs etc. Even those who have skills but are not recognised by Canada, can find that Alberta will give them the work and pay for their skills and they can take tests afterwards to requalify. The one thing we need to do and that is screen new immigrants so we are not letting in criminals and war crime types. Also we need to make sure that the new immigrants are not sick and just coming for the healthcare. If we can do that, then I am all for immigration of the masses we need to ensure our country's way of life. It should also be made known at the beginning that here in Canada we have laws of the land that supercede all laws of religion. That needs to be made clear and if there is any resistance, then deny them entry.

[kengs333]

Interesting how our individualistic, anti-nuclear family society needs to import traditionally minded nuclear families in order to keep from imploding.

I find it really strange that I have to agree with Jennie in this thread, but in other threads find her way off base. Today we have boomers retiring and not enough labour force to support the retirement. So what we need is middle aged families with children, hopefully 3-4 children, to come and make Canada there home. Back in the 90's we had a chance to take in many of the business people from Hongkong, but did not open our arms to them, rather we put obstacles to there being accepted. These were the kind of immigrants that would have opened businesses and hired people. They would have invested in our industries. But we did not push to get them. Now I wish we had many times more then we did get. With the break up of the Iron Curtain countries we have many immigrants that would have been god for Canada. Scientists from all these countries were eager to go any where that would recognize their abilities and education. We did not do this so we lost a good portion of these immigrants. Canada seems to have a very high British immigrant population, but they also seem into the One child is enough type mind. To me immigration is the only way Canada can go forward. It is not a case of if we need it, but rather how fast we need it. The west is probably now getting way more of the immigrant then they ever did before due to the well paying jobs etc. Even those who have skills but are not recognised by Canada, can find that Alberta will give them the work and pay for their skills and they can take tests afterwards to requalify. The one thing we need to do and that is screen new immigrants so we are not letting in criminals and war crime types. Also we need to make sure that the new immigrants are not sick and just coming for the healthcare. If we can do that, then I am all for immigration of the masses we need to ensure our country's way of life. It should also be made known at the beginning that here in Canada we have laws of the land that supercede all laws of religion. That needs to be made clear and if there is any resistance, then deny them entry.

[mikedavid00]

In 2001 only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15-years and higher were working in 2001, so obviously there is a drain on the system if 56% are not working.

The 2006 census update is not available yet, so we will have to wait to see if there is an improvement.

Everyone take note.

I heard today that things are worse than ever with 1/2 of all immigrants living in poverty. It's not due to educational recognition, but simply that Canada doesn't have all the white collar jobs that they desire.