The new face of hate

[Leafless]

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."

The study you quoted does not include all classes of immigrants, therefore is fraudulent as it only includes a more narrow age range called 'core working immigrants', (ages 25-54) and on that basis they are more likely to be employed.

So what I said is still factual until the 2006 census update becomes available and that is 56% of immigrants are unemployed.

[jennie]

The study you quoted does not include all classes of immigrants, therefore is fraudulent as it only includes a more narrow age range called 'core working immigrants', (ages 25-54) and on that basis they are more likely to be employed.

So what I said is still factual until the 2006 census update becomes available and that is 56% of immigrants are unemployed.

Does that include the children and seniors? What is the point of that statistic, then?

It is more important to compare the same population as we use to calculate unemployment in Canada: The employable actively looking for work.

Why would we apply a different statistic to them than we use for ourselves? That would be bias.

[Wilber]

The study you quoted does not include all classes of immigrants, therefore is fraudulent as it only includes a more narrow age range called 'core working immigrants', (ages 25-54) and on that basis they are more likely to be employed.

So what I said is still factual until the 2006 census update becomes available and that is 56% of immigrants are unemployed.

I'm retired, therefore I am a deadbeat by that standard, even though I have never collected EI or welfare in my life.

[mikedavid00]

No. Any one will do.

Ok I'm at work now.

The secret that no one likes to mention when it comes to immigrants and why they are not on par with Canadians as far as equal job oppertunities is their English. It really is that simple. How bad is their English? Bad. Real bad. It's to the point of not being functionally litterate.

It takes 10 years total to learn how to speak English and then begin to comprehend abstract thoughts which is required for most work situtations. And this is 10 years of speaking English and nothing but English.

Modern immigrants typically do not speak English in their daily lives and have little desire to do so (proven). They choose not to impove their accent and feel that they are well understand and that peoplpe who say they can't understand them are 'doing it on purpose' (proven). They also feel that their accent is part of 'who they are' as a person (proven) and do very little to improve their language skills.

Being illiteral in the workplace costs companies in Canada millions in efficiency (proven) and comapanies choose to hire people with excellent communitication skills (proven).

Anecdotally, my last boss told me that the only reason I was hired is because the other 8 applicants simply had communication issues. They currently had a Chinese Canadian there who staff had a lot of trouble working with and they didn't want to repeat that mistake. I was his last choice becuase those competing against me obviously had higher paper qualifications. My boss was very happy he got me and I actually created a $20,000 revenue stream from Ford Canada doing program analasys. Ford pulled out of our company for other reasons, a bunch of people got laid off in all departments. An immigrant would not even understan what a marketing program is and have little worldly knowledge of such things or have little grasp on our economic, work based society because they are mostly from other parts of the third world (fact).

Canadians do indeed hire immigrants. Many employers have been down that road and made the mistake, others don't learn. Others just see paper qualifications for the lowest cost and treat everyone as equal. Either way, there is a supply of labor in Canada. A supply of educated labor for white collar positions which creates competition and lowers wages.

When an immigrant does get hired at a white collar job or gov't job, it is at the expense of a Canadian (fact). That is simply factual. When they get hired washing dishes in Alberta, it's because they are truly needed. But these immigrants don't want blue collar, low paying jobs (fact). They came here as world elites and schollars (in THEIR minds)(not a fact. Just my observation and anecdotal).

See below and why companies choose to hire Canadians for some jobs over immigrants:

22% of adult Canadians have serious problems dealing with printed materials.

About 45% of new Canadian jobs created in this decade will require at least 16 years of education.

Canadians with the lowest level of literacy skills have an unemployment rate of 26% compared to 4% for Canadians with the highest literacy levels.

Nearly 1.4 million Canadian children 15 years of age and younger are living in low-income homes. 34% of children from the lowest income families do not complete their high school education.

60% of Canadians on social assistance have not completed high school.

42% of Native Canadians do not graduate from high school, compared to 22% in the non-native population.

Almost three-quarters of 626 Canadian companies surveyed feel that they have a significant problem with functional literacy in some part of their organization.

Only 10% of Canadians see illiteracy as part of our economic problems.

ANOTHER INTESTING POINT:

In South Asia

South Asia is home to one-fifth of the world's population and 40% of the world's absolute poor.

Nearly 98% of the world's illiterate population lives in developing countries. Half of these people live in South Asia.

Edited September 25, 2007 by mikedavid00

[Wilber]

I never said they were bums, I said that they have an unusually high unemployment rate and are bankrupting our social services.

Language is a barrier to getting good jobs when people come here but I don't know why you would think a person with enough initiative to get a professional degree in a third world country would come to Canada and work as a cab driver because he doesn't have enough initiative to upgrade his language skills.

You accuse them of bankrupting our social programs because they don't want to work or aren't willing to do what it takes to get decent jobs. Sure sounds like calling someone a bum to me.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok I'm at work now.

The secret that no one likes to mention when it comes to immigrants and why they are not on par with Canadians as far as equal job oppertunities is their English. It really is that simple. How bad is their English? Bad. Real bad. It's to the point of not being functionally litterate.

Immigrants have to pass a test in one of our official languages to get citizenship.

It takes 10 years total to learn how to speak English and then begin to comprehend abstract thoughts which is required for most work situtations. And this is 10 years of speaking English and nothing but English.

That is patently wrong. I learned a foreign language from very little foundation after only a few months.

Modern immigrants typically do not speak English in their daily lives and have little desire to do so (proven). They choose not to impove their accent and feel that they are well understand and that peoplpe who say they can't understand them are 'doing it on purpose' (proven). They also feel that their accent is part of 'who they are' as a person (proven) and do very little to improve their language skills.

Putting proven in brackets might convince a simpleton, but it doesn't convince us.

Immigrants often have English as a second language, and ESL classes are full of people who are taking night courses to learn it. In the Phillipines, they teach basic school courses in English.

Being illiteral in the workplace costs companies in Canada millions in efficiency (proven) and comapanies choose to hire people with excellent communitication skills (proven).

Anecdotally, my last boss told me that the only reason I was hired is because the other 8 applicants simply had communication issues. They currently had a Chinese Canadian there who staff had a lot of trouble working with and they didn't want to repeat that mistake. I was his last choice becuase those competing against me obviously had higher paper qualifications. My boss was very happy he got me and I actually created a $20,000 revenue stream from Ford Canada doing program analasys. Ford pulled out of our company for other reasons, a bunch of people got laid off in all departments. An immigrant would not even understan what a marketing program is and have little worldly knowledge of such things or have little grasp on our economic, work based society because they are mostly from other parts of the third world (fact).

You were his last choice ? Ford pulled out of your company for 'other reasons' ?

New immigrants aren't suited for every job, but from your stated record, neither are you.

Canadians do indeed hire immigrants. Many employers have been down that road and made the mistake, others don't learn. Others just see paper qualifications for the lowest cost and treat everyone as equal. Either way, there is a supply of labor in Canada. A supply of educated labor for white collar positions which creates competition and lowers wages.

Where do you live ? A significant percentage of every workplace I've been in for the last ten years has been immigrant and/or non white.

When an immigrant does get hired at a white collar job or gov't job, it is at the expense of a Canadian (fact). That is simply factual. When they get hired washing dishes in Alberta, it's because they are truly needed. But these immigrants don't want blue collar, low paying jobs (fact). They came here as world elites and schollars (in THEIR minds)(not a fact. Just my observation and anecdotal).

How am I supposed to differentiate when you say (fact) and when you say (anecdotal) ?

I don't accept this evidence from you.

See below and why companies choose to hire Canadians for some jobs over immigrants:

22% of adult Canadians have serious problems dealing with printed materials.

About 45% of new Canadian jobs created in this decade will require at least 16 years of education.

Canadians with the lowest level of literacy skills have an unemployment rate of 26% compared to 4% for Canadians with the highest literacy levels.

Nearly 1.4 million Canadian children 15 years of age and younger are living in low-income homes. 34% of children from the lowest income families do not complete their high school education.

60% of Canadians on social assistance have not completed high school.

42% of Native Canadians do not graduate from high school, compared to 22% in the non-native population.

Almost three-quarters of 626 Canadian companies surveyed feel that they have a significant problem with functional literacy in some part of their organization.

Only 10% of Canadians see illiteracy as part of our economic problems.

ANOTHER INTESTING POINT:

In South Asia

South Asia is home to one-fifth of the world's population and 40% of the world's absolute poor.

Nearly 98% of the world's illiterate population lives in developing countries. Half of these people live in South Asia.

Again, a slew of information from you that is not sourced. That means you have simply quoted some numbers, but not told us where. You need to learn the basics of debate, perhaps from an immigrant.

100 % of Michael Hardners reject your unsubstantiated facts. (fact)

[jennie]

Ok I'm at work now.

The secret that no one likes to mention when it comes to immigrants and why they are not on par with Canadians as far as equal job oppertunities is their English. It really is that simple. How bad is their English? Bad. Real bad. It's to the point of not being functionally litterate.

It takes 10 years total to learn how to speak English and then begin to comprehend abstract thoughts which is required for most work situtations. And this is 10 years of speaking English and nothing but English.

Modern immigrants typically do not speak English in their daily lives and have little desire to do so (proven). They choose not to impove their accent and feel that they are well understand and that peoplpe who say they can't understand them are 'doing it on purpose' (proven). They also feel that their accent is part of 'who they are' as a person (proven) and do very little to improve their language skills.

Being illiteral in the workplace costs companies in Canada millions in efficiency (proven) and comapanies choose to hire people with excellent communitication skills (proven).

Anecdotally, my last boss told me that the only reason I was hired is because the other 8 applicants simply had communication issues. They currently had a Chinese Canadian there who staff had a lot of trouble working with and they didn't want to repeat that mistake. I was his last choice becuase those competing against me obviously had higher paper qualifications. My boss was very happy he got me and I actually created a $20,000 revenue stream from Ford Canada doing program analasys. Ford pulled out of our company for other reasons, a bunch of people got laid off in all departments. An immigrant would not even understan what a marketing program is and have little worldly knowledge of such things or have little grasp on our economic, work based society because they are mostly from other parts of the third world (fact).

Canadians do indeed hire immigrants. Many employers have been down that road and made the mistake, others don't learn. Others just see paper qualifications for the lowest cost and treat everyone as equal. Either way, there is a supply of labor in Canada. A supply of educated labor for white collar positions which creates competition and lowers wages.

When an immigrant does get hired at a white collar job or gov't job, it is at the expense of a Canadian (fact). That is simply factual. When they get hired washing dishes in Alberta, it's because they are truly needed. But these immigrants don't want blue collar, low paying jobs (fact). They came here as world elites and schollars (in THEIR minds)(not a fact. Just my observation and anecdotal).

See below and why companies choose to hire Canadians for some jobs over immigrants:

22% of adult Canadians have serious problems dealing with printed materials.

About 45% of new Canadian jobs created in this decade will require at least 16 years of education.

Canadians with the lowest level of literacy skills have an unemployment rate of 26% compared to 4% for Canadians with the highest literacy levels.

Nearly 1.4 million Canadian children 15 years of age and younger are living in low-income homes. 34% of children from the lowest income families do not complete their high school education.

60% of Canadians on social assistance have not completed high school.

42% of Native Canadians do not graduate from high school, compared to 22% in the non-native population.

Almost three-quarters of 626 Canadian companies surveyed feel that they have a significant problem with functional literacy in some part of their organization.

Only 10% of Canadians see illiteracy as part of our economic problems.

ANOTHER INTESTING POINT:

In South Asia

South Asia is home to one-fifth of the world's population and 40% of the world's absolute poor.

Nearly 98% of the world's illiterate population lives in developing countries. Half of these people live in South Asia.

I fail to see what this information has to do with immigrant contribution to the economy of Canada which, as we know, is on the positive side of the ledger.

You have proven nothing.

[mikedavid00]

Language is a barrier to getting good jobs when people come here but I don't know why you would think a person with enough initiative to get a professional degree in a third world country would come to Canada and work as a cab driver because he doesn't have enough initiative to upgrade his language skills.

You accuse them of bankrupting our social programs because they don't want to work or aren't willing to do what it takes to get decent jobs. Sure sounds like calling someone a bum to me.

You don't know enough about the whole system. In India, they basically enter their universities in at 17 years old. It's a status thing over there. It's an extension of highschool. Not a real formal education as MANY people point out at www.canadaimmigrants.com. People will tell you just how difficult our schooling is over here.

India and China et al feel that the key to making their countries great is to learn math and have everyone have a paper cert of some sort. Cuba and all other poor coutries do the same thing.

The quality of education does NOT equate to a countries wealth but that's another topic. Too much education is basically a bad thing.

Anyhow, what i'm trying to say is that in the third world or a place like cuba, it's not an annitiative, basically everyone has a degree. Many Doctors getting paid minimum wage or working at hospitals for free just for status purposes.

Somewhere along the way, Canada figured that these degrees are the same as ours for some stupid elitist reasons and Trudeau fealt that if they had a degree they could just come here and get a job off the bat.

In a point in time, that was actually true to a small extent. My soon to be father in law came in 1968 which a teaching degree, moved to Quebec because 'Quebec needed teachers' and low and behold, he became a teacher with those foreign credentials. Eventually that proved to be a bad policy becuase TOO MANY teachers started to show up and then unions got involved because they began to take jobs away from Quebecers. So they made these people go through Canadian schooling. FEW HAD THE DRIVE AND WILL TO DO THIS so things changed and we had people using their teachers degree to come to Quebec and basically do something else or re-unite with family members. Also, the quality of teacher was extremely poor due to language and other issues. (Attend any Canadian university and you'll see why foreign teachers from the 3rd world are a bad idea. Yeah.. some of you guys know just what I'm talking about).

Today, 30 years later, we STILL have people coming here, with foreign degrees, that our private or gov't sectors simply don't recognize (with good reason) and they are just wandering out of the airport to re-unite with friends and family. See Xul as an example. That is a real, tangible example.

We all know very well that no private company is seriosly going to hire him as some market researcher etc. It's laughable to think so when he's not work place litterate. But in these days, XUL HIMSELF knows that he's not going to get hired. Now you have to question what he'll be doing here?

Will he be goign to school? Most likely.

-University/College/English courses - all subsidised by you the tax payer.

What will his wife be doing?

-Social Assistance support for settling immigrants plus allowance for his kids - all paid for exclusively by you tax payer.

Medical care, new baby (of course), glasses, fee-bees etc.

-Could be VERY expesive or not, either way he'll be using it in the first few years as most immigrants do (fact) and we'll be paying for it.

Usage of roads and highways.

-This is a usage of our infrastructure that he has never paid into and will be using without paying into it. We have to pay for him to use our roads (sounds funny, but it's factual).

And Oh yes. Elementary Schooling.

Schooling, classes, ESL for the kids. These are all services that we have to pay for: not Xul.

The crux of the argument is, we do NOT have a job for Xul in Canada, yet we continue to let him in unchecked, and free to use our services.

This policy will eventually ruin our social services beyond repair if this continues. And Xul is only a small margin that come under worker class, the majority or sponsored in FAMILY class. Elderly, Sikh's, Jamaicans, and other people who have no business being here.

Letting Xul into Canada should not mean his mother coming here also but that's what always happens and this family sponsorship is KILLING our healthcare system beyond repair.

Even if Xul worked labor jobs, he's STILL using more sevies then he's paying into.

[jennie]

You don't know enough about the whole system. In India, they basically enter their universities in at 17 years old. It's a status thing over there. It's an extension of highschool. Not a real formal education as MANY people point out at www.canadaimmigrants.com. People will tell you just how difficult our schooling is over here.

India and China et al feel that the key to making their countries great is to learn math and have everyone have a paper cert of some sort. Cuba and all other poor coutries do the same thing.

The quality of education does NOT equate to a countries wealth but that's another topic. Too much education is basically a bad thing.

Anyhow, what i'm trying to say is that in the third world or a place like cuba, it's not an annitiative, basically everyone has a degree. Many Doctors getting paid minimum wage or working at hospitals for free just for status purposes.

Somewhere along the way, Canada figured that these degrees are the same as ours for some stupid elitist reasons and Trudeau fealt that if they had a degree they could just come here and get a job off the bat.

In a point in time, that was actually true to a small extent. My soon to be father in law came in 1968 which a teaching degree, moved to Quebec because 'Quebec needed teachers' and low and behold, he became a teacher with those foreign credentials. Eventually that proved to be a bad policy becuase TOO MANY teachers started to show up and then unions got involved because they began to take jobs away from Quebecers. So they made these people go through Canadian schooling. FEW HAD THE DRIVE AND WILL TO DO THIS so things changed and we had people using their teachers degree to come to Quebec and basically do something else or re-unite with family members. Also, the quality of teacher was extremely poor due to language and other issues. (Attend any Canadian university and you'll see why foreign teachers from the 3rd world are a bad idea. Yeah.. some of you guys know just what I'm talking about).

Today, 30 years later, we STILL have people coming here, with foreign degrees, that our private or gov't sectors simply don't recognize (with good reason) and they are just wandering out of the airport to re-unite with friends and family. See Xul as an example. That is a real, tangible example.

We all know very well that no private company is seriosly going to hire him as some market researcher etc. It's laughable to think so when he's not work place litterate. But in these days, XUL HIMSELF knows that he's not going to get hired. Now you have to question what he'll be doing here?

Will he be goign to school? Most likely.

-University/College/English courses - all subsidised by you the tax payer.

What will his wife be doing?

-Social Assistance support for settling immigrants plus allowance for his kids - all paid for exclusively by you tax payer.

Medical care, new baby (of course), glasses, fee-bees etc.

-Could be VERY expesive or not, either way he'll be using it in the first few years as most immigrants do (fact) and we'll be paying for it.

Usage of roads and highways.

-This is a usage of our infrastructure that he has never paid into and will be using without paying into it. We have to pay for him to use our roads (sounds funny, but it's factual).

And Oh yes. Elementary Schooling.

Schooling, classes, ESL for the kids. These are all services that we have to pay for: not Xul.

The crux of the argument is, we do NOT have a job for Xul in Canada, yet we continue to let him in unchecked, and free to use our services.

This policy will eventually ruin our social services beyond repair if this continues. And Xul is only a small margin that come under worker class, the majority or sponsored in FAMILY class. Elderly, Sikh's, Jamaicans, and other people who have no business being here.

Letting Xul into Canada should not mean his mother coming here also but that's what always happens and this family sponsorship is KILLING our healthcare system beyond repair.

Even if Xul worked labor jobs, he's STILL using more sevies then he's paying into.

Regardless of your irrational terror of what MIGHT happen, the facts remain: IMMIGRANTS CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE ECONOMY THAN THEY TAKE OUT.

All of your nastiness and pettiness is unfounded, unwarranted 'white supremacist' gibberish mikedavid.

[mikedavid00]

Regardless of your irrational terror of what MIGHT happen, the facts remain: IMMIGRANTS CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE ECONOMY THAN THEY TAKE OUT.

All of your nastiness and pettiness is unfounded, unwarranted 'white supremacist' gibberish mikedavid.

That's funny, how can I be a white supremacist when I'm of a mixed race?

I'm apposed to immigration because they are making us poor as a country.

edit: Quality of living is like a pie. Everyone gets a slice. The more immigrants that come, the smaller all of our sclices get.

There might be more pie for eveyrone, BUT IT'S THE SIZE YOUR SLICE THAT MATTERS BECAUSE IN THE END IT'S YOUR ONLY SLICE OF PIE AS A CANADIAN.

Do you want EVERYONE in Canada to have an increasingly SMALLER SLICES?

Or Do you want to have a nice BIG SLICE and maybe even bigger than the Americans some day!

That's the most easiest way to describe the greater issue at hand. You can twist it any way you like to favor immigrants, the facts are, the Canadian slice has been shrinking since we let open our flood gates to the third world.

Modern immigration needs to be controlled and regulated so letting in immigrants results in us getting a bigger slice of pie.

Edited September 25, 2007 by mikedavid00

[Wilber]

Will he be goign to school? Most likely.

-University/College/English courses - all subsidised by you the tax payer.

We subsidize school for all Canadians and teach the courses they need, not just the ones which have your approval.

What will his wife be doing?

-Social Assistance support for settling immigrants plus allowance for his kids - all paid for exclusively by you tax payer.

Part of the cost of doing business in a country which does not have a birthrate high enough to maintain its society. We need the kids more than anyone else. What his wife is doing is their business, just as what your wife (should you have one) does is your business.

Medical care, new baby (of course), glasses, fee-bees etc.

-Could be VERY expesive or not, either way he'll be using it in the first few years as most immigrants do (fact) and we'll be paying for it.

So what, we need babies in this country, the fewer we have, the more young people we will have to import to maintain a productive society.

Usage of roads and highways.

-This is a usage of our infrastructure that he has never paid into and will be using without paying into it. We have to pay for him to use our roads (sounds funny, but it's factual).

Actually, it is just stupid. If an immigrant can afford to own and operate a vehicle he is obviously gainfully employed and paying the same taxes as everyone else.

And Oh yes. Elementary Schooling.

Schooling, classes, ESL for the kids.

We educate all our population, native born or immigrant. It is essential to maintaining a free and prosperous society. I hope you are not suggesting that the children of native born Canadians should receive a state paid education but the children of immigrants should not. ESL is part of the cost of not having enough children born in Canada. Those ESL kids are the future taxpayers of Canada, I wonder if they will have a different attitude toward it than you.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Wilber

[Michael Hardner]

MikeDavid has consistently ignored requests that he back up the information that he's posting.

I think we should stop responding to his arguments until he does so.

[jennie]

MikeDavid has consistently ignored requests that he back up the information that he's posting.

I think we should stop responding to his arguments until he does so.

Agreed.

[guyser]

MikeDavid has consistently ignored requests that he back up the information that he's posting.

I think we should stop responding to his arguments until he does so.

He will almost always ignore requests for info since it will shoot holes in his arguments. And when he does, he will magically move the goalposts claiming something else entirely.

He is a political animal , relishes his anti-immigrant tirades , pontificates on elections and politics in general............ but , alas, never votes since he claims to be a busy student .

[Michael Hardner]

There are plenty of right-wingers on these sites that will challenge you, make you reconsider your point of view, and advance intelligent arguments that are hard to top. Those posters will truly educate you on your own arguments as well as theirs.

[xul]

How do we distinguish 'promoting hatred' from 'free speech'?

Perhaps we can distinguish them just as we distinguish "overspeed" from "driving free".

There is not a absolutely right of "free speech". If a person insult another person orally in a street, he will not use "free speech" as his plea when he was charge in a court, because in front of his "free speech" , others could not defend themself by lowering themself to "equal" to him. If laws admit such kind of "free speech", it will actually make those noble men not equal to those mean men. Just as if laws allow the right of someone "driving free" by overspeeding, it will actually deprive the right of others "safe driving".

In my opinion, someone commits "promoting hatred" because he confuses the difference between an individual and a group of people. For instance, if I come to Canada and a thief steals my money from my pocket, then I post in a Chinese forum:"There is a thief in Canada." What I did is not wrong. If I say"there are a lot of thieves in Canada", it is wrong but not a promoting of hatred. But if I say"all Canadian are thief", I believe any Canadian can charge me in a court for promoting hatred or insult even it is a Chinese court and judge will support him.

There is not an absolute criterian to distinguish "promoting hatred" from "free speech". The speed limits of a road usually depends on how much the wide it is. The criterian between "promoting hated" from "free speech" depends on how tolerance a society has. Please allow me to make a joke at MikeD: If every people in Canada like me, he will have more space to "free speech" in real world though he believes I'm the worst one who could be allowed to immigrate to Canada.

[jefferiah]

Perhaps we can distinguish them just as we distinguish "overspeed" from "driving free".

There is not a absolutely right of "free speech". If a person insult another person orally in a street, he will not use "free speech" as his plea when he was charge in a court, because in front of his "free speech" , others could not defend themself by lowering themself to "equal" to him. If laws admit such kind of "free speech", it will actually make those noble men not equal to those mean men. Just as if laws allow the right of someone "driving free" by overspeeding, it will actually deprive the right of others "safe driving".

In my opinion, someone commits "promoting hatred" because he confuses the difference between an individual and a group of people. For instance, if I come to Canada and a thief steals my money from my pocket, then I post in a Chinese forum:"There is a thief in Canada." What I did is not wrong. If I say"there are a lot of thieves in Canada", it is wrong but not a promoting of hatred. But if I say"all Canadian are thief", I believe any Canadian can charge me in a court for promoting hatred or insult even it is a Chinese court and judge will support him.

There is not an absolute criterian to distinguish "promoting hatred" from "free speech". The speed limits of a road usually depends on how much the wide it is. The criterian between "promoting hated" from "free speech" depends on how tolerance a society has. Please allow me to make a joke at MikeD: If every people in Canada like me, he will have more space to "free speech" in real world though he believes I'm the worst one who could be allowed to immigrate to Canada.

I disagree totally Xul. I think the law should not be involved in charging people for insults. I am not saying insults are nice, but then when you get into this business you are going to have courts crammed with everyday people who offended someone. That is ridiculous. If you do not like what someone says you have a right to ignore it and not believe in it. If that person were to commit an actual crime against you that would be different---ie Jennie's example of torture.

I cited an example of someone saying he believed homosexuality is wrong, for him and for everyone. He believes it is immoral. He was not overly insulting about it. He was asked his views in an interview and he answered honestly. He did not promote violence. He was not being self-righteous, because at no point did he ever claim he was a better human being than anyone else, homosexual or not. But yet he was sued for 1000.

[kengs333]

Immigrants often have English as a second language, and ESL classes are full of people who are

...

Edited September 26, 2007 by kengs333

[jefferiah]

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.

He did not deny their right to exist, he said he believed it was immoral. In fact he said they are people like everyone else, but that he believes it is a sin. That's his belief. He wasn't offensive about it. But you say that saying this is offensive to people who are homosexual and therefore based on offensiveness you support the lawsuit. I have to wonder Jenny, from a racial perspective, if an offensive comment were made about a white person or white people would you hold the same position.

[Michael Hardner]

Jefferiah,

He did not promote violence. He was not being self-righteous, because at no point did he ever claim he was a better human being than anyone else, homosexual or not. But yet he was sued for 1000.

As I explained, you can't prevent yourself from getting sued. Your problem is with the justice system in general, I think, and has nothing to do with hate laws.

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah,

As I explained, you can't prevent yourself from getting sued. Your problem is with the justice system in general, I think, and has nothing to do with hate laws.

I think there is a definite connection. It is definitely the same mentality which supports hate laws which would support this suit and making a man pay 1000 dollars for responding to a question about his beliefs. And by the way, this was addressing Jennie, not you yourself. She said she agreed with this suit, unless he said that homosexuality is wrong for him. I think that is ridiculous myself. People are allowed to have moral beliefs about things and to profess them.

But she says this would offend homosexuals and so I ask her, since she supports this suit, would she also support a lawsuit in the case of where an offense was made against a white person or white people.

[Michael Hardner]

I think there is a definite connection. It is definitely the same mentality which supports hate laws which would support this suit and making a man pay 1000 dollars for responding to a question about his beliefs. And by the way, this was addressing Jennie, not you yourself. She said she agreed with this suit, unless he said that homosexuality is wrong for him. I think that is ridiculous myself. People are allowed to have moral beliefs about things and to profess them.

But she says this would offend homosexuals and so I ask her, since she supports this suit, would she also support a lawsuit in the case of where an offense was made against a white person or white people.

Jefferiah,

Why does it matter who supports it ? You seemed to be saying earlier that hate laws restricted free speech, but the examples are all about lawsuits not criminal charges.

[Wilber]

I disagree totally Xul. I think the law should not be involved in charging people for insults. I am not saying insults are nice, but then when you get into this business you are going to have courts crammed with everyday people who offended someone. That is ridiculous. If you do not like what someone says you have a right to ignore it and not believe in it. If that person were to commit an actual crime against you that would be different---ie Jennie's example of torture.

I cited an example of someone saying he believed homosexuality is wrong, for him and for everyone. He believes it is immoral. He was not overly insulting about it. He was asked his views in an interview and he answered honestly. He did not promote violence. He was not being self-righteous, because at no point did he ever claim he was a better human being than anyone else, homosexual or not. But yet he was sued for 1000.

I also disagree with our hate laws. Either we believe in free speech or we don't. Are we a mature country or one that can be mindlessly led around any homicidal loony who can make a good speech? I think we are the former but we don't seem to have the national self confidence to put it to the test.

Case in point, Columbia university invited Ahmadinejad to speak even though he and what he stands for is detested by Americans and they told him so to his face. Canadians to I would hope. In Canada his views would be regarded as hate mongering and illegal but Americans take the First Amendment seriously because free speech means having to listen to things you don't like.

[bush_cheney2004]

Case in point, Columbia university invited Ahmadinejad to speak even though he and what he stands for is detested by Americans and they told him so to his face. Canadians to I would hope. In Canada his views would be regarded as hate mongering and illegal but Americans take the First Amendment seriously because free speech means having to listen to things you don't like.

Agreed...the best counter for such "hate speech" is more speech. Now where is my copy of Screw magazine (Larry Flynt).

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah,

Why does it matter who supports it ? You seemed to be saying earlier that hate laws restricted free speech, but the examples are all about lawsuits not criminal charges.

Michael Hardner you seem to have a hard time understanding when you are being addressed. Hint: This is not one of them. I am asking Jennie.