The new face of hate

[jennie]

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.

You mean ...

"White people are people like everyone else, but white fornication is immoral."

I don't think that particular offence is very likely.

However, I was standing at the Six Nations barricade one night, listening to Caledonia's best racial insults screeching down the road at them. It was a hollow and nauseating experience, let me tell you. Being Canadian, you just don't expect to hear that. I felt sick. I felt ashamed to some extent, that we have obviously not worked hard enough at expunging racism, making it unacceptable. (This was before I realized that our government intentionally perpetrates it systemically. It has been an interesting year and a half!)

One of the SN guys in front of me said something I didn't hear and was immediately hissed at by a Chief (because I was there. I guess it was a white slur.) The guy turned around and looked embarrassed and apologized to me, so I guessed what he'd said. I said to him, to all of them loudly: "That garbage mouth crap is not because they're white: It's because they're fucking assholes!!" We all laughed, (and I apologized to the Elders for my language.) and then he looked at the Chief present and said to me "But I don't think I can get away with calling them that." We settled on "idiots" and Friday nights in Caledonia became 'Idiot night'.

Sure it happens. It happened once and only once ... unless you are one of those "fucking assholes" cos then you've declared yourself fair game as far as I am concerned, if that is a game you have choosen to play by your own language or speech.

[jefferiah]

You mean ...

"White people are people like everyone else, but white fornication is immoral."

I don't think that particular offence is very likely.

However, I was standing at the Six Nations barricade one night, listening to Caledonia's best racial insults screeching down the road at them. It was a hollow and nauseating experience, let me tell you. Being Canadian, you just don't expect to hear that. I felt sick. I felt ashamed to some extent, that we have obviously not worked hard enough at expunging racism, making it unacceptable. (This was before I realized that our government intentionally perpetrates it systemically. It has been an interesting year and a half!)

One of the SN guys in front of me said something I didn't hear and was immediately hissed at by a Chief (because I was there. I guess it was a white slur.) The guy turned around and looked embarrassed and apologized to me, so I guessed what he'd said. I said to him, to all of them loudly: "That garbage mouth crap is not because they're white: It's because they're fucking assholes!!" We all laughed, (and I apologized to the Elders for my language.) and then he looked at the Chief present and said to me "But I don't think I can get away with calling them that." We settled on "idiots" and Friday nights in Caledonia became 'Idiot night'.

Sure it happens. It happened once and only once ... unless you are one of those "fucking assholes" cos then you've declared yourself fair game as far as I am concerned, if that is a game you have choosen to play by your own language or speech.

You are dancing around the question Jennie, and I think you understood my question better than you let on. You said that what this man said about gays was offensive to them, and therefore you supported the lawsuit against him. Now the question I am asking you, is not about sexuality at all. I am asking a racial question. If it is offensive to say something about gays and if these comments warrant a lawsuit in your eyes, is it the same for race related questions as opposed to sex related questions? That is, offensive comments about people of a certain race. And if so would you support a white persons suit against someone who made an offensive comment about white people.

This is a wonderful little story you tell about you and the chief, but it is not relevant to the question. Just because you say this fellow did not engage in race demeaning speech does not mean that people of other races never exhibit racism against white people. And if so, since you based your support of the other lawsuit on its offensiveness, nay though it be a sex related case and not a race one, would you support a lawsuit by a white man who felt he was a victim of offensive speech against whites by another person. I am not talking about some Six Nations meeting you attended. Your personal experiences are not the sum total of what goes on in the world, Jennie.

Edited September 26, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

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.

Quite frankly, jefferiah, you can have opinions about how YOU should behave or believe, but beyond my obligation to obey our laws, I have no obligation to give a sh*t what you think I should do.

That is why I think this suit is valid. It is defamatory ... discrimination ... humiliation ... denigration ... to announce publicly that someone else is immoral.

If you are saying it would be immoral for YOU, that is fine ... immoral for EVERYBODY?

Nobody has the right to make that judgment for others.

Gotta love a country where you can have freedom FROM religion!!

Now go take your DOGma for a walk!

Edited September 26, 2007 by jennie

[jefferiah]

Quite frankly, jefferiah, you can have opinions about how YOU should behave or believe, but beyond my obligation to obey our laws, I have no obligation to give a sh*t what you think I should do.

Gotta love a country where you can have freedom FROM religion!!

Now go take your DOGma for a walk!

Who is denying you freedom from religion. This man says he believes homosexuality is a sin. He is not stopping people from being gay. No one has to believe what he says. But he should still have the right to say it.

Now answer the question, its rather simple.....

If there were a case of racism against a white person....an offensive comment made about a white person, would you then support a law suit against the person who made the offending comment?

Please, this should not be too hard to answer. And try not to get so angry. What do you mean take my DOGma for a walk. That would be relevant if I expounded some dogma upon you. But I never did. All I said was that people who have a dogma should have the right to express it. That is in no way infringing upon your so-called right to freedom from religion, because you are free by law to not listen or care about what he says. Someone saying what they believe, whether it be something as ridiculous as "eating dill pickle chips" is wrong is not infringing upon your freedom from following his dogma. His saying it is not forcing you to follow it. It cannot stop you from eating dill pickle chips. If you don't like what he says you don't have to adhere to it, but at the same time you can also allow him the freedom to speak his mind, since it is not infringing upon your own freedom at all.

What do you mean by give a shit what I think you should do? This is off base isn't it, since at no time did I ever recommend you do anything. A citation please of when I told you what I think you should do. If I had though that would be an acceptable reply if you did not like my advice. What would not be acceptable is for you to try to infringe upon my right to say what I think you should do by having me punished by law for simply speaking. Even though at no time did I ever tell you what to do, if I had it would not infringe upon your freedom to do as you choose because my saying I think you should do something is not the same as forcing you to do something. You can ignore me. Simple as that.

Now, I am only asking you a simple question.

If there were a white person who endured an offensive comment about white people would you support his lawsuit against the person who made that comment?

Edited September 26, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Quite frankly, jefferiah, you can have opinions about how YOU should behave or believe, but beyond my obligation to obey our laws, I have no obligation to give a sh*t what you think I should do.

That is why I think this suit is valid. It is defamatory ... discrimination ... humiliation ... denigration ... to announce publicly that someone else is immoral.

If you are saying it would be immoral for YOU, that is fine ... immoral for EVERYBODY?

Sure people have a right to believe something is immoral and to say it. To Jews for instance eating pork is unclean. I eat pork. I am not clean, not kosher. But I dont sue Jews because they believe this. And the fact that they believe something is wrong does not mean they hate the person who does it either. And if the law restricts them from saying such things then how on earth could they communicate their belief to new converts?

Some people think smoking pot is wrong. Some people think it is ok. Some people who think it is wrong might think it is wrong for everyone. Saying that is not infringing on someone else's right to believe otherwise. That is not a crime. If you don't agree that it is wrong, you can simply not agree. When I was a teenager I smoked pot. But when my parents found out they did not like it and they were not happy with me. They believed pot was wrong, not just for them but also for me. At the time I ignored them. Now I agree, but I was free to ignore them. The fact that someone believes what you do is wrong (whether you agree with their assessment of what is wrong or not) is not a crime.

If someone believes homosexuality is a sin, they should be able to say it. If gay people do not believe it they don;t have to listen to it and can continue being gay. Simple as that.

Somebody spouting their religious beliefs does not encroach upon your freedom from religion. When Jehovahs witnesses hand out pamphlet I dont sue them for encroaching upon my freedom from their religion. I just either toss the pamphlets out or read them and dismiss them. Allowing people to say what they believe is not the same as forcing people to believe in religion. The man who made that comment in response to a question did not force anyone else to believe in what he said. He simply said it. You can agree or disagree. Your freedom from religion is still intact.

Now Jennie, please stop evading my question. Would you support a suit filed by an offended white person who endured a racial comment about white people?

Edited September 26, 2007 by jefferiah

[Wilber]

Gotta love a country where you can have freedom FROM religion!!

There once was a country that had freedom from religion, it also had freedom from speech. Remember the Soviet Union? I am not a religious person but once you restrict basic freedoms in one area, the rest are fair game.

[jefferiah]

Quite frankly, jefferiah, you can have opinions about how YOU should behave or believe, but beyond my obligation to obey our laws, I have no obligation to give a sh*t what you think I should do.

That is why I think this suit is valid. It is defamatory ... discrimination ... humiliation ... denigration ... to announce publicly that someone else is immoral.

If you are saying it would be immoral for YOU, that is fine ... immoral for EVERYBODY?

Nobody has the right to make that judgment for others.

Gotta love a country where you can have freedom FROM religion!!

Now go take your DOGma for a walk!

People say people are immoral all the time. People on here have said it about George Bush, Americans, etc etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

People say people are immoral all the time. People on here have said it about George Bush, Americans, etc etc.

George Bush is an American.

[jefferiah]

Perhaps I should have clarified that then, BushCheney. I meant it in this sense....George Bush or Americans in general....

Better?

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps I should have clarified that then, BushCheney. I meant it in this sense....George Bush or Americans in general....

Better?

Much better.....immoral Americans everywhere salute you!

[jefferiah]

Just for the record though BushCheney, I never said that was my belief, I said people have said it. And apparently its not an outrage to say these things about Americans. I dont see anyone being sued for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just for the record though BushCheney, I never said that was my belief, I said people have said it. And apparently its not an outrage to say these things about Americans. I dont see anyone being sued for it.

Agreed...I understood your example completely. Just wondered why you separated Dubya from his minions (gramatically). Most Americans don't mind at all....we get "immoral", "bastards", "pricks", etc., etc. all the time from some Canadians. Just lets us know we are on the right track.

[jefferiah]

Agreed...I understood your example completely. Just wondered why you separated Dubya from his minions (gramatically). Most Americans don't mind at all....we get "immoral", "bastards", "pricks", etc., etc. all the time from some Canadians. Just lets us know we are on the right track.

lol

People could take a lesson from you in how to deal with being offended. Seriously, everybody thinks everybody should be forced to condone everything everybody does nowadays.

[Leafless]

Does that include the children and seniors?

Oh sure, children and seniors looking for work?

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

Fact is immigrants are broken down in separate classes, which are: 1- Family class, 2-Skilled worker, 3-Skilled worker dependent, 4- Other economic immigrants and 5-Refugees.

All these different groups produce different results relating to employment and unemployment but statistics are compiled to include all immigrants despite the different classes.

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

It is done that way.

[jennie]

For your enjoyment: The Immigrant Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhEl6HdfqWM

Edited September 26, 2007 by jennie

[jefferiah]

Jennie, you seem to be having some difficulty with a rather simple question.

If you support a lawsuit filed by a person offended by comments made about a demographic to which he belongs, would you then support a lawsuit filed by a white person who was offended by a derogatory comment made about white people?

[xul]

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.

As an individual, morally I agree with you. But if I was a law maker, I should support what I said before. Laws are not always according with our moral criterian. For example, a boy kicked a ball at his neighbour's window and broke the glass. Usually the neighbour would not ask his family to pay for the event because the loss is small and he is a kid. But if the neighbour asked the boy's family to pay the loss, law had to support him because no one can deny his rights to ask someone to pay for hurting him even the loss is small.

You feel the anti-hatred law is silly because you are in Canada and there actually is not a lot of hatred here(because of the efforts of anti-hatred law?) so you feel safe. But just imagine, if you were in Germany before WW2 and even before Hitler came into power. But there were a lot of losers "speeched freely" to express hatred in the street(because there was no internet to facility spreading hatred at that time) everyday. Did you still think that a anti-hated law, if there were a "left wing politician" trying to make it, is funny?

By the way, I have never thought some words MilkDavid said to me commiting insult. I thought he was only sort of....not understanding:P. But "not understanding" is not funny too. According our historical knowledge, sometimes "not understanding" is just the soil which breeds hatred.

[jefferiah]

As an individual, morally I agree with you. But if I was a law maker, I should support what I said before. Laws are not always according with our moral criterian. For example, a boy kicked a ball at his neighbour's window and broke the glass. Usually the neighbour would not ask his family to pay for the event because the loss is small and he is a kid. But if the neighbour asked the boy's family to pay the loss, law had to support him because no one can deny his rights to ask someone to pay for hurting him even the loss is small.

You feel the anti-hatred law is silly because you are in Canada and there actually is not a lot of hatred here(because of the efforts of anti-hatred law?) so you feel safe. But just imagine, if you were in Germany before WW2 and even before Hitler came into power. But there were a lot of losers "speeched freely" to express hatred in the street(because there was no internet to facility spreading hatred at that time) everyday. Did you still think that a anti-hated law, if there were a "left wing politician" trying to make it, is funny?

By the way, I have never thought some words MilkDavid said to me commiting insult. I thought he was only sort of....not understanding:P. But "not understanding" is not funny too. According our historical knowledge, sometimes "not understanding" is just the soil which breeds hatred.

I still disagree Xul. The law deals in tangibles like broken windows. It is not the place of the law to deal with whether speech is offensive. I would not deny the right of a man to collect on his broken window, I would deny the right of a man to collect funds based on the fact that he found something someone said to be hateful or offensive. I can see a broken window. I can tally the costs of the damages of a broken window. Sticks and stones may break your windows Xul, but names can never hurt you.

Edited September 26, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

As an individual, morally I agree with you. But if I was a law maker, I should support what I said before. Laws are not always according with our moral criterian. For example, a boy kicked a ball at his neighbour's window and broke the glass. Usually the neighbour would not ask his family to pay for the event because the loss is small and he is a kid. But if the neighbour asked the boy's family to pay the loss, law had to support him because no one can deny his rights to ask someone to pay for hurting him even the loss is small.

You feel the anti-hatred law is silly because you are in Canada and there actually is not a lot of hatred here(because of the efforts of anti-hatred law?) so you feel safe. But just imagine, if you were in Germany before WW2 and even before Hitler came into power. But there were a lot of losers "speeched freely" to express hatred in the street(because there was no internet to facility spreading hatred at that time) everyday. Did you still think that a anti-hated law, if there were a "left wing politician" trying to make it, is funny?

By the way, I have never thought some words MilkDavid said to me commiting insult. I thought he was only sort of....not understanding:P. But "not understanding" is not funny too. According our historical knowledge, sometimes "not understanding" is just the soil which breeds hatred.

If you remember Xul, I did not agree with what Mike David said to you. But nonetheless I support his right to say it, whether you take offense to it or not. The thing is, even though you say you do not take offense to it, you would support a legal system which would deal with the situation if someone had made a complaint about Mike David speaking his mind, when in fact no one ever sustained any real calculable damage from his words.

[xul]

I still disagree Xul. The law deals in tangibles like broken windows. It is not the place of the law to deal with whether speech is offensive. I would not deny the right of a man to collect on his broken window, I would deny the right of a man to collect funds based on the fact that he found something someone said to be hateful or offensive. I can see a broken window. I can tally the costs of the damages of a broken window. Sticks and stones may break your windows Xul, but names can never hurt you.

Not all hurts can be accounted by how much dollars it is. For example, the anti-spanking law, a judge can not account the hurts that a dad inflict on his rebellious son. But the hurt is the fact though we can not count it by numbers. Insult someone can inflict hurt on him, mentally, this is fact. So law supports the punishment to insulter, not only Canada but also most country in the world support people charger their insulters. In other words, all of us are poor kids of law---so we must preper to be spanking by law for our fault all the time.

[jefferiah]

Not all hurts can be accounted by how much dollars it is. For example, the anti-spanking law, a judge can not account the hurts that a dad inflict on his rebellious son. But the hurt is the fact though we can not count it by numbers. Insult someone can inflict hurt on him, mentally, this is fact. So law supports the punishment to insulter, not only Canada but also most country in the world support people charger their insulters. In other words, all of us are poor kids of law---so we must preper to be spanking by law for our fault all the time.

Once again though you are comparing something like spanking to a perceived insult. No deal Xul. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe I am better than homosexuals, because I have committed my own sins. But I do believe it is a sin. Now do you think I should have to pay someone for speaking my conscience on this matter?

Believing something is wrong for everyone is not self-righteousness by the way. Self-righteousness means you believe that you are more righteous than someone else. Believing that something is wrong does not necessarily mean you believe you are more righteous than someone who does that thing. Suppose John beat up an old lady, and Joe beat up a man in a wheelchair. Now they are both doing time for assault. I go to prison and ask John is it ok to beat up a man in a wheelchair. What do you expect him to say? Would it be self-righteous of him to say that it is not ok to beat up a man in a wheelchair when he beat up an old lady? Of course not, it would be silly for him to say otherwise. What would be self-righteous is for him to claim that even though he did not do what Joe did, that he is somehow better than Joe when he did something equally vicious. But recognizing or believing something is wrong is not self-righteous. And even in a case of self-righteousness, I don't think having a self-righteous attitude (though not desirable) should ever be punished by law.

Now Xul who do you think gets to decide what level of insult is harmful and which isn't? How do we decide whether something is offnesive or not? Should it be up to the person who feels he is offended? Basically offensive speech is guaged by how offended someone claims to feel? Some people seek to find offense everywhere.

Edited September 26, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Now back to Jennie, who has danced around and avoided my question, pretended to be ignorant of its meaning, etc.

Jennie, since you support lawsuits in cases of insult and offense, would you then support the lawsuit of a white person who took offense at a derogatory or demeaning comment about white people?

[xul]

Once again though you are comparing something like spanking to a perceived insult. No deal Xul. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe I am better than homosexuals, because I have committed my own sins. But I do believe it is a sin. Now do you think I should have to pay someone for speaking my conscience on this matter?

Believing something is wrong for everyone is not self-righteousness by the way. Self-righteousness means you believe that you are more righteous than someone else. Believing that something is wrong does not necessarily mean you believe you are more righteous than someone who does that thing. Suppose John beat up an old lady, and Joe beat up a man in a wheelchair. Now they are both doing time for assault. I go to prison and ask John is it ok to beat up a man in a wheelchair. What do you expect him to say? Would it be self-righteous of him to say that it is not ok to beat up a man in a wheelchair when he beat up an old lady? Of course not, it would be silly for him to say otherwise. What would be self-righteous is for him to claim that even though he did not do what Joe did, that he is somehow better than Joe when he did something equally vicious. But recognizing or believing something is wrong is not self-righteous. And even in a case of self-righteousness, I don't think having a self-righteous attitude (though not desirable) should ever be punished by law.

Now Xul who do you think gets to decide what level of insult is harmful and which isn't? How do we decide whether something is offnesive or not? Should it be up to the person who feels he is offended? Basically offensive speech is guaged by how offended someone claims to feel? Some people seek to find offense everywhere.

I guess everyone who graduated from a middle school konw the different meaning between "insult", "offend" and "believing in something and express the believing", so a judge also knows how to distinguish them.

The essential difference in the argument is not people who should be how to deal with insult, but the action of laws. The essential action of laws is to keep everything in order. Such as a teacher instructs a classroom discussion. Telling his pupils what can say or what cannot say is not a good way, but telling a kid how to express his opinion by correct way is his duty. So the anti-hatred law works just like this teacher. It is not a ban to "free speech", is just a ban that act against people express their opinion by an insulting or "speech free" way. Some times these laws may make us uncomfortable or inconvenient, but sometimes they also protect us from being hurt.

[kengs333]

Now back to Jennie, who has danced around and avoided my question, pretended to be ignorant of its meaning, etc.

Jennie, since you support lawsuits in cases of insult and offense, would you then support the lawsuit of a white person who took offense at a derogatory or demeaning comment about white people?

She avoids anything where she knows she'll come out looking bad. I'm still waiting for her to explain the contradiction between her support of "religious freedom" and the fact many recent immigrant women belong to religions where they are oppressed. In other words, despite claiming to be a feminist, she supports the right of religious groups to oppress women. Moreover, she prefers immigration to Canada by such groups rather than from more progressive European countries, whose people are more likely to readily adapt to Canadian society.

[Argus]

You feel the anti-hatred law is silly because you are in Canada and there actually is not a lot of hatred here(because of the efforts of anti-hatred law?) so you feel safe.

The "anti-hatred" laws are far more severe in Europe, especially in places like France and the UK. Accommodation of minorities is also far more advanced there. All this has done is cause the immigrants and their children and children's children to feel as though they are not really a part of those nations, and has caused violence and resentment on both sides.

But just imagine, if you were in Germany before WW2 and even before Hitler came into power. But there were a lot of losers "speeched freely" to express hatred in the street(because there was no internet to facility spreading hatred at that time) everyday. Did you still think that a anti-hated law, if there were a "left wing politician" trying to make it, is funny?

There actually WERE such laws in Germany, and Adolph Hitler and other Nazis went to jail because of them. But it did nothing to stop them. In some ways those laws actually helped them. And once they were in power the Nazis found those laws very convenient as they turned them around and used them against Jews and Communists and other opponents.