It is not legitimate to discipline someone for the potential that their views expressed in a public forum might create some bad feelings in a student. You might as well argue that a teacher should never express a political view in class in case a student is an advocate of an opposing view. Or perhaps a teacher should be forbidden from going to a pro-choice rally because a pro-choice student might feel bad. And if Mr. Kempler was within his rights to right the letter how can you justify punishing him? You have the right to free speech, but if you exercise it in a way we don't like we'll punish you? That's no right at all.
So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech? Who exactly do you think is entitled to free speech? Those who agree with you? As for the unequal power relationships... Student-Teacher isn't the only one you know. How about Boss-Employee?
And of course Christianity is not monolithic. That's why I didn't say it was a universal to all Christians. It is however the norm. Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.
Red Herring - A statement or argument unrelated to the discussion. Since neither Mr. Kempler or myself advocated any crime you have introduced a Red Herring.
But the more disappointing part of your post is the end...
You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?
I'm not asking you to keep quiet, I'm demanding that you not attempt to silence people who express ideas you disapprove of or be an apologist for those who silence others. If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it. (And the other fundamental freedoms). You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up. Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.
You see now if you actually looked at the Human Rights Act, you'd know that there's no exception for religious expression. You have to rely on the Charter right of freedom of religion for your defense. And we already know from past experience that this charter right of religous free expression won't necessarily cover you. The Ontario Human Rights commission fined Scott Brockie $5000 for refusing to print promotional flyers for a Gay & Lesbian organization because printing promotional material of that variety was against his religion.
Guy... If you'd bother to do a google search of "Chris Kempling", or even read my post carefully, you'd realize that he never preached anything to his class. He wrote a letter to the editor in the local paper. There's a world of difference there.
Wow... Did you ever miss the point...
The point wasn't to argue abortion. The point was that open debate and democratic decision making is essential in order for law to be sound. The point is about people in power deciding that issues that are important are "rights" issues and beyond the scope of debate.
Of course I've heard of the all famous tyranny of the majority. It's a term meant to highlight the difference between representative democracy and mob rule. You seem to be using it as a grade school boogyman. In a functioning democracy, the majority always gets it's way in the long term. Representative democracy ensures that the temporary knee jerk reactions of the mob don't generally make their way in to the law, but the serious wishes of the majority do become law. If they don't, it's not a functioning democracy.
Think about it. If year after year the electorate wants something and chooses representatives to implement policy how exactly would you safeguard against something you don't think should ever be implemented? Constitution? How is it amended? Oh right, a democratic process? Judges? Elected ones? Appointed ones? Oh who appoints them? Oh right... elected representatives.
I have news for you. If the electorate wants to use your precious Human Rights Act as toilet paper they will. If they want to change it they will. The only way to prevent this is to implement a non-democratic system of government. But there's a funny thing about democracy. It's the worst system of government there is... Except for all the others.
You can't safeguard a nation by enacting pretty legislation. You safeguard a nation by ensuring a functioning and stable democracy with free & open debate, freedom of conscience & religion, free speech and an involved & conscientious citizenry.
Of course it's descrimination. I assume that he meant it's not unreasonable discrimination. i.e. Not giving 10 year olds the vote is discrimination, but a perfectly reasonable thing to do as well.
But you didn't answer his question about how you'd react if the Prime Minister decided that banning all abortions was a matter of fundamental rights, (the right to life of an unborn child), then forced backbenchers to go along with the law silencing dissent in the house of commons.
I don't know about you, but I'd be ticked. (And I favour some restrictions on abortion). Letting the government force people who don't agree with you into line is a very dangerous habit to get into. Gay marriage may be a good or bad idea, (I think it's a bad one), but our government's attempt to evade the democratic process on this one is an embarassment.
It's true that Mr. Kempling teaches in a public school. Therefore he is there to teach everyone. So therefore if he created a hostile environment for any group of students or if he refused to teach some or taught them poorly he should be disciplined. But that isn't what happened!
Chris Kempling was disciplined for writing a letter to the editor in a newspaper expressing his views. There is no evidence (or my knowledge any credible suggestion that he ever showed bias towards or against any students. The decision came down to a belief on the part of the BCCT that his beliefs were incompatible with being a teacher. Those beliefs are the norm among Christians and therefore Christians do have some justification for being distrustful of government protection of freedom of religion. Personally, I find it very disturbing that a man was disciplined for his beliefs which he expressed outside of his workplace in a forum for public discussion. That is a serious blow against free speech in Canada. (So yes it is a free speech issue).
And for the record, I believe very strongly that if a teacher wrote to the paper expressing disapproval of a religious group, (Say Christianity for instance), the BCCT has absolutely no right to discipline that teacher. Those are views expressed freely in a public forum. He or she has the right to say them.
You will remain free to practice your religion in the realm of your private life.
Well excuse me, but that's not freedom of religion, and I'm not prepared to sit back and have my freedoms taken away by you. Freedom of religion is NOT the right to practice my religion privately and outside of the public sphere. It's the right to practice my religion openly without government interference. Saying you have freedom of religion but only in your private life is like saying that you have free speech, (but only in your private life). Or that I have the right to free association, but only in my home.
And of course Freedom of Speech isn't absolute in Canada. Encouraging someone to commit a crime has never been legal in Canada and that has nothing to do with hate speech laws. But where exactly to Chris Kempler or TWU or I encourage anyone to commit a crime? Your argument is a red herring.
Yes we do need a healthy dose of tolerance to survive as a nation. More specifically, you need a healthy dose of tolerance of viewpoints you don't agree with, so you can get over your desire to punish people like Mr. Kempling who express views you don't approve of.
That's actually a pretty good definition of a community leader. I certainly think that people need to be held accountable for what they say. That's why I don't post as an AC, and I always go by the nom to plume online which links back to my own website.
As for libel and defamation, it's my understanding that both of those are based on knowingly making false statements. i.e. if I said that Adrienne Clarkson had sexually harrassed Peter Mansbridge and it was demonstrably false, I could be charged with libel or defamation. On the other hand if it were true, no such charge could be made. The purpose to this is to encourage the free exchange of ideas. Lies do not aid discourse and are therefore restricted. I'm not saying that free speech is unlimited, (Yell fire in a crowded theater?) just that the hate speech laws are not just restrictions and are damaging to our society in that they allow the false security of driving hatred underground.
And I most certainly did not say that gays were evil. I am very careful not to say that because it's not true. People are not evil. We are all created in the image of God. If you re-read my post you'll see that I said that the "acts" were evil. I stand by that. But this is not the same as saying the people are evil. Homosexual sex is a sin. So is sex with anyone other than your spouse. I haven't committed that sin, but I have committed others. I make no claim of perfection or moral superiority.
Love does not mean accepting everything people do. It means loving them as God loves us. Unconditionally and unconnected to our actions. We should love others because God loves us, not because of the things they do. I'm not even particularly good at doing that, but I'm going to spend my life trying.
So if you make a statement that is likely to expose someone to contempt you are guilty of a crime. The act does not require any sort of communication that says something to the effect of "You should hate this person because of X" in order for a crime to have been committed.
For the record I am a Canadian citizen and I am in Canada. (Specifically in Coquitlam sitting at home posting to slashdot because having a cold sucks). The question is whether or not I have broken the law. Maybe I have, but if I have, then it is an unjust law.
I'm not a church leader, but does that make a difference in this case? If it's legal for me to say something, shouldn't be legal for someone else to say the same thing? More to the point, how many people have to think I'm worth listening to before I'm a "community leader"?
I think you have good motivations, but you cannot protect society from hateful ideas by criminalizing speech. Bad ideas need to be confronted and destroyed by better ideas.
Emotional & Mental hurt are not on the same playing field as physical hurt. And people should never be granted the same protections from "emotional hurt" as they are from physical hurt. This is because "emotional hurt" is entirely in the mind of the "victim". This is not to say that it's doesn't exist. It does, but it's not subject to outside quantification the way physical harm is. Punching people in the face is easily identified as physically hurtful & violent. The impact of words depends on who is listening.
Participation in society requires people to understand the "sticks and stones" sing-song. Names do hurt, but you can't protect people from names without dreadfully harming the free intercourse of ideas essential to a functioning democracy.
You're right that hate has no place in society. But you can't legislate hate away. Hate needs to be met my love & ideas. Pushing it into a hole just allows it to fester and grow.
Freedom of Speech is not intended only to protect POLITICAL opinions. It's meant to protect all speech. That's why it's called "Freedom of Speech" and not "Freedom of Political Speech".
Religious organizations should not stay out of any discussing or debate they don't want to stay out of because they are composed of people. All stake-holders in society should be be allowed to participate in all public discussion & debate.
Freedom of religion means that people are allowed to worship freely in the manner that they chose. It does not mean that the religious in society may not participate in public life nor does it mean that when they participate they should pretend to be non-religious. It simply means that the state cannot impose any religion or form of worship on the population. The separation of Church & State guarantees that no religious organization shall dictate to the government. Only the voters may do that. But the separation of Church & State does not mean that churches has to stay out of public debates. They can participate. They just aren't granted control.
I don't want to curtail your life. But I demand the right to full freedom of speech which may or may not include telling you things that you may not agree with.
They attacked the WTC because it was a shining example of freedom, but they hate all christians, and intend to kill us all. no matter how cowardly you are, or where you run and hide.
Bahahahaha... riiiiiight...
Who knows why they attacked the WTC but i would guess thats not why.
Then you're guessing wrong, (unless you're talking about the choice of target as opposed to why they attacked the US at all).
To be fair though the Wahhabi Muslims don't just hate Christians, they hate everyone who isn't a Muslim. Their stated goal is the destruction of everything that isn't Islamic.
The problem with hate crime legislation is that it provides extra punishment if your crime was motivated by hatred of any in a set of predefined groups. If the victim wasn't attacked for membership in one of those predefined groups the hate crimes laws don't apply. (even if group membership was the motive for the attack).
That's why Hate Crimes Legislation is poorly thought out. It's an attempt to micro-manage sentencing. Motive should be an issue in sentencing. Membership of the victim in sympathetic group de jour should not be.
If hate crimes leglislation was only used against groups that promote violence why are they necessary at all? Advocating violence was already illegal in Canada. Free Speech never protected you there.
"Hate speech" legislation does not prevent Christians from saying "Muslims worship a false god and we believe they will spend an eternity in hell". It merely prevents Christians from saying "kill all the Muslims so they'll get to hell sooner".
Actually that's not true. Prior to the enactment of hate speech laws, saying things like "kill all muslims" was illegal because inciting violence was illegal. Hate Speech laws only make inciting violence illegal in the sense that laws against corporal punishment make it illegal for teachers to murder their students.
Hate Speech laws make it a crime to say anything that is "likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age." Thank you Dr.Zong. In other words Hate Speech laws make speech illegal entirely on the basis of how the statements make people feel. Not on the basis of any actions.
Sadly you're right. Hate speech laws do seem to trump the charter. But don't you see a problem with that?
The whole point of free speech is that you allow people to express their viewpoints even when you would dedicate your life to opposing those viewpoints. Calls to violence are different and have always been recognized as different, but that's not what's addressed by Hate Speech laws. I bring that up only to dismiss calls for violence as a red herring with regards to Hate Speech laws.
Hate Speech laws essentially say that a statement about a person or group that will likely make them feel bad or likely cause others to thing badly of them is illegal even if it is never going to cause someone to commit violence. I believe that a restriction like that on free speech is wrong.
For the record... I am a Christian. If you were to bash me as a ignorant fundie who was living in the dark ages and foolishly believed in the big easter bunny in the sky, that would be defaming. If people were convinced by your statement it might cause people to hold me and possibly all Christians in contempt. But you have the right to say that and I will defend your right to say it.
Also for the record... I believe homosexual behaviour to be a sin. I believe that having sexual relations with someone of the same gender is an evil act. I believe that having sexual relations with anyone not your spouse is also a sin and an evil act. I believe these things are offense to God. I believe that homosexual "marriage" is not a right and should not be endorsed by the state. I believe that like all sin homosexual lifestyles are dangerous to all people and harmful. That would include dangerous and harmful to children. (Like all sinful lifestyles).
Now by making those statements have I commited a crime?
Also for the record I believe that God loves all of his creations. I believe that God has called us to love our enemies. He has called us to love those that hate us. He has called us to love people with the self-sacrificing love he showed us when he died for us. Hate has no part in this.
The Canadian government is not outlawing Christianity, but there is a disturbing trend away from Free Speech and Freedom of Religion that makes many Christians worry that it may.
One such incident is high school teacher Chris Kempling who was reprimanded and suspended without pay for writing a letter to the editor critical of homosexual behaviour. He wrote this letter as a private citizen and did not share these views in a classroom. Yet he was suspended.
Another such incident was the BCCT's refusal to certify Trinity Western University to train teachers due to requirement that students refrain from "practices which are biblically condemned" including homosexual behaviour. (Along with pre-marital sex & adultery). This was the BCCT's only reason for refusing to certify TWU and they were unable to find a single case of a TWU trained teacher creating a hostile environment for homosexuals. (TWU students were teaching thanks to a 1 year post-degree training course at SFU. Caveat: I went to TWU. The BCCT was forced by the Supreme Court to certify TWU eventually which is one reason why I don't think that Christianity is "being outlawed".
But between high profile events like these and Foreign Minister Pierre Pattigrew's suggestions that religious leaders should stay out of policy debates, (specifically the one over gay marriage), Christians are beginning to get somewhat distrustful that full freedom of religion will be granted to them in the future.
What ever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
Well I'll assume for the moment that you're 100% right about the SC resolutions & all that. You probably are after all.
But have you noticed that this post contradicts your previous post?
You originally suggested that it was just a US/British thing with everyone else in opposition. But the French were flying the NFZ's at one point?
Additionally... You stated (a US/British construct; the rest of the SC declared them illegal) Your second post makes some good points but I see nothing about the "rest of the security council attempting to get the NFZ's declared "illegal". Just Russian statements to that effect. Not the same thing. I suspect you've overstated your case.
And who cares if Iraq didn't like the NFZ's post-GulfWar1? They were the losing aggressors in a UN sanctioned war.
He means to make the software revenue producing. If you check a dictionary it seems he's using the word a bit incorrectly, but I would have probably done the same thing.
strangely enough I mentioned it in the hopes that someone else might also have heard the same thing and maybe have a source. I didn't pull it out of my ass thank you very much, but don't take my word for it unless someone else posts a link to a source.
But that point was made in this thread (and acknowledged) a several hours ago. I don't think this is new. And don't worry about the moderation. Slashdot's moderation system has been sucky for years. It's garbage. Read on on 0 to filter the GNAA posts, find an interesting thread and switch to -1.
Well I suppose it's positive that you recognize the bias that many don't but I'm disappointed that you think it's okay because it represents a reasonable cross-section of the population.
Sounds a little like "promoting the status quo" to me. That's assuming that the CBC's editorial board is swift enough to know what Canadians think on everything.
True journalists are without bias. Simple. By definition. My argument is clear. REAL, UNBIASED journalists cannot exist in a corporate media.
Profit is self-interest. Self interest is bias.
Riigghht... Your argument is clear. It's still total crap. Despite your confusion over meaning of the term "bias" does not mean "self-interest". If you'd bother to check a dictionary, you'd find the most relevant definition is "A preference or an inclination". Check the link for a more complete definition. So think about it? Do human beings all have preferences & inclinations? Yep. Anything magical about working for a state sponsored corp that removes said preferences and inclinations? Nope. Conclusion? I think I've made my point.
People are biased. The news is biased. The CBC is biased. You're biased. I'm biased, and your Aunt Mabel is biased. It's called having a worldview. Get over it. Stop looking for that magical unbiased source because it does not exist!
The way to get the best news is to check a variety of sources. End of story. The problem isn't that the CBC is biased so much as it's biased and government funded. Funding one view is a bad idea because that gives unfair precendence to that one view. Or if you want to indulge the fantasy that there is not editorial direction at the CBC, then it's a bad idea to give funding to a limited subset of views).
Slashdot Mirror
So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech? Who exactly do you think is entitled to free speech? Those who agree with you? As for the unequal power relationships... Student-Teacher isn't the only one you know. How about Boss-Employee?
And of course Christianity is not monolithic. That's why I didn't say it was a universal to all Christians. It is however the norm. Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.
Red Herring - A statement or argument unrelated to the discussion. Since neither Mr. Kempler or myself advocated any crime you have introduced a Red Herring.
But the more disappointing part of your post is the end...
You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?
I'm not asking you to keep quiet, I'm demanding that you not attempt to silence people who express ideas you disapprove of or be an apologist for those who silence others. If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it. (And the other fundamental freedoms). You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up. Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.
I do believe in Fundamental Human Rights. The right to punish people for exercising their Fundamental Human Rights is not among them.
The point wasn't to argue abortion. The point was that open debate and democratic decision making is essential in order for law to be sound. The point is about people in power deciding that issues that are important are "rights" issues and beyond the scope of debate.
Of course I've heard of the all famous tyranny of the majority. It's a term meant to highlight the difference between representative democracy and mob rule. You seem to be using it as a grade school boogyman. In a functioning democracy, the majority always gets it's way in the long term. Representative democracy ensures that the temporary knee jerk reactions of the mob don't generally make their way in to the law, but the serious wishes of the majority do become law. If they don't, it's not a functioning democracy.
Think about it. If year after year the electorate wants something and chooses representatives to implement policy how exactly would you safeguard against something you don't think should ever be implemented? Constitution? How is it amended? Oh right, a democratic process? Judges? Elected ones? Appointed ones? Oh who appoints them? Oh right... elected representatives.
I have news for you. If the electorate wants to use your precious Human Rights Act as toilet paper they will. If they want to change it they will. The only way to prevent this is to implement a non-democratic system of government. But there's a funny thing about democracy. It's the worst system of government there is... Except for all the others.
You can't safeguard a nation by enacting pretty legislation. You safeguard a nation by ensuring a functioning and stable democracy with free & open debate, freedom of conscience & religion, free speech and an involved & conscientious citizenry.
But you didn't answer his question about how you'd react if the Prime Minister decided that banning all abortions was a matter of fundamental rights, (the right to life of an unborn child), then forced backbenchers to go along with the law silencing dissent in the house of commons.
I don't know about you, but I'd be ticked. (And I favour some restrictions on abortion). Letting the government force people who don't agree with you into line is a very dangerous habit to get into. Gay marriage may be a good or bad idea, (I think it's a bad one), but our government's attempt to evade the democratic process on this one is an embarassment.
Chris Kempling was disciplined for writing a letter to the editor in a newspaper expressing his views. There is no evidence (or my knowledge any credible suggestion that he ever showed bias towards or against any students. The decision came down to a belief on the part of the BCCT that his beliefs were incompatible with being a teacher. Those beliefs are the norm among Christians and therefore Christians do have some justification for being distrustful of government protection of freedom of religion. Personally, I find it very disturbing that a man was disciplined for his beliefs which he expressed outside of his workplace in a forum for public discussion. That is a serious blow against free speech in Canada. (So yes it is a free speech issue).
And for the record, I believe very strongly that if a teacher wrote to the paper expressing disapproval of a religious group, (Say Christianity for instance), the BCCT has absolutely no right to discipline that teacher. Those are views expressed freely in a public forum. He or she has the right to say them.
You will remain free to practice your religion in the realm of your private life.
Well excuse me, but that's not freedom of religion, and I'm not prepared to sit back and have my freedoms taken away by you. Freedom of religion is NOT the right to practice my religion privately and outside of the public sphere. It's the right to practice my religion openly without government interference. Saying you have freedom of religion but only in your private life is like saying that you have free speech, (but only in your private life). Or that I have the right to free association, but only in my home.
And of course Freedom of Speech isn't absolute in Canada. Encouraging someone to commit a crime has never been legal in Canada and that has nothing to do with hate speech laws. But where exactly to Chris Kempler or TWU or I encourage anyone to commit a crime? Your argument is a red herring.
Yes we do need a healthy dose of tolerance to survive as a nation. More specifically, you need a healthy dose of tolerance of viewpoints you don't agree with, so you can get over your desire to punish people like Mr. Kempling who express views you don't approve of.
I'd assume it's out of print. I've got no idea where to get it. sorry.
As for libel and defamation, it's my understanding that both of those are based on knowingly making false statements. i.e. if I said that Adrienne Clarkson had sexually harrassed Peter Mansbridge and it was demonstrably false, I could be charged with libel or defamation. On the other hand if it were true, no such charge could be made. The purpose to this is to encourage the free exchange of ideas. Lies do not aid discourse and are therefore restricted. I'm not saying that free speech is unlimited, (Yell fire in a crowded theater?) just that the hate speech laws are not just restrictions and are damaging to our society in that they allow the false security of driving hatred underground.
And I most certainly did not say that gays were evil. I am very careful not to say that because it's not true. People are not evil. We are all created in the image of God. If you re-read my post you'll see that I said that the "acts" were evil. I stand by that. But this is not the same as saying the people are evil. Homosexual sex is a sin. So is sex with anyone other than your spouse. I haven't committed that sin, but I have committed others. I make no claim of perfection or moral superiority.
Love does not mean accepting everything people do. It means loving them as God loves us. Unconditionally and unconnected to our actions. We should love others because God loves us, not because of the things they do. I'm not even particularly good at doing that, but I'm going to spend my life trying.
Not true. In fact it's not even statements of hatred that get on the wrong side of the law.
Section 13 of the Human Rights Act makes it illegal to make any statement "that are likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt..." (Emphasis Added)
So if you make a statement that is likely to expose someone to contempt you are guilty of a crime. The act does not require any sort of communication that says something to the effect of "You should hate this person because of X" in order for a crime to have been committed.
Those old comics are fun. I remember seeing one of him punching out Hitler.
Wahhabi's are Sunni, but what does that have to do with anything?
I'm not a church leader, but does that make a difference in this case? If it's legal for me to say something, shouldn't be legal for someone else to say the same thing? More to the point, how many people have to think I'm worth listening to before I'm a "community leader"?
I think you have good motivations, but you cannot protect society from hateful ideas by criminalizing speech. Bad ideas need to be confronted and destroyed by better ideas.
Emotional & Mental hurt are not on the same playing field as physical hurt. And people should never be granted the same protections from "emotional hurt" as they are from physical hurt. This is because "emotional hurt" is entirely in the mind of the "victim". This is not to say that it's doesn't exist. It does, but it's not subject to outside quantification the way physical harm is. Punching people in the face is easily identified as physically hurtful & violent. The impact of words depends on who is listening.
Participation in society requires people to understand the "sticks and stones" sing-song. Names do hurt, but you can't protect people from names without dreadfully harming the free intercourse of ideas essential to a functioning democracy.
You're right that hate has no place in society. But you can't legislate hate away. Hate needs to be met my love & ideas. Pushing it into a hole just allows it to fester and grow.
Religious organizations should not stay out of any discussing or debate they don't want to stay out of because they are composed of people. All stake-holders in society should be be allowed to participate in all public discussion & debate.
Freedom of religion means that people are allowed to worship freely in the manner that they chose. It does not mean that the religious in society may not participate in public life nor does it mean that when they participate they should pretend to be non-religious. It simply means that the state cannot impose any religion or form of worship on the population. The separation of Church & State guarantees that no religious organization shall dictate to the government. Only the voters may do that. But the separation of Church & State does not mean that churches has to stay out of public debates. They can participate. They just aren't granted control.
I don't want to curtail your life. But I demand the right to full freedom of speech which may or may not include telling you things that you may not agree with.
To be fair though the Wahhabi Muslims don't just hate Christians, they hate everyone who isn't a Muslim. Their stated goal is the destruction of everything that isn't Islamic.
That's why Hate Crimes Legislation is poorly thought out. It's an attempt to micro-manage sentencing. Motive should be an issue in sentencing. Membership of the victim in sympathetic group de jour should not be.
Actually that's not true. Prior to the enactment of hate speech laws, saying things like "kill all muslims" was illegal because inciting violence was illegal. Hate Speech laws only make inciting violence illegal in the sense that laws against corporal punishment make it illegal for teachers to murder their students.
Hate Speech laws make it a crime to say anything that is "likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age." Thank you Dr.Zong. In other words Hate Speech laws make speech illegal entirely on the basis of how the statements make people feel. Not on the basis of any actions.
The whole point of free speech is that you allow people to express their viewpoints even when you would dedicate your life to opposing those viewpoints. Calls to violence are different and have always been recognized as different, but that's not what's addressed by Hate Speech laws. I bring that up only to dismiss calls for violence as a red herring with regards to Hate Speech laws.
Hate Speech laws essentially say that a statement about a person or group that will likely make them feel bad or likely cause others to thing badly of them is illegal even if it is never going to cause someone to commit violence. I believe that a restriction like that on free speech is wrong.
For the record... I am a Christian. If you were to bash me as a ignorant fundie who was living in the dark ages and foolishly believed in the big easter bunny in the sky, that would be defaming. If people were convinced by your statement it might cause people to hold me and possibly all Christians in contempt. But you have the right to say that and I will defend your right to say it.
Also for the record... I believe homosexual behaviour to be a sin. I believe that having sexual relations with someone of the same gender is an evil act. I believe that having sexual relations with anyone not your spouse is also a sin and an evil act. I believe these things are offense to God. I believe that homosexual "marriage" is not a right and should not be endorsed by the state. I believe that like all sin homosexual lifestyles are dangerous to all people and harmful. That would include dangerous and harmful to children. (Like all sinful lifestyles).
Now by making those statements have I commited a crime?
Also for the record I believe that God loves all of his creations. I believe that God has called us to love our enemies. He has called us to love those that hate us. He has called us to love people with the self-sacrificing love he showed us when he died for us. Hate has no part in this.
One such incident is high school teacher Chris Kempling who was reprimanded and suspended without pay for writing a letter to the editor critical of homosexual behaviour. He wrote this letter as a private citizen and did not share these views in a classroom. Yet he was suspended.
Another such incident was the BCCT's refusal to certify Trinity Western University to train teachers due to requirement that students refrain from "practices which are biblically condemned" including homosexual behaviour. (Along with pre-marital sex & adultery). This was the BCCT's only reason for refusing to certify TWU and they were unable to find a single case of a TWU trained teacher creating a hostile environment for homosexuals. (TWU students were teaching thanks to a 1 year post-degree training course at SFU. Caveat: I went to TWU. The BCCT was forced by the Supreme Court to certify TWU eventually which is one reason why I don't think that Christianity is "being outlawed".
But between high profile events like these and Foreign Minister Pierre Pattigrew's suggestions that religious leaders should stay out of policy debates, (specifically the one over gay marriage), Christians are beginning to get somewhat distrustful that full freedom of religion will be granted to them in the future.
What ever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
I don't hear Canuckistani very often though.
But have you noticed that this post contradicts your previous post?
You originally suggested that it was just a US/British thing with everyone else in opposition. But the French were flying the NFZ's at one point?
Additionally... You stated (a US/British construct; the rest of the SC declared them illegal) Your second post makes some good points but I see nothing about the "rest of the security council attempting to get the NFZ's declared "illegal". Just Russian statements to that effect. Not the same thing. I suspect you've overstated your case.
And who cares if Iraq didn't like the NFZ's post-GulfWar1? They were the losing aggressors in a UN sanctioned war.
But that point was made in this thread (and acknowledged) a several hours ago. I don't think this is new. And don't worry about the moderation. Slashdot's moderation system has been sucky for years. It's garbage. Read on on 0 to filter the GNAA posts, find an interesting thread and switch to -1.
Sounds a little like "promoting the status quo" to me. That's assuming that the CBC's editorial board is swift enough to know what Canadians think on everything.
Profit is self-interest. Self interest is bias.
Riigghht... Your argument is clear. It's still total crap. Despite your confusion over meaning of the term "bias" does not mean "self-interest". If you'd bother to check a dictionary, you'd find the most relevant definition is "A preference or an inclination". Check the link for a more complete definition. So think about it? Do human beings all have preferences & inclinations? Yep. Anything magical about working for a state sponsored corp that removes said preferences and inclinations? Nope. Conclusion? I think I've made my point.
People are biased. The news is biased. The CBC is biased. You're biased. I'm biased, and your Aunt Mabel is biased. It's called having a worldview. Get over it. Stop looking for that magical unbiased source because it does not exist!
The way to get the best news is to check a variety of sources. End of story. The problem isn't that the CBC is biased so much as it's biased and government funded. Funding one view is a bad idea because that gives unfair precendence to that one view. Or if you want to indulge the fantasy that there is not editorial direction at the CBC, then it's a bad idea to give funding to a limited subset of views).