Femenists want to make masculinity a hate crime. - Page 9

Ben Kenobi · June 4, 2003, 14:30

Quote:

So I beg to differ, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU RIGHT?

The protections listed are not enough to protect speech, because truth should not need to be proved by the speaker. The burden should always be on the government or the individual to show why such speech incites hate. Here, what happens is that the individual can be hauled to court for hate speech, regardless of the accusation's validity.

blackice · June 4, 2003, 19:13

For speech to be illegal according to Canadian law, it has to promote hatred against an identifiable group, advocate "genocide" or incite "hatred to such an extent that it will lead to a breach of the peace."

blackice · June 4, 2003, 21:24

So technically if one publishes certain passages of the bible it could be charged under the hate crime laws.

But the bottom line is the incitement part, breach of the peace.

If they pass c-250 we slide down the slippery slope even further. Both groups men's and women's would have to watch what they say. More over as an example a gay person would have the right to promote the gay lifestyle but you would have no right to your personal opinion on it.

This actually has taken place a few times most notably, with both examples, the bible and the gay issue. The judge found the defendants guilty of promoting hate by publishing parts of the bible which made the point it is wrong to be gay in the eyes of god.

C-250 will errode or right of free speech, I think we are on the same page here?

chequita guevara · June 4, 2003, 21:29

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
One thing I want to remind people is that there are two different groups of feminists, ordinary feminists, and radical feminists.

There's more than two. Think, Judeans People's Front, and you get an idea for the number of varients of feminism that exist. Radical feminism is popular in universities, as it tends to speak to women who are just awakening to their life experiences, but it generally doesn't get much beyond there (except rape crisis groups and battered women's shelters, and other places where women might have a semi-valid reason for hating men). Once you get into the activist world, radical feminism gets smacked down by socialist feminism, Black feminism, riot grrls, etc.

Ben Kenobi · June 4, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

C-250 will errode or right of free speech, I think we are on the same page here?

Yep.

You picked out exactly what was on my mind though I did not say so explicitly.

The problem is the motivation, as Christians do not condemn homosexuality to hate the person, but to foster repentance.

I say do away with that entire section of the criminal code, and charge people who make direct threats under other parts of the criminal code. Crimes that involve a formerly protected group could also be charged under their respective categories.

As it is now, we have that wonderful orwellian phase, where everyone is equal, though some are more equal than others.

Tingkai · June 5, 2003, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Bu they usually earn at least twice as much as the women who work at Wal-Mart.

Do they? Any stats to back up your statement? And do most women work at minimum wage jobs. If not than your example is meaningless.

Workplace fatalities include people murdered while working at fast food joints or convenience stores, places where the salary is not much different than Wal-Mart.

MRT144 · June 5, 2003, 00:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Has anyone ever considered that quite a few women really like to stay at home and raise kids rather than being a Fortune 500 executive or President?

i want to stay at home rather than be a fortune 500 exec or president. which is why i need a wife that can win the bread in the family.

johncmcleod · June 5, 2003, 15:25

As long as many more women than men are getting into universities I think feminists shouldn't be complaining about a "Glass Wall".

blackice · June 5, 2003, 19:49

johncmcleod to add to that men's groups should not be charged for hate crimes for pointing it out either.

Lefty Scaevola · June 5, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

says the $75,000 report, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse.

I don't pay any attention to a report that costs less than $500,000.

Pekka · June 5, 2003, 23:02

Feminists are just angry, because they want to be men but lack of penises. Frankly, I'd be angry too if I didn't have a penis, and prolly try to ruin it for everyone else too.

Q Classic · June 5, 2003, 23:12

feminists are ok.

feminazis, like the ones everybody hates, ought to wonder why the misandrony (? there's no word i know of...), and decide whether that's any different from perceived misogeny.

MRT144 · June 6, 2003, 00:25

pekka, thats the worst explination ever!

Pekka · June 6, 2003, 12:20

To feminists YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! I know it sounds bad, but it's the truth and sometimes it hurts.

Japher · June 6, 2003, 12:25

Penis Envy

Good one Pekka

I think feminist are weak women, either made that way by a dominering man or a controlling father. While their lives are fine, they just wish to lash out that man that made them so angry. Some cases that man is dead, thus they cannot let go of their anger, in other cases they told that man, it felt good, so now they are going to tell the whole world about it. Either way feminist are just a bunch of whinners that have some very deep rooted psychological dependencies they wish they didn't have... In a way, Penis Envy

DaShi · June 6, 2003, 12:57

I just thought that they were militant lesbians.

St Leo · June 7, 2003, 00:32

I think feminist are weak women

Cool, I am a weak woman now.

In a way, Penis Envy

I assure you that my penis is just fine.

Ben Kenobi · June 7, 2003, 00:55

Update, for blackice:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=29328

"Section 319(2), which prohibits a public statement that "willfully promotes hatred" against a protected group, does have an article that excuses statements expressed in "good faith," including religious expression.

Clemenger, however, points to a 4-3 Supreme Court decision in which the minority opinion, written by current Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, expressed deep reservations about whether these defenses are of any use."

"What they are saying is, that if you willfully promote hatred, you can use this defense, but no one in good faith would promote hatred," Clemenger said. "So that 'good faith' clause almost eliminates the defense."