In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Lincoln]

I call your attention to the bold type at the bottom of this excerpt from the article below. Isn't it interesting where this spurious idea of special rights for so called protected groups leads. This guy is straight from Orwelville.

--------------------------------------------

By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

As some U.S. Supreme Court justices look abroad for guidance on cases related to homosexuality, Canada is set to vote on a bill opponents say would criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

Introduced by self-described "gay" House of Commons member Svend Robinson, bill C-250 would add sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation.


As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents fear if the bill becomes law, the Bible will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.

The Parliament is scheduled to debate the bill today and likely will call a vote within the next few days. The legislation has the support of every provincial and territorial attorney-general in Canada.

The debate comes amid a battle over a government bill that would establish same-sex marriage. Yesterday, Parliament narrowly defeated a nonbinding motion reaffirming the heterosexual-only definition of marriage. The close margin in the Liberal Party-dominated House of Commons, 137-132, raised questions about whether the government bill would pass, especially if an election is called before it is brought to a vote.

Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says, ironically, his group's opposition to the homosexual marriage bill could be construed as a punishable offense under Robinson's legislation.

"Canadians who are speaking out against the redefinition of marriage are already being accused of 'hate' speech by homosexual activists," Rushfeldt said. "When C-250 is passed into law later this fall, the activists will begin to insist on prosecution to silence their critics with criminal sanctions."

He said many people are beginning to consider its potential implications.

"If my son went to school and said homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle, let alone a perversion or a sin, and they asked where did you hear that, there is the possibility I could be held liable," Rushfeldt said.

Robinson has accused Christian lobby groups of "fearmongering."

"What this bill is all about is ensuring that a group of people who are targeted more than another group for violent hate crimes, receives equal protection to those groups already covered by hate propaganda legislation," he said, according to the Winnipeg Sun newspaper. . .

[chequita guevara]

Just because you think you're right doesn't mean it's not hate speech. The Nazis thought they were right. White supremicists thought they were right. And heterosexists think they are right. But they're all bigots.

[Boris Godunov]

WorldNetDaily reported

There's the first problem.

Second, until I see the actual text of the legislation, I don't think I can comment either way.

[Ben Kenobi]

We had this debate a while ago on Apolyton, over bill C-250 here in Canada.

General consensus was that all hate crimes ought to be thrown out. We have laws enough to prosecute those who assault minorities, without needing to make further distinctions.

You are right, that churches are not adequately protected if this bill passes, as an extension of our current criminal code.

[Lincoln]

The topic of the thread Che and Boris is the last paragraph. Do you find it rather Orwellian or not?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The topic of the thread Che and Boris is the last paragraph. Do you find it rather Orwellian or not?

No, I don't. You are misreading the badly used pronouns.

Actual text:

"What this bill is all about is ensuring that a group of people who are targeted more than another group for violent hate crimes, receives equal protection to those groups already covered by hate propaganda legislation," he said, according to the Winnipeg Sun newspaper. . .

What you are reading:

"What this bill is all about is ensuring that a group of people who are targeted more than another [covered by existing legislation] group for violent hate crimes, receives equal protection to those groups already covered by hate propaganda legislation," he said, according to the Winnipeg Sun newspaper. . .

What it says:

"What this bill is all about is ensuring that a group of people who are targeted more than another [uncovered] group for violent hate crimes, receives equal protection to those groups already covered by hate propaganda legislation," he said, according to the Winnipeg Sun newspaper. . .

[Lincoln]

Well St Leo I have read your post about three times but I still do not understand your point. Are there groups in Canada that enjoy special protection? Is this new bill an attempt to add another group to that special class?

[Ben Kenobi]

Are there groups in Canada that enjoy special protection? Is this new bill an attempt to add another group to that special class?

Yes. St. Leo wants to make the argument that because some groups recieve special protection, so should homosexuals.

This amendment to the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code would expand the current definition of protected groups that now include "colour, race, religion or ethnic origin" to also include "sexual orientation" or homosexuality.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Lincoln: groups that aren't targets of hate crimes don't need hate crime protection. Those that are do. I'm not quite sure where the question lies...

[Lincoln]

The question is: Are some groups more equal than others? How does one get to be more equal?

[chequita guevara]

All that said, I don't believe in banning hate speech or hate crimes. I do think that it should be considered a determining factor in sentencing and I think that overt racists and sexists should be able to be fired if they make other employees unable to do their jobs effectively.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The question is: Are some groups more equal than others? How does one get to be more equal?

If you are born straight, white, and male, you are more equal than others. If you chose to be Protestant, that's a bonus.

[Agathon]

It doesn't cover expressions of religious doctrine according to the MP who proposed it, Svend Robinson (a gay man himself and a bit of a gonad TTTT).

Religious speech is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No one is going to stop Obi-Wan from expressing his religious views on homosexuality - he just can't do a Fred Phelps that's all.

This isn't a big deal anyway as no sane law refuses to set limits to what can be said in certain contexts. What you aren't allowed to do according to this bill is use language to terrorize people.

Having said that there are going to be some pathetic persecution maniacs who will try to take everything that smacks of the merest offence to court. Fortunately the judiciary aren't that stupid.

Hey Boris, why don't you move up here where you will be treated like a human being.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The question is: Are some groups more equal than others? How does one get to be more equal?

Get the **** beat out of you or get your ass lynched would probably be one start, though I don't favor hate crimes legislation.

[notyoueither]

Fortunately, or not, expressing hateful thoughts against an identifiable group can result in a criminal conviction in Canada.

Extending the indentified groups from women, Hebrews, and visible minorties to include homosexuals does not make Canada any more Orwellian than we have been for the past 10 or more years.

In practice, it is only extreme cases that are prosecuted. There was a teacher who instructed holocaust denial in high school class rooms, and a few others who have been prosecuted.

Hate motivated crimes are also taken into account during sentencing, IIRC.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The question is: Are some groups more equal than others? How does one get to be more equal?

It's a pseudo question.

Virtually any rule of equal distribution of goods, rights, or obligations will entail concomitant inequalities.

For example, specifying that every person should have the equal right to a workplace in which they can function despite disabilities equalizes that while entailing an inequality in the distribution of resources to achieve it (disabled people will require more resources to attain a state of equality).

Of course right wing scoundrels will immediately point out that such a rule leads to inequality, which is a pathetically silly argument since what is at stake is what things should have priority for equalization over others.

I suppose it's as much the fault of activists who campaign for "equality" without specifying what particular equality they favour. In fact it is a logical feature of every rule that it manifests equality in the sense that it is applied the same to everyone.

A rule that says "all Jews to concentration camps" if applied consistently to everyone, is applied equally, but has different consequences for different people; just like a rule that doles out wheelchairs for those who need them.

Equality just isn't a useful notion in most cases.

[Lincoln]

But now the justification is that since there are protected groups that are already more equal then that is an established doctrine as you said. So now everyone wants to be more equal. Too bad we just can't all be equal. Where does this special equality end? Can fat people be more equal if they are called "fatty" too many times?

[Ben Kenobi]

No one is going to stop Obi-Wan from expressing his religious views on homosexuality.

This country does not value free speech when it disagrees with the majority opinion. I have seen far too much censorship just on my supposedly 'Liberal' campus.

In fact, just today we had a clubs day booth to attract members to our prolife club. By 3pm, the SAC committee came and requested that we take down one of our pictures, showing aborted babies in a dumpster, with the caption, 'human garbage'.

They cited 'complaints' as proper justification for them to take down the picture over our table.

Now, I ask, if I had a picture protesting the holocaust and used a picture of mass Jewish graves, would they ask me to remove the picture because of complaints?

This is why I fear this bill, why do we need hate crimes legislation at all?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Fortunately, or not, expressing hateful thoughts against an identifiable group can result in a criminal conviction in Canada.

Extending the indentified groups from women, Hebrews, and visible minorties to include homosexuals does not make Canada any more Orwellian than we have been for the past 10 or more years.

In practice, it is only extreme cases that are prosecuted. There was a teacher who instructed holocaust denial in high school class rooms, and a few others who have been prosecuted.

Hate motivated crimes are also taken into account during sentencing, IIRC.

There is always an unfortunate effect of these rules in that any group that is particularly zealous in its anti-defamation stance tends to be treated with kid gloves just to avoid unpleasantness.

This is what happens with radical feminist groups on campus - they complain so much that people end up being prosecuted for frivolous offences and legitimate speech is suppressed. I think that is a legitimate complaint, but the alternative is worse, so I guess we have to live with it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lincoln
But now the justification is that since there are protected groups that are already more equal then that is an established doctrine as you said. So now everyone wants to be more equal. Too bad we just can't all be equal. Where does this special equality end? Can fat people be more equal if they are called "fatty" too many times?

When fat people, or WASP men, become the targets of violence based on hatred to any significant degree, then they too could come under the protection of our anti-hate legislation.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln
But now the justification is that since there are protected groups that are already more equal then that is an established doctrine as you said. So now everyone wants to be more equal. Too bad we just can't all be equal. Where does this special equality end? Can fat people be more equal if they are called "fatty" too many times?

It isn't being "more equal".

If I say that all persons should pay a flat tax then that is equal in one sense, but unequal in the sense that it imposes a harsher burden on people with lower incomes (due to diminishing marginal utility).

If we decide that burdens should be equalized by a progressive tax scheme, then it follows that some people will pay more. They may want to say that the others are "more equal" but that is just silly because they are absolutely equal given the standard we have chosen to use.

Similarly we can argue that people have an equal right not to be abused in the street. This will mean some people get gagged. Which is more important, the rights of racists to inflict racism on others, or the right of minorities to be free of such abuse. It's clear that equalizing the former and gagging the latter leads to a better overall situation.

[chequita guevara]

Yeah, it's so inherently unequal to want to not be murdered and beaten. Them faggots should just shut up and take their beatings.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither


When fat people, or WASP men, become the targets of violence based on hatred to any significant degree, then they too could come under the protection of our anti-hate legislation.

Absolutely correct. Hence the law equalizes in this respect.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This country does not value free speech when it disagrees with the majority opinion. I have seen far too much censorship just on my supposedly 'Liberal' campus.

In fact, just today we had a clubs day booth to attract members to our prolife club. By 3pm, the SAC committee came and requested that we take down one of our pictures, showing aborted babies in a dumpster, with the caption, 'human garbage'.

They cited 'complaints' as proper justification for them to take down the picture over our table.

Now, I ask, if I had a picture protesting the holocaust and used a picture of mass Jewish graves, would they ask me to remove the picture because of complaints?

This is why I fear this bill, why do we need hate crimes legislation at all?

I agree, this isn't fair. Jewish student organizations and homosexual rights and pro-abortion activists tend to have the ear of the administration these days. It allows them to get away with all sorts of pathetic evil crap.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Them faggots should just shut up and take their beatings.

Some of them like S&M.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Agathon



...Similarly we can argue that people have an equal right not to be abused in the street. ..

Forgive me for cutting the above out but that is the essence of my argument. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
Some of them like S&M.

Well it is fun.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Well it is fun.

But definitely not tolerated by scientific socialism.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Forgive me for cutting the above out but that is the essence of my argument. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law.

Not everyone is liable to be a victim of certain crimes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
But definitely not tolerated by scientific socialism.

Sez you. I'm with Alexandra Kollentai on the revolution and sexuality.