In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Uncle Sparky]

It should also be noted that bill C-250, being a private member's bill, is non binding on the government. I suspect though, it will be forwarded to committee.

[Berzerker]

Can saying "All white males should die!" be criminal under current Canadian legislation ? Theoretically yes. But first someone would have to be insecure enough to ask that charges be brought against the person(s) uttering the statement.

So the law is based on insecurity? Aside from the irrational nature of the law, do you really believe a member of a liberal "oppressed" minority would be prosecuted if a white male did complain?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In theory, it ought to protect everyone equally. In practice, hate crimes only come into play when involving a minority group.

In practice, it protects many people of all groups. The existence of laws against hate crimes acts as a general deterant by saying the community will not tolerate this type of criminal behaviour.

The specific application of the law is, however, extremely rare simply because it is difficult to prove.

EDIT: When I wrote the last sentence I was thinking about crimes of physical violence.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. Initially proposed as a PMB, the bill made it to the third reading, and becomes a law. It had already passed the committee stage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tingkai:

In practice, it protects many people of all groups. The existence of laws against hate crimes acts as a general deterant by saying the community will not tolerate this type of criminal behaviour.

The specific application of the law is, however, extremely rare simply because it is difficult to prove.

We already have laws against those who assault homosexuals, without resorting to hate crimes.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's one thing for the student governement, it's another for the BC Supreme court. We lost our case challenging these restrictions this summer.

No money to pursue an appeal, since everything we do relies upon donations.

And why did you lose?

My guess is that you lost because:
1) University grounds are private property. Property owners have the right to decide what takes place on thier property.
2) Freedom of speech is not absolute. The University allowed you to protest against abortion, but merely set limits about graphic nature of your posters.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Tingkai:

We already have laws against those who assault homosexuals, without resorting to hate crimes.

IF this law is redundant then that would mean it won't change anything so why are you complaining about it.

[Uncle Sparky]

Ah, but it isn't redundant in all cases. It would now be illegal to preach or proselytize ... and yes I chose those words specifically... hatred against homosexuals.

Just as it is illegal to preach hatred of Jews. It wasn't all that long ago that many Christian denominations regularly preached against Jews btw. A minority still do and find scriptural references to back their claims...

[Ben Kenobi]

Without going into greater detail...

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the university, but with the student society. They passed a motion several years ago banning the display of graphic abortion pictures within the Student Union Building for any purposes.

They also posted a motion to fund another club in opposition to our club alongside the censorship motion.

They confiscated club yearbook photos because they included pictures of our display, while allowing the campus newspaper to report our events on their headlines, placed throughout the SUB.

Finally, we are not allowed to hold club meetings for members within the SUB building using these materials.

We tried to go to the student court, to find the only precedent made the student court decisions non-binding on the student society. Then we decided to go to the BC supreme court to get a decision binding on the AMS.

Granted the pictures we show are shocking, but they are no worse than what some of the other clubs have shown during their holocaust memorial week.

We agree to reasonable limitations, in terms of signage, time, etc. but not to outright censorship.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Without going into greater detail...

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the university, but with the student society. They passed a motion several years ago banning the display of graphic abortion pictures within the Student Union Building for any purposes.

In other words, the owners of a private building decided to limit your displays. That is certainly their right just as a church has the right to deny pro-choice groups from setting up a display on church property.

The courts are not going to overturn this principle of property rights.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We agree to reasonable limitations, in terms of signage, time, etc. but not to outright censorship.

But there was no outright censorship. They only limited what you could display.

[Ben Kenobi]

Our student fees go to build the building, so why should we not be able to use the facilities like any other club?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Are there groups in Canada that enjoy special protection?

Yes, there are many groups that enjoy special protection.

As with many countries, Canada has laws that specifically protect:
1) children, such as laws that make it illegal for an adult to have sex with a child;
2) Senior citizens, such as laws designed to provided them with greater protection from poverty (e.g. old age pensions)
3) citizens of good standing, such as libel laws which have a basic criteria that a statement must lower a person's standing in a community in order to be libel.
4) Job classification: there are many laws that only apply to specific types of work;
5) the disable, such as laws that provide special parking places for them

All of these laws provide special protection because of special needs.

I question why people would oppose laws that ban hatred against homosexuals. Is it because some people want the right to incite hatred against homosexuals?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Our student fees go to build the building, so why should we not be able to use the facilities like any other club?

That's a decision that must be made by the Student Union, not the courts.

It may well be that the majority of the students at your university agree that your display went to far. They may well agree that you have the right to set up a pro-life display, yet limit the extend of what you display. Then again, they may agree with you.

Instead of wasting money on a court challenge, your group should have tried to win control of the student government through the election process.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tingkai:

They also posted a motion to fund another club in opposition to our club alongside the censorship motion.

Do you understand my point here? The student society not only barred the pictures, but agreed to fund a club that would directly oppose ours. That's the reason why we could not go to the council, since the members who forwarded the motion, naturally became part of the opposing club funded by the council.

Their arguments, even in court never centered around your property argument, but only on the fact that our display 'upsets' people, and that our club has been targeted for violence on several occasions by those who were opposed to our club. They feared that to hold such a display inside the SUB would produce violence, even though we are entirely peaceful. In short, we are held responsible for the violence done to our club.

Now, time has passed since the motion, and we are working on meeting with the Student council, since many of the members who were there have left.

[Berzerker]

Our student fees go to build the building, so why should we not be able to use the facilities like any other club?

Because the means of conveying your message did not find favor with those in power. But as you point out, images of the holocaust certainly would have found favor, so those in power are being hypocritical (assuming of course the double standard exists - a safe assumption).

I question why people would oppose laws that ban hatred against homosexuals. Is it because some people want the right to incite hatred against homosexuals?

Because freedom includes "hating" those you find worthy of "hate". And because these laws won't be used consistently, they will be used to suppress "hatred" of the politically connected while allowing "hatred" of those who are not. Ever hear of the Alien & Sedition Act? It was passed in the 1790's by Congress and John Adams to suppress criticism of Congress and John Adams, not to suppress criticism leveled by those in power against their political opponents. Does that answer your rhetorical question designed to indict the motives of your opponents?

[Berzerker]

Ben - was that a publicly funded college?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. It's a publicly funded university here in Canada.

Anyhoo, I'm tired, so g'night all.

[Oerdin]

Gays should have equal rights but not special rights. If the first post is correct then it seems Canada is considering giving gays special rights above and beyond what the average citizen enjoys.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Just as it is illegal to preach hatred of Jews. It wasn't all that long ago that many Christian denominations regularly preached against Jews btw. A minority still do and find scriptural references to back their claims...

I see where you are coming from and you do make a point. That said from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim perspective god has told them that homosexuality is immoral and that god hates it as a sin. For a religious person this puts them in a terrible delema where they have to choice between what they see as god's word or the state's laws.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Gays should have equal rights but not special rights. If the first post is correct then it seems Canada is considering giving gays special rights above and beyond what the average citizen enjoys.

Sounds like a quote from the Family Research Council.

Again, the law does not single out gays for special protection. It protects people of all sexual orientation from such hateful activity. If heterosexuals are the only ones out there in number spewing hate against gays and bis and committing acts of hate-motivated violence, that would indicate a problem among the heterosexual community, wouldn't it?

Whether or not it is prohibiting free speech, I'm not sure--even in the U.S., free speech isn't quite absolute, since it is illegal to incite violence against others. But the law isn't singling out any particular group for "special rights."

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Berzerker



Because freedom includes "hating" those you find worthy of "hate". And because these laws won't be used consistently, they will be used to suppress "hatred" of the politically connected while allowing "hatred" of those who are not. Ever hear of the Alien & Sedition Act? It was passed in the 1790's by Congress and John Adams to suppress criticism of Congress and John Adams, not to suppress criticism leveled by those in power against their political opponents. Does that answer your rhetorical question designed to indict the motives of your opponents?

Exactly. It is quite easy now for a so called protected group to silence a group that they hate by calling them a "hate group." What a brilliant way to stifle opposing views. Too bad it is working.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Because freedom includes "hating" those you find worthy of "hate".
And because these laws won't be used consistently, they will be used to suppress "hatred" of the politically connected while allowing "hatred" of those who are not.

So are you against libel laws? These laws set limits on freedom of speech. The hate laws are the similar. Libel laws protect the individual. Hate laws protect groups.

Do you oppose laws that make it illegal to incite a riot?

Freedom of speech has never been absolute. To claim that homosexuals are somehow a special type of protection that has never existed in any form before, is simply wrong.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Exactly. It is quite easy now for a so called protected group to silence a group that they hate by calling them a "hate group." What a brilliant way to stifle opposing views. Too bad it is working.

Bull. Show me one case where it was "easy" to silence someone under Canadian hate laws.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


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

Neither do I.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

More liberals invited to the riot?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When was the last time a crime against a white person fell under the category of a 'hate' crime?

In the US, most of the prosecuted hate crimes have been about attacks against white people, but as most Jews and gays are white, that doesn't tell us a whole lot.

[mindseye]

Originally poosted by Ben Kenobi
In theory, it ought to protect everyone equally. In practice, hate crimes only come into play when involving a minority group.

Uh, could that maybe be because in practice most hate crimes are perpetrated against minorities?

Quote:

Gee, could that be because they don't want to pass anything that might remotely do good for gays?

Originally poosted by Berzerker
Like banning anal intercourse?

Bezerker - please, please don't tell me you think gays are the only ones (or even a majority of those) who enjoy anal intercourse!

[mindseye]

Amazing!

We are already on page 3 of a Lincoln anti-gay troll thread, and he still hasn't reminded us that he really has nothing against homosexuals because he has a gay brother!

Lincoln, I was hoping that your time in Thailand would have taught you something about tolerance.

(Still recalling Lincoln's last anti-gay troll thread; "Gay eats child.")

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Bull. Show me one case where it was "easy" to silence someone under Canadian hate laws.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080

The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province's human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by mindseye
Amazing!

We are already on page 3 of a Lincoln anti-gay troll thread, and he still hasn't reminded us that he really has nothing against homosexuals because he has a gay brother!

Lincoln, I was hoping that your time in Thailand would have taught you something about tolerance.

(Still recalling Lincoln's last anti-gay troll thread; "Gay eats child.")

I was hopimg that your time in China would have taught you something about freedom

And try to forgive and forget mindseye. I know it still upsets you that a fellow gay ate a little boy but try and forgive him and go on