Anti-free speech bill close to passage in Canada

[Riprorin]

Stomping on free speech

'Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the "Bible as Hate Literature" bill, or simply "the chill bill." It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups...

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Stomping on free speech

'Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the "Bible as Hate Literature" bill, or simply "the chill bill." It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups...

But p2p sharing is legal there!

edit, I just read the whole thing. Scary stuff man.

 

[Martin]

wow, the Chicken Little brigade is out in full force today. But wait, where is General McOwen?


If anybody is actually interested in reality, they may want to look at these:
1. Unlike what the author wants you to think, free speech is alive and well here. No, we don't have the First Amendment, we have instead Article 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. Bill - as you can see, is actually a small amendment to the law that already protects races, religions and ethnicities. Sexual orientation is already grouped with these things in anti-discrimination laws, so its merely consistent that it would be included in this section too.
3. So what does this section 318 actually say? It actually makes it illegal to advocate/promote genocide!

I suppose if you want hold mass rallies and demand the extermination of all gays...then I can see how you can be upset. For those of us who aren't genocidal maniacs, its no big deal.


But please, don't let things like facts or reality get in the way of your opinions...

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
wow, the Chicken Little brigade is out in full force today. But wait, where is General McOwen?


If anybody is actually interested in reality, they may want to look at these:
1. Unlike what the author wants you to think, free speech is alive and well here. No, we don't have the First Amendment, we have instead Article 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. Bill - as you can see, is actually a small amendment to the law that already protects races, religions and ethnicities. Sexual orientation is already grouped with these things in anti-discrimination laws, so its merely consistent that it would be included in this section too.
3. So what does this section 318 actually say? It actually makes it illegal to advocate/promote genocide!

I suppose if you want hold mass rallies and demand the extermination of all gays...then I can see how you can be upset. For those of us who aren't genocidal maniacs, its no big deal.


But please, don't let things like facts or reality get in the way of your opinions...

I'm afraid that many Canadians disagree with you.

Canadian clergy warn Senate against passage of homosexual hate crime bill

Stop Canadian Homosexual Hate Crimes Bill C-250 - Call MPs Sept 16

Mandatory for Those Who Wish to Call Themselves Canadians

Silenced in Saskatchewan

Bill C-250 Articles

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
wow, the Chicken Little brigade is out in full force today. But wait, where is General McOwen?


If anybody is actually interested in reality, they may want to look at these:
1. Unlike what the author wants you to think, free speech is alive and well here. No, we don't have the First Amendment, we have instead Article 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. Bill - as you can see, is actually a small amendment to the law that already protects races, religions and ethnicities. Sexual orientation is already grouped with these things in anti-discrimination laws, so its merely consistent that it would be included in this section too.
3. So what does this section 318 actually say? It actually makes it illegal to advocate/promote genocide!

I suppose if you want hold mass rallies and demand the extermination of all gays...then I can see how you can be upset. For those of us who aren't genocidal maniacs, its no big deal.


But please, don't let things like facts or reality get in the way of your opinions...

I'm afraid that many Canadians disagree with you.
Canadian clergy warn Senate against passage of homosexual hate crime bill
Stop Canadian Homosexual Hate Crimes Bill C-250 - Call MPs Sept 16
Mandatory for Those Who Wish to Call Themselves Canadians
Silenced in Saskatchewan
Bill C-250 Articles

I could pull some communist websites that claim that Bush is Hitler Redux but that doesn't mean a large portion of americans think that. Similarly, the fundamental christian socons who object to this bill are (thankfully) far from Canadian mainstream politics.


Now, back to your regular "sky is falling because of liberal gays" programming...

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
wow, the Chicken Little brigade is out in full force today. But wait, where is General McOwen?


If anybody is actually interested in reality, they may want to look at these:
1. Unlike what the author wants you to think, free speech is alive and well here. No, we don't have the First Amendment, we have instead Article 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. Bill - as you can see, is actually a small amendment to the law that already protects races, religions and ethnicities. Sexual orientation is already grouped with these things in anti-discrimination laws, so its merely consistent that it would be included in this section too.
3. So what does this section 318 actually say? It actually makes it illegal to advocate/promote genocide!

I suppose if you want hold mass rallies and demand the extermination of all gays...then I can see how you can be upset. For those of us who aren't genocidal maniacs, its no big deal.


But please, don't let things like facts or reality get in the way of your opinions...

I'm afraid that many Canadians disagree with you.
Canadian clergy warn Senate against passage of homosexual hate crime bill
Stop Canadian Homosexual Hate Crimes Bill C-250 - Call MPs Sept 16
Mandatory for Those Who Wish to Call Themselves Canadians
Silenced in Saskatchewan
Bill C-250 Articles

I could pull some communist websites that claim that Bush is Hitler Redux but that doesn't mean a large portion of americans think that. Similarly, the fundamental christian socons who object to this bill are (thankfully) far from Canadian mainstream politics.


Now, back to your regular "sky is falling because of liberal gays" programming...

First off, this is a free speech issue, so don't try to turn it into something that it isn't.

Secondly, if you had actually looked at any of the links, you would know that the opposition isn't just "fundamentalist christians".

 

[sandorski]

Find some legitimate sources. All those links are Agenda based organizations.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Find some legitimate sources. All those links are Agenda based organizations.

Huh? What's not legitimate about these sources?

 

[Martin]

So I take it you were vehemently opposed to Bremer shutting down Al Hawsa?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
So I take it you were vehemently opposed to Bremer shutting down Al Hawsa?

No. There are obviously needs to be limits on free speech, for example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Expressing opposition to homosexuality should be protected by freedom of speech. Do you disagree?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
So I take it you were vehemently opposed to Bremer shutting down Al Hawsa?

No. There are obviously needs to be limits on free speech, for example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Expressing opposition to homosexuality should be protected by freedom of speech. Do you disagree?

I really suggest you read both the bill and criminal code section 318, both of which I linked to. The section to be amended deals with the promotion of genocide against groups, not critisism of said groups. Currently, religions and ethnic groups are protected, however this has not stopped me (or anyone else) critising religion, or cracking racist jokes. In a similar matter, this will not stop people from peacefully stating their opinions about gays or their lifestyle. Promoting their mass execution will be. In essence, genocide does not include oral or written critism. In fact, the laws are very clear on what genocide is and isn't.

(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

critisism is NOT genocide. Thus this law has NOTHING to do with critism of groups.



If look at you own criminal code, you will see the same thing: section 1091.

Incitement of genocide against "a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group" is illegal. In Canada, it is also illegal, except now it'll be against groups of "colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

 

[Riprorin]

Marty, come on now be serious. You either haven't read 319 or you are trying to pull a fast one. Geez.

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group (which includes homosexuals) where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There is a provision for religious opposition to homosexuality, but as Leo points out "few scholars think it will offer protection, given the strength of the gay lobby and the trend toward censorship in Canada."

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Find some legitimate sources. All those links are Agenda based organizations.

what organization does not have an agenda of some sort? otherwise they would not be an "organization".

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
So I take it you were vehemently opposed to Bremer shutting down Al Hawsa?

Both Paul Bremer and this new law are restricting free speech. People in free societies should be able to express what they want no matter how ignorant, hateful, obscene it maybe. As long as it doesn't involve breaking other laws of the country, they should have every right to do so.

Check my sig...

 

[Martin]

Yes, I got carried away with the genocide. Nevertheless, Leo's argument rests on his view that critisism is equal to incitement of hatred. When someone critisizies Israel's policies, are they inciting hatred of jews? Simply, no.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Oh I hope they are planning on adding some provisions to keep people from speaking badly of Christians on there too!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
Oh I hope they are planning on adding some provisions to keep people from speaking badly of Christians on there too!

and womp-rats! won't someone please think of the womp rats!

 

[SNC]

Im sorry where is the proof that being gay is not a choice.
When we start including lifestyles as a protected group, well....

 

[dpm]

Am I missing something here? All this Bill does is give homosexuals the same protection afforded to the religious? (amongst others)

I'm not totally persuaded by the need for bills protecting specific groups like this, but if there is to be one, it would seem to be fair that sexual orientation is given similar standing to colour, race, religion and ethnic origin.

BugsBunny1078 - if you actually read the relevant bill before posting you'd notice that Christians are already protected - all the bill does is give homosexuals the same rights that Christians already have

SNC - Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not (I believe it is not, but I acknowledge that this is not definitively proven yet) Religious orientation is certainly a choice. If choice is the litmus test for this protection then sexual orientation would be debatable, but religion would definitely not be eligable.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: dpm
Am I missing something here? All this Bill does is give homosexuals the same protection afforded to the religious? (amongst others)

I'm not totally persuaded by the need for bills protecting specific groups like this, but if there is to be one, it would seem to be fair that sexual orientation is given similar standing to colour, race, religion and ethnic origin.

<STRONG>BugsBunny1078 - </STRONG>if you actually read the relevant bill before posting you'd notice that Christians are already protected - all the bill does is give homosexuals <STRONG>the same rights that Christians already have

SNC -</STRONG> Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not (I believe it is not, but I acknowledge that this is not definitively proven yet) Religious orientation is <STRONG>certainly</STRONG> a choice. If choice is the litmus test for this protection then sexual orientation would be debatable, but religion would definitely <STRONG>not</STRONG> be eligable.

agreed.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: SNC
Im sorry where is the proof that being gay is not a choice.
When we start including lifestyles as a protected group, well....

'preference' isn't an issue, because choosing to have sex is always an option.

is actually a small amendment to the law that already protects races, religions and ethnicities.

the right to speak negatively of any of these things shouldn't be infringed upon either.