Keith 0 #26 May 26, 2004 One would have to believe the article to be factually based to believe people are being kept from speaking their opinion which I Don't. If you Read what I've written, you'll see that I believe the article to be CRAP. If You would READ what I've written you would see I believe the article to be PROPAGANDA aimed at steering Canadian society back toward intolerance for homosexuality not to enlighten the public about suppression of free speech. By the way Jeffrey, try to calm down a bit. I'm concerned you're heading for a stroke while on your path to peace. Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #27 May 26, 2004 QuoteOne would have to believe the article to be factually based to believe people are being kept from speaking their opinion which I Don't. If you Read what I've written, you'll see that I believe the article to be CRAP. If You would READ what I've written you would see I believe the article to be PROPAGANDA aimed at steering Canadian society back toward intolerance for homosexuality not to enlighten the public about suppression of free speech. By the way Jeffrey, try to calm down a bit. I'm concerned you're heading for a stroke while on your path to peace. Don't go needlessly worrying yourself about me. If you are so convinced that this proposed law (i.e. of course it is not CURRENTLY keeping people from speaking their opinions) will not silence people's opinions, perhaps you can post the text of the bill for us? You know, so that we can be FACTUALLY assured that there is no language in the bill that would step on freedom of speech... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #28 May 26, 2004 Two can play this stupid game. If you think it is FACTUAL you post the proof.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #29 May 26, 2004 QuoteI can't believe people think it's a good thing that a nation has the right to walk into my bedroom and arrest me for having consensual sex. We agree there, but that has little to do with a government stepping in to control what people think and say. As I said originally, it's really neat how you think it's ok for people you disagree with to experience censorship, but we all need to accept your views, offensive as some people might find them. QuoteOur government currently supports homophobia by labeling me a second class citizen, by denying me the right to marry, etc.. Don't you find that offensive? Civil unions might be acceptable, but I am totally offended that homosexuals want to force me to recognize the word "marriage" in any context outside it's actual meaning. I also resent being people being labeled "homophobic" when their negative feelings about homosexuality have nothing to do with irrational fear. It's yet another hijacking of the language, like "gay" or whatever. QuoteI'm simply tired of people telling me I don't have the right to fall in love with whom it comes naturally for me. I support you 100% there man, I really do. I agree you have a right to do that, but there are a lot of people who think you are wrong to do that. And to take away their right to express themselves is very wrong. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #30 May 26, 2004 Ok everyone this is what the fervor is all about: This is section 318 of the Canadian criminal code. PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION Hate Propaganda Advocating genocide 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Definition of "genocide" (2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. Definition of "identifiable group" (4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. R.S., c. 11(1st Supp.), s. 1. ------------------------------------------ This is Bill C-250 2nd Session, 37th Parliament, 51 Elizabeth II, 2002 House of Commons of Canada BILL C-250 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda) Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: 1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following: Definition of ``identifiable group'' (4) In this section, ``identifiable group'' means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation . --------------------------------------- What Bill C-250 wants to do is add 'sexual orientation' to section 4 'Definition of identifiable group.' What this means is, it will be illegal to kill homosexuals for being homosexual and the conservative christians are pissed. So this proves my point. The article quoted by Jimbo is CRAP propaganda.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #31 May 27, 2004 QuoteWhat this means is, it will be illegal to kill homosexuals for being homosexual and the conservative christians are pissed. Did you miss the part about "Hate Propaganda"? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #32 May 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat this means is, it will be illegal to kill homosexuals for being homosexual and the conservative christians are pissed. Did you miss the part about "Hate Propaganda"? *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* We have a winner.... As distasteful, and disgusting the viewpoint is, it freedom of speech means being able to advocate things like that. I don't believe in them, but I don't believe the right of someone (however misguided) to express that view should be suppressed.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #33 May 27, 2004 QuoteDid you miss the part about "Hate Propaganda"? No, but you clearly missed the whole meaning. Let me splen this to you. This means it would be illegal for people to say things (Hate propaganda) that would cause someone to kill someone else. Simply saying homosexuality is wrong would NOT BE ILLEGAL. Saying fags should burn in hell WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Saying "lets go kill fags" would be illegal ONLY IF someone acted on it. The intent and out come of the speach is what matters NOT THE WORDS.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #34 May 27, 2004 QuoteAs distasteful, and disgusting the viewpoint is, it freedom of speech means being able to advocate things like that. I don't believe in them, but I don't believe the right of someone (however misguided) to express that view should be suppressed. Agreed. For those interested, the entire bill is available online here. A quick search for "Hate Propaganda", or "318" will get you to the relevant parts. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #35 May 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteDid you miss the part about "Hate Propaganda"? No, but you clearly missed the whole meaning. Let me splen this to you. This means it would be illegal for people to say things (Hate propaganda) that would cause someone to kill someone else. Simply saying homosexuality is wrong would NOT BE ILLEGAL. Saying fags should burn in hell WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Saying "lets go kill fags" would be illegal ONLY IF someone acted on it. The intent and out come of the speach is what matters NOT THE WORDS. Let's read the bill one more time: QuotePART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION Hate Propaganda Advocating genocide 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Definition of "genocide" (2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. Definition of "identifiable group" (4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. This particular section doesn't deal with the act of killing, it deals with those who advocate or promote. To use your example, Saying "lets go kill fags" would be illegal ONLY IF someone acted on it. , it seems to me that that would most certainly be illegal. All too often the meaning of a particular law is thrown out in favor in the actual text. I'm sure like most here, I'm all for punishing those would act on those words, but to punish someone for simply suggesting the idea? No way. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #36 May 27, 2004 That's not the bill that the criminal code. this is the bill. This is not about freedom of speedh is't about genocide. Sheesh are you people blind? This is like reading a sign that clearly says DON'T STOP and slamming on the breaks because you only want to read the word STOP. Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #37 May 27, 2004 HELLO that's not the bill that's the current criminal code. If you're going to argue a point you should argue the right one. What part of any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy is not clear to you?Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #38 May 27, 2004 QuoteHELLO that's not the bill that's the current criminal code. If you're going to argue a point you should argue the right one. I, and you, posted the criminal code that the bill is meant to amend. You have GOT to do better than that. QuoteWhat part of any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy is not clear to you? No, it's not about genocide, not directly anyway. It's about those who advocate and promote genocide. The Canadian government has now included 'sexual orientation' (their term, not mine) as an identifiable group that is protected by the criminal code and added by the bill that amended the code. Suppose I write into the newspaper suggesting that we need to round up all the fags (again, your term) and drown them in the nearest lake. My intent is to sway people to my way of thinking, that we need to destroy all of the homosexuals. Here, in the United States, it's protected speech. There, in the most civilized of nations, Canada, it's cause for my arrest. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #39 May 27, 2004 Quote***I, and you, posted the criminal code that the bill is meant to amend. You have GOT to do better than that. You're confused. At one point I posted the code and the bill. In another post I linked to the bill, but that's not important. QuoteNo, it's not about genocide, not directly anyway. It's about those who advocate and promote genocide. The Canadian government has now included 'sexual orientation' (their term, not mine) as an identifiable group that is protected by the criminal code and added by the bill that amended the code. Suppose I write into the newspaper suggesting that we need to round up all the fags (again, your term) and drown them in the nearest lake. My intent is to sway people to my way of thinking, that we need to destroy all of the homosexuals. Here, in the United States, it's protected speech. There, in the most civilized of nations, Canada, it's cause for my arrest. This is the same as the U.S. laws that make it illegal to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre or insight a riot. The intent of the law is not to restrict one from expressing an opinion, it is to hold people accountable for causing harm to others. Under current Canadian law it is not illegal to express hatred toward an identifiable group, it's illegal to cause others to harm them. Big difference. Bill C 250 is simply attempting to add sexual orientation to the definition of "identifiable group" so it will be illegal for people to intentionally cause others to kill them simply for their sexual orientation. I don't understand why people have a problem with lawmakers wanting it to be illegal to kill others. edited because I'm tired and keep making mistakesKeith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #40 May 27, 2004 QuoteSaying "lets go kill fags" would be illegal ONLY IF someone acted on it. It looks to me that just saying it is the part that's in question. Acting on it is already illegal. This law protects groups against speech, not action. Edited to ask Keith where in: --- 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. --- do you see that advocating or promoting genocide must result in a death for it to be illegal? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #41 May 27, 2004 Quotedo you see that advocating or promoting genocide must result in a death for it to be illegal? Yes, you keep leaving that part out. Go back to my previous posts and you'll see it. Like I said before, this is like reading a sign that says "Don't Stop" and slamming on the breaks because you only see 'Stop.' (edited to add that I appreciate that we're actually discussing the issue rather than previous posters who just wanted to stir shit - although I did have fun stiring with them)Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #42 May 27, 2004 QuoteNo, it's not about genocide, not directly anyway. It's about those who advocate and promote genocide. Just so you knoe. It's illegal here to advocate and promote criminal activities as well, and it is not protected by the first amendment. Go to the airport and tell the screener that you think someone should put a bomb on the plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #43 May 27, 2004 QuoteJust so you knoe. It's illegal here to advocate and promote criminal activities as well, and it is not protected by the first amendment. Your statement works in the airport, correct. However, I'm protected if I decide to write to my local newspaper and demand that we should round up all of the and have them (shot|drowned|sterilized|deported|re-educated|etc...). I never will, but it's nice to know that I can. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #44 May 27, 2004 Right, but if you broadcast details of your sexual activities with your wife last night, you're in big trouble. This restriction on speech is no more restrictive than what we have here. It's just directed at a different topic. Like I said, I don't think any of it should be restricted. But if I had to choose, I'd take their rule over our's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #45 May 27, 2004 Quote QuoteJust so you knoe. It's illegal here to advocate and promote criminal activities as well, and it is not protected by the first amendment. Your statement works in the airport, correct. However, I'm protected if I decide to write to my local newspaper and demand that we should round up all of the and have them (shot|drowned|sterilized|deported|re-educated|etc...). I never will, but it's nice to know that I can. See, in my country, that would get you in trouble, since that kind of speech is prohibited by our constitution. While the dissemination of ideas is protected by it, it also acknowledges that some ideas have no place in the modern society- more specifically, since it is (among other things) based on the idea of equal rights for everyone, suggesting those rights be taken away from a certain group counts less as exercising the right to free speech and more as an attack on the foundation of society. Perhaps it's a European thing, but to me, looking for the protection of free speech when you're expressing such ideas seems a lot like the argument most racists I've talked to throw in sooner or later; "How can you call yourself tolerant if you won't tolerate my intolerance?" Well, I've never claimed they were intelligent debaters... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #46 May 27, 2004 Quoteit also acknowledges that some ideas have no place in the modern society See, that's the problem, all IDEAS have a place in modern society. At least in my idea of society they do. How can a simple IDEA hurt you, or your society? It's the suppression of ideas that holds us back. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 May 27, 2004 This bill looks meaningless until someone lays out specifics on what they mean by "Advocate and Promote". If it's talks or speeches (Advocate), so what, sticks and stones, and all that. If it's direct actions (Promote) giving guns to groups knowing they will go out and shoot someone, then that's likely already illegal under existing laws that should be enforced instead of adding others. What's in the bill that isn't already covered by laws that aren't already applicable to all? I'd say if you (through actions, not words) promote the murder of anyone in any group, that should be illegal - why make it a group-based issue? Or doesn't Canada already have laws against murder and accessory to murder? FYI ad·vo·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dv-kt) tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates To speak, plead, or argue in favor of. See Synonyms at support. n. (-kt, -kt) 1 One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender: an advocate of civil rights. 2 - One that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor: advocates for abused children and spouses. 3 - A lawyer. So canada wants to arrest all the lawyers and civil rights activists? Well, that I can understand. 2nd definition of 'promote' in dictionary.com seems to be the only one to apply: "To contribute to the progress or growth of;" That sounds more action based. Really, the words are vague and hard to handle - the authors really aren't thinking things through, probably only catering to some odd poll results and going for the emotional response. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #48 May 27, 2004 Quote Quoteit also acknowledges that some ideas have no place in the modern society See, that's the problem, all IDEAS have a place in modern society. At least in my idea of society they do. How can a simple IDEA hurt you, or your society? It's the suppression of ideas that holds us back. - Jim I can have the idea of fire in a crowded theater but I can't shout about it without risking arrest. I can have the idea of inciting a riot but I can't use the necessary words to do it without risking arrest. Conspiracy laws specifically prohibit certain speech and ideas in the USA. 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other, IMO.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #49 May 27, 2004 I dont really care what the Canadian law says. I defend the King James Bible as the WORD of God, and it cl;early defines God's view of homosexuality. I support that definition entirely. I do not however, adviocate that homosexuals be put to death or any such ridiculousness. I will state that as my stand at any time, in any place, and if the Canadian law or homosexuals don't like it, they can do whatever the want about it. I will not change my thoughts or God's definition to please anyone. Bill Cole Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #50 May 27, 2004 QuoteHow do you Canadians deal with garbage such as this? You guys crack me right up. You will defend to the end the right to advocate murder, genocide and hatred. But god forbid if Janet Jackson shows a nipple on tv. That is just outrageous, what if my children see that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
