RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada

RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 11:03:56 AM)
quote: .....thoughts are not being prosecuted here, actions are. You appear to have made something of a leap. Based on the commentary I have read, thoughts--specifically religious belief/opinion--are exactly what is being prosecuted. So far, I have not seen any commentary that alluded to a call for acts of violence against homosexuals, or to any mistreatment of homosexuals. Absent such a call (and yes it would be nice if we had the original text), this is prosecution--or rather persecution--of thought, in the form of speech.

kdsub -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 11:10:49 AM)
Just another fanatical one-sided website spewing half truths...damn people are so easily influenced by the Internet.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 11:21:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Just another fanatical one-sided website spewing half truths...damn people are so easily influenced by the Internet. Which websites have you visited for "the rest of the story?"

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 12:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: .....thoughts are not being prosecuted here, actions are. You appear to have made something of a leap. Based on the commentary I have read, thoughts--specifically religious belief/opinion--are exactly what is being prosecuted. ...well, that's not the order of things........the prosecution was over a specific act...the sending (and publishing) of a letter. The Pastors thoughts were not on trial, the expression of them in a public arena was.....

popeye1250 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 12:29:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: boytoy4female Better yet, let's trade our socialists for Canadians who believe in the principals of democracy Yeah, like exchanging hostages.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 1:20:24 PM)
quote: ...well, that's not the order of things........the prosecution was over a specific act...the sending (and publishing) of a letter. The Pastors thoughts were not on trial, the expression of them in a public arena was..... Oh please.....that does not even begin to resemble a credible rebuttal.... If the thoughts are not on trial, where is the evil in the act of expression?

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 1:52:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Oh please.....that does not even begin to resemble a credible rebuttal.... If the thoughts are not on trial, where is the evil in the act of expression? ........something of a non-argument there CL. You know, as well as i do, that what was prosecuted was the expression of thoughts in a public arena, not the thoughts per se. To continue to cast this as thought on trial is to utterly misunderstand what has happened. As Firm pointed out, it is possible for a racist landlord to not discriminate against people. Their thoughts are their own. It becomes prosecutable when their actions impinge upon the law. Your argument means that if one were to prosecute a racist action, a reasonable defence is that because a thought precedes it, it is the thought on trial not the action. Do you really not see the absurdity of that logic? The Pastor performed an action.....no-one disagrees with that as a fact. It is that action that was prosecuted. Up until that point the Pastor had not crossed the law, his thoughts had not found a public expression.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 2:00:50 PM)
FR: Violating Human Rights to Defend Them Jacob Sullum \| June 12, 2008, 1:23pm In hearings before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the lawyer representing Maclean's noted that the province's law gives writers accused of hurting people's feelings little recourse: Innocent intent is not a defense. Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense. Firm

celticlord2112 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 2:58:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Oh please.....that does not even begin to resemble a credible rebuttal.... If the thoughts are not on trial, where is the evil in the act of expression? ........something of a non-argument there CL. You know, as well as i do, that what was prosecuted was the expression of thoughts in a public arena, not the thoughts per se. To continue to cast this as thought on trial is to utterly misunderstand what has happened. As Firm pointed out, it is possible for a racist landlord to not discriminate against people. Their thoughts are their own. It becomes prosecutable when their actions impinge upon the law. Your argument means that if one were to prosecute a racist action, a reasonable defence is that because a thought precedes it, it is the thought on trial not the action. Do you really not see the absurdity of that logic? The Pastor performed an action.....no-one disagrees with that as a fact. It is that action that was prosecuted. Up until that point the Pastor had not crossed the law, his thoughts had not found a public expression. Absurdity squared. If one is a racist, and therefore commits an act of violence against a minority, we need not look to the racist thought motivating the act to find reason to condemn the act itself. The act is the wrong in and of itself. However, writing a letter to a newspaper is not an act that is wrong in and of itself. The Pastor's specific act is being declared wrong solely because of the ideas--the thoughts--expressed in the act. The prosecution would not exist but for the objection to these thoughts. This prosecution is nothing but a persecution of thought.

thornhappy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 3:09:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The trend in American government in both parties is entitlements, political correctness, socialism, bigger government, and destruction of civil liberties. This is happening in Canada at a fast pace. Many in America who have any sense of intelligence can see it happening here. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/deafening_silence.html Regarding the first 2 italicized items: In the last 8 years? Where 6 years were under Republican control? Regarding the last item, does that mean that anyone who disagrees with the complete scenario then lacks any intelligence at all? Or are sheeple (man, I'm tired of that term)? thornhappy

beargonewild -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 3:36:49 PM)
~FR~ As a born and bred Canadian, I'd like to state that for the most part we do have a fair amount of free speech. Yes it's true that in many areas this may not seem so yet in other areas we do and maybe moreso then our neighbors to the south. How I see this is simply the Canadian courts and the political governing body are trying to wade through and to clearly define what is free speech and what is not. When it comes to freedom of espousing religious views and such, it becomes a very sticky area because many segments of our population will and do cry discrimination when that is not the intent. Canada has a reputation of being a fair and open minded country yet this is still in the process of evolving. Granted we are going to make mistakes and we are going to fuck up on the view of the populous of other nations like the States or Europe, yet we are trying to learn from these errors and to do better for our own. The evolution of Canada is completely different to how the States evolved to be the nation it is now. Canada is not a melting pot like the States is, we formed from the immigration of many different nationalities and cultures where we try as we might to maintain a balance of preserving the unique customs and religious beliefs of the different ethnicities and still be united as one. Herein lies the difficult task of finding a middle ground to appease the many minorities and still keep the majority happy or at least content. I liken this to our "growing pains!" Because we recognize and lay much importance on the diversity of our country, it is too easy for a group who feels they are being discriminated against or complain they are being labeled as hate mongers.

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 3:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 However, writing a letter to a newspaper is not an act that is wrong in and of itself. ....and unless and until we know the content of that letter we are merely speculating. A point i have kept making to you. i am quite prepared, on reading that letter, to concede your point if it is true. Are you as prepared to concede the point to me if it turns out he tried to incite violence? Assuming you agree, then the logical step is to try and find a copy of the damn letter. It is very annoying that it is not readily available. It means we are arguing in the dark.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 3:52:44 PM)
quote: ....and unless and until we know the content of that letter we are merely speculating. A point i have kept making to you. i am quite prepared, on reading that letter, to concede your point if it is true. Are you as prepared to concede the point to me if it turns out he tried to incite violence? Assuming you agree, then the logical step is to try and find a copy of the damn letter. It is very annoying that it is not readily available. It means we are arguing in the dark. That is not a point of contention. I have already acknowledged the validity of the "clear and present danger" scenario. However, your arguments have not been predicated on the possibility of a clear and present danger, nor have they been speculations upon the possibility that the letter was a call for violence. Your thesis was presented categorically, and is rebuked categorically.

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 4:00:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ....and unless and until we know the content of that letter we are merely speculating. A point i have kept making to you. i am quite prepared, on reading that letter, to concede your point if it is true. Are you as prepared to concede the point to me if it turns out he tried to incite violence? Assuming you agree, then the logical step is to try and find a copy of the damn letter. It is very annoying that it is not readily available. It means we are arguing in the dark. That is not a point of contention. I have already acknowledged the validity of the "clear and present danger" scenario. However, your arguments have not been predicated on the possibility of a clear and present danger, nor have they been speculations upon the possibility that the letter was a call for violence. Your thesis was presented categorically, and is rebuked categorically. ...not true, i was merely counter arguing against your assumption... Your thesis that it was the thought being prosecuted hangs on the assumption that there was no incitement to violence in the letter. We, annoyingly, don't know the content of that letter.....so your assumption is based on, er, who knows. Nevertheless it was an assumption. You may well be right. You may well be wrong. But to categorically call the whole thing a prosecution of thought itself is to ignore the assumption you have made. i'm not arguing that the man ought to be hung, drawn and quartered....nor am i arguing that his right to free speech trumps all other rights. i'm arguing that without the letter, to wholly take either side requires an assumption. Which might be wrong. To be fair, i did argue with you that he was prosecuted for the letter, rather than the thought itself. Unless you are suggesting that he would have been prosecuted without writing the letter, then you surely concede that an action is required for prosecution......even if what is then prosecuted is the thought that drives the action.

kdsub -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 4:10:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Just another fanatical one-sided website spewing half truths...damn people are so easily influenced by the Internet. Which websites have you visited for "the rest of the story?" Hi celticlord So you are telling me that site is giving a balanced view of the situation? ..Or is it just the side you support and want to argue?..I think it is not a balanced view and I was just pointing that out...I am not saying I agree or disagree. Butch

celticlord2112 -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 4:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Just another fanatical one-sided website spewing half truths...damn people are so easily influenced by the Internet. Which websites have you visited for "the rest of the story?" Hi celticlord So you are telling me that site is giving a balanced view of the situation? ..Or is it just the side you support and want to argue?..I think it is not a balanced view and I was just pointing that out...I am not saying I agree or disagree. Butch I have perused several websites and have not found any commentary dramatically different from the link in the OP. Is it the complete story? Probably not. Are these the facts presented here for discussion and debate? Yes. If there are material facts found elsewhere which might impact this discussion, I for one would like to know them.

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 4:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 If there are material facts found elsewhere which might impact this discussion, I for one would like to know them. ...i'd second that......

seeksfemslave -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 4:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandK In hearings before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the lawyer representing Maclean's noted that the province's law gives writers accused of hurting people's feelings little recourse Innocent intent is not a defense. Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense. This describes exactly the total mess that PC liberals have created. Half educated nitwits with no sense of history.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 6:17:13 PM)
FR: Ok, ok WHAT LETTER?? If you are talking about Rev Boissan, there was no letter. He was: ... convicted by an Alberta kangaroo court ("human rights tribunal") last November for publicly expressing the Christian and Biblical view of homosexuality, on the say-so of an anti-Christian activist from his home town. Rev. Boisson has now been ordered to desist from communicating his views on this subject "in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet" so long as he should live. He has been ordered to pay compensation to Darren Lund, the anti-Christian activist in question, and further to make a public recantation of beliefs he still holds. And, if you two are primarily arguing about this specific case ... what about the multitude of others? The bottom line is that this court seems to be ideologically motivated, not bound by any rules of evidence, operates primarily in secret, has a 100% conviction rate ... and seems to have a strong anti-Christian and anti-conservative ideological bent. Yeah ... "they" don't like Christians or "conservatives" perhaps ... hey, that's ok, eventually "they" will come for you, too ... When the government, in whatever form, gets into the business of legislating what beliefs you can have, then you have tyranny, regardless of what those beliefs actually are. Firm

philosophy -> RE: Destruction of Civil Liberties in Canada (6/12/2008 8:56:25 PM)
....fyi........the public expression took the form of a letter sent to a local newpaper. We couldn't find the text...... UNTIL NOW (dramatic music) Now, a bit more digging has turned up this..... http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5513&Data=3003 ...says it's the letter by the good Pastor. i have no way of verifying this. Of Gay Rights activists, for instance, he writes, "These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centred and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities."...... ....to CL, there is certainly no explicit incitement to violence in the writing. i gladly concede that point. However, the implicit stuff is very, very close to the line. Check out the martial language, the paranoia, the absurd linking of homosexuality with the repulsive NAMBLA. The courts sentence is clearly an over-reaction. My own thoughts are that he has come this close to a hate crime, but hasn't quite crossed the line. However, should anyone use his words as a justification for gay-bashing (and it's easy to see how a weak mind would), i'd expect him to condemn such an act explicitly. To not do so would merely confirm him as one of those dangerous bigots. Clever enough to stay just this side of the law.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125