I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Medigal

I don't really feel one can group those "people" on the streets preaching "Hell Fire and Brimstone" as "hate" speeches.  This is what they are taught by whatever religion they are apart of and they think they are helping to "save" people by warning them of these things.  That seems to have been the way of many churches to bring new ones into the fold.  I guess they think if they don't "scare" us, we won't do what it takes to protect ourselves.  Most of these people truly believe in what they are doing and feel it is their purpose to help us.  It's not like they are threatening us with harmful acts "they" will do to us.  In fact, they are really trying to protect people, imo.  This should not be considered in the category of "hate speeches" or most churches would have to be closed for some of the things one is told.  It's "Heaven" or "Hell".  You pay your tides and you make your choice, imo!

Alpal

Yes, but Westboro says they are a church and I think we all agree they need to shut up. I'd gladly give up some of my freedom of speech to shut them up. OTOH - like Kadeeb said about the KKK, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Hope they fall from the tree soon, and the squirrels get them.

Bren-2007

The Westboro church isn't really a church .. it's just a gang of 86 family members spouting hate and discord. 

I saw a show on the History Channel recently about the KKK.  They are small in number, about 5,000 nationwide, but still quite frightening.

Hope everyone is having a good day .. it's sunny here and 26 degrees, with the wind howling.  brrrrrr

Bren

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk

Bren-2007

I'm curious about the term "blood libel" and just what exactly Palin is talking about in her remarks made this a.m. on utube and in print.  It makes no sense to me and seems to be a derogatory comment.  Although she is quite free to make any comment she chooses.

Bren

Claire82

Blood libel (also blood accusation^[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim^[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.^[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have-alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration-been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.^[4]

^{what was this in reference to?}

lassie11

tszus wrote: "so there is not freedom of religion in Canada if what one's religion teaches violates Canada's hate speech? That is what I am understanding here."

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not get it?! Yes we have religious freedom. We also have freedom from hate speech. I think that's a pretty good deal. Sorry it's beyond your ken.

Alpal

You know, saying "That's not how I meant it" only goes so far. Palin needs to fire her handlers and find some who will tell her that what she says may be misinterpreted. The idea of her using the term "blood libel" while talking about a Jewish woman being the target of an assassin is mind blowing. Someone needed to say "Sarah, you need to rephrase that".

Bren-2007

I think Palin would have been better off using a different term.  Since the term refers primarily to Jews killing Christian children for their blood and was used as propaganda against the Jews, I'm not convinced her choice of words was relevant.

Perhaps she didn't know the true meaning behind that term.

Bren

Edited:  2t .. I understand the point Palin was trying to make, but I find her choice of language suspect.

Claire82

That goes without saying...

Bren-2007

Hi Claire .. are you responding to me or 2t as you guys were posting at the same time.

Bren

lassie11

Sorry you feel insulted 2tzus but I thought I answered your question.

 We do have religious freedom, there are laws against hate speech and when those laws are breached, like any other country, various participants in the judicial system take action. I am not going to  argue about specific religions.

Alpal

Surely if she'd known the history of the term "blood libel" she would not have used it. She needs someone to tell her about things like that. Sort of like a proof reader.

Bren-2007

No .. not in code.   Suspect because I think it's the wrong turn of phrase for the situation she was describing.  I don't think her speech writers did enough research.  I honestly feel the term was inappropriate in the way it was used.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspect

Suspect: as in questionable.

konakat

2tzus -- you mustn't have read my post -- religious leaders are protected -- note the bolded part.

Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to that list.

Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion.

konakat

It's all about inciting violence and terror.  for example, there can be protests against abortion, calling abortion doctors murders.  I've seen these horrible protests in Ottawa.  That is not unlawful.  But if they were saying "kill all the abortionists", that is.  It's really not that difficult to understand, is it?

konakat

Question -- can someone or a group/organize promote and incite the killing of another group in the US?  For example, incite the murder muslims or gays or whatever group is the so-called "evil" of the day? 

Bren-2007

I understand Kona .. you can protest abortion, but not incite violence to kill the doctor.

The Westboro church would be allowed to protest in Canada then, just like here, because they do not encourage the killing of anyone.  They are just happy when people are killed and say as much.  But would they be prohibited on the basis of their hate speech?

Bren

Claire82

BinVa - "Perhaps she didn't know the true meaning behind that term."

Me - That goes without saying...

2tzus - i do agree with a couple things that you are saying - not much but some - but it would be nice if you toned it down a bit

freedom of speech - yah - but sometimes how you phrase things makes all the difference

konakat

If you are referring to that Alberta case why don't you just read it to get your answer, or do you not want to know?  I'm not familiar with the case and I really don't want to spend time reading and summarizing it for you.  Perhaps if you use something as an example you should be familiar with what it says.

konakat

Bren -- of course I'm not a legal expert but I think if they were terrorizing, making others fear for their lives it would be illegal.  If they're just saying they're happy someone is dead, that isn't ilegal.  They're just idiots.  Perhaps disturbing the peace?

Anonymous

It is UNBELIEVABLE that you girls have zeroed in on TWO FRICKIN WORDS of Sarah's commentary. Think about it...how absolutely ridiculous! My gawd... all I can say is that I will pray for each one of you. Feel blessed, not insulted. 

This is far more disgusting than a possible misuse of TWO WORDS:

Sanders Fundraises Off Arizona Murders  

There has been no shortage of individuals and institutions that have sought to capitalize on the shootings in Tucson. Add Vermont senator Bernie Sanders to that list.

This afternoon Sanders sent out a fundraising appeal, seeking to raise money to fight Republicans and other "right-wing reactionaries" responsible for the climate that led to the shooting.

He writes:

Given the recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country.  I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at http://www.bernie.org/.  There is no question but that the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me.  Your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated.

Sanders lists several events as evidence that right-wing rhetoric led to the attacks, and then continues:

What should be understood is that the violence, and threats of violence against Democrats in Arizona, was not limited to Gabrielle Giffords.  Raul Grijalva, an old friend of mine and one of the most progressive members in the House, was forced to close his district office this summer when someone shot a bullet through his office window.  Another Democratic elected official in Arizona, recently defeated Congressman Harry Mitchell, suspended town meetings in his district because of the threatening phone calls that he received (Mitchell was also in the cross-hairs on the Palin map).  And Judge John Roll, who was shot to death at the Giffords event, had received numerous threatening calls and death threats in 2009.

In light of all of this violence - both actual and threatened - is Arizona a state in which people who are not Republicans are able to participate freely and fully in the democratic process?  Have right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions?

A staffer in Sanders' campaign office confirmed that the letter went out today.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sanders-fundraises-arizona-murders_533487.html

Bren-2007

I never said Palin's use of the term "blood libel" was disgusting.  I said, in my opinion, it was suspect and inappropriate.  I still feel that way.  I actually read her entire speech/press release.  Those two words show someone dropped the ball in her camp.  Palin should do a better job of researching for herself.

I guess Sanders didn't get the memo to turn down the rhetoric. He apparently is also using his right to free speech and print.

Bren

konakat

Sorry for the long post and not getting back to you sooner -- I had to go to the drs. -- just ignore if it doesn't interest you.

The pastor was charged under the Alberta Human Rights Act, specifically:

Discrimination Re: Publications, Notices

3(1) - No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) Indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) Is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, color, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.

(2) - Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.

The pastor also wrote in his "Homosexual Agenda Wicked" publication:

From kindergarten class and on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and pre-mediated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young children into their camps.

Furthermore...children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

That gays are sick (suggesting their enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied), that they have caused far too much damage, that they are pedophiles, they recruit, they have done horrendous atrocities, they are wicked, perverse, self centered, morally deprived, they are compared to pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps and furthermore that they are "the enemy."

Some of the support for the case against the pastor are: Assaults on gay people were associated with this publication. Inciting hatred towards gay people in publication.  A call to "militarization" against the gay community.

Re. Freedom of Speech (Note: the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is a federal law), the judge writes:

In balancing the freedom afforded under the Charter and the degree of protection afforded through the provincial legislation, I considered s. 2(b) of the Charter in regards to the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media, the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association. Having considered the Charter and the balancing of the freedoms set out in the Charter, I have interpreted the Act in a manner which respected the broad protection granted to religious freedom. However, I have found that this protection does not trump the protection afforded under the Alberta human rights legislation in s. 3. to protection against hatred and contempt. I also take the view that s.3(2) required a balancing of these freedoms afforded to individuals under the Charter, with the prohibitions in s. 3(1) of the Act. In this case, the publication's exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. It cannot be the case that any speech wrapped in the ‘guise' of politics or religion is beyond reproach by any legislation but the Criminal Code.

The judge concludes:

In conclusion, I find that the respondents, Mr. Boissoin (Pastor) and the CCC (Concerned Christian Coalition), have contravened s. 3 of the Act by causing to be published in the Red Deer Advocate, before the public, a publication which is likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt because of their sexual preference.

The decision is an 80 page document with witness statements and arguments (including cited cases) for both sides.  I just stuck in some of the parts of why the decision was made.  It's definitely not as clear-cut as murder or robbery to prove, but this is what we've got.

konakat

Please, don't pray for me Laura -- I won't feel blessed.  But if it makes you feel good, well, carry on I guess...

Maya2

I don't care to be prayed for either. You can find me on the atheist thread too.

Medigal

Laura:  Why do you always have to be so defensive about our dahling Sarah?  I assure you she can defend herself and if she gets mad enough she just may go shoot another fish!  She knows she should not have said those words so if some people who may not have her on their "prayer list" want to pick at her for them, so what?  Aren't you the one that recently said a poster on here should fight her own battles?  Well our dear Sarah is well prepared for her battles.

BTW,  have you been reborn or something?  I thought you were a part of the Atheist group. What is this now that you are offering to pray for people.  Hey!  If you are, I can always use tons of prayers.  I would even let our Sarah pray for me if she were willing.  I'll take Maya's and even Konakat's if they don't mine.  In fact, even if "you" are an Atheist, Laura, I just may add you to my prayer list.  I am not prejudiced about who I pray for.  Thanks! 

Anonymous

I defend her because she has done NOTHING to deserve the disgusting abuse the liberals have imposed on her. I beg any of you to site ANYTHING she has done to warrant the attacks...OTHER THAN the fact that she left her Govern ship early. Help me...

And let's see how many of  you have the cajones to watch this (in its entirety) It will, no dount, keep you wondering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzKz3RuZXU0 

konakat

Oh, the girl who paints the imaginary place and imaginary being?  She does paint beautifully, a rare talent.  And yes, I did watch the entire thing. 

Bren-2007

I watched it too.  Guess I must have balls.

A very talented young lady and very artistic!

Bren

Medigal

Laura:  That was magnificent and awesome!  Why would anyone have to have cajones to watch it? That child will have remarkable inspirations to share with the world as she gets older.  I loved the way she described Heaven.  However, I disagree with her discription of God.  When she gets older, it will be thrilling to read how she changes it.  We grow spiritually as we age with God, imo.  Thanks for sharing that inspirational piece of work!

BTW, I owe you an apology.  You are not the person on the Atheist thread.  I have many friends who are and I thought one of them was you.  That is not a problem one way or the other unless people have a concern about what spiritual relationship others have with their God.  I don't.  

I just wonder why you felt it necessary to share this beautiful You Tube piece with us in connection with the post about Palin.  What has one to do with the other?  Just wondering.