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

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!

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

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?}

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".

That goes without saying...

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 

I watched it too.  Guess I must have balls.

A very talented young lady and very artistic!

Bren