Bill C-250

[Narbus]

That's fine. You can say whatever you'd like. Fortunately our society is moral enough to convict people of infringing on other's rights.

And how is saying, "I don't like gay people," (with no other action taken, especially no violent action) infringing on anyone's rights?

I understand we should all be able to say what we want. I agree with you there. But there has to be some consideration for others. If some people don't want to consider the thoughts and feelings of someone of another race or sexual orientation then they assume the risk of speaking out against them.

And there should be consideration for politicians. After all, they have a really tough job, and they're under a lot of stress, and all this "well, I don't like the war," and "well, that bill isn't fair," and stuff just makes their job even harder. We should outlaw speaking out against the state, for the sake of the politican's feelings.

In my opinion our world will be better off without those people who wish to commit hate crimes. Just because we have rights, we shouldn't have the right to assault others for reasons beyond their control. Of course that's if you believe (as I do) that being a homosexual is something you are born with, rather than sprung upon. Either way though it is wrong.

Anti-(insert minority group here) speak is a symptom of the real problem, it's not the problem itself. This law isn't going anywhere to solve the actual problem, it's just covering it up.
Now anyone with any dislike of gays, blacks, whatever, get to do it in secret, which involves extra effort, which in turn leads them to believe what they are doing is important and really matters. They just sank all the effort into it, it must be a big deal.

This is a bad idea.

[nelison]

And how is saying, "I don't like gay people," (with no other action taken, especially no violent action) infringing on anyone's rights?

In private it is okay. As long as you aren't insulting someone to their face for being a minority then go ahead. Every person should have the right to live peacefully if they are not doing anything to deserve the assault.

And there should be consideration for politicians. After all, they have a really tough job, and they're under a lot of stress, and all this "well, I don't like the war," and "well, that bill isn't fair," and stuff just makes their job even harder. We should outlaw speaking out against the state, for the sake of the politican's feelings.

Politicians are different from a racial or sexual minority. Politicians choose to be in that profession and since they are elected by the people they are subjected to criticism since they are our voice. They know that when they begin. Homosexuals don't have a choice if they're gay. When you're a homosexual you don't volunteer yourself for assault, or in the case of the politician, be placed in the public limelight.

Anti-(insert minority group here) speak is a symptom of the real problem, it's not the problem itself. This law isn't going anywhere to solve the actual problem, it's just covering it up.
Now anyone with any dislike of gays, blacks, whatever, get to do it in secret, which involves extra effort, which in turn leads them to believe what they are doing is important and really matters. They just sank all the effort into it, it must be a big deal.

This law makes offenders accountable for their actions. Our world will be better off when the closed-minded individuals of this world are silenced behind bars. Without people causing the problems, the problems then cease to exist.

this is a good idea.

[Narbus]

In private it is okay. As long as you aren't insulting someone to their face for being a minority then go ahead. Every person should have the right to live peacefully if they are not doing anything to deserve the assault.

And I don't deserve the right to free speech? I have to be censored for the "public good?" I can plot any of a thousand different paths where "public good" is shit. You are stripping me of my rights as an individual, just so someone else isn't offended.

By the way, the notion that I should be stripped of my rights in this manner offends me greatly. By your own logic, you need to leave this thread now.

Politicians are different from a racial or sexual minority. Politicians choose to be in that profession and since they are elected by the people they are subjected to criticism since they are our voice. They know that when they begin. Homosexuals don't have a choice if they're gay. When you're a homosexual you don't volunteer yourself for assault, or in the case of the politician, be placed in the public limelight.

Point.

This law makes offenders accountable for their actions. Our world will be better off when the closed-minded individuals of this world are silenced behind bars. Without people causing the problems, the problems then cease to exist.

this is a good idea.

You are being rather close minded to the idea that gays really are a genetic abnormality and whose sexual promiscuity (particularly in the late 70's and early 80's) are widely responsible for the current AIDS epidemic. You are also being rather close minded with regards to the "choice" of sexualities. There are resources out there that provide some rather sound reasoning that genetics is not the reason people are gay, as well as many testimonials from people who have "gone straight."




To continue:
Let's say I do decide this law is great and good and fun. Then along come someone, say, Dan Savage, who is actually a gay male and no small activist in multiple arenas, who prints columns like this one, or this one, where he decries the outrageous promiscuity of homosexual males. These two columns, under this law, could easily be classified as hate literature. Two columns which are actually calling for intelligent, cautious, rational behavior, both of which are written by a member of the minority in question, would be illegal, and the problem these columns address would go unmentioned and ignored, leaving more and more people to die because they never even thought about it like that.

With the release of songs like "P.I.M.P" and "Big Pimpin'" the word "pimp" has taken on entirely new meanings, some would argue these new meanings are now a "positive part of black culture." So a womans group, say NOW, or groups like the NAACP, or Project Islamic Hope, the National Alliance for Positive Action, and the National Black Anti-Defamation League, all of whom are speaking out against Nelly's new "pimp juice" drink would be speaking out against the minority of "new black culture," while the minority would actually be offending them with the use of the word "pimp." So who wins?


Censorship, in any form, is bad. I cannot see how on earth you could possibly think differently.

[Solidarity 9-6347]

Fortunately our society is moral enough to convict people of infringing on other's rights.

who's morality? if we made laws simply according to subjective morality, how could we have a sound, legitimate basis on which to convict people at all?

[starvingeyes]

you want to know what i find terrificly offensive? being told i "owe" somebody something. i also find any speech which embraces the state ("the liberal government is awesome!"), any of it's mechanisms ("i like public healthcare"), communism ("it would've worked in theory...") or speech which attacks capitalism ("capitalism is bad") very offensive.

censor it. i am a minority (there is only <b>one</b> me). protect my rights.

furthermore, how do you <b>know</b> that people who "hate" homosexuals actually <i>are</i> wrong?

remember back in the 1500's when some guy went around promoting hate speech? the shit that came out of his mouth was tremendously innaccurate and went against all scientific and social convention. this guy was just a troublemaking rabblerouser, and he <i>really bugged alot of people</i>.

so the authorities censored his ass. they made him publicly recount everything he said or be burned. his name was galileo, and the hate speech he was promoting was that the earth was not the center of the universe.

you <i>could</i> be wrong. no matter how sure you are. you cannot prove that homosexuals aren't goign to hell, can you?

[nelison]

well obviously you guys believe you should be able to assault others. That's fine, you do that. I sure hope this law is enforced strictly just to piss you guys off some more.

If you cant tell I've pretty well given up on this one. If you guys believe it's alright to attack those who are different then that's your opinion and anyone who possesses such an opinion is just the type of person to realize that no matter how many rights you should have, you don't have the right to harm someone just for existing.

That's it that's all, thanks for playing guys.

[Random Name]

No one believes that its alright to attack others.

We are just being limited in our freedoms because some other group gets more.

Didn't the artical say that if this law was passed it would make passages of the bible illegal? doesnt that speak for itself?

[Sufjan Stevens]

OK, there's a difference between attacking others and saying the word "fag" in public. This bill is essentially banning a word that's been around for a long time because it's associated with a group that feels they need special attention because they're different. I see no bill banning the word nigger or polak, do you? I mean, those are degrading to blacks and Polish people, are they not? Why don't we ban that?

It's pointless special consideration for someone for their sexual preference. When the hell do I get a bill pampering me and my lifestyle because I like women, smoke, and dress like an asshole? Where's my protection? That's right, I don't get any because I am not different enough. Fucking pointless. No one goes out and lynches gay people, this bill is utterly useless.

[Narbus]

well obviously you guys believe you should be able to assault others. That's fine, you do that. I sure hope this law is enforced strictly just to piss you guys off some more.

Jesus.

I am not suggesting that we all go out and assault people. In fact, let me go on record here as saying, "Assaulting people is bad." There. Read it, live it, love it.

I AM saying that for positive social change, including more widespread acceptance of minorities, we NEED free speech. We simply must have it, there is NO way to advance positive change without it.

This does mean that all people get free speech, yes. It wouldn't be free without it. We have to hear both sides before we can choose the "right" one. There is no way around this. If we censor speech we find offensive, then we will censor what needs to be heard, like Savage's aforementioned columns on responsible sex for the gay community.

Basically, this law says that being a minority makes you right. This is just untrue, and is actually just as damaging to the minority as it is to the majority.

[Sufjan Stevens]

You said exactly what I wanted to, but I fucked up my words. Everyone, listen to Narbus, he's right.

[doug]

observe jim's liberal argument tactic. he is sensationalizing the subject of this debate in order to strengthen his side. we know it is not wrong to say a word but it wrong to attack someone physically. by equating these two, jim is attempting to give credibility to his argument without actually strenghtining it with rational grounds.

fascinating, isn't it?

[starvingeyes]

well obviously you guys believe you should be able to assault others. That's fine, you do that. I sure hope this law is enforced strictly just to piss you guys off some more.

you're just being a jackass here and everybody who reads this topic, even your supporters, is going to recognize that fact.

good grief. who do you think you're convincing with this kind of garbage?

please come back when you have actual arguments to support your position. it's called critical thinking. you should try it some time.