It gets even better though. Under the new act you're going to be able to get up in public, in front of school students, and in front of your congregation and tell everyone just how evil homosexuals are. In direct contravention of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms you'll be able to get up and disseminate hatred against a group based on their sexual preferences.
Now of course this isn't just limited to Christians, anybody who wants to can discriminate against homosexuals, but the government's main audience are their people. In fact I'm sure if they had their way they would try and figure out how they could use this bill so they could refuse service to anyone they wanted. The word precedent springs to mind when dealing with legal matters.
If somehow or other this bill makes it out of the House of Commons as law, and manages to stand up to the multitude of court challenges it will face, think of the possibilities. You could refuse service to anyone you wanted because they offended your religious beliefs.
Of course you may have to subject all potential clients, employees, customers, or tenants to questionnaires to make certain they didn't practice, believe, or hold to anything that might even possibly be considered offensive to you at some point in the future. You just can't tell by looking who or what somebody is these days can you?
What is especially wonderful about this bill is how it makes it sound like the government is doing something noble. Defence of Religion sure does have a nice ring to it doesn't it? Yet what it really is doing is allowing people to carry personal prejudices into public and making it legal for them to act on them. In other words reversing years of civil rights legislation and activity.
Canada has a very deliberate policy of separation between church and state in order to prevent the very activities this law would legalize. All people are equal under the eyes of the law supposedly and all of a sudden an exception is going to be made in the case of two groups on religious grounds. One group, homophobes, are going to be allowed to discriminate at will under the guise of religious freedom. The second group, homosexuals, will be subject to discrimination whenever somebody decides they offend their religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are a highly personal matter and can change from individual congregation to congregation no matter what the faith. In many cases it can even change from person to person in the degree to which they adhere to the tenets of their religion; not everybody keeps as strict observance of rules as everybody else.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it no such bill has actually been introduced yet and there isn't even a proposed text for the legislation. It's just a sort of theoretical concept that's been floated by the Tories.
And aside from fearmongering representations of this hypothetical legislation on the left, what makes you think that such an act won't just defend the right of people of faith to speak their minds openly on any subject, which has to be a good thing - rather than specifically targetting gays for discrimination?
Dave
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
If you change the word "Christian" to "secular" and the word "homosexual" to "religious Jew," you have the standard practice of the Israeli media here - this, in spite of the fact that such actions are officially called "incitement" on our law books.
I think your article was a bit on the fear-mngtering side also, but you live in Canada and I don't, so I assume you know whereof you speak...
3 - Rich Frankel
I think what you're writing about, actually speaks to the strength of democratic systems. It is unlikely that this proposed bill would pass, or that it would stand up to the courts of a common law society. Still, I defend your right to write about it, because without education we are left with apathy, and detrimental bills get passed in the heat of passion, without an informed constituency. In the US, our collective fear after 9/11 caused the USA PATRIOT Act to be passed, and we've been fighting for our civil liberties ever since.
To my Israeli friend:
The hatred is mutual and devastating to all Jews, regardless of practice or where we live. Just as the secular Jews discriminate against the Orthodox, the Orthodox discriminate against religious Jews who are more liberal in practice (violence at the Western wall). Jews are one people, and it's tragic that the nation raised from the desert would become a place of division for us.
4 - Martin Lav
If you replace the word "Christian" with "all other people in the world" and the word "homosexuals" with "Ruvy" then you will have a fairly good understanding of the depths a perpetual persecution complex can sink.
5 - Donnie Marler
"Now we all know that real Christians have no compassion and are filled with hatred against those who are different from them."
If you substitute the word 'liberal' for 'Christians', you might see you are what you hate. You just don't like to think that way.
How can one so virulently anti-Christian write a story condemning intolerance of any kind?
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Steven Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada are hatemongers"
If you replace:
"Steven Harper" with "Huey Lewis,"
"The Conservative Party of Canada" with "The News,"
and "hatemongers" with "musical pioneers,"
You'll have the power of love.
7 - RedTard
You harbor hate towards christians and are allowed to speak. They should have the same rights.
8 - Jet in Columbus
Those damned heterosexual are always making trouble aren't they?
9 - RJ Elliott
"Well how else would describe a political party which is introducing legislation that would make it legal for anyone who felt like it to speak out against a group, refuse services to a group and in general treat them like second class citizens because of who they are."
How about: A political party that supports freedom and liberty?
10 - Christopher Rose
Suss: if you truly believe that Huey Lewis is any kind of musical pioneer, you should stick to your Yankee sports beat!
Har Har!
11 - Richard Brodie
Under the new act you're going to be able to get up in public, in front of school students, and in front of your congregation and tell everyone just how evil homosexuals are.
Sounds like the First Amendment. If you are a person of normal self esteem, the proper response to someone talking shit about you is to simply ignore them. Only an abject coward goes squealing to the government, demanding that lethal force be used to shut people up you'd rather not have to listen to.
Think about it. YOU are talking shit about Christians. YOU are trying to spread hate towards THEM. How would you like it if they got some fucking law passed that would put a muzzle on you, the way you want the government to muzzle them.
Without a solid Constitutional protection of Free Speech, societies like yours degenerate into a free for all brawl about who can get the governmnet to muzzle whom. The proper job of the governmnet is NOT to protect your fragile feelings from getting hurt.
12 - Jet in Columbus
Richard, you mean like all those speeches that Hitler made about the Jews? That hate speech killed millions and you'd advocate "well just ignore him and he'll go away".
That kind of mentality causes hate crimes.
That kind of mentality spawned Anita Bryant against the gays
it spawned George Wallace against blacks
13 - Richard Brodie
you mean like all those speeches that Hitler made about the Jews? That hate speech killed millions
Well, that's what the Jews want you to believe anyway. So, might the author's hate speech against Christians result in millions being killed? And what about Bush's hate speech against the "evil" Iranians, North Koreans, etc.
Hate speech doesn't always result in hate crimes. There's nothing wrong with hating something you regard as evil, nor with saying so. Marcus is free to hate Christians and to publicly say so, and likewise Christians should be free to say that homosexuality is evil.
This bullshit about trying to muzzle people by forbiding "hate speech" is no different than the Patriot Act trying to spy on people. In both cases the advocates of limiting freedom or invading privacy are justifying it by claiming that it is necessary to prevent crimes - hate crimes in the one case, and terrorist crimes in the other.
That kind of mentality causes hate crimes ...
...but of course that's only my opinion!
MY opinion, and MY mentality is that it's always best to have FREEDOM from government intrusion - whether it's the government spying on me without my knowledge or permission, or the government trying to impose THOUGHT CONTROL by telling me what opinions of mine I am free or not free to express.
And Hitler had a good point. The Jews in post WWI Germany wielded a power and influence VASTLY out of proportion to their numbers in the German population. They were essentially an occupation government that had to be gotten rid of. And I for one don't believe there were anywhere near 6 million of them killed. The "Holocaust" is 90% official fable.
14 - zingzing
wee-oo. richard! "They were essentially an occupation government that had to be gotten rid of."
?
wow.
i'm a bit perplexed. there were jews in government? no, no, wait. the businesses jews ran were the government? no? what? "had to be gotten rid of?" like, as in killing them? or even just stripping them of their legal rights?
why? because they were jewish?
i don't see how you, AS A HUMAN BEING, can hold such views. you are truly a sick, sick person.
"And I for one don't believe there were anywhere near 6 million of them killed."
watch the video footage! take a look-see. maybe read some of the documents or watch the nazi confessions at nuremburg. or something. "90% official fable?" even if it was 10% true, it would still be fucking nasty. kind of like you.
(you know in france, you would go to jail for saying such things. that's a bad idea. here, we take care of your kind by beating your ass. i hope you don't express such sentiments in NORMAL SOCIETY, because you're going to get slapped around something awful one day.)
in fact, i DARE you to step outside your door and truly use your first amendment rights. tell everyone, especially that black person, especially that jew just what you think is best for the blessed white folk of america. i fucking dare you. if you won't, well then you're just some closet racist fucker, ain't you? pussy.
15 - Richard Brodie
I think I'll just ignore your violence-filled anti-white hate speech.
16 - gonzo marx
as for Richard in #15...
i call pure bullshit
to paraphrase our favorite troll
*take your wanna be nazi bullshit off my bridge*
i'll stand up for your Right to spew your bile, Richard Brodie...
at the same time, i Reserve my Right to call it bullshit
Excelsior?
17 - zingzing
mmhmm. ok richard. i am white. white as white can be. my hate speech? when did i say anything bad about white people? i am insulting you. just you. you are a bad person. my mother is a white person. i don't think she is bad. it's an individual thing, richard. i just don't like YOU. get it?
now stop being such a coward and answer the question! here it is again, edited down for your sensitive eyes:
richard: "They were essentially an occupation government that had to be gotten rid of."
i'm a bit perplexed. there were jews in government? no, no, wait. the businesses jews ran were the government? no? what? "had to be gotten rid of?" like, as in killing them? or even just stripping them of their legal rights?
why? because they were jewish?
i don't see how you, AS A HUMAN BEING, can hold such views.
"And I for one don't believe there were anywhere near 6 million of them killed."
watch the video footage! take a look-see. maybe read some of the documents or watch the nazi confessions at nuremburg. or something. "90% official fable?" even if it was 10% true, it would still be firetruck nasty.
18 - Jet in Columbus
In order of Country-Initial Jewish Population- Estimated % Killed-Estimated Killed--Number of Survivors
POLAND 3,300,000 91% 3,000,000 300,000
USSR 3,020,000 36% 1,100,000 1,920,000
HUNGARY 800,000 74% 596,000 204,000
GERMANY 566,000 36% 200,000 366,000
FRANCE 350,000 22% 77,320 272,680
ROMANIA 342,000 84% 287,000 55,000
AUSTRIA 185,000 35% 65,000 120,000
LITHUANIA 168,000 85% 143,000 25,000
NETHERLANDS 140,000 71% 100,000 40,000
BOHEMIA
MORAVIA 118,310 60% 71,150 47,160
LATVIA 95,000 84% 80,000 15,000
SLOVAKIA 88,950 80% 71,000 17,950
YUGOSLAVIA 78,000 81% 63,300 14,700
GREECE 77,380 87% 67,000 10,380
BELGIUM 65,700 45% 28,900 36,800
ITALY 44,500 17% 7,680 36,820
BULGARIA 50,000 0% 50,000
DENMARK 7,800 .8% 60 7,740
ESTONIA 4,500 44% 2,000 2,500
LUXEMBOURG 3,500 55% 1,950 1,550
FINLAND 2,000 .03% 7 1,993
NORWAY 1,700 45% 762 938
TOTAL 9,508,340 63% 5,962,129 3,546,211
For the rest of this article click anywhere in the colored section
You're a fool Richard Brodie
19 - gonzo marx
anybody else go to Richard Brodie's URL?
sad time indeed that the bundists are in america and doing music videos with little girls
woe is U.S.
Excelsior?
20 - Richard Brodie
Well, let's see, whose request shall I honor. I think gonzo. He respects my rights. zing selectively ignores 90% of MY posts and then has the gall to petulantly insist that I answer every one of his lame points. Plus he advocates "ass beating" and "slapping around" for having an opinion different that his own. Besides, one should never take too seriously some lazy ass who can't be troubled to press the shift key. So I leave you all to wallow in your own foolishness on your little bridge.
21 - gonzo marx
Richard, i made no *request*
also to note, while i respect and defend your Rights, the same does nto hold true for you or the positions you advocate...
for those who hold Interest, the link provided by Brodie in #20 stands at odds with objective Facts, as well as the actual records and testimony of those tried for the crimes under discussion relating to nazis and their "final solution"
you might want to check the transcripts of more than oen trial at Nuremburg to get the full picture, if there is any doubt after the list fo facts laid out in Jet's link above...
just for one, there was a film in 2001 called "Conspiracy" is the imdb link for the film... which took the nazi's own transcripts of a meeting on this "final solution" and showed a dramatization of the meeting using the transcripts seized from the nazi government itself...
Excelsior?
22 - zingzing
i don't advocate any violence towards you. i just warn against and dare you to (i am conflicted, but not really) shout out your racist crap in the real world, not just here, you wilting flower.
and i don't ignore 90% of your post. i read the whole thing. i'm just responding to the part i disagree with. your first point, that the first amendment is more sacred than your personal feelings, is quite right. your second point, that the jews a)deserved it, and b)perpetuated some fantastic lie, however, is complete shit.
so i respond to your bullshit.
ok, ok, here's the other 90% of my response:
go richard! go first amendment! whoop, whoop!
happy?
now, why did the german people have to "get rid of" the jews? and what makes you think that the holocaust is some sort of jewish conspiracy? is there some lack of proof?
i think you protest too much. you can't back up your claims, and while i think any decent human being would be horrified to make such claims, especially the first, i don't think you want to take them back, i think you just want to spout off nonsense. anything to make those minorities look bad. anything at all.
23 - zingzing
HE DIDN'T PRESS THE SHIFT KEY!? that's why you won't respond? come on now... be a man.
24 - Jet in Columbus
So I guess it was useless and foolish of me to bother presenting facts and figures in #18?
25 - gonzo marx
neither useless, nor foolish, Jet...
Facts are exactly what areneeded in all these discussions...
and my apologies to Richard the gypsyman for an unintentional highjack of his Thread...
unfortunately, even tho they sit just a bit north of where i am sitting, i know damn little about Canadian politics...
Excelsior?