Printable View
Canadian justice:Mark Steyn Human Rights Tribunal "Show Trial" Opens in Vancouver
Canadian priest accused of hate crime (OneNewsNow.com)
Christianity Under Attack In Canada As Priest Is Investigated Under Federal 'Hate Crime' Law For Quoting From The Bible :: Faith :: Hyscience
Coming to a US court near you...if we don't wake up
I think enough has been said so far in this thread to discount the possibilioty of your fears coming true.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
We have freedom of speech protected in the constitution in this country. We have freedom of religion.
If the Westboro Baptist "Church" nutjobs protesting at funerals of fallen soldiers can't be prosecuted, what makes you think your priest will be for "quoting from the bibe?"
If the US ever gets there, I'll be standing beside you to fight it with every ounce of my being. Really. Your right to practice your religion is safe here. your right to say what you wish (up to a very high standard, I'd argue) is safe here. Hate crime legislation in the US won't criminalize speech. At least this one will not, nor will any that would fit into even some of the most liberal interpretations of the constitution and our rights that I have ever read.
If you attack a man on the street, screaming "Die, DIE!" it's a crime, and you will be charged for it.
If you attack a man on the street, screaming "Die, Faggot, DIE!" it's a crime, and you will be charged for it, and your sentence may be "enhanced." (on the federal level) I do not know, and can not speak to any state laws, including those who treat the "hate element" as a different crime. Not sure I completely disagree with it, as long as it can only be charge ALONG WITH the underlying crime. If it canbe a stand alone charge, it might run afoul of my opinion on the matter, but that, again, might be best served in another thread.
It is protected by the constitution but what now protects the constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by smokelaw1
For more than 30 years now I have seen nothing but growing contempt For our founding principles and the documents that state those principles by none other than our elected officials. "We the people" are this countries last hope.
By the way, I would be honored to have you stand side by side with me if it ever comes down to it.
Sorry for the double post here.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Ah, great question. What protects it? I'd argue the same thing that always has, three branches of government acting as checks and balances on each other. Granted, those checks and balances do seem to have eroded as balance between the branches has become less important as blind obedience to party/ideological lines (ON BOTH SIDES!!!) has taken over.
Where you and I will fundamentally disagree, I imagine (but would love to hear how/if I am wrong) is whether the actions taken do indeed show that very contempt to which you refer. (I don't, I'm guessing you do!)
I happen to believe that the actions taken by both the courts and the legislature in the past 30 years (or longer, go back to the early Warren court) are an AFFIRMATION of the country's dedication to those very lofty principles, but in so affirming, they must be applied to all equally, so that all people truly are equal under our flag. These so called "activist" judges, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, are acting in the highest order of good faith, and in their own scholarly minds, believe they are being true to the constitution and ideals by expanding rights to certain groups, and applying laws in ways which were not thought of before their time. In their doing so, I do not see much to fear in the pendulum swinging to the extremes of which you are afraid. Indeed, if it did, we would lose any benefits of what I see as an EXPANSION of the freedoms that the constitution protects.
I am rambling a lot today. Sorry about that. I think I'm OT, but I can't even remember the topic, so I could be wrong.
*sigh*The Canadian Islamic Congress is a known trouble making group that challenge everything that questions Islam. it is their right to do so and in some small measure they may actually be responsible for protecting right (although that is highly unlikely). Ever since their failure to instill Sharia law in Ontario they have been scrambling to make waves.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
These are both the same story and the officials are just doing their jobs. There was recently a high profile case where the Supreme Court absolved a native leader of committing a Hate Crime even though his statement were clearly antisemitic, blaming the Jews for WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
BUT! ...
Where else would you have them?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I'm going to preface this post by saying I personally have no issue with your founding principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
However, I can also accept that it doesn't have to be a bad thing for a country to have contempt for it's founding principles, or for their governments.
That kind of contempt leads, eventually, to change. Now what you might say it that it's bad change, which it probably is, but bad change often leads to good change. Revolution is a good thing.
The trouble is, you have to go through a whole lot of **** - and that's really the only word - until you get to that point. And you can't really prevent the type of legislation that leads to that point, it's almost a natural progression as governments try and protect us, in the end, from our own stupidity - Rather than just protecting us from the only things we really want or need to be protected from. The latter half of this paragraph does not illustrate my point very well.
I would also stand next to you, with out question.
OK, here's a good example of why it's a bad idea to fudge law definitions with emotive terminology:
Pa. jury’s verdict called ‘failure of justice’ - U.S. news- msnbc.com
Instead of asking the jury "do you think the defendants are guilty of beating this man to death?" they were asked if they were guilty of hate crimes.
Result:
They were found guilty of doing the deed (that caused the man's death), but it was classed as simple assault.
- the jury found the teens innocent of all serious charges
- Brandon Piekarsky, 17, was acquitted of third-degree murder and ethnic intimidation, while Derrick Donchak, 19, was acquitted of aggravated assault and ethnic intimidation.
- Both were convicted of simple assault
The woolier you make the definitions of crimes, the more often you will get results like this. :(
The underlying crimes in that case did not change, though. The crime itself WAS charged.
There was another crime, ethnic intimidation, that was also charged.
These kids were acquitted of third degree murder. Period. (EDIT: an earlier article charged 3rd degree, now I see agg. assault, my apologies.)
Now, the fact that someone kicked an unconcious man in the head after using racial epithets towards that man...and then they are convicted only of simple assault....this makes the charging them with ethnic intimindation wrong how, exactly?
The guy who was killed apparetnly charged after the group AFTER the initial fight was all but over. he was then knocked out. It was after THIS that he was kicked in the head and killed. I don't know if these kids should be charged with ethic intimidation or not.
I do not see how so charging them changed the outcome of this case.