It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

`Hate' Speech?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Is hate speech a conspiracy of some sort? I'm just not understanding it.

By way of example, it's illegal to murder someone.
But if you murder someone while yelling [insert favorite epithet], it's somehow MORE illegal?

This is just like the ridiculous cell phone while driving bans.
It's already illegal to drive distracted. If you do it while yacking, it's MORE illegal.


Hey, how about that deficit?




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by leftystrat

Hey, how about that deficit?



That's rich. I agree with you though. I think a large portion of legislation exists solely for the purpose of extortion.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by leftystrat
 


In Canada they already have hate speech laws in effect which outlaw just the speech itself:



Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, provisions in the Human Rights Act and in other federal legislation, and statutory provisions in each of Canada's ten provinces and three territories. The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet. Legislation in the provinces and territories prohibits discrimination on the same grounds as Canada's Human Rights Act in matters of provincial or territorial concern such as employment and accommodation.

Wickipedia


They used it to fine and censor a Protestant Minister who spoke out against the gay agenda. He received, in addition to a $5,000 fine and an order to write a letter of apology, both a lifetime ban on preaching sermons that criticize homosexuality and a lifetime ban on private communications (such as e-mails) that are critical of homosexuality.

He just recently had the speach ban lifted:


The Remnant


Speech Ban Lifted on Canadian Pastor

(Posted 01/13/10 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) In July of 2002 a complaint was filed by Darren Lund, a high school teacher, with the Alberta Human Rights Commission after the Red Deer Advocate Newspaper published a letter to the editor titled “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” written by Stephen Boissoin (of the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.), a Protestant minister. The complaint accused Boissoin of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation contrary to Section 3 of Canada’s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act.

During a November 30, 2007 hearing before the Human Rights Panel, which was chaired by Lori G. Andreachuk, a divorce lawyer (not a specialist in constitutional law), Boissoin said: “When homosexuals or pro-homosexual activists are teaching children that homosexuality is normal, necessary, acceptable, and productive, and as far as I understand, using my tax dollars as well to do so, I not only have a right to speak up about it, but I felt that I had an obligation.”

Mr. Boissoin was convicted by the Commission and received, in addition to a $5,000 fine and an order to write a letter of apology, both a lifetime ban on preaching sermons that criticize homosexuality and a lifetime ban on private communications (such as e-mails) that are critical of homosexuality.

On December 5, 2009, Mark Steyn reported (in the National Review) that the ban has been lifted:

The Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta has now struck down this outrageous decision. Mr. Justice Wilson's ruling could not be plainer. He rejects all the Tribunal's punishments as "illegal," not least the speech ban:

The direction to cease and desist the publishing of “disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals” is beyond the power of the Panel. "Disparaging remarks" were not defined by the Panel. But clearly, "disparaging remarks" are remarks much less serious than hateful and contemptuous remarks and are quite lawful to make. They are beyond the power of the Act to regulate and the power of the Province to restrain.


Don't think it can't happen here.



I HATE those freakin signs!




[edit on 22-1-2010 by FortAnthem]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
More protectionist prattle from the neo-liberals, this way they can make much "special sauce" from crimes that hurt minorities. Why? Because if you're a minority in the US, YOU"RE SPECIAL, and get special treatment.
Isn't that just, well, special?
Sickening really just how bad it is here in the US. It was all done for the votes, I assure you.
By their standard yes it is much MUCH worse to commit a crime against a minority. I've heard of helping hands before, maybe this is the "helping fist"



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join