Tea Party Speaker to LGBT protesters: 'We Will Not Be Silenced By Faggots'

[greg-the-fox]

It's p. black and white

here let me find the real wording

from wiki: "In Canada, advocating genocide^[14] or inciting hatred^[15] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990)."

So calling gays faggots on the individual level wouldn't fall under this, but using that tone in a rally certainly would

Calling harper dumb is a personal attack on his character, and not hate speech

It sounds pretty good, but then it starts to break down
"exceptions for cases of statements of truth, subjects of public debate and religious doctrine"
So you can say "God hates fags", because your religion teaches that being gay is an unforgivable sin, and punishable by an eternity in hell. Then you're exempted by the law, right? :V Even though that's possibly inciting violence? Religion can pretty much cover everything horrible that you have to say.

I am torn because on one hand I do think laws against hate speech are a good idea, but they're still too vague for me to be comfortable with, and I think the punishments that you said are far too harsh (2-14 years? you'd get that in the US for manslaughter) Something like fines would be better but prison seems VERY extreme. On the other hand I really do value the freedom of speech and religion, I think the First Amendment is the most important part of the Constitution and an example of what makes America great. Anything that limits our freedom in that aspect, while with good intentions, I'm very uncomfortable with. I see it as an inevitable descent into censorship. It sounds stupid but you really wouldn't understand unless you were an American yourself.

[Kahoku]

Show of hand by those who are surprised about this circle-jerk of bigotry from the Tea Party, please?

From ze Huffington post

What they got a problem with me? I won't be silenced by assholes with their head up their ass.
See? This is just a vicious cycle they started and they want, we got to be non-violent to make a mark. That is if LGBT Community can come back with a well thought out argument against them, and the Tea-Party is a joke. (Probably one of the biggest in this fucking country) But that officer was way out of line, the fuck is wrong with him.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

It sounds pretty good, but then it starts to break down
"exceptions for cases of statements of truth, subjects of public debate and religious doctrine"
So you can say "God hates fags", because your religion teaches that being gay is an unforgivable sin, and punishable by an eternity in hell. Then you're exempted by the law, right? :V Even though that's possibly inciting violence? Religion can pretty much cover everything horrible that you have to say.

I am torn because on one hand I do think laws against hate speech are a good idea, but they're still too vague for me to be comfortable with, and I think the punishments that you said are far too harsh (2-14 years? you'd get that in the US for manslaughter) Something like fines would be better but prison seems VERY extreme. On the other hand I really do value the freedom of speech and religion, I think the First Amendment is the most important part of the Constitution and an example of what makes America great. Anything that limits our freedom in that aspect, while with good intentions, I'm very uncomfortable with. I see it as an inevitable descent into censorship. It sounds stupid but you really wouldn't understand unless you were an American yourself.

My law class didn't go -too- into it, but I think the religious exceptions are more on the private level? I'm not sure if that we don't have protests against gays here is because our law protects them regardless of religious belief or if it's just Canadian culture.

One of the problems I'm seeing in this thread is something you bring up too, how different it is to be an American. As an outsider looking in, it's such a different culture. On both sides of the wing system, almost unanimously, there seems to be this hatred and distrust of government. It's part of your culture to just accept that anything good a politician does will be loop-holed and made inevitably worse than it was originally. Right away when I brought up the law there are people saying "this can be abused by politicians"

It's just so weird, to witness this rampant distrust. It's warranted, it seems, with all the corrupt politicians there, but it still saddens me to an extent.

I guess it's evident in the differences in motos our countries have
In America, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
In Canada, "Peace, Order, and Good Government"

To surmise, up here we're 0kay with banning hate speech (remember, this is a ban on the stuff that leads to hate crimes, not a ban on everything negative) because we trust that the government wont change the law to suit its own ends, and instead will continue to serve the people as best it can

And it saddens me that the rest of the world isn't like this :/

[Kangaroo_Boy]

My law class didn't go -too- into it, but I think the religious exceptions are more on the private level? I'm not sure if that we don't have protests against gays here is because our law protects them regardless of religious belief or if it's just Canadian culture.

One of the problems I'm seeing in this thread is something you bring up too, how different it is to be an American. As an outsider looking in, it's such a different culture. On both sides of the wing system, almost unanimously, there seems to be this hatred and distrust of government. It's part of your culture to just accept that anything good a politician does will be loop-holed and made inevitably worse than it was originally. Right away when I brought up the law there are people saying "this can be abused by politicians"

It's just so weird, to witness this rampant distrust. It's warranted, it seems, with all the corrupt politicians there, but it still saddens me to an extent.

I guess it's evident in the differences in motos our countries have
In America, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
In Canada, "Peace, Order, and Good Government"

To surmise, up here we're 0kay with banning hate speech (remember, this is a ban on the stuff that leads to hate crimes, not a ban on everything negative) because we trust that the government wont change the law to suit its own ends, and instead will continue to serve the people as best it can

And it saddens me that the rest of the world isn't like this :/

Well, you do have to consider the fact that the United States was birthed through the mistrust of its government from the colonial days. King George III wasn't exactly the most sane fellow, parliament gave no consideration to the colonists (e.g. "Taxation without reperesentation"), until things boiled over into a full-blown revolution. The feelings of pushing back the government carry on today. Though our spectrum of politics seem to be divided on which aspect of American life the government should not touch, and I feel that some things that have transpired over the past 60 years would make the founding fathers spin in their graves, but I digress. While a desire to keep one's own government in check to keep it from being overreaching is good, mistrust does beget mistrust.

[Metalmeerkat]

It's pretty simple. The government is made of people, and people cannot be trusted. Their objective is to work in their own self interest, and given that we live in a world of finite power and resources, and given that "self-interest" involves grabbing power and resources away from others, you can expect that the government - or any business - or any person - is going to serve their self interest at your expense.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

It's pretty simple. The government is made of people, and people cannot be trusted.

Then why have government at all

Unless you are an anarchist, this is a paradoxical line of thinking

[Metalmeerkat]

It's not paradoxical, if you accept that the alternative of constant social instability is even worse. There will always be power to grab. If you get rid of any government, another one will just rise in it's place. Or any organization of authority.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

It's not paradoxical, if you accept that the alternative of constant social instability is even worse. There will always be power to grab. If you get rid of any government, another one will just rise in it's place. Or any organization of authority.

It is a shame that the environment is proper for this kind of mindset to flourish

[Lobar]

So I just found out one of the anti-gay speakers at this event was Scott Lively. He claims homosexuality was behind Nazism, and has written a book titled The Pink Swastika detailing this claim. He's also one of the primary assholes that went over to Uganda to "educate" them about gays, starting the push over there to make homosexuality punishable by death. That "eat the poo poo" video that was big on youtube a year or two ago, that's thanks to his teaching. He's their source.

These fuckers, they're actually trying to get gays KILLED in other parts of the world. And they'd do it here too if they could.

[Gryphoneer]

Excuse me, I have to wipe the vomit from my screen.

[Kit H. Ruppell]

So I just found out one of the anti-gay speakers at this event was Scott Lively. He claims homosexuality was behind Nazism, and has written a book titled The Pink Swastika detailing this claim. He's also one of the primary assholes that went over to Uganda to "educate" them about gays, starting the push over there to make homosexuality punishable by death. That "eat the poo poo" video that was big on youtube a year or two ago, that's thanks to his teaching. He's their source.

These fuckers, they're actually trying to get gays KILLED in other parts of the world. And they'd do it here too if they could.

Allowing such fanatics to live is a crime on the level of all they advocate. Get me that fucking armband.

[Hakar Kerarmor]

So I just found out one of the anti-gay speakers at this event was Scott Lively. He claims homosexuality was behind Nazism, and has written a book titled The Pink Swastika detailing this claim. He's also one of the primary assholes that went over to Uganda to "educate" them about gays, starting the push over there to make homosexuality punishable by death. That "eat the poo poo" video that was big on youtube a year or two ago, that's thanks to his teaching. He's their source.

These fuckers, they're actually trying to get gays KILLED in other parts of the world. And they'd do it here too if they could.

And the best part is that they claim that they are the ones being persecuted.

[triage]

the tea party is a bunch of faggots.

[Spatel]

So I just found out one of the anti-gay speakers at this event was Scott Lively. He claims homosexuality was behind Nazism, and has written a book titled The Pink Swastika detailing this claim. He's also one of the primary assholes that went over to Uganda to "educate" them about gays, starting the push over there to make homosexuality punishable by death. That "eat the poo poo" video that was big on youtube a year or two ago, that's thanks to his teaching. He's their source.

These fuckers, they're actually trying to get gays KILLED in other parts of the world. And they'd do it here too if they could.

Because gays being targeted for execution during the holocaust was really part of their plan all along. It's insane how the nazis are constantly compared to diametrically opposed groups of people - gays, communists, jews, socialists... those were the REAL nazis. Incredible.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

Allowing such fanatics to live is a crime on the level of all they advocate. Get me that fucking armband.

They kill people, better kill them so they know it's wrong!

the tea party is a bunch of faggots.

They call people fags, better call them it back so they know it's wrong!

[Ad Hoc]

Allowing such fanatics to live is a crime on the level of all they advocate. Get me that fucking armband.

Way to add fuel to the fire. Smert.


EDIT: Also I think that's the second time I've seen you advocating Nazi-style uniforms and/or armbands. Do you need an intervention or something? Friends don't let friends be fascist.

[Gryphoneer]

On the other hand it's kinda obvious they want to bring back the gas chambers if you listen to their speeches.

This isn't hyperbole, these bastards must be fought with all available means. Don't ever think the specter of fascism is dead and gone; an America blinded by rampant ethnophobia didn't notice its leaders brought back concentration camps in the form of Gitmo and secret CIA camps, after all.

[Ad Hoc]

On the other hand it's kinda obvious they want to bring back the gas chambers if you listen to their speeches.

This isn't hyperbole, these bastards must be fought with all available means. Don't ever think the specter of fascism is dead and gone; an America blinded by rampant ethnophobia didn't notice its leaders brought back concentration camps in the form of Gitmo and secret CIA camps, after all.

I'm not suggesting one should roll over, no, no, no.

But when a person starts talking about bringing back armbands and how happy they'd be to wear a Nazi uniform (referencing a past thread, the other time I saw Kit say this weird shit), they lose all credibility and most likely hurt whatever cause they're defending at the moment.

I'm a big ol' box of queerios and no big fan of the Tea Party, but I'd rather not see this "gays = Nazis" thing get any kind of back up. (Not that it isn't patently ridiculous to anyone with half a brain, but still.)

[Kahoku]

the tea party is a bunch of faggots.

Oh the irony

[Term_the_Schmuck]

To surmise, up here we're 0kay with banning hate speech (remember, this is a ban on the stuff that leads to hate crimes, not a ban on everything negative) because we trust that the government wont change the law to suit its own ends, and instead will continue to serve the people as best it can

The problem here isn't limited to the government using anti-speech laws to silence criticism against it, but also what's already been happening in places like the UK where people are being jailed for something they write on Twitter or being sued for libel. I'd say those laws are going a little overboard when a guy who made a couple of racist comments about footballer Fabrice Muamba (public figure) gets tossed into jail. Why is it necessary to throw that man in jail? "Oh but Term, we can't have racists on the internet saying something on their Twitter account we don't agree with." Well what's to say for instance you Tybalt decide to go on a Twitter rant about the Catholic Church saying it deserves to perish and is filled with nothing but child molesters and supporters of pedophilia and for the sake of argument you live in the UK (I assume you live in Canada). What if you make or repost an image macro poking fun at gingers? Should the UK have the power to prosecute and imprison you for those "hateful" remarks?

So much as a published rumor or opinion of someone on Twitter, Facebook, or blog could in theory be tried under current UK law which requires only that negligence is proven to award a private figure damages, while the defense must prove everything they say is 100% fact. Problem is, how do you prove an opinion of someone's character that a judge could say "this court finds the plaintiff to be a reprehensible douchebag as alleged by the defendant."

It's not just the government that abuses anti-speech laws for it's own means, but also frivolously seeks out people to prosecute for the crime of speaking their minds, period. Even if it's something we don't want to hear, there should always be freedom for the thought that we hate since we are all become subject to the possibility of a slip of the tongue landing us in jail.

EDIT: And for more of the UK mucking up people's ability to even talk about something like say the Olympics here's the numerous things going on at this year's Olympics which, given that country's laws favorable to anyone who may be in any way, shape, or form "hurt" by someone doing something as arbitrary as going into an Olympic pose or posting a picture from the games on the internet, will land you in court.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

By the letter/spirit of the law I am talking about, within Canada I would not face jail time for having a negative view of the church or another race. If I post a status update saying "I hate the church", well that's my view that I'm allowed to have. It's not a public statement specifically meant to incite hatred against a group of people. It'd be looked down upon, but the law can't stop me from disliking something. However, if I gathered people to protest against the church for, let's say I hate them because "they're all serial killers", this is unfounded and kind of against the law.

If however, the issue is a topic of current debate, such as the issue of pederasty in the church, then I am allowed to protest that. I would probably be looked down upon (because really, not ALL priests are child molestors), and I would get into trouble for harassment if I was attacking a member of the church on the personal level, but I would not get into trouble for just that protest against the church

To bring in a REAL example, there's this kid at my school who is like, way batshit crazy. He always goes on about how every major political figure is a "reptilian", which is an invisible shapeshifting alien (invisible AND shapeshifting HOW WOULD YOU KNOW) that possesses people and makes the world a bad place. His belief on that end, calling obama "reptilian scum" isn't going to get him into trouble. However, one of this status updates he made was "I saw some jews at walmart today, should have killed them" (he's ambiguously brown, but I -think- he's from the country at war with isreal right now), which ALSO doesn't fall under hate speech, even though it essentially is. He's not inciting others though, he's stating his own personal hatred.

However, he WOULD get into trouble for uttering a death threat. You're not allowed to want to kill people (you have the same law in the states)

Basically, you're allowed to say to your friends and family in person or over social media that you don't like something. Publicly though is where these laws come into effect

and to get to the bigger point: in canada this person who made racist remarks on twitter would not be jailed, although that is just a guess and I haven't seen specifically what he said. If it was something like "let's all kill this fucking nigger" then he would be in jail for a death threat, not hate speech

[Term_the_Schmuck]

and to get to the bigger point: in canada this person who made racist remarks on twitter would not be jailed, although that is just a guess and I haven't seen specifically what he said. If it was something like "let's all kill this fucking nigger" then he would be in jail for a death threat, not hate speech

To put things in perspective, the comments I'm referring to weren't threats on Muamba's life. Some highlights:

LOL. Fuck Muamba he's dead !!! #HAHA

Which he received comments about this and he replied by saying among other things:

go suck muamba's dead black dick you aids ridden twat #muambasdead

As well as some other responses which used the N-word.

For these comments which he made on Twitter, he was arrested and thrown in jail. Others have also been charged for other similar acts. This isn't about death threats, it's about being thrown in jail for the crime of being a douche on the internet.

I'm sure most of us can attest far worse comments have been made on sites like You Tube, Facebook, and other forums than that.

So this goes beyond protesting here, Tybalt. This is making an offensive comment(s) and being prosecuted because you're a meanie on the internet.

This is where this nonsense starts logically turning to when we start saying "well let's just ban offensive speech."

[Lizzie]

Liam Stacey got what he deserved, although a fine would have perhaps been more beneficial to everyone. His statements were nothing short of deliberate incetement to ethnic or racial hatred as clearly defined by an Act of Parliament.

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist, never has and rightly so.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

This is where this nonsense starts logically turning to when we start saying "well let's just ban offensive speech."

You're quoting events in Europe, under a different law, and using them to attack a law over here

With a slippery slope argument

We have a law, a very well nuanced and clearly laid out law. It's not going to change because there's no need to. If any politician DID want to change it to include "political adversary" then they would have done so already. The way you're wording it, it's as if you think politicians can just change the law to screw the people over, like the conservative majority we have now could just change the murder law to say "anyone who identifies with a non-conservative political group is legally killable"

This isn't how Canada works

And please do not slippery slope with me. It's really like saying "murder laws are limitations on what I can do as a person! Soon the government is going to ban walking and sleeping too!"

[Gryphoneer]

Wait, they jail trolls? I'm gonna migrate!

...oh, they still have Cameron. Nevermind then.