Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CANADIAN court agrees that BIBLE is HATE LITERATURE
CWNews.com ^ | 2-11-2003 | staff

Posted on 02/13/2003 6:56:57 AM PST by Notwithstanding

In a ruling given virtually no media coverage, the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan, ruled that a man who placed references to Bible verses on homosexuality into a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred. The December 11, 2002 decision was in response to an appeal of a 2001 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) ruling which ordered both the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay CAN$1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality.

The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side. The symbol was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.

Justice J. Barclay rejected the appeal ruling: "In my view, the Board was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace. In other words, the Biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."

Janet Epp Buckingham, Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, told LifeSite: "The ruling that a verse from the Bible can be considered to expose homosexuals to hatred shows the danger for Scripture if Bill C-250 passes." Bill C-250, proposed by homosexual activist MP Svend Robinson, would see "sexual orientation" added to hate crime law as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


TOPICS: Announcements; Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bible; calhounsrats; canada; hatespeech; homosexualagenda; mediabias
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-259 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
The ad clearly stated that homosexuals should be put to death for their homosexuality.

No, Luis. The ad clearly states that Leviticus, a book of the Bible, says that.

151 posted on 02/13/2003 4:47:32 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
In your local schools, do they recite the Lord's Prayer?
152 posted on 02/13/2003 4:49:24 PM PST by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Now, go out and start buying newwpaper ads advocating that inter-racial couples should be put to death for fouling up the bloodlines, and see how far freedom of speech takes you.

In the US, I can take out an ad and quote the Bible. In Canada, you cannot always do so. The thugocratic fascistic liberal PC Canadian government wants to prevent people from quoting the Bible in public. That is tyranny. You feel very comfortable with that, because you feel you should have the right to proscribe what other people say (or whether they should quote the Bible in public). Thank heavens the founders of our country were of a wiser and less dictatorial nature.

153 posted on 02/13/2003 4:50:44 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
What difference does that make to the debate at hand?

I never claimed it had anything to do with the debate at hand. I simply want to know whether or not you believe that the scriptures allow for men or women to practice homosexuality. A simple yes, or no, would suffice.

154 posted on 02/13/2003 4:51:09 PM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
The purchaser of the ad did not change the words of God as shown in the bible. Therefore, he obviously is not perverting them.

Really. Learn to read. I said combined with graphics Does your bible have the graphics? . The graphics that the purchaser added with the intent of inciting a negative reaction towards homosexuals. Without the graphics the ad does not make the same point. All it would be would be verses from the bible. Which are printed and read every day.

The bottom line is the court judged the intent , not the source of the words.

155 posted on 02/13/2003 4:54:49 PM PST by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
I see that like a good Christian, you're down to name-calling now.
156 posted on 02/13/2003 4:57:38 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Snowyman
In your local schools, do they recite the Lord's Prayer?

Well, in my children's Catholic schools, they often recite the Lord's prayer. They don't do so in the public shcools, because children of many faiths attend them. I am certainly allowed to take out an ad in the newspaper quoting the Lord's Prayer! I am also allowed, in the US, to stand on the street corner and recite the Lord's prayer. I am allowed to publish books which contain the Lord's prayer. I am allowed to assemble meetings of people in which the Lord's prayer is recited. I am also allowed to take out an ad in the newspaper regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts, or to stand on a streetcorner and say such, or to publish books saying such, or to assemble with people and say such, or to associate with people who are not homosexual. I am allowed to send my son to a scouting organization whose scoutmasters do not have a sexual attraction to males. I believe you do not have that right in Canada. I'm a much freer man as an American than I would be were I Canadian.

157 posted on 02/13/2003 4:58:41 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Snowyman
These "Christians" you are arguing with refuse to see the point you and I have been trying to make, because being persecuted for their religious beliefs makes for better victimhood.

They altered the message, and took it into the public square. Look at what the author of the article did, he sensationalized the issue, and gave it a good spin.

The issue was never the Bible here, it was the intent of the ad.

The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection, example:

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected. This decision was based on the fact that fighting words are of "slight social value as a step to truth."

One could easily argue that this ad fell under the general description of "fighting words"...as it obviously did, otherwise it would not have made its way into Court.

158 posted on 02/13/2003 5:04:26 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"I am also allowed to take out an ad in the newspaper regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts, or to stand on a streetcorner and say such, or to publish books saying such, or to assemble with people and say such."

Not really.

You may publish abook about it, but you will not stand in a street corner and do so. It's called slander and defamation of character, plus there's the case cited above.

You may not pass judgement on others based on your religious beliefs in the public square if your words create a public disturbance.

159 posted on 02/13/2003 5:12:05 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
Hi Brian!! Stranger lately??? When are you coming to my neck of the woods again??? Soon I hope. Blessings my brother. Lynn
160 posted on 02/13/2003 5:12:32 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (all us Western Canuks belong South)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Ditto OOPS
161 posted on 02/13/2003 5:13:24 PM PST by Kev-Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You offering Luis??? LOL (God will provide should the time come)
162 posted on 02/13/2003 5:13:59 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (all us Western Canuks belong South)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
Well, you ARE speaking out from that terrible frozen gulag where freedom of speech has died. I expect the speech police is coming to knock your door down anytime now.

A friend in need is a friend indeed.
163 posted on 02/13/2003 5:19:00 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
Not that it is any of your business, but I already answered that on this very thread.
164 posted on 02/13/2003 5:20:31 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
NAH!! We don't have that kind of situation yet. In this small city we march down the streets with signs calling abortion Dr.'s killers. Not arrested yet. As to Svend, he's been called just about everything. Smart isn't one of them.
165 posted on 02/13/2003 5:21:49 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (all us Western Canuks belong South)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You may publish abook about it, but you will not stand in a street corner and do so. It's called slander and defamation of character, plus there's the case cited above.

Standing on a streetcorner and saying homosexual acts are sinful is neither slander nor defamation of character, Luis - just as saying fornication is sinful is neither, just as saying that selfishness is sinful is neither. Come back to this universe, Luis.

166 posted on 02/13/2003 5:25:36 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Well, you ARE speaking out from that terrible frozen gulag where freedom of speech has died.

It is beginning to die there. When you can't quote the Bible in public, or say what you believe about homosexuality (or anything else) you know something is very, very wrong.

167 posted on 02/13/2003 5:27:06 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
It's funny...it seems that things like public demonstrations are judged under a different set of standards, at least here in the US. Perhaps it has something to do with freedom to assemble.

If the assemblees get out of hand however, the assembly is brought to a sudden halt.
168 posted on 02/13/2003 5:28:12 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"When you can't quote the Bible in public."

That's a lie.

169 posted on 02/13/2003 5:28:49 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The issue was never the Bible here, it was the intent of the ad.

The intent of the ad was to say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, Luis. To take away the right to say that is an abridgement of freedom. Once that right is taken away, Canada can take away the right to say anything that offends someone or offends the political views of the tyrants in Ottawa. I am glad I live in a country where I can quote the Bible in public, and say what I think about homosexual acts (depraved, sinful, unhealthy and disgusting) without fearing the thought police. See, what I just said would be banned in thought-police Canada.

170 posted on 02/13/2003 5:31:26 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
That's a lie.

No, it's not, Luis. This man quoted the Bible in public, in a newspaper, along with a graphic which clearly represented the words of the Bible, and he was denied his right to free speech. In Sweden, you can't even say homosexuality is sinful now, without fear of government invervention. Canada is following in the footsteps of the liberalocracy.

171 posted on 02/13/2003 5:33:58 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
I'm a much freer man as an American than I would be were I Canadian

Only in your mind.

And just out of curiosity," I am allowed to send my son to a scouting organization whose scoutmasters do not have a sexual attraction to males."

How do you know? What you fear is a pedophile , not a homosexual. They are not the same. And a pedophile will never declare himself.

Years ago I lived in a small city where a repeat pedophile (he had been released after serving his first sentence of 15 years) was put on trial for murdering a 10 year old boy. That pedophile was convicted again and himself murdered in prison. Recently the murderers of Emanuel Jack , the shoeshine boy in Toronto, in the early 70's , came up for parole and were denied. The list is long, and not one had ever let himself be known , until he was caught. After the fact.

172 posted on 02/13/2003 5:34:17 PM PST by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Do you wnat to bet?

It is sinful to us as Christians, but if it is directed at a specific segment of the population, or at specific individuals, it is.

You seem to want to adhere to only half of the First Amendment.

The same freedom that allows you to worship as you see fit, allows others not to believe at all. And like the State can't ram a specific set of beliefs down your throat, you may not seek to ram yours down someone else's.

Nor will you slander others based on your religious beliefs.

You may get away with it if never taken to Court, but if someone proves intent to defame or slander, neither freedom of speech, nor freedom of religion will save you from the Court.
173 posted on 02/13/2003 5:35:02 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
We don't have that kind of situation yet.

Historically, freedoms are usually stolen a little at a time, and the longer you wait to fight to get them back, the harder the fight you have. Beware, CO!

174 posted on 02/13/2003 5:35:19 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The same freedom that allows you to worship as you see fit, allows others not to believe at all. And like the State can't ram a specific set of beliefs down your throat, you may not seek to ram yours down someone else's.

You're in an outer, outer universe, Luis. People can believe whatever they want (at least in my country). This case had nothing to do with a state's ramming beliefs down anyone's throats - but rather about taking away a man's right to express his own.

175 posted on 02/13/2003 5:37:04 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"This man quoted the Bible in public, in a newspaper, along with a graphic"

You still don't get it do you?

It was the graphics, the intent of the ad, not the words themselves.

Dishonesty is as sin.

176 posted on 02/13/2003 5:37:24 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Nor will you slander others based on your religious beliefs.

I haven't slandered anyone, Luis. I've just said that I have the right to say what I think about homosexual acts. I do. That's not slander. That's my right to free speech. You have your right to say what you think about homosexual acts. Further, I have the right to say what I think in public, or in the newspaper. So do you. In Canada, some people don't.

177 posted on 02/13/2003 5:38:48 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"The intent of the ad was to say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, Luis."

To do that, there was no need for graphics.

The graphics were meant to mock, insult, and inflame the issue.

What a good Christian tactic that is.

178 posted on 02/13/2003 5:39:45 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
another reason to put armed guards on the CANADIAN border....
179 posted on 02/13/2003 5:40:37 PM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
It was the graphics, the intent of the ad, not the words themselves.

You're still in some other galaxy, Luis. In a free speech country, you can publish a graphic showing that you disgree with something. In the US, I can publish a graphic with a baby being aborted and a slash drawn through that. I can publish a graphic with the word adultery and a slash drawn across that. I have the right to say in public what I think about something. In Canada, you don't.

180 posted on 02/13/2003 5:40:37 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
To do that, there was no need for graphics.

It was this man's right to say what he thinks about something. You can publish your own ad saying you think homosexuality is wonderful if you want, Luis. There's no law against saying what you believe about something, Luis, and there's a powerful Constitutional law saying you can (in this country, but not in Canada). You still want to tell people what they're allowed to say. You're still the speech police, Luis.

181 posted on 02/13/2003 5:42:35 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"Further, I have the right to say what I think in public, or in the newspaper."

Number one..the newspaper isn't obligated to publish your ad. Number two, if you get taken to Court, and found that the ad falls under that "fighting words" definition, you're toast.

You have yet to answer the question about taking out an ad about inter-racial marriages ruining the bloodlines.

You don't get it, do you?

The concept of separation of Church and State was put in place to stop what has historically proven to be true tyranny...theocracy.

182 posted on 02/13/2003 5:43:45 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
You are jumping back and forth between two arguments...and throwing in a whole bunch of lies in between...like the one where you can't quote the Bible in public anymore...do a Google on the words television radio broadcasts religious programming.

One argument is that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, and that this man just wanted to spread the Bible's message.

The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across.

Well...why?

If the Bible is so clear in its message (which it is), what possible need did he have to add graphics, other than to insult, inflamme, and create strife.

It seems that he got his wish.

So what's the problem?
183 posted on 02/13/2003 5:50:35 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
So then, if I think that the way your daughter dresses is inappropriate, and I take an ad out in the newspaper saying that according to Laviticus, she should be put to death, you would defend my right to free speech?
184 posted on 02/13/2003 5:52:57 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across. Well...why?

I, as well as the founders of these United States, believe(d) that men are entitled to the freedom to say what they believe. You do not. Most of what we want to say does not come from the Bible. Surely you are not saying (well, actually you are implying) that it's alright to quote the Bible, but not to express anything else that one believes, if it offends someone, or if the government has deemed it offensive. In these United States, I am free to publish an ad (with or without Bible verses) stating my opposition to or promotion of homosexual acts, abortion, bestiality, divorce, affirmative action, homosexual scoutmasters, high taxes, putting 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. etc. In Canada, one is not. The base line is this. You don't like what this man was saying, and therefore you have the right to squelch his speech. You're the kind who would have been happy sitting at the head of the Politburo. People who believe in the squelching of free speech are fundamentally insecure. Win your arguments on the basis of free and fair debate - not on tyrannical autocratic measures to shut down the speech of those you disagree with. You have no more right to shut down my speech (or this man's speech) than I yours.

185 posted on 02/13/2003 6:07:10 PM PST by yendu bwam (The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I take an ad out in the newspaper saying that according to Laviticus, she should be put to death

Leviticus doesn't say this. This man simply quoted what the Bible says.

186 posted on 02/13/2003 6:08:06 PM PST by yendu bwam (The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
So what's the problem?

Same thing Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Napolean, Somoza, Castro, Qaddafi, and so forth said (or say), when they tell (or told) their citizens what was acceptable to say and what was not. Why should your ability to voice your beliefs be favored over someone else's? I don't think it should - and neither did our founding fathers.

187 posted on 02/13/2003 6:11:01 PM PST by yendu bwam (The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Note that this is Moses speaking rather than God, but if you read it in context, you will see that Moses and God are speaking in turns, laying out the covenant that God has already given to Moses. Obviously, if Moses contradicted God's covenant at some point, it seems likely that something bad would have happened. Therefore, Moses' statements in the Book of Leviticus are presumably an accurate testimony of God's instructions to him on the mountain.

"Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, "Do not let your hair become unkempt, and do not tear your clothes, or you will die and the LORD will be angry with the whole community."--Leviticus 10:6

188 posted on 02/13/2003 6:13:43 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
He aimed for a specific result, and he got it.

What's the problem?
189 posted on 02/13/2003 6:14:18 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You have yet to answer the question about taking out an ad about inter-racial marriages ruining the bloodlines.

Not true, Luis. I did answer that. Anyone should have the right to take out that ad, it that's what they want to do. I wouldn't agree with it (especially since I have an interracial marriage!), but other people have different beliefs than I. I can tolerate that. The liberal fascistocracy in Canada cannot.

190 posted on 02/13/2003 6:14:23 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis, Luis, Luis. You may believe that God deems homosexual acts OK. I don't. To me, the Bible absolutely clearly and distinctly forbids homosexual acts (as well as any form of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman). It also makes sense to me, when one considers the promiscuity of the average homosexual, the STDs they carry, the dirty and disgusting sexual acts they engage in. I personally don't believe that this is what God wants. But you may differ in your beliefs. We don't need to get into arguments about Leviticus. You're entitled to your beliefs; I to mine. I can tolerate yours. Why can't you tolerate those who believe as I do? Why so, so insecure?
191 posted on 02/13/2003 6:18:43 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Next.

If I take an ad out advocating the killing of fortune tellers, anyone who reads Tarot cards, or prepares Horoscopes because that's what Leviticus calls for, will you defend my freedom of speech?
192 posted on 02/13/2003 6:19:16 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
If I take an ad out advocating the killing of fortune tellers, anyone who reads Tarot cards, or prepares Horoscopes because that's what Leviticus calls for, will you defend my freedom of speech?

This part of the Bible is an ancient, respected and revered religious text. I would defend at any time your right to quote any part of it (even in PUBLIC!!!). You believe the Canadian government should decide which parts of the Bible are suitable for public quoting. That is facistic tyranny. I don't need the government to tell me what parts of the Bible I can quote and what parts I may not. That kind of government thinking is precisely why so many people came to the New World to begin with.

193 posted on 02/13/2003 6:22:12 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"You may believe that God deems homosexual acts OK."

I've never said that, I have been discussing what this Court did about the ad placed in the newspaper.

I am not the one being intolerant here, that's a laughable attempt at avoiding the course this debate is about to take.

194 posted on 02/13/2003 6:23:14 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Good night, Luis. In the country you would defend, much of what I posted to you tonight would not be allowed. I am glad that I had the freedom to tell you what I think about this - even if you should be offended. It was a good debate. I sing praises for the liberty to have had it.
195 posted on 02/13/2003 6:23:54 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Now, if they tae out that ad, and advocate the killing of interracial couples, would you defend their freedom of speech?
196 posted on 02/13/2003 6:24:14 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke
Canada - Home of Secular Humanists and Marxist elites.

They are not "slouching to Gomorrah" -- they have declared themselves "Gomorrah".
197 posted on 02/13/2003 6:49:53 PM PST by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
From your lips to God's ears
198 posted on 02/13/2003 7:24:17 PM PST by quebecois
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: McNoggin
C$1,500 =~ US$1,000
199 posted on 02/13/2003 7:40:19 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
In the country you would defend, much of what I posted to you tonight would not be allowed.

Got news for you. You haven't posted anything that would not be allowed in Canada. That's you're problem. You don't have a clue about the law and you interpret it to fit your needs. For speech to be illegal according to Canadian law, it has to promote hatred against an identifiable group, advocate "genocide" or incite "hatred to such an extent that it will lead to a breach of the peace."

That's what the court ruled the ad, in it's entirety did. Not the verses alone but the verses with the graphics.

Now let's go back to post#158 and New Hampshire, which the last time I looked was still in the USA and Luis when he says: The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection, example:

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected.

Interesting, "breach of the peace". Sounds almost like Canada is a copycat....imagine that

200 posted on 02/13/2003 8:43:38 PM PST by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-259 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson