Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:01 am    Post subject: Remove religion from hate crime protection!!! Reply with quote

It allows repressive (anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-women) religions like Islam to get away with murder (literally and figuratively).
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think what you mean is remove Islam from hate crime protection. Christianity has never been protected by this legislation, IMO. Nor does it need to. But then again I think hate crime legislation needs to be abolished. Everything that is a "Hate Crime" was already a crime beforehand. All hate crime legislation does is make freedom of expression a crime of hate.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem with that logic is that it does not happen in this country. Plus, we know that if Canada were to do this, the religions which would be ridiculed by the anti-religious would not be Islam, but Christianity and Judaism, and they would take churches to court because they will not allow same-sex marriages, or would not allow abortion counselling.

The problem is Islam, and it must be dealt with head-on.
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:08 am    Post subject: Re: Remove religion from hate crime protection!!! Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
It allows repressive (anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-women) religions like Islam to get away with murder (literally and figuratively).


Indeed. Why should the religion of Islam be treated any differently?
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
I think what you mean is remove Islam from hate crime protection. Christianity has never been protected by this legislation, IMO. Nor does it need to. But then again I think hate crime legislation needs to be abolished. Everything that is a "Hate Crime" was already a crime beforehand. All hate crime legislation does is make freedom of expression a crime of hate.


I do believe that Christianity is protected from not getting sued from the gay/abortion lobbyists in Canada.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
Bleatmop wrote:
I think what you mean is remove Islam from hate crime protection. Christianity has never been protected by this legislation, IMO. Nor does it need to. But then again I think hate crime legislation needs to be abolished. Everything that is a "Hate Crime" was already a crime beforehand. All hate crime legislation does is make freedom of expression a crime of hate.


I do believe that Christianity is protected from not getting sued from the gay/abortion lobbyists in Canada.


That may be, but it doesn't stop them from slandering Christianity and saying hateful things about it at every turn. Can you imagine how many lawsuits there would be against people if Christianity was afforded the same protection under the law that Islam is? I mean, Mark Steyn can't even report the truth as he sees it about Islam without having a hate crime lawsuit against him.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How are those 2 religions protected differently under the law?
SmallCee





Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 17
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everything that is a "Hate Crime" was already a crime beforehand.

I agree with the above statement.

Hate crime? What crime is not a hate crime? 'Hate crime' is a redundant expression.Every crime IS a hate crime. I have yet to see a love crime, i.e: a crime committed against someone because you loved that person.

The thing that the hate crime legislation does is, pretend it can know what is in the mind of those committing the crimes and by extrapolation give special status to certain people, who the judiciary feels, deserves better treatment than the rest of the population.

I say, get rid of this hate crime legislation and treat all crimes as crimes whatever the motives!
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Small Cee said


I have yet to see a love crime, i.e: a crime committed against someone because you loved that person."



Mr. Latimer comes to mind.
SmallCee





Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 17
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Latimer did not kill his daughter because he loved her. Mr. latimer was living in a difficult situation, true. It must have been really hard for him to see his daughter in such a condition, but loving his daughter would have meant to continue to care and provide for her needs as as far as humanly possible.

The degree of care required was taking a toll on him and he just could not bear any longer. It has been said that his daughter did not have any quality of life and that he did the "loving" think by killing her.

We may try to spin it and give it a good coat of 'mercy" but killing his daughter was no act of love, it was an self-serving act.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you think. I do believe it was not the continued draining care of his daughter that tipped the scales for this desperate family I believe it was the prospect of yet even more countless surgeries WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ANESTHESIA and the constant witness to his child's pain.


Only a person who has not had or intimately known a child with severe disabilities would see them as only a burden to the family whose weight is only crushing and depressing.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Love crimes
Doctor assisted sucided

As well, having seen some of my older relatives with alzheimer's, saddest thing I have ever seen in my life, we paid for their care of course, and cant know their wishes, but knowing these people beforehand I doubt they would wanna live as they are. My point is, if I had alzheimer's and someone killed me, I would consider it a love crime.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A couple of interesting points re: Latimer's situation which didn't get much MSM attention for some reason.

When asked by the Parole Board if he looked forward to returning to his farm, Latimer said as soon as he was released, he would be going directly to Ottawa to lobby the MPs on the issue of euthanasia. Only after he'd lobbied every single MP would he return to his farm.

The Parole Board noted Latimer's wife suffers from arthritis and is in constant pain which she controls with medication and asked Latimer if his wife's condition deteriorated so she was no longer able to control it with medication, would he consider euthanasia again? Latimer would not rule that possibility out.

These points were according a podcast by Mike Duffy & Mike Harris.

-Mac

ps: hate crime legislation should be unconstitutional.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Parole Board noted Latimer's wife suffers from arthritis and is in constant pain which she controls with medication and asked Latimer if his wife's condition deteriorated so she was no longer able to control it with medication, would he consider euthanasia again? Latimer would not rule that possibility out.


That's very interesting. I'm still not sure that I agree with the Parole Board, but knowing this makes it a little less black and white.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Remove religion from hate crime protection!!!

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB