School Board member in hot water over anti-gay status

Actually, it was just a show where a guy goes around trying to by old junk found on farms. Had nothing at all to do with GLBT issues. But these old farmers aren't very receptive to him, and DH was just observing that if they sent someone who wasn't so... well.. they might have better success. DH even said that it sucks that the world works that way, that people aren't open to dealings with people who are "different". But from a business stand point, DH said a woman would probably have had more success.

 

ohhhhhh! ha, i totally misunderstood what you were saying, oops.

 

No worries. I didn't give a lot of details. lol

 

Coming in late :roll:.....I personally like living in a country that (for now) only prosecutes after your body has committed an offense, not your mind. There are people who incite crimes directly (order a hit on someone is the easiest example) which should be punishable because they gave the order to commit the crime. However, if they didn't command it to happen, they should not be held accountable for a crime until a crime occurs that they actually ordered or carried out. Wishing someone dead, however morbid that thought may be, is not the same as ordering it done or carrying it out.

Am I making any sense?....it's late and I'm sick with a head cold.

 

i'm a little confused... it seems like you said that people can say whatever they want and not 'get in trouble' unless they act on it... but then you go on to say that they can... *puzzled* (or it's too early and i'm not reading clearly LOL)

 

we don't prosecute people for "wishing someone dead" ....you can do whatever you want with your mind here.

you can, however, be charged with a crime if you have done something to incite hatred against an identified group -- and that *is* doing something with your "body" ...because you are doing it through speech, through writing, through [whatever] ...you aren't just 'thinking' these things.

 

Let me clarify....I'm glad I can say something stupid like...."I hate people who wear pink polka dots!!!! I think they should all be drug out in the street and given a good wallupin'!!!!". From the sounds of it, my opinion--which I vocalized but did not take action on--would be considered a hate crime against pink polka dot wearin' folk even if none of them receive a wallupin'? Here in the US, try as some of the newer legislatures might, so far we can't be prosecuted for having an opinion, even if we tell someone else about it.

 

Yes, you're confused. And so are the people. That's the problem with hate speech. It's so vague no one understands. So Brooke goes and fusses about pnk polka dots on a radio talk show, and someone hears her. That someone, who holds Brooke in very high esteem, decides on his own to do something about it. Who is responsible...Brooke or the person who followed through, or both? Keeping in mind that words are FOREVER being taken out of context, and misconstrued to say things we NEVER meant in the first place.

Probably one of the most famous incidents of this happened in France in 1572. Supposedly Catherine de'Medici plotted to kill someHuguenot admiral named Coligny. It fell through, and her son (Charles IX, king of France) told her in jest, "If you're going to kill Coligny, why don't you kill andd the Huguenots in France, so that there will be no one lesft to hate me?" It was taken seriously, and it touched off the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

 

I think he has the right not to wear purple. but for someone associated with children to wish them dead because of dispair in their lives is beyond the pale.

That being said. I have a simple understanding of the rules. 1. Love God with all your being (paraphrased) 2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
and I will tack on -
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am willing to tell anyone that I feel acting on homosexual impulses is a sin. However, I myself sin every day. How you deal with your sin is up to you and God.
BUT I see difficulties when it comes to sin and leadership positions IN the church.
and don't get me started on divorce.
and what about repentance??
But all that is off topic.
This man has the right to feel however he wants, but when one is in a position of authority then one has to modify what one expresses in public. and fb is very very public.

 

Even though I wish everyone running our country and communities were Jesus-loving, people-loving Christians, they are not. And I personally don't want anyone in public office to refrain from making public statements on their thoughts and opinions. That's the only way I know what kind of person they really are. If that man didn't post those things or say them out loud, you would still have the same man running the school, you just wouldn't realize just how hate-filled he is. Now those people see him for who he really is.

Keep posting on facebook all you elected officials. I like to keep informed!

 

just to clarify ~ canada's "hate speech" laws are generally replied with respect to inciting hatred against identified groups...section 318 of the canadian criminal code makes "promoting genocide" illegal, and section 319 makes it illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. there's some protection if the statements are "true" or "made in good faith".....actually here, let me find the exact wording...

okay here:

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of “genocide”

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of “identifiable group”

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions

(7) In this section,

“communicating”
« communiquer »
“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

“identifiable group”
« groupe identifiable »
“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;

“public place”
« endroit public »
“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

“statements”
« déclarations »
“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.

***************

always better to have the exact info...

i marked a part in purple that i would assume would protect pastors/etc within the church -- as their stance is based on religious beliefs/texts... although i haven't had a chance to look much up on that yet....

i can say that i , personally, have never heard of a church leader being prosecuted under hate speech laws... that's not to say it has never happened - it may have, i don't know. still looking for information on that....

pink polka dot people aren't listed as one of our identifiable groups though.

 

I've read about several pastors who where prosecuted under this, but it's been quite a while. Thanks for the exact wording!