In passing this legislation, the Canadian Parliament added "sexual orientation" to the nation's laws criminalizing "hate speech. Even before the passage of C, Canadian legislators had been moving to restrict free speech and religious liberty.
The concept of "hate speech" implies that certain forms of speech are to be criminalized for being out of step with the government's ideological positions. Canada's extensive hate speech laws already criminalized any statements considered to be disparaging to ethnic and minority groups. By adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, the Canadian Parliament has not only shut down free speech; it has opened a legal can of worms that will be most difficult to handle.
Since "sexual orientation" is undefined in the law, lesbians and homosexual men are unlikely to be the only persons demanding coverage under the law.
As the statute now stands, criticism of pedophilia or polygamy--or any sexual act or relationship for that matter--could well be cause for criminal action. Robinson is a notoriously liberal and flamboyant legislator, who also promotes himself as something of a symbolic leader for Canada's gay community. Robinson's animus toward Christianity has been evident for some time, and he has described Christian leaders as "ecclesiastical dictators.
God should strike you dead. In a bizarre twist to this tale, Robinson missed the critical vote in favor of his bill, because he had just taken an extensive medical leave from his political responsibilities after admitting to the theft of a ring he had intended to give to his male partner. His theft was caught on camera and, in the aftermath of the scandal, Robinson released a statement which may or may not have constituted a resignation from office. No one seems to be exactly sure about exactly what Robinson meant by what one Canadian newspaper called his "non-resignation resignation letter.
Robinson aside, the Senate's passage of this bill represents an immediate threat to free speech and Christian conviction in the nation of Canada. Editorial opinion in Canadian newspapers has been mixed, but the threat to religious liberty is immediately clear when one listens to the arguments made by C's proponents. Writing in The Toronto Star, Carol Lowes explained that C is necessary because, "Some Christian charities, priests and pastors attempt to convince people of their wrongs and cultivate guilt or shame about perceived sins in their target audiences.
The obvious implication of Ms. Lowes' argument is that pastors must never tell anyone that they are sinners.
And nothing marted with him. In part because of the Reform Bill of which doubled the electorate in England, by the time of his writing Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Stephen reasoned that there was no turning back from an extensive democratic government; that is, no turning back from a regime resting upon universal suffrage. That it comes to be held in a dead conventional way unless it is discussed. Present our services to a fine new prince Craig Cheesy pop songs fill the air. A comet close enough would definitely affect the gravity, and even the spin or rotation of the earth. The novels that Heinlein wrote for a young audience are commonly called "the Heinlein juveniles", and they feature a mixture of adolescent and adult themes.
How convenient. A challenge to Christian publications was offered by Lois Sweet, a journalism professor at Carleton University in Ottawa. Marianne Meed Ward, writing in The Toronto Sun, warned preachers that they will have to be careful in addressing any issue of sexuality. Nevertheless, she presented a blatant warning about "expressing" such views: "But preachers and everybody else will have to exercise caution in how they express their views.
Sugrue highlights Moon and Jones for a reason; both implicitly questioned the ideas that dominated the civil rights movement in the South.
Such an approach, Sugrue argues, was inappropriate for the North. For one thing, Northern whites were persuaded that so long as they avoided explicitly segregationist laws, their consciences were clean. For another, racial progress in the North was so slow that more dramatic steps were required than nonviolent protest or high-minded sermons. Sugrue says that only through actions threatening the privileges of whites — boycotts, demonstrations, community control of schools — could blacks narrow the disparities.
He spends a disproportionate amount of time writing about Marxist extremists and crackpot demagogues, devoting a dozen pages, for example, to the Revolutionary Action Movement, a violence-spouting Maoist sect. In addition, Sugrue pays insufficient attention to the price the Northern civil rights movement paid for its refusal to take morality seriously. Once blacks used the language of empowerment and self-determination, whites were free to do so as well: those Boston Irish-American parents resisting busing appealed to the same themes of community autonomy and rejection of outsiders that black activists did in demanding control of their schools.
Lacking a moral compass, more than a handful of Northern civil rights workers became hustlers if not downright criminals. Most important of all, by insisting that everything was a struggle for power, Northern activists all too often treated whites as enemies to be fought rather than allies to be cultivated. Justified or not, black power produced a white backlash. To advance in American society, any minority needs allies. What she did was no different. She told him to murder somebody. There is a reason for this: because words are not enough to convict.
Your analogy of soliciting a hitman to commit murder to badgering someone to commit suicide begs the question, can someone commit homicide against themselves? In my view, one cannot.
If a homicide did not occur as a result of her ugly behavior, a charge of homicide is not appropriate. If the legislature in response to this tragedy sees fit to expand the definition of homicide to include badgering someone to commit suicide, they have this as an option. And, I could even support it.
In my view, feelings of justifiable outrage and political appeasement , were substituted here for the rule of law. This amounts to little more than vigilantly justice. Whatever she gets, she deserves, but this improper charging of crime, as a public policy in a free-society of laws cannot be permitted to stand; the consequences are too great and too detrimental to personal freedom and our system of governance. This essay and string of commentary offers insights well beyond Free Speech protections.
It really speaks to what the role of government should be in a free-society and what the role of the individual and family. I am making the broader policy statement, that morality cannot be legislated or a product of public school policy. Certainly, the government and schools have a role to play in promoting and reinforcing moral behavior in young people, but morality training MUST begin and be the primary function of family.
Oh, sure, you can pass laws that require people to act in a certain manner, to stop someone from stepping off a cliff, to call the Police when a crime in progress is being witnessed. Or, prohibit a particular type of speech. But, this does not make a moral people. It seems to me, this is nowhere more relevant, than in our current day, and under the current Administrative State mindset in operation in so much thought today, where it is seen as a good for government to displace family. Of which, the case of Sweet Little Charlie Gard is a most glaring and horrendous illustration.
And, I think the Framers of the U. Constitution intended for this to also be their admonishment for what makes good government of a moral people. Agreed, the free speech issue was raised along the way, although minimized so much by the Mass. SCt in its interlocutory decision that I referred to. Are we to assert then that! An odd outcome to be sure?
However, on the other hand, if the psychiatrist was treating the suicidal person, and thus bearing a duty to that person, it may rise to this heightened level and not be protected speech. The girl clearly had a humanitarian duty to seek help for this young man, and she clearly acted in an ugly manner, and let me make it clear, I have no sympathy for the position she now finds herself in, she deserves it, but does this rise to Involuntary manslaughter?
Sweet Liberty: A Tale of Sexual Freedom - Kindle edition by Gabrielle Devereux. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. dynipalo.tk: Sweet Liberty: A Tale of Sexual Freedom (Audible Audio Edition): Gabrielle Devereux, Scarlet Lips, Pompatus Press: Books.
And, of course, her own conscience if she has one and that final one to which we all must answer. First amendment rights in this case? The many comments on both sides will hang a jury pool?
Her rights go so far, after that she for sure crossed that line of no return, that is causing a murder. Not reporting it? Good points.
Accepting that this young man was obviously mentally and emotionally disturbed to be on the brink of taking his own life and to follow through on it, this state of mind likely making it difficult or impossible for him to think and act rationally, and perhaps owing to him a greater duty of protections.
It seems we as a society are chronically discounting, or have begun to completely abandon the notion of personal responsibility for personal actions. In my view, not a good thing even in the most heart wrenching of circumstances.
If this is a case about failing to provide duty where a legal the moral duty is obvious, but not withstanding duty has been created, then I am more apt to support the prosecution and the conviction. Conversely, if this case was prosecuted as, or is subsequently exploited to garner support for the weakening of the 1st Amendment protections of free-speech, I would be extremely hesitant to support, on these terms, the prosecution or conviction.
Respecting opinions all ready been given on the website, one thing comes to mind in relation to the excuse of free speech.