Anti-Homosexuality Brochure Held Up At Canada Post

NOT OBSCENE? APPROPRIATE?

Hopefully the fallout from this will include a demand for the resignation of the head of Canada post, and the board that approved this obscene, inappropriate piece of hatemail.

And it's nice to see that apparently Ontario is well on it's way to becoming a Fundamentalist Christian state. Time for BC to look again at secession.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

The newa today is CP is allowing the union members to use their own judgement as to if they will or will not deliver the pamphlet.

I can understand that the Post Office cannot censor mail addressed to a recipient but this is a flyer directed to the general public. A postal worker should not decide if IE; Playboy be delivered to a subscriber nor a Safeway flyer be delivered to a residence. They should have the right to refuse to be a participant in the distribution of hate-mail. The fact that the union brought it to the media attention should also envolve an RCMP investigation. The pamphlets should be held on a shelf untill a court decision decides accordingly.

As a side note, one may ask, if a postal worker that falls within the discription of said pamphlet/flyer be well within his or her rights to refuse delivery.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Obscene and inappropriate, I might agree with but hate mail? Based on what we've seen, I wouldn't think so. They haven't shown us the brochure or quoted it in its entirety so I can't form an opinion even on its obscenity at this point. What I can say is that if they use only the word "homosexuality", it is not hate mail. If they used the word "homosexuals", it might then be hate mail.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

"Canada Post management told the workers on Wednesday that it's not in the business of censorship, and said the letters would be delivered."

If the ad was in any way anti-Jewish, CP would NOT dare take it and someone would be up on charges for promoting "hate" by now.

While I don't agree with censorship, I dislike hypocrisy even more so.

but hate mail?

CBC reported that the brochure stated "Homosexuals had brought disease to the nation". This was one point the lawyer for the union had brought up. If anything, the publicity has now drawn attention to the content.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

>>"Homosexuals had brought disease to the nation"

Where does it say that?

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

"Obscene and inappropriate, I might agree with but hate mail?" <br><br> Wraun, some people have been brought up on "hate" charges for saying considerably less than the little bit that has been quoted in the article. <br><br> Ernst Zundel's case serves as a great example. He was actually imprisoned for 2 years in Canada and later deported to Germany for saying or doing something that was actually kept as a secret! Now in Germany, he's in prison for what? You can look at the contents of his website which is what they want to throw him in jail for. Is any of it hate? <br><br> Ernst Zundel's situation is perhaps unique because he was not a Canadian citizen and could therefore be "renditioned" as they do in the USA (Arar's case for example). If there's a will, there's a way. <br><br> In the "censorship" thread we only touched on what happened when when "sexual orientation" was added to the hate law. Despite all the media noise made about it, a few interesting changes were snuck in under a cloak of secrecy, here's one part of it: <br><br> <blockquote>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 <br><br> : <br><br> Wilful promotion of hatred <br><br> (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of : </blockquote> <br><br> As you can see, the ad in question can indeed be considered as "hate propaganda" depending on a subjective judgment call. In fact, under the law even the Bible can be considered as "hate", however due to intense lobbying, the bible was protected by this last minute addition: <br><br> <blockquote>Defences <br><br> (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) <br><br> : <br><br> (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; </blockquote> <br><br> So there you have it! Is the ad in question protected as religious text under "Defences" (b), or should charges be brought up anyway because it "incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace"? <br><br> So, as a Judge, how would you apply the law (while "identifiable groups" of people picket Canada Post and get into a riot here and there)? <br><br> But wait, there's more to consider, it's not at all up to the police or a Judge to decide if charges should be forthcoming or not! <br><br> In Canada, what is or is not "hate" can be decided on well before it goes to court, and the text of the law does NOT matter one iota! As it turns out, the "law" can either be made to exist or to vanish into thin air, seemingly on a whim. <br><br> At this point I think the discussion should continue along in the <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=7&showtopic=17277&mode=&onlytopic=0&show=5">censorship forum</a>.

<p>>>considerably less than the little bit that has been quoted in the article. <br> Improperly quoted in the article! I've read the article and reread the article and then searched the article "CTRL + F" and there is no use of the word "homosexuals" in that article. That is not to say that the brochure does not use the word "homosexuals".<br> My point was, let's not jump to conclusions about what this brochure says, because we have not seen it, nor have we seen the accurately quoted text in its entirety. Remember the MSM, the guys that only give us sound bytes, photo ops and tell us what they want us to know in order to manipulate public perception and do so at times to cause disorder while something of much more significance is going on.</p> <p> >>>So there you have it! Is the ad in question protected as religious text under "Defences" (b), or should charges be brought up anyway because it "incites hatred against any <b>identifiable group</b> where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace"? <br> identifiable group - I cannot recite the list of identifiable groups off the top of my head but I know for certain that "homosexuality" is not an identifiable group. Homosexuality is a noun describing sexual tendancy, not describing a person or group of persons</p> <p> >>So, as a Judge, how would you apply the law (while "identifiable groups" of people picket Canada Post and get into a riot here and there)? <br> First I would have to review the evidence (which we have not done).<br> The identifiable group of people that you are referring to are not attempting to incite hatred. Actually, they think they are trying to prevent it.</p> <p>---<br>Everybody got to deviate from the norm

Where does it say that?<br />
<br />
Oops! it's my hearing. But I did read:<br />
<br />
The pamphlet calls homosexuality "ungodly," "unhealthy," and "unnatural" and blames homosexual people for spreading AIDS by living without "any moral restraints."<br />
<a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061026/postal_walkout_061026/20061026">http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061026/postal_walkout_061026/20061026</a>?<br />
<br />
Eye sight better with glass's but the hearing is going.<p>---<br>Expect little from life and get more from it.

>>The pamphlet calls homosexuality "ungodly," "unhealthy," and "unnatural" and blames homosexual people for spreading AIDS by living without "any moral restraints."

Okay, now I'll agree that it's looking more like hate mail. Thanks B. But I still maintain that we should read the entire text before calling it hate mail. Mr. Mooney can call it that because he's seen it.

Are there any Vivers from the Commercial Drive area who could digitize a copy and submit it?

Now not only is there a religious defense stipulated but there is also the defense of whether or not the statement is true...
Ungodly? The bible does condemn it
Unnatural? It would be pretty hard for the human race to propogate if we were to rely on it.
Unhealthy? I'm not touching that one! Anyone else?

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

<blockquote>The pamphlet calls homosexuality "ungodly," "unhealthy," and "unnatural" and blames homosexual people for spreading AIDS by living without "any moral restraints.</blockquote> <br><br> Actually, that's an interpretation made by whoever wrote the story, it's not a direct quote, so you still have no idea what was actually said.

<blockquote>I cannot recite the list of identifiable groups off the top of my head but I know for certain that "homosexuality" is not an identifiable group. Homosexuality is a noun describing sexual tendancy, not describing a person or group of persons</blockquote> Here's the list: <blockquote>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. </blockquote> The last thing I want to be seen as doing is defending Canada's bogus "hate laws", and with that in mind I'll try and point out only what the law appears to say. The grouping known as "sexual orientation" suggests that sexual preference and/or physical make up is one of the protected "identifiable groups", be it opposite sex, same sex, self sex, swaped sex, no sex, pedophilia, necrophilia, or interspecies sex - did I miss anything? I'm sure that I did. <br><br> One could argue that to target the "act", as you seem to be doing, is not "hate" because no identifiable group was specified directly, however, if I advocate "hate" directed at people who prey to Allah, then what group am I targeting? Who preys to Allah? Obviously it's not Catholics, and I can easily figure out which religious group is the subject of my "hate". <br><br> It's hard to deny that when you discuss homosexuality, you are talking about homosexuals, and when you talk about homosexuals you are talking about "sexual orientation" and when homosexuals read something that gets them upset, well, you have a breach of the peace! (as an excercise, substitute "homosexual" for "pedophile" and you can see what road this takes us down). <br><br> But what got them upset? It could have been anything, since the hate law goes well past "genocide". For example, homosexuals could have become upset about an ad in support of a particular politician, who the hell knows! The law is stupid and it makes no sense at all since anything can end up being "hateful". <br><br> Now, having said all of this, I really don't care about the ad in question, and as you've rightly pointed out, we have NO idea what the ad even says. <br><br> The main items I wanted to point out are: <br><br> a) The law says that we can be charged under the hate laws even if what we say has nothing at all to do with genocide. All that's needed is "hate" that's likely to cause a breach of the peace - how this can be determined remains a mystery. <br><br> b) The concept of "sexual orientation" includes a lot more behaviours and attractions than just those between opposite sex and same sex. It gets interesting, for example, you don't want to say anything hateful about the homosexual pedophiles in the Church or you may find yourself up on charges. (what about jokes in bad taste?) <br><br> c) If the "hate" is religious in nature, then a religious context defense can be used as a valid excuse to protect the "hate" even if it leads to a "breach of the peace". <br><br> d) It is not up to the police, or even a Judge to decide if someone will be charged under the hate laws or not. The law can either be made to exist or to not exist <strong>based on a political decision rather than a legal decision</strong>. This part is rather important to make note of.

"Okay, now I'll agree that it's looking more like hate mail."

Over the past week of our censorship thread, one thing I've learned about you RG, is that you're a lot better at interpreting the written word than this. I didn't say that I AGREED it IS hate mail now. I said it's LOOKING MORE LIKE hate mail.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

>>The last thing I want to be seen as doing is defending Canada's bogus "hate laws"

Yeah this is a bit of a twist |:-]

>>The grouping known as "sexual orientation" suggests that sexual preference and/or physical make up is one of the protected "identifiable groups", be it opposite sex, same sex, self sex, swaped sex, no sex, pedophilia, necrophilia, or interspecies sex

Good point!

>>One could argue that to target the "act", as you seem to be doing, is not "hate" because no identifiable group was specified directly, however, if I advocate "hate" directed at people who prey to Allah, then what group am I targeting? Who preys to Allah? Obviously it's not Catholics, and I can easily figure out which religious group is the subject of my "hate".

To use a "quote" from earlier, even though we do not know if was actually made... "Homosexuality brought disease to this nation" is (I think) what it was.

That statement, appears to promote hatred against homosexuality but it may not have been a homosexual who brought the disease to this nation, it may have been a heterosexual drunken sailor who had too much to drink and partook in a homosexual act. Does one act of homosexuality make a homosexual? Does one toke make an addict?
Furthermore, when you target the act, you are not necessarily spreading hate against even those that indulge in the act on a regular basis. If I say that homosexuality is "ungodly", "unnatural" and/or "unhealthy", I am not necessarily saying those things about homosexuals. The law may be vague here but maybe that is to allow a loophole for the accused to use in their defence.
Finally, as I indicated in a former post, not only is there a defence on religious grounds, there is also a defence on the grounds of the statement being true.

>>The main items I wanted to point out are:
(what about jokes in bad taste?)

I thrive on them!

>>c) If the "hate" is religious in nature, then a religious context defense can be used as a valid excuse to protect the "hate" even if it leads to a "breach of the peace".

I think it was intended more like if it's religious in nature, then it's not hate. But duly noted and if anything there should be a defence for education rather than religion

>>d) The law can either be made to exist or to not exist based on a political decision rather than a legal decision. This part is rather important to make note of.

And it interests me very much but I think it is going to get too hard to continue this both here and in the censoship forum. It'd be like an argument in a room with a bad echo so this is my last reponse here.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm