babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Jamaica: If I had a Rocket Launcher...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Jamaica: If I had a Rocket Launcher...
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 20 November 2004 11:02 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jamaica Denies Systemic Homophobia

quote:
(Kingston) The Jamaican government has told an international human rights organization that chastised it for allowing rampant homophobia to mind its own business.

Human Rights Watch in a report earlier this week accused the government of turning a bind eye to police abuses on gays and people with HIV/AIDS.

The organization also called on Jamaica to repeal its sodomy laws which are used to target gays.

Thursday, the government accused HRW of bully tactics and said it would not be swayed by foreign influences.


i want to raise every voice — at least i've got to try
every time i think about it water rises to my eyes
situation desperate — echoes of the victims cry
if i had a rocket launcher... some son of a bitch would die


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 27 November 2004 12:52 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jamaican Gays Refute Gov't Claims Of No Discrimination

quote:
As the mob around Victor Jarrett grew, so did the chanting. "Gays must die!" onlookers yelled as two policemen allegedly took turns beating him beneath the blazing afternoon sun.

His crime? Staring at a teenage boy on a beach, one witness said.

After chasing him to a nearby house, the crowd of civilians dragged Jarrett out and chopped, stabbed and stoned him to death.

"The police just let it happen," said Nicholas Henry, another gay man who witnessed part of the June 18 attack in the northern town of Montego Bay. "Where are you supposed to turn when even the police won't protect you? Our society tells us there's nothing worse than being gay."

Many in Jamaica insist such cases are rare, but a report by Human Rights Watch alleges widespread abuse against gays on the Caribbean island known for the slogan "one love."

The report, released last week and swiftly condemned by the government, has reignited debate about homophobia in this conservative former British colony just six months after the slaying of Jamaica's best-known gay rights activist, Brian Williamson, in what police said was a robbery.


quote:
Human Rights Watch says anti-gay violence will continue unless the government acts to protect gays, a move likely to find little favor with ordinary Jamaicans, many of whom consider homosexuality a sin.

"Gay people want rights, but I don't think it should happen in Jamaica," said Pauline Small, a 36-year-old housekeeper. "Spiritually it's wrong."


Oh, it's got NOTHING to do with the damn churches, noooooooo!!!

[ 27 November 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 27 November 2004 01:03 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or the musicians, for that matter...

Anti-Gay Reggae Star Refuses Apology

quote:
A reggae performer whose music advocates killing gays says he has nothing to apologize for, instead claiming it is gays who must beg forgiveness.

"They can't ask me to apologize," Sizzla told BBC radio on Thursday. "They've got to apologize to God because they break God's law."


*snip*

quote:
At a concert in Chicago in April 2002 he told the audience: “I won’t take back my words…I kill sodomites and queers, they bring AIDS and disease upon people…shoot and kill them”.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389

posted 27 November 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for exiled armadillo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I kill sodomites and queers, they bring AIDS and disease upon people…shoot and kill them”.

Yeah, thats why the rampant spread of AIDS in India is attributed to men who use the services of hookers. But they won't talk about how adultry is a sin. but noooo it must be the bi-sexuals fault! Would be nice if they grabbed a brain and the humanity/compassion to realize no one deserves to die that way regardless of their orientation.


From: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mazie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4957

posted 27 November 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for Mazie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Never attribute to malice that which
is adequatly explained by stupidity.

From: Williams Lake, BC | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 27 November 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
EA —

I find it interesting that you are critical of the musicians for the AIDS comments. These do not come out of nowhere, however. The musicians are not the root of the problem; they are merely a symptom. Even one of the bravest people around, Peter Tatchell, makes this mistake when he attacks hip hop singers like "Elephant Man"...

With his own words, the bigot in question admits it:

quote:
“We (Jamaicans) know that this thing (homosexuality) is not right and we are not going to uphold it. The Jamaican heritage is deep, we love God and we are not involved in certain things. From the time I was growing up, I learned that chi chi man fi get bun…bun dem out”.

What Tatchell is tiptoeing around is the churches. Why is everyone so afraid to say it?

The churches are inciting people to murder queers. Why are you so afraid to SAY IT?!

[ 27 November 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389

posted 27 November 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for exiled armadillo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am not afraid to say it, I just didn't get to the root of it as you did.

Its sad but the Church is responsible for killing more people than the Nazis or anyone/thing else in the history of man.

We will never progress until we get rid of this evil and start making people resonsible for their mistakes and their successes.


From: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 27 November 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mazie:
Never attribute to malice that which
is adequatly explained by stupidity.

With surprisingly little effort, many manage both.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389

posted 27 November 2004 07:07 PM      Profile for exiled armadillo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maizie: Never attribute to malice that which is adequatly explained by stupidity.

Oldgoat: With surprisingly little effort, many manage both.


Yeah and Xtians wonder why so many people can't stand them. George W being at the top of the list.


From: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 27 November 2004 09:43 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heph

The irony is that these people are justifying their appaling practices by resorting to a religion that was most probably enforced on them violently by colonialism.

Does anyone know if Jamaican homophobia (even that is a euphimism) has roots in traditional social practices (predating religion)?

[ 27 November 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 27 November 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting question, liminal, and in the case of the Carribean I would say a rather complex one. There was a European minority dominant society which was Xian, and a large imported enslaved African culture which maintained a tremendous vibrancy. There was also the aboriginal people, the Carib culture which I would rule out because they were so thoroughly exterminated.

I don't think it's right to detract from the rightious anger that should be felt in this matter by getting to pedantic, but dammit I can't help being pedantic.

Bottom line? I'm not aware of any particular homophobia of the sort we see today among the cultures of the African slaves brought over, though there had been some exposure to Islam among the various groups of African slaves.

Nope, this is modern 20th century vicious bigotry.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 28 November 2004 12:05 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah yes, Jamaica. Third world debt, 11,000 shootings a year, and rampent homophobia. It's a marvelous place. Say Heph, if you want a rocket launcher you can go to Jamaica and buy one. They probably don't cost a lot down that way.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 28 November 2004 03:45 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:
Heph

The irony is that these people are justifying their appaling practices by resorting to a religion that was most probably enforced on them violently by colonialism.

Does anyone know if Jamaican homophobia (even that is a euphimism) has roots in traditional social practices (predating religion)?

[ 27 November 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


My favourite way of bashing Mugabe is to point to his use of Christian teachings as justification for the state-sanctionned murder of homosexuals in Zimbabwe.

For one, Christianity (from the most progressive to the most reactionary) and Maoism are inherently incompatible.

More importantly, however, Christianity was introduced to Africa by the Westerners Mugabe supposedly loathes so much.

Ironically, gay Whites are probably worse of in Zimbabwe than straight Whites, odd given that gay Whites are more likely to be progressive-minded and were therefore by extension more likely to support Mugabe and his allies in their entirely justified guerilla warfare against the neo-Nazi Ian Smith regime. (That guerilla war's biggest travesty is that it wasn't brutal enough against the White supremacists: Smith is safe in England rather than in remains from being killed appendage-by-appendage, as he deserves to be.)


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 28 November 2004 12:37 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For one, Christianity (from the most progressive to the most reactionary) and Maoism are inherently incompatible.

More importantly, however, Christianity was introduced to Africa by the Westerners Mugabe supposedly loathes so much.


I believe Mugabe himself was eduacted by Jesuits. I'm not sure what his attitude toward Catholicism is right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if he maintains residual loyalties somewhere in his psyche.

quote:
Christianity (from the most progressive to the most reactionary) and Maoism are inherently incompatible.

But if we're talking about Catholicism, there might be more similarities than either Catholics or Maoists would care to admit. Both systems claim as their constituency third world agrarian societies(mass attendance is much higher in such places than it is in the west), and both feature somewhat anti-modernist, anti-urban rhetoric as part of their ideological arsenal. And if I'm not mistaken, Mao himself shared the Catholic Church's opposition to population control.

Of course, the similarities shouldn't be overstated. Catholic opposition to population control is rooted in a theological opposition to birth control(which Maosists don't oppose so far as I know). As well, Catholics don't explicitly state that the peasantry are the chosen people of God, whereas in Maoism the peasants have an "official" role as the main revolutionary class. But it wouldn't strike me as completely surprising if someone raised in the Catholic tradition found Maoism to be an attractive ideological substitute.

[ 28 November 2004: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 28 November 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is a lot of evangelical Christianity in Jamaica. fundamentalist Religion is definitely a problem in that country.
I think Rastafarians are quite liberal when it comes to gays, but they only make up a tiny part of the Jamaican population. Where's Bob Marley when we need him!

[ 28 November 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 28 November 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A friend of mine is a good friend of Bunny Wailer and Junior Marvin of The Wailers, and told me he and Bunny had been talking just a few weeks ago, and Bob came up. He said Bunny told him that he's glad Bob is not alive to see what has become of his beautiful island, because it would break his heart.

And although (to my knowledge) Bob never made any pronouncements on homosexuality, I cannot believe that someone who stood so firmly for peaceful resolutions whenever possible, and for people to come together, would ever approve of the violence and hatred that is going on today, whatever the reason.

Sometimes when I'm feeling really, really down, I put on Bob on the headphones and listen to Redemption Song at top volume, and for some reason it always comforts me. Bob's magic is still with us, if we would only listen to it.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 08 April 2006 02:01 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
I think Rastafarians are quite liberal when it comes to gays
Nonsense. Rastafari is a particularly patriarchial world view, with very strict gendered roles.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 08 April 2006 02:45 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know what. I'm getting pretty damn tired of religions dictating which groups can and can not be granted human rights ... If religion can stick their noses into the laws and politics of the world, then I believe it is just as right, and even a requirement, that law and politics start sticking their noses right back into the business of religion.

We need to start passing basic laws that outlaw religions that do not recognize and support human rights for all ... your religion doesn't support equal and full rights for gays, then your religion is outlawed.

A religion that promotes hatred and second class status of any group of citizens should not exist in a democratic society that claims to adhere to the rule of law and equality under the law.
When religious leaders cried over the SSM issue that giving homosexuals equal rights will lead to the erosion of religious rights, they were not only right, they were giving us a hint as to the only weapon we have against the evils of organized religion lead by people filled with hatred ... more restrictions on how religions spread their hatred.

I'm not saying we need to outlaw religion, but any religion that doesn't accept full and equal human rights should not be given any special protection ... if you can't worship your "God" without violating the rights of others, then you can't worship your "God" in my society.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 08 April 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
I'm not saying we need to outlaw religion, but any religion that doesn't accept full and equal human rights should not be given any special protection ... if you can't worship your "God" without violating the rights of others, then you can't worship your "God" in my society.
Great. So in your society, it would be illegal to be Muslim, Catholic, Hasidic, Sikh, Rastafarian, etc. So what happens, secret police spy on religious services, confiscate books, jail religious leaders. etc? Thanks, but I prefer freedom to authortarianism. I would prefer to denounce conservative religious leaders than suffer under your dictatorship, thank you anyway.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 08 April 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can appreciate your fears, but we already do this with many groups that preach things that society doesn't approve of .... try being a KKKer and preaching a return to slavery ... try being a Hammas or Tamil Tiger member and preaching suicide bombing ... try being a member of a Nazi group and preaching genocide.

And I'm not saying that you can't be a member of these religions ... I'm saying your religion cannot be in any way involved calling for legislated hatred in politics and the Justice system in a democratic country.

If you want to be a member of a religion that believes homosexuality, adultery, masturbation, or working on the sabbath is a sin, then by all means, go right ahead ... what you can do is allow your church, or members of your church become involved in any kind of campaign that involves the revocation of human rights for people who have homosexual relations, commit adultery, masturbate, or work on the sabbath.

Many religions today would be classified as something akin to hate groups were they were to spew their backward hate speech under any other context than as a religion under *SPECIAL* protection by the constitution ... I say take away the special protection and treat them as any other organization when it comes to free speech.

The world you say you don't want to live in is one you already live in, only it's religion that you turn the blind eye towards ... I'm not saying we need to be "heavy handed" towards religions, just treat them as hate groups when they act like hate groups.

It's time to take back religion from the hate mongers ... time to take the "rocket launcher" we have (hate laws) and use it.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 08 April 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's time to take back religion from the hate mongers ... time to take the "rocket launcher" we have (hate laws) and use it.

If that's all you're advocating, then you can do that without shutting the churches down, as you suggested in your original post. You just arrest the individuals guilty of hate speech.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 08 April 2006 08:03 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Arrest the individual guilty of hate speech? And if that "individual" is associated with a religion that advocates that kind of hate speech?

What has to be done is take away the special protection of religion to spread hate ... once we do that and a religion still advocates hatred in their teachings, then I don't see much choice but to either "outlaw" that religion, or ignore the violation of the law.


We want equality, but we don't want to ruffle any feathers to get it ... in the meantime the hate mongers are getting away with murder ... literally.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 08 April 2006 08:39 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Many religions today would be classified as something akin to hate groups were they were to spew their backward hate speech under any other context than as a religion under *SPECIAL* protection by the constitution ... I say take away the special protection and treat them as any other organization when it comes to free speech.
All the more reason to git rid of authoritarian so-called 'hate speech' laws.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 08 April 2006 09:14 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How would getting rid of hate speech laws address the special protection of religions to spread, and act upon through political means, their message of hatred?
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 09 April 2006 02:17 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Arrest the individual guilty of hate speech? And if that "individual" is associated with a religion that advocates that kind of hate speech?
What has to be done is take away the special protection of religion to spread hate ... once we do that and a religion still advocates hatred in their teachings, then I don't see much choice but to either "outlaw" that religion, or ignore the violation of the law.


But if you make it illegal for the individuals to spread hate, then it becames inpossible for the religion to spread hate. Because the hateful teachings of the church are spread by individuals.

Let's say that some fringe leftist political party has a platform that calls for the working class to launch a violent attack on the bourgeoisie. And the leaders of that political party often give speeches in which they encourage their members to go around firebombing the homes of specific wealthy individuals. Now, you would probably agree with me that the leaders can and should be charged with incitment to violence. But do you want the entire political party to be outlawed?

And anyway, I'm curious about how your scheme to outlaw hateful relgions would work. Okay, the Bible Bumper Baptist Church of Asscrack Alberta refuses to stop preaching its anti-SSM position, so you outlaw the BBBC. But the congregation would likely just start meeting in someone's basement, to listen to exactly the same sort of sermons as before. So, what do you do then? Send CSIS agents undercover to join the congregation and arrest anyone for quoting the more offensive passages from Paul's Letter to the Romans?

Admittedly, it might be easier to spy on Muslims, since we've already got CSIS agents tailing their asses all over the place. Might as well get them doing double duty as the Tolerance Brigade, eh?

[ 09 April 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 09 April 2006 05:46 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
How would getting rid of hate speech laws address the special protection of religions to spread, and act upon through political means, their message of hatred?
It wouldn't. It would mean that you would actually be forced to live among some assholes with unpleasant beliefs instead of having the ability to round them up and incarcerate them.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 April 2006 06:17 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... and when those beliefs are used as a justification, even an incitement to violence? What then?
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 09 April 2006 07:17 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
... and when those beliefs are used as a justification, even an incitement to violence? What then?

Lots of beliefs get used as justifications for violence. The FLQ blew up mailboxes and murdered Laporte using Quebec sovereigntist rhetoric as their justification. Presumably, they wouldn't have been able to do this if Quebec sovereigntist rhetoric had been outlawed.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Heavy Sharper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11809

posted 09 April 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for Heavy Sharper        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Lots of beliefs get used as justifications for violence. The FLQ blew up mailboxes and murdered Laporte using Quebec sovereigntist rhetoric as their justification. Presumably, they wouldn't have been able to do this if Quebec sovereigntist rhetoric had been outlawed.


Or for that matter Marxism. The FLQ's political orientation was Marxist-Leninist-Mao thought-Castroist


From: Calgary | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 09 April 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:


But if you make it illegal for the individuals to spread hate, then it becames inpossible for the religion to spread hate. Because the hateful teachings of the church are spread by individuals.
{/quote]

But those individuals are now protected against such illegality if they do so as a representative of a religion and it's "legitimate" teachings.

[quote]
Let's say that some fringe leftist political party has a platform that calls for the working class to launch a violent attack on the bourgeoisie. And the leaders of that political party often give speeches in which they encourage their members to go around firebombing the homes of specific wealthy individuals. Now, you would probably agree with me that the leaders can and should be charged with incitment to violence. But do you want the entire political party to be outlawed?


Yes, I do agree, but the difference is, once again, that if someone where to make similar violent pronouncements and were able to point to such violence as being a tenant of their religion, then they would be protected by our constitution.

quote:

And anyway, I'm curious about how your scheme to outlaw hateful relgions would work. Okay, the Bible Bumper Baptist Church of Asscrack Alberta refuses to stop preaching its anti-SSM position, so you outlaw the BBBC. But the congregation would likely just start meeting in someone's basement, to listen to exactly the same sort of sermons as before. So, what do you do then? Send CSIS agents undercover to join the congregation and arrest anyone for quoting the more offensive passages from Paul's Letter to the Romans?


Just as the KKK and other hate spewing groups now do after they have been "outlawed" ... you mean like that? Sounds good to me, I never claimed a law would stop all religious hate crime. I think a lot of people fail to understand the purpose of laws, even the people who write them. Laws don't "stop" crime, they actually define crime. One could even say that until there is a law enacted there is no crime. The purpose of creating a law is to define the standard to which society will accept certain behaviours. No one but a fool believes that enacting a law will prevent a crime.

I'm not suggesting that we all of a sudden enact a law and then go around closing down all religions, but what I am suggesting is that we remove religions from special protection in the spread of hate speech and act upon any violations as we would any other group spreading hatred.

quote:

Admittedly, it might be easier to spy on Muslims, since we've already got CSIS agents tailing their asses all over the place. Might as well get them doing double duty as the Tolerance Brigade, eh?

CSIS is a joke, but instead of them going after terrorism that doesn't exist (until Harper finally manages to provoke it) maybe they could finally become a little bit useful and go after religious hate speech that definitely does exist ... all we have to do is make religious hate speech illegal as we do hate speech from any other organization or individual.

Of course, we would be careful as to how the implementation would be enacted ... I really don't care if they read passages from the bible that say homosexuality, adultery, eating fish on Friday, etc is a sin, as long as they don't start taking actions to force others to follow their teachings ... if they attempt to do so through political means, then they lose any official standing as a religion and all that means. If they attempt to do so through direct actions, or provoking it's followers to take direct action, then they should be considered a terrorist group, and treated as such.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 09 April 2006 03:29 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heavy Sharper:

Or for that matter Marxism. The FLQ's political orientation was Marxist-Leninist-Mao thought-Castroist


Except that Marxism or the FLQ rhetoric in and of itself is not "hate speech" ... but if a group acting under these labels start to preach hatred of a group based on their race, colour, religion, sex, orientation, etc. then that group should be considered a hate group, should it not? And as such the law could take action against such groups ... but if the same group were a religion, they would have special protection to spread their hate unencumbered by the law.

I think it's about time society smartened up and start removing the loopholes that let religion stick its nose into the business of politics.

Society is smart enough to be able to pt limits on the rights of political and social groups and their ability to spread hatred. I don't see the real issue with applying the same principles to religious groups as well.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca