# How can this NOT be obscene?



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/10/26/bc-postal.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Seems that the moral squad is allowed to spread hate because they disguise it under religion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's hate literature and I hope they are charged.

This is exactly why these groups should not enjoy tax exemptions - that's partly our tax dollars funding it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It's hate literature and I hope they are charged.
> 
> This is exactly why these groups should not enjoy tax exemptions - that's partly our tax dollars funding it.


What makes it hate literature? I haven't heard anything about advocating violence.

This isn't a clear line to draw. If you support freedom of speech, you also have to support it for groups and messages you don't like.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> What makes it hate literature? I haven't heard anything about advocating violence.
> 
> This isn't a clear line to draw. If you support freedom of speech, you also have to support it for groups and messages you don't like.


from the pamphlet, as per CBC article;


> The plague of this 21st Century: the consequences of the sin of homosexuality (AIDS).





> MP Svend Robinson was celebrating Wednesday after the House of Commons voted in favour of his private member's bill to extend hate-crimes protection to gays and lesbians.
> Bill C-250 passed by a vote of 143-110.
> ...
> The hate crimes law already makes it illegal to incite hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion or ethnicity, but not sexual orientation.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/09/17/hate030917.html


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

It is bad theology from stupid, cowardly people who are hiding their hatred behind their perversion of religion, but that section you quoted does not incite violence.


----------



## Candidate (Aug 23, 2006)

It is quite unacceptable.

I wonder how the church would react if a brochure was sent out reading:
'The plague of this 21st Century: the consequences of the Baptist religion (pedophilia).'


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

replace Baptist with Catholic and you got something there


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> It is bad theology from stupid, cowardly people who are hiding their hatred behind their perversion of religion, but that section you quoted does not incite violence.



RM, it only necessary to show that hatred is incited, not necessarily violence


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> What makes it hate literature? I haven't heard anything about advocating violence.
> 
> This isn't a clear line to draw. If you support freedom of speech, you also have to support it for groups and messages you don't like.


Hold on... I'm not calling it hate literature (although it clearly is). This is an example of blatantly obscene material being distributed through Canada Post. By your argument I could mail out 
graphic photos of men performing fellatio on each other to unsuspecting people. That isn't hate literature, so by your standard it is OK?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I could mail out graphic photos of men performing fellatio on each other


How do I subscribe to that mailing list?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Hold on... I'm not calling it hate literature (although it clearly is). This is an example of blatantly obscene material being distributed through Canada Post. By your argument I could mail out
> graphic photos of men performing fellatio on each other to unsuspecting people. That isn't hate literature, so by your standard it is OK?


I think the "graphic" part is what the current obscenity guidelines would cover. I don't know if they have many guidelines regardine obscene ideas, as those blocking those concepts is too close to censorship. I think the courts are eventually going to have help with this one (either this case, or some other similar one).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Hold on... I'm not calling it hate literature (although it clearly is). This is an example of blatantly obscene material being distributed through Canada Post. By your argument I could mail out
> graphic photos of men performing fellatio on each other to unsuspecting people. That isn't hate literature, so by your standard it is OK?


I think it is hateful as well, but nobody has convinced me it constitutes hate literature under our hate crime laws.

Graphic sexual photos would fall under other obsenity laws.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/280838.html

Worth reading for this discussion. It isn't that long.


----------



## Candidate (Aug 23, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I think it is hateful as well, but nobody has convinced me it constitutes hate literature under our hate crime laws.


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/280838.html

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.

Seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Candidate said:


> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/280838.html
> 
> 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
> ...


Yes, it is very clear, but your interpretation is out to lunch.

...where such incitement is likely to lead to breach of the peace...

Hatred is allowed. Breach of the peace is not. You have to prove it is LIKELY to lead to a breach of the peace. Show me where their document does this.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I doubt that it qualifies under current anti-hate laws, but it certainly is a clear example of why our tax dollars shouldn't be supporting these groups.

If you're a small-minded bigot, you should be free to donate your personal time and money to these groups, but society at large should not be forced to support them.

Similarly, if you're a small-minded bigot, you should be free to discuss your stupid beliefs with others who share your affliction, but Canadian tax payers shouldn't be paying to disseminate your stupidity.

Canada post should not be distributing these pamphlets.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Yes, it is very clear, but your interpretation is out to lunch.
> 
> ...where such incitement is likely to lead to breach of the peace...
> 
> Hatred is allowed. Breach of the peace is not. You have to prove it is LIKELY to lead to a breach of the peace. Show me where their document does this.


Don't you think gay and lesbians would be offended by the literature? I think it would be very likely that there would be a "breach of peace" when this hate-literature is delivered. Gay and Lesbian groups have traditionally been very vocal and will act accordingly, I am sure. That, to me, would be breach of peace.

Trev


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Candidate said:


> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/280838.html
> 
> 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
> ...


Read further into the link.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I doubt that it qualifies under current anti-hate laws, but it certainly is a clear example of why our tax dollars shouldn't be supporting these groups.
> 
> If you're a small-minded bigot, you should be free to donate your personal time and money to these groups, but society at large should not be forced to support them.
> 
> ...


This is the general argument behind funding/tax credits for many special interests groups. They're too "special" to warrant the use of public funds.

However, Canada Post, a public company, should not have such grey policies. If they're legal to distribute, it would overly politicise the institution, which has already had its share of political interference.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

TrevX said:


> Don't you think gay and lesbians would be offended by the literature? I think it would be very likely that there would be a "breach of peace" when this hate-literature is delivered. Gay and Lesbian groups have traditionally been very vocal and will act accordingly, I am sure. That, to me, would be breach of peace.
> 
> Trev


I hope gay and lesbian groups will be vocal about this and protest in front of that church. I'll be right there with them.

Protests hardly constitute breach of the peace. Breach of the peace would occur is violent acts were committed against gays or lesbians.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

TrevX said:


> Don't you think gay and lesbians would be offended by the literature? I think it would be very likely that there would be a "breach of peace" when this hate-literature is delivered. Gay and Lesbian groups have traditionally been very vocal and will act accordingly, I am sure. That, to me, would be breach of peace.
> 
> Trev


Too broad of an interpretation. I believe the breach refers to people who act on the purported hate, not against it, in my opinion. Otherwise that would make the test simply based on mobilising a large enough group of offended people.


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

Vandave said:


> What makes it hate literature? I haven't heard anything about advocating violence.
> 
> This isn't a clear line to draw. If you support freedom of speech, you also have to support it for groups and messages you don't like.


It's not free speech, it's clearly HATEFUL, and it's a piece of propaganda. Canada has hate laws, and though seldom used, this pamphlet is totally disgusting, and I feel this situation applies.

Are you telling me that if a representative from this Church knocked on your door and started spouting this at you, that you wouldn't be offended? What's the difference between a rep and and a pamplet that says the same landing in your mailbox?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If (big if) to ehmacers...

If the document is legal, should public servants/unions be allowed to not deliver it? This links into the flip-side of some civil servants not wanting to perform marriages for homosexual couples. If it is legal and it is their job, what to do?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

An Old Soul said:


> It's not free speech, it's clearly HATEFUL, and it's a piece of propaganda. Canada has hate laws, and though seldom used, this pamphlet is totally disgusting, and I feel this situation applies.
> 
> Are you telling me that if a representative from this Church knocked on your door and started spouting this at you, that you wouldn't be offended? What's the difference between a rep and and a pamplet that says the same landing in your mailbox?


I am amazed at how few people truly understand the concept of free speech. Being offended by a statement does not make that statement a breach of hate laws.

So, why are you asking me if I would be offended? It is completely IRRELEVANT.


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

This is a tasteless, hurtful, and ultimately meaningless piece of drivel, composed by small-minded, self-satisfied bigots. And it should be delivered because it _just_ misses advocating violence.

Free speech means that bullsh-t like this has to be allowed. That doesn't mean I have to like it, or endorse it. I hope there are protests, and the postal workers did the right thing by flagging this. 

But MacDoc is bang on; sectarian groups should not be given tax-free status. I wish Revenue Canada and the various provincial finance ministries would change their respective statutes and regulations to permit property taxes especially to be levied on "sacred" properties. I'm tired of carrying them!


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

If it is the absence of property tax that you are referring to by saying our tax dollars are supporting this, then OK. But I assure you this group paid standard postal rates for these to be delivered. There are no CP discounts for charities of any kind.

I was never disagreeing with whether this was hateful or not. I believe I even used the word. Just with whether it broke the hate laws or not. It is clearly close to the line, and it clearly encourages people to hate homosexuals. But I think Beej is right when he says we'll need a court to settle whether this is over the line or not. At first blush, it would appear not.

He also raises another excellent point that I thought of with my first post, but hoped would go away.  I've been more than a little vociferous in arguing that if you work for the state, you must carry out anything the state considers legal. Or chose to resign. I said that in connection with JPs who were refusing to do gay weddings. But, of course, this raises an excellent question. What about these postal workers? I may be willing to reconsider my position on this one.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> He also raises another excellent point that I thought of with my first post, but hoped would go away.  I've been more than a little vociferous in arguing that if you work for the state, you must carry out anything the state considers legal. Or chose to resign. I said that in connection with JPs who were refusing to do gay weddings. But, of course, this raises an excellent question. What about these postal workers? I may be willing to reconsider my position on this one.


My leaning is towards having the person do their job. The consequences of allowing people to refuse work is a Pandora's box. For example...Should vegetarian postal workers refuse to deliver advertisements for restaurants or stores that sell meat?

If we go down the path of allowing people to refuse work, we need a clear definition of what gives a worker the ability to make such a decision.


----------



## Candidate (Aug 23, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I am amazed at how few people truly understand the concept of free speech. Being offended by a statement does not make that statement a breach of hate laws.
> 
> So, why are you asking me if I would be offended? It is completely IRRELEVANT.


You are correct in that being offended does not necessarily classify a statement as hate speech.

You are incorrect in that Canada does NOT have legislation protecting freedom of speech. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are not the same thing.

In regards to the law:
"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"

"incite –verb. to stir, encourage, or urge on"
"hatred –noun. the feeling of one who hates; intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility."

So, would this literature be enough to "stir an extreme aversion" to homosexuals?

If we said "Vandave is the cause of AIDS", would this lead to some people hating you? Yes it would. Saying homosexuals are the cause of AIDS has the same effect. This literature is giving fuel to that hatred.

But that is only half of the equation. Is it likely to lead to a breach of the peace? Again, if we say "Vandave is the cause of AIDS" would you feel safe walking down the street? How about if we all stood around, pointing at you saying "He caused AIDS." How safe would you feel? That fear for your safety would be justified, because those statements could realistically incite other to commit acts of violence against you.

The Baptist Church has no facts. They are promoting their agenda through religious belief. When that agenda potentially causes harm to people, they have crossed the line. Shame on them.


----------



## Candidate (Aug 23, 2006)

Vandave said:


> SShould vegetarian postal workers refuse to deliver advertisements for restaurants or stores that sell meat?


Fire them!

If a person refuses to do their job when there is no legal reason for them not to, then fire them.

However, this situation should never have gotten to the point of the literature being in the hands of the postal carrier.

It is illegal in this country to distribute hate literature. These postal carriers has a reasonable assumption that delivering it was potentially illegal.

There are no laws regarding advertising juicy cuts of steak.


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

I agree with your position, Rev. They are employees of a Crown Corporation, so, after they noted their misgivings, and made their point, they went to work after hearing that the document met Canada Post guidelines. If they had flat-out refused to work, then they would have been wrong; historically consistent, but wrong!  

Public servants and officials cannot choose who and who not to serve. If it is your bailiwick, then you have to excute your duties.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Candidate said:


> That fear for your safety would be justified, because those statements could realistically incite other to commit acts of violence against you.


Why did you just change the standard of proof? You said 'could realistically' but the legislation uses the term 'likely'? Big difference.

Nothing they say is likely to incite violence or breach of the peace. There is no ACTION demanded by the church.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Chris said:


> Public servants and officials cannot choose who and who not to serve. If it is your bailiwick, then you have to excute your duties.


Too bad the religious nut bars will go to court when over perceived injustices...
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Brodbeck_Tom/2006/10/18/2058655.html


> Gay-marriage foe takes fight to court
> 
> Kisilowsky filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission in 2004 after the province informed all marriage commissioners -- once gay unions became legal -- that they had to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or hand in their licences.
> 
> Kisilowsky argued he was being discriminated against because the province refused to accommodate his religious beliefs.


----------



## Candidate (Aug 23, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Why did you just change the standard of proof? You said 'could realistically' but the legislation uses the term 'likely'? Big difference.
> 
> Nothing they say is likely to incite violence or breach of the peace. There is no ACTION demanded by the church.


Ultimately, this is for a judge and/or jury to decide. It's all a matter of legal interpretation. Hopefully somebody will take the Baptist church to court over this.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> What makes it hate literature? I haven't heard anything about advocating violence.
> 
> This isn't a clear line to draw. If you support freedom of speech, you also have to support it for groups and messages you don't like.


VD, imagine if you targeted Jews instead of homosexuals - I'd bet you would look at it differently.

I advocate free speech fully as long as it's applied the same to everyone. What I feel is that somehow we find it acceptable to target Gays (and muslims for that matter) and are ready to treat them as second class.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Too bad the religious nut bars will go to court when over perceived injustices...


That is not 'too bad' in the sense that the laws need clarifying. Sure it's annoying when the group is promoting something undesirable (subjective) but it is good for these things to go through the courts when the law isn't clear enough. These are complex and important issues, and saying it's "too bad" to work on defining the laws (either by a full string of court cases or rapid dismissal) misses the value of our institutions. Many "too bad" (as defined by a given group at a given time) cases were instrumental in developing our society based on political policy (and conflicts therein).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> That is not 'too bad' in the sense that the laws need clarifying. Sure it's annoying when the group is promoting something undesirable (subjective) but it is good for these things to go through the courts when the law isn't clear enough. These are complex and important issues, and saying it's "too bad" to work on defining the laws (either by a full string of court cases or rapid dismissal) misses the value of our institutions. Many "too bad" (as defined by a given group at a given time) cases were instrumental in developing our society based on political policy (and conflicts therein).


I disagree Beej. I think this law is very clear. It's simple. 

The complication arises from the situation and the application of the law to that situation. It is not possible for laws to address every possible situation, which is why they are written in a generic way. This is where a judge comes into play. They need to interpret the law. Over time, precedents are created that provide guidance to new situations. 

So, in my opinion, the law does not require clarification. It requires case history.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> VD, imagine if you targeted Jews instead of homosexuals - I'd bet you would look at it differently.
> 
> I advocate free speech fully as long as it's applied the same to everyone. What I feel is that somehow we find it acceptable to target Gays (and muslims for that matter) and are ready to treat them as second class.


Again, it doesn't matter how I look at it, or how society looks at it.

What matters is the law.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> This is where a judge comes into play. They need to interpret the law. Over time, precendents are created that provide guidance to new situations.
> 
> So, in my opinion, the law does not require clarification. It requires case history.


That is what I consider clarification, so we just seem to be using different language. Did you note, in the Federal code posted, the applicable defences? This requires clarity (case history, judicial guidance, etc.). Often politicians write unreasonably vague laws but I agree that in this case it looks pretty good. The 'system' needs to provide the next steps and, by our structure, that requires challenges. Challenges are not "too bad" even when frustrating. Still, I could see myself using that term in an off-the-cuff remark. 

AS, we should hug. :love2:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Candidate said:


> Ultimately, this is for a judge and/or jury to decide. It's all a matter of legal interpretation. Hopefully somebody will take the Baptist church to court over this.


And a butterfly in China COULD cause a huricane in Florida by flapping it wings. The sun is LIKELY to rise tomorrow. LIKELY means probable, COULD means possible.

Is it LIKELY that people are going to go and and gay bash because of this? No. I don't think we need a judge to interpret that.

This is a bad case to bring to court. I would bet a lot of money on the church winning. That just opens the doors for other idiots to send out similar literature. I would rather keep those people guessing where the boundary is. Human rights groups should be patient and wait for a clearly demonstrable case of hate crime propaganda.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I would bet a lot of money on the church winning.


Does anyone have a link to the document? Right now I think we're just going off the title, or a couple sentences. Still, I won't take that bet.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I think everyone including the church is entitled to state their opinions. Heck I don't agree with my church's stance of homosexuality but to each their own. Still it's good to see how tolerant people are towards gay and lesbian people now... this very article makes me proud to be Canadian, people are entitled to the freedom of speech, how they want to live, what they stand up for. There's a positive light to this. 

Now, where's SINC?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

After having had time to think about this more objectively, I'm starting to agree that the posties, however rightfully disgusted at the content, have no legitimate excuse not to deliver it unless a court rules that it's hate literature (and I think that's very unlikely).

However, I do hope a major sh*t storm lands on the doorstep of the Baptist church over this... I'll keep an eye open for protests in my neck of the woods, and support them enthusiastically. I hope their leadership are thoroughly and publicly humiliated for promulgating such bigoted crap.

But it's worth remembering in these cases that you only really believe in free-speech if you're willing to protect someone else's right to say things you find offensive. This is certainly such an occasion for me. But I have to agree they have every right to say what they want.

If I were a letter carrier, this would be a very tough pill to swallow.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dona:
The problem is you don't differentiate between a person and an institution.

The churches as institutions - just like banks - have both rights and responsibilities especially as they deem themselves to be moral guides and exemplars.

It's like Mackay - as a private citizen if he calls his ex a dog it's not a big deal - he's just a boor.

If as a Federal Minister he does it in the house and then lies about it - it's a big deal.

Context and "mantle of authority" is everything.

A guy or gal in a church pew ranting atbout "dem gays" is one thing. Stupid but hey it's one person

A minister is another entirely - moral authority - representative of an institution

Mailing leaflets promoting hatred and bigotry to the wider still another - that's way beyond the pale and good on the postal carriers for recognizing it and refusing it. :clap:

A stern warning should be issued to the head of the Baptist Ministry in Canada. Discipline the ******** or face the consequences.
Loss of tax exempt status should bring a bit of attention.
Overdue in my mind.

••••

Bryanc - say it was something clearly illegal - poison - I think there is a civic duty of care that the posties can rely on to refuse "harmful items" UNTIL a judge orders otherwise.....not the inverse.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> But it's worth remembering in these cases that you only really believe in free-speech if you're willing to protect someone else's right to say things you find offensive. This is certainly such an occasion for me. But I have to agree they have every right to say what they want.


The obvious quote:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm for the postal workers delivering it. I'd even go so far as saying I believe Canada Post should carry anything people care to put in an envelope. If that material leads to a crime being committed, then charge those responsible for sending it. The act of delivering it is neutral.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - the state has put limits on it.
Rights are granted and along with rights go responsibility.

••••

MF -- there is a "duty of care" concept for everyone if they believe a criminal act is being committed to prevent that act if possible within their bounds of responsibility.

It's one thing if it's hidden - another if a pamphlet or a poison is in plain view ( like evidence in plain view ).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Bryanc - say it was something clearly illegal - poison - I think there is a civic duty of care that the posties can rely on to refuse "harmful items" UNTIL a judge orders otherwise.....not the inverse.


It's not for the posties to decide. It's up to the management of Canada Post who should seek legal advice.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> A stern warning should be issued to the head of the Baptist Ministry in Canada. Discipline the ******** or face the consequences.
> Loss of tax exempt status should bring a bit of attention.
> Overdue in my mind.


By whom? As far as I can tell, they aren't breaking any laws.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - the state has put limits on it.
> Rights are granted and along with rights go responsibility.


Obviously, but still a quote on people's minds, I'm guessing. Rights being granted and the state are not by CP management or the union. Raising the issue is relevant, but refusing should become a court case; presumably through a 'wrongful dismissal' case or, on the other hand, 'censorship', however, as it stands, we've got an expensive in-between. Very Canadian. 

I'm guessing much of the basis for the "facts" are a misrepresentation of specific correlation meaning causality. If the courts toss that then many special interest groups are hooped. beejacon


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

I don't think you'll see gay and lesbian groups protesting against this. Gays and lesbians have fought very hard for a very long time to be able to speak and show and publicly deliver their own messages, and I'm sure that they would agree with Beej's already posted quote that although they may loathe the message, they will fight for everybody's right to communicate it.

Freedom is not often tidy, and is very often inconvenient
And the fight for freedom can create strange bedfellows. 

"You wouldn't be able to find one television station that would accept this ad mail as a 30-second advertising spot," said Henderson. "And yet Canada Post will take it. And their point is, 'If it's legal, we'll deliver it.' "
- As far as this message not being delivered in any other form, The Ottawa Citizen, the newspaper of this nation's capital city regularly carries a small ad by a local Baptist church which criticizes gays and "the homosexual lifestyle". The message is ridculous, but not illegal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Quotes from the same page, although I can't speak to their accuracy in being attributed to Voltaire (still nice quotes though):

..............
If the bookseller happens to desire a privilege for his merchandise, whether he is selling Rabelais or the Fathers of the Church, the magistrate grants the privilege without answering for the contents of the book. 
..............
It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. 
..............
Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense. 
..............
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
..............
What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature. 
..............
A witty saying proves nothing. 
..............


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I woud say as well that since Canada Post monopolizes the delivery of letter mail it is doubly obliged to carry the material.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Um SoyMac - think about it for a minute.
Gays have worked hard to establish THEIR rights......not to attack others.
Completely different.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Having trouble with "duty of care" MF ??

The mail carrier has responsibility AS the deliverer to undertake that harmful substances or illegal materials are NOT delivered.

Duty of care relies on common sense. If the carrier has a doubt it's well within their responsibility to refuse it just as they would any other "dangerous" good until such time as the material or substance is declared legal or safe.

Would you have the carrier knowingly deliver a bomb or a brick of heroin?? That's the logical outcome of your approach.

Just because it shows up in the mail does not mean its legal - especially to deliver and in particular to "Occupant".
Each representative of the Postal authority holds responsibility for mail in their hands and to know better than the average jill or joe what should be there or should not be....and to question anything the grey area.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SoyMac said:


> I don't think you'll see gay and lesbian groups protesting against this.


I just spoke with a friend who is gay and he doesn't think the community will do anything either.

He says most gays and lesbians believe there will always be a segment of the population that is intolerant to them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I woud say as well that since Canada Post monopolizes the delivery of letter mail it is doubly obliged to carry the material.


What, you dont' use UPS or courriers?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> What, you dont' use UPS or courriers?


It monopolizes LETTER MAIL.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Each representative of the Postal authority holds responsibility for mail in their hands and to know better than the average jill or joe what should be there or should not be....and to question anything the grey area.


Perhaps they should open them all first, just to make sure they're not carrying anything offensive.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It monopolizes LETTER MAIL.


No it does not - try another argument.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> there will always be a segment of the population that is intolerant to them.


yep and that's a very understanding and tolerant attitude but there is a difference between intolerant and attacking. A broadly circulated pamphlet is incitement, not intolerance.

Pilots, truckers you name it - they have and take responsibility and will refuse to fly or drive dangerous or illegal goods and will be backed to the hilt by their unions and rightly so.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF - reading challenged too..... "knowingly".
They are not charged to open or inspect mail beyond what is readily visible just as a police officer may not open things without your permission but can act on visible evidence showing a criminal activity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ilots, truckers you name it - they have and take responsibility and will refuse to fly or drive dangerous or illegal goods and will be backed to the hilt by their unions and rightly so.


In essence, this is the old argument that people given "the wrong material" may be incited to violence if they're allowed to read it, but it's a disingenuous argument to compare an explosive or something that can cause immediate physical damage with an idea--no matter how wrongheaded that idea might be.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suppose I might also ask the post office to stop delivering printed material that refers to alcoholic beverages, because some people might be inspired to consume them upon seeing them so lovingly photographed--and subsequently commit acts of violence.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps they should open them all first, just to make sure they're not carrying anything offensive.


I wonder what a Church in Ontario is doing sending 22 page brochures to BC.... does the church need new members that badly?

It's funny to see the right on this board go to such lenghts to defend homophobia mailings and blame posties for bringing up a problem. Of course you have some attacking unions...

Given that the church receives tax exceptions, this is in a way my dollars that are helping propagate their nonsense...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I wonder what a Church in Ontario is doing sending 22 page brochures to BC.... does the church need new members that badly?
> 
> It's funny to see the right on this board go to such lenghts to defend homophobia mailings and blame posties for bringing up a problem. Of course you have some attacking unions...


I guess that refers to me.  

What's new? I get libeled every other day here.

You don't get it. Nobody is defending the mailings. The defense is for freedom of speech (expression). Given some of your beliefs, you should be the first in line to defend free speech.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

A slightly different version:



> But Canada Post spokeswoman Colleen Frick had a different version, saying the only postie required to carry it on his route was being "intimidated" by his colleagues.
> 
> "He did not refuse it," she said. "He was basically intimidated into not delivering it and that's not appropriate."


canada.com

The pamphlet is the September edition of something called The Prophetic Word, which I assume is some kind of regularly produced piece of writing.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I guess that refers to me.


Actually, not this time - c'mon we have a rapport - when I'm slagging you, I call you VD.

Unless you somehow feel that it touches you someway... beejacon


ps when it's true, it's not libel


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Also, the pamphlet is published by the Fundamentalist Baptist Mission in Waterford, ON.

When it comes to baptists it is important to recognize that there is no "Baptist Church" in Canada, but rather a wide range of different churches and organizations that use the name.

There are 5 major baptist organizations in Canada and dozens of smaller or independent groups. With a name like Fundamentalist Baptist Mission I'd guess that it is independent...but that is just a guess (and it might not even be a church).

In other words, if you want to protest against your local baptist church because of this, they probably don't have anything to do with this pamphlet and many would likely feel it is inappropriate.

Ironically, while this thread discusses whether this pamphlet should be considered hate literature towards gays and lesbians, the only people that it seems to be generating hate towards is its creators.

Perhaps they should review Matthew 7.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

zoziw said:


> In other words, if you want to protest against your local baptist church because of this, they probably don't have anything to do with this pamphlet and many would likely feel it is inappropriate.


You mean it's zealots hijacking religion to be able to spout nonsense beejacon 


VD, I never implied that the brochure should be banned, just that there is a double standard here - because it's directed at gays and the posties took offense to it, many are attacking the posties for not delivering the mail.
Funny how this story Australian Muslim cleric blames women for rape seems to be picking up steam on it's own - could it be because it "them" against "us"...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> In other words, if you want to protest against your local baptist church because of this, they probably don't have anything to do with this pamphlet and many would likely feel it is inappropriate.


Well, yes and no. Given that we have no problem criticising all Muslims for not shouting down the looneys in their midst, then we should be willing to criticise all Christians who don't shout down the looneys in their midst.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I guess that refers to me.


Actually, I'm pretty much with you and MacFury on this one.

I sympathize with the posties who didn't want to deliver it, but if it's not illegal, they have no right to refuse it.

However, I would add that I'd like to see the nutbars behind the pamphlet publicly lampooned and ridiculed to the point where they're uncomfortable being out in public, but that's another issue.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i say good on the posties for bringing to the forefront
all employees should be allowed to question their orders once in a while

after all, how would anyone know if that questionable stuff is legal or not unless someone closely reviews it


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> Well, yes and no. Given that we have no problem criticising all Muslims for not shouting down the looneys in their midst, then we should be willing to criticise all Christians who don't shout down the looneys in their midst.


That kind of thinking will only create more radicals.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

bryanc said:


> However, I would add that I'd like to see the nutbars behind the pamphlet publicly lampooned and ridiculed to the point where they're uncomfortable being out in public, but that's another issue.
> 
> Cheers


Where's Borat when you need him?


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

I'll be watching for it in my letterbox...and file it accordingly


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm amazed at how many people here are afraid of the "idea" expressed in the mailing. Many fringe ideas benefit from being banned in just the way that's being recommended by some people here:

"Canda Post is afraid of the truth of our ideas. Why would anyone pay so much attention to our literature if the truth didn't frighten them so much?"

Canada resolved long ago that one couldn't rightfully stop the transmission between individual parties of material that was merely offensive. Interesting to see the "new Puritan" school of thought in full force--"This is offensive. Let's keep it out of the mail for the good of the community." The concept of free dissemination of ideas appears to be so unimportant that abrogating it in any way sufficient to eliminate this particular piece of mail is seen by some here as a worthwhile endeavour.

But if Canadians are cozying up to the concept that regulating ideas is a good business for Canada to get into, I suggest an immediate ceasefire on crticism of the U.S. for restricting freedoms in the name of security.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> That kind of thinking will only create more radicals.


Maybe, but I doubt it. And I didn't say anything about oppressing them or attacking them, only shouting them down. That is not only our duty as responsible citizens, it is our duty as Chrisitians. Although perhaps a quieter tone of voice than literally shouting, this cannot go unchallenged.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm amazed at how many people here are afraid of the "idea" expressed in the mailing.


Afraid is the wrong word... you might be afraid (we all know you fascination with all things related to the male bum). 

I am outraged. The outrage stems from the fact that if this behavior is allowed and tolerated then what is stop it from reaching the next step? What's to stop a group from mailing out material publicly condemning all muslims as being responsible for terrorism? Or stopping a group from claiming that all the good jobs are taken by asians? Or a group of lesbians claiming that all the evil in the world is perpetrated by men?

The ironic part of the whole situation is that in a successfully tolerant society, nobody is given the right to preach against others just because those others are different. 

Tolerance is earned and to be respected, something this group in Vancouver has failed to do.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The outrage stems from the fact that if this behavior is allowed and tolerated then what is stop it from reaching the next step? What's to stop a group from mailing out material publicly condemning all muslims as being responsible for terrorism? Or stopping a group from claiming that all the good jobs are taken by asians? Or a group of lesbians claiming that all the evil in the world is perpetrated by men?
> ........................
> nobody is given the right to preach against others just because those others are different.


That's what a court challenge would be needed for. But that's difficult. Who vs who? Common sense and decency don't have legal representation.  
........................
Actually, everyone has that right within certain limits that are net yet established by case history, for the topic at hand. Of course, having the right doesn't mean it should be exercised. Society is stronger for the existence of the right (with reasonable limits); people are stronger for using it (or not) wisely.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Tolerance is earned and to be respected, something this group in Vancouver has failed to do.


The Church in question is based in Ontario....


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> Maybe, but I doubt it. And I didn't say anything about oppressing them or attacking them, only shouting them down. That is not only our duty as responsible citizens, it is our duty as Chrisitians. Although perhaps a quieter tone of voice than literally shouting, this cannot go unchallenged.


Sorry Reverend, I'm too much of a sinner to run around bothering people not affiliated with this pamphlet about it.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I believe that all speech and expression should be free as long as it doesn't cross the line it harm or threats of harm.

The religious right are free to call homosexual sinners and homosexuals are free to call the religious right wackjob bigots.

However group A CANNOT say that group B should be shoot, beaten, run out of town, maimed, etc. Neither can group B say such things about group A.

This is my personal definition. I do not support the Canadian hate literature laws as they currently stand, as I feel they are too restrictive.

Part of democracy and personal liberty, is the freedom to criticize individuals and groups.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O: That's where I feel the issue should be but I don't mind the hate laws. I think they are a reasonable compromise based on the concept that there are enough nutters out there such that we all need to be a little restricted, just in case. I'd prefer it to be as you described, though were I a little less cynical. Of course, you're just another rightwinger weighing in.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Part of democracy and personal liberty, is the freedom to criticize individuals and groups.


NO it can't be that simple. By your argument it would be perfectly legitimate for say the Catholic Church to publicly advertise the inferiority of another religion... say Hindu's because they don't believe in the God of Abraham.

So lets take this a bit further... lets say they use their immense political and financial capital to take out full page ads in the Globe and Nation Post... and then take out 1 minute spots on TV...

How do you think the Hindu population would feel? How would they react?

The freedom we enjoy in our democracy is NOT the freedom to criticize individuals and groups... it is the freedom to believe what we want to, regardless of what other people think.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Too many people and organizations like churches wanting "rights" forget and the companion "responsibility".

If the same pamphlet were promoting smoking - it would be illegal period.
The head body of the Baptists need to have a conversation with the specific minister......or else the CCRA should with the head of the church as a reminder.

Individual bigotry is one thing......institutionalized is another entirely.
I don't believe any organization including churches should be exempt from any laws of the land including discrimination in the workplace.

Too much a free ride for too long with too little to show as positive for society. Time for a change in the status of religious organizations.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

While I think the pamphlet in question is offensive it should be delivered. I don't think posties should be the judge about what mail they deliver if it has been deemed legal. I really don't want to see a precedence started giving Canada Post options for censoring our mail. The posties should seek an injunction if they believe the material is illegal. Otherwise they should have to deliver it IMNSHO.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> If the same pamphlet were promoting smoking - it would be illegal period.
> The head body of the Baptists need to have a conversation with the specific minister......or else the CCRA should with the head of the church as a reminder.


As per my post on the last page, there are dozens of groups in this country using the term "Baptist" to describe themselves. There are 5 major organizations and literally dozens of smaller organizations and dozens of independent groups as well.

There is no "head body" and the Fundamentalist Baptist Mission sounds like it is likely an independent group that doesn't answer to anyone. We don't even know if this is a church, it might be an auxillary organization...it might even pay taxes like Concerned Christians Canada does.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> How do you think the Hindu population would feel? How would they react?


That's up for them to decide how they think, feel, and react. They would be free to use their own free speech and expression to address the statements against them. Other groups would also be free to defend the offended group. My idea would be that each group, any group, any individual could say what they want as long as it didn't threaten harm. If a person or group feels they are being harrassed by pamphets, they should follow up with harrassment charges, not hate literature charges.

I believe in freedom speech of people, even speech I don't agree with or that I find offensive. As a caveat, I do not believe corporate or commercial speech is protected as free speech as they are not people. Only people have free speech, not artificial institutions and constructs.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> That's up for them to decide how they think, feel, and react. They would be free to use their own free speech and expression to address the statements against them. Other groups would also be free to defend the offended group. My idea would be that each group, any group, any individual could say what they want as long as it didn't threaten harm. If a person or group feels they are being harrassed by pamphets, they should follow up with harrassment charges, not hate literature charges.
> 
> I believe in free speech of people, even speech I don't agree with or that I find offensive. As a caveat, I do not believe corporate or commercial speech is protected as free speech as they are not people. Only people have free speech, not artificial institutions and constructs.


You are missing the point and taking free speech to an extreme. To use our example there are less than 1 million Hindu's in Canada and well over 5 million Catholics... Given the clear advantage in numbers what if they started advertising that all Hindu's will burn in Hell (or less inflammatory)... not go to heaven. That is clearly a hateful thing to say, but by your definition since they aren't threatening harm that is a perfectly legitimate thing to say?

Now if you are Hindu how does that make you feel? Hurt does not just mean or imply the threat of physical violence. What happens when one group disparages another group solely based on their differences?

Free speech does not give you or anyone the right to say thing that are hurtful. It is not a panacea which allows you to shed your social responsibility.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Sorry Reverend, I'm too much of a sinner to run around bothering people not affiliated with this pamphlet about it.


Who said anything about bothering people not affiliated? You did an excellent job of pointing out the non-unity of the churches that gather under the name of Baptist. This one congregation, however, should be called to account.

One does not have to be perfect in order to offer criticism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Free speech does not give you or anyone the right to say thing that are hurtful. It is not a panacea which allows you to shed your social responsibility.


It DOES give you the right to say things that are hurtful. As Beej noted, using that right carefully and judiciously is part of civil behaviour. If we started to base our laws on how people felt, then we could take anything to court based on our feelings.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Sorry RevMatt, your response here:

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=471781&postcount=71

had me thinking that you were endorsing criticizing all baptists (and Christians) unless they specifically took time to shout down the actions of what is likely a small group.

Of course, whatever free speech issues are on the table with respect to this mailing, from a Christian perspective this kind of writing is theologically off base and entirely inappropriate.

Regrettably, if they are independent, as I suspect, they aren't accountable to any larger community and would likely interpret any criticism as a sign of wickedness in the world.

If a United Church minister showed up to criticize them they would likely view that as a reward from God.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> You are missing the point
> ..
> Free speech does not give you or anyone the right to say thing that are hurtful.


Is that second statement something you wish to be true, believe to be true or know to be true? Actually, that applies to the first point too. 

Sued for hurting someone's feelings...think relationships; family dinners; painful truth; satire etc. There are exceptions and common law is a living and evolving standard, but I hope the standard doesn't become more totalitarian in its control of language. 

No has the right to not have their feelings hurt except under specific conditions that generally bring in other elements (e.g. libel). Divorce law may be greying this but the general statement you made is not true, to my knowledge. 

I wish nxnw were still hanging around here.


----------

