PDA

View Full Version : The People's Republic of Canada's Stalinesque "Human Rights" Commission show trial



Capablanca-Fan
12-06-2008, 03:53 PM
The Kafkaesque Show Trial of Mark Steyn (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-kafkaesque-show-trial-of-mark-steyn/)

At a surreal tribunal last week, ancient liberties came under assault from the Canadian thought police.

Kathy Shaidle, 11 June 2008

Author and columnist Mark Steyn’s week-long trial for “hate speech” began in a British Columbia courtroom on June 2.


As previously reported in Pajamas Media, Steyn was accused of “flagrant Islamaphobia” after his bestselling book America Alone was excerpted in Canada’s oldest newsweekly magazine, Maclean’s, in 2006.

If found guilty by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Maclean’s could be ordered to stop publishing Steyn’s column, or other articles “likely” to expose Muslims to “hatred or contempt.” In other words, a magazine that’s been published for over a century in an ostensibly free Western nation will now be subject to state sanction and preemptive censorship. Canadian Human Rights Tribunals boast a 100% conviction rate on such “hate speech” cases, and have already handed down lifetime bans against the likes of Rev. Scott Boision. That Christian preacher is now forbidden for life from ever citing Bible verses regarding homosexuality in his sermons, or “in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet.”


Musing on his surreal circumstances, Steyn wrote in what may be one of his last columns for Maclean’s (http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080604_84794_84794&page=1):


By the way, I see I’ve been nominated for a National Magazine Award, to be handed out later this month. By then, Mr. Joseph [the complainants’ lawyer] will have succeeded in getting the B.C. troika effectively to ban me from Maclean’s and from all Canadian journalism. An impressive achievement. My book was a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, and the new paperback edition was at No. 4 the other day, and President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Jon Kyl, and (at last count) six European prime ministers have either recommended the book or called me in to discuss its themes.

But in Canada it’s a hate crime.


Most defendants at such show trials end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation as well as various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant. This is the PRC's idea of "fairness".

Of course, if Mark Steyn were attacking Christianity instead of radical Islam, the Leftmedia would defend his right to free speech without censorship. But the Leftmedia in the West are almost silent on this farcical show trial (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2008/06/11/media_ignore_that_gagging_sound_from_canada).

Axiom
12-06-2008, 04:52 PM
Free speech held hostage by tribunal

For five depressing days in a nondescript courtroom in Vancouver last week, one of the most important rights in Canada -- the right to free speech -- was repeatedly kicked in the head.

It was a shocking, demeaning and unsettling spectacle that would be more at home in a totalitarian state than a country that claims to be a liberal democracy. But the attack on Maclean's magazine for daring to publish the Oct. 20, 2006 article, The Future Belongs To Islam, was entirely permissible under British Columbia's human rights laws. It is time those regulations, indeed the nation's human rights regulations, are rewritten. Much depends on this.

The hearing before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal came in direct response to complaints made against Maclean's by two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress. It is obvious that those two individuals, one of whom is congress president Mohamed Elmasry of Waterloo, were sincerely offended by the article in question.

It is equally obvious they were using a system created by democratically elected politicians to seek redress. This system, not the two men's ruffled feelings, is what Canadians should object to.

Over the course of the week, the tribunal panel heard the complainants' lawyer argue that the Maclean's article was inaccurate, that it offended and hurt the feelings of Canadian Muslims and that it incited prejudice against this group. The panel was told, too, that the article was hateful and contemptuous of Muslims.

These are serious complaints. But surely they miss the point about freedom of speech. In one sense, freedom is its own defence and the greatest justification of all for what Maclean's did.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that "everyone has . . . freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.'' The charter does not extend this freedom only to viewpoints that are accurate. And in any case, who are the members of a tribunal panel to determine the truth of a subject as massive as that as the role of militant Islam in the world today? Nor does the charter grant free speech only to those who do not offend, affront or cause anger. If that were the case, the nation's newspapers would be filled with white space and its airwaves silence.

To be sure, free speech for individuals and the media is circumscribed by the laws of defamation, contempt of court and hate speech. But none of those laws has been arrayed against Maclean's. No court of law, which would convict only after proof had been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, has been asked to consider if the magazine violated Canada's hate-speech laws. No court of law, overseen by a judge and operating on more stringent standards of procedure and admissibility of evidence than a human rights tribunal, has been involved at any time.

Instead it has been left to an administrative, quasi-judicial tribunal, a group of suited bureaucrats, to weigh the right of free speech in a nation of 33 million people against the rights of two complainants who claim, without any compelling evidence, to speak for a large number of Canadian Muslims.

In a free and open society, the kind of society Canada wants and claims to be, citizens have the liberty to discuss important and controversial subjects. In 2008, in the aftermath of attacks launched by Islamic extremists against the United States, Britain and other countries, it is imperative that Canadians learn about and talk about this great global faith and the violent minority who would hijack it. That discussion will be difficult, even rancorous at times.

But if it proceeds, it will lead to greater mutual understanding for all. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is impeding this discussion and the operation of a free press. The powers of this and other such tribunals should be curtailed so that the discussion goes on -- and true free speech in Canada survives.
http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/article/363925

Axiom
12-06-2008, 05:08 PM
Please would you link to a source?
yes certainly ,will edit above ,....
jono - you might be interested in this , that i just unearthed
http://www.tpuc.org/node/107

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2008, 05:15 PM
“For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant’s right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, “the process is the punishment” in these star chambers—for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing. — Ottawa Citizen | Suing for silence | 9 December 2007

See also Canadian Human Rights Commission EXPOSED! (http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/)

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2008, 09:07 PM
I've read the Steyn article. In brief, it was about Islam taking over Western nations peacefully by outbreeding their dominant ethnicities. It was certainly paranoid (rather like Hanson's guff about Asians swamping Australia, albeit marginally more intelligent). It was certainly biased and xenophobic and may well have reinforced or stimulated bias and xenophobia, and it tended to use the "not every Muslim is a terrorist" line in a way that made it quite clear the author considered eight-tenths of Muslims to be gung-ho for Osama. But I don't see why it should be the subject of legal process. Actually it was as much as critical of the West as it was of Islam, and, as far as pieces that are biased, xenophobic and paranoid go, it wasn't really abusive, uncivil or hateful, nor did it use language in a manner that greatly compounded the inflammatory nature of the views being expressed. I'm not sure it would be illegal under Tasmania's relevant laws for instance, since they contain exceptions for matters written in good faith for the public interest - and I suspect the determining factor for such things is the intent of the writer.

What I would like to know though is this: if someone links to Steyn's piece on Chesschat, could Canadians be banned from accessing the site, and as a result of that, could Arrogant-One be prosecuted for a hate crime every time he signs up a hydra? :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2008, 12:28 AM
Also, a lot of the most offensive things in Steyn's article were from Muslim leaders themselves!

But if there was anything wrong, then it should be answered by sound logic, not by threats or censorship.

Capablanca-Fan
08-12-2009, 08:14 PM
Canadian Lifetime Speech Ban Lifted (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDIyZTc4OWZhZmEyNzJhMGVkNzg4NzFkMWNhYTlmMjk=)
Mark Steyn, 5 Dec 2009

A couple of years back, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin committed the crime of writing a letter to a local newspaper objecting to various aspects of "the homosexual agenda." The Alberta "Human Rights" Tribunal convicted him of this crime and imposed a lifetime speech ban preventing him, in essence, from saying anything about homosexuality in public or private ever again anywhere for the rest of his life.

The Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta has now struck down this outrageous decision. Mr. Justice Wilson's ruling could not be plainer. He rejects all the Tribunal's punishments as "illegal," not least the speech ban:


The direction to cease and desist the publishing of "disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals' is beyond the power of the Panel. "Disparaging remarks"were not defined by the Panel. But clearly, "disparaging remarks" are remarks much less serious than hateful and contemptuous remarks and are quite lawful to make. They are beyond the power of the Act to regulate and the power of the Province to restrain.

Goughfather
08-12-2009, 08:32 PM
This would appear to suggest that the original decision was at fault, not the legislation, per se, given that the decision has been corrected at appeal.

Jono, you might want to reconsider using the term "Stalinesque" given that it is somewhat of a gross exaggeration and rather insensitive to the millions of people who died under this regime.

I must confess that whatever one's perspective is on the limits of free speech, it's not really a good look to see Christians fight for the right to be racist, homophobic and otherwise prejudiced against minority groups. We saw this in the Victorian legislation where conservative Christians championed the cause of Catch the Fire Ministries, before realising that they were a pretty poor horse to back.

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2009, 10:05 PM
While throwing the original finding out on virtually every ground the appeal judgement (which I have read in full and it appears to be a very considered and well argued judgement overturning a very shoddily and cluelessly conducted case) found correctly of Rev Boissoin's letter that:


That the language may be jarring, offensive, bewildering, puerile, nonsensical and insulting may admit of little doubt.

which is a marginally polite way of saying that the Reverend Boissoin is a fruitcake and an idiot.

It is also notable that the appeal judgement endorsed the Godwin's Law type line I have run here against spurious Nazi (/Hitler/Stalin/fascist etc) comparisons:


Similarly the panel ought to have made some mention of ignoring the controversial and hurtful innuendo contained in Crown Counsel's cross-examination of the defence expert which suggested that the content of the letter had some sort of parallel to Mein Kampf. Being compared to Adolf Hitler is no minor accusation to be levelled against anyone. It is offensive and damning if not proven.

Yet Jono is quite happy to throw about hyperbolic and ludicrous comparisons to Stalin, Hitler and the Nazis, and did so with regards Stalin in the title of this thread.

He also criticises Godwin's Law, even though such Nazi comparisons are the absolute epitome of intellectual crassness ("crass" being a call Jono usually deploys with great readiness).

Spiny Norman
09-12-2009, 04:05 AM
which is a marginally polite way of saying that the Reverend Boissoin is a fruitcake and an idiot.
and its also a way of saying "I don't agree with your beliefs". This whole sorry mess (Canada's experience) is what I fear happening in Australia if the hand-wringers and black armband brigade get their way and introduce an Australian Bill of Rights. I should have the right to express my views; and those that disagree with me should also be able to express theirs. As long as it is (a) just words, not actions; and (b) the words do not incite to violent actions ... then I think pretty much anything should be able to be discussed, promoted, and criticised.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2009, 08:28 AM
This would appear to suggest that the original decision was at fault, not the legislation, per se, given that the decision has been corrected at appeal.
Not at all. It is still grossly unjust that one professing "aggrieved" party, at no cost, can impose huge costs and time expenditures on another party. It is also crass that offending or disparaging something can be a crime.


Jono, you might want to reconsider using the term "Stalinesque" given that it is somewhat of a gross exaggeration and rather insensitive to the millions of people who died under this regime.
The control of people's thoughts and show trials are things they had in common, so stop being so hypersensitive. Leftism is truly the philosophy of the easily offended.


I must confess that whatever one's perspective is on the limits of free speech, it's not really a good look to see Christians fight for the right to be racist, homophobic and otherwise prejudiced against minority groups.
Who said anything about racist, fearing the same or prejudiced against minorities? How about fighting for the government to stay out of what people say unless it incites violence? Also, such legislation usually undermines equality under the law by creating politically appointed victim groups; e.g. homosexuals insulting christians is OK, milder insults to Christians by homosexuals results in being hauled before these kangaroo courts. Also, bureaucracies by their very nature expand, so the cases they hear become wider and wider. E.g. in Australia, there are simply not enough racists to cause problems, so the human rights grievance lobby wants to extend their reach. Even worse (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/call-to-switch-onus-on-racist-offences/2008/04/04/1207249461190.html):


Race Discrimination Commissioner Tom Calma wants the burden of proof in cases of racial discrimination to fall on the alleged offender, instead of the person making the complaint. Mr Calma said Australia's laws made it difficult to prove there had been discrimination.

A Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission analysis of other countries, including the US, Britain and Canada, shows that in those countries the onus of proof shifts to the person who has been accused of discrimination once the complainant has established an initial case.

In Australia, the burden of proof rests on the person making the complaint.

What does a lefty lawyer type do when leftist sacred cows conflict with a foundational legal principle such as presumption of innocence?


We saw this in the Victorian legislation where conservative Christians championed the cause of Catch the Fire Ministries, before realising that they were a pretty poor horse to back.
Again, here is a case of a trumped up charge that led to the first judge making absurd comments about religion that were outside his purview and field of expertise. It also cost the defendants lots of money in court costs. It is irrelevant what the Dannys have done since then; they were still right in this case.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2009, 08:33 AM
While throwing the original finding out on virtually every ground the appeal judgement (which I have read in full and it appears to be a very considered and well argued judgement overturning a very shoddily and cluelessly conducted case)
It was, but the whole law is crass, since it imposes no costs on complainants and huge costs on defendants, and has a very low standard of evidence.


which is a marginally polite way of saying that the Reverend Boissoin is a fruitcake and an idiot.
Not a legal argument. And this should not be punishable by a fine and gagging—it should not even go before a court in the first place.


Yet Jono is quite happy to throw about hyperbolic and ludicrous comparisons to Stalin, Hitler and the Nazis, and did so with regards Stalin in the title of this thread.
Fining or imprisoning people for religious speech that incited no violence, then prohibiting said speech is something they had in common.

Goughfather
09-12-2009, 04:28 PM
Not at all. It is still grossly unjust that one professing "aggrieved" party, at no cost, can impose huge costs and time expenditures on another party. It is also crass that offending or disparaging something can be a crime.


Firstly, it's not a criminal offence.

Secondly, as the appeal judgment shows, mere offence or disparagement does not constitute an offence under the legislation.

Your crass attempt at representing the legal implications of this legislation illustrates quite clearly why such analysis should be better left to those with even the slightest grounding in jurisprudence.


The control of people's thoughts and show trials are things they had in common, so stop being so hypersensitive. Leftism is truly the philosophy of the easily offended.

In what sense are people's thoughts being controlled? I don't see anyone getting prosecuted for what they think.

As for being hypersensitive, I'm probably more offended by the ridiculous nature of your argument and your need and/or compulsion to resort to comparisons with Stalin.



Who said anything about racist, fearing the same or prejudiced against minorities? How about fighting for the government to stay out of what people say unless it incites violence? Also, such legislation usually undermines equality under the law by creating politically appointed victim groups; e.g. homosexuals insulting christians is OK, milder insults to Christians by homosexuals results in being hauled before these kangaroo courts. Also, bureaucracies by their very nature expand, so the cases they hear become wider and wider. E.g. in Australia, there are simply not enough racists to cause problems, so the human rights grievance lobby wants to extend their reach.

Of course you don't see what is said as being racist, homophobic or prejudiced against minorities. This is half the problem with you literalists.


What does a lefty lawyer type do when leftist sacred cows conflict with a foundational legal principle such as presumption of innocence?

Which leftist sacred cows are you talking about?


Again, here is a case of a trumped up charge that led to the first judge making absurd comments about religion that were outside his purview and field of expertise. It also cost the defendants lots of money in court costs. It is irrelevant what the Dannys have done since then; they were still right in this case.

While I respect the appeal judgment and concede on that basis that their conduct did not fall within the scope of the legislation, there is no question in my mind that the Dannys made comments intended to inflame religious tensions and that they did not do so in good faith. Their conduct throughout that case was appalling and even went so far as to try to argue that Islam was not a religion, such was their profound dishonesty.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2009, 05:13 PM
Firstly, it's not a criminal offence.
It's still very costly and intimidating. Irrelevant objection.


Secondly, as the appeal judgment shows, mere offence or disparagement does not constitute an offence under the legislation.
It's extremely costly and intimidating even to get this far. It has already chilled debate.


Your crass attempt at representing the legal implications of this legislation illustrates quite clearly why such analysis should be better left to those with even the slightest grounding in jurisprudence.
Prove me wrong then, instead of you pathetic attempts at arguments from authority.


In what sense are people's thoughts being controlled? I don't see anyone getting prosecuted for what they think.
This pastored was ordered not to preach on a topic. Obviously one can't control thoughts literally. But for all practical purposes they are controlled if one is streng verboten to speak one's mind.


As for being hypersensitive, I'm probably more offended by the ridiculous nature of your argument and your need and/or compulsion to resort to comparisons with Stalin.
Stop being a lefty wuss. Nothing I say imposes huge costs on people who disagree with me, unlike the Human Rights Gedankenpolizei of the People's Republic of Canada.


Of course you don't see what is said as being racist, homophobic or prejudiced against minorities.
It isn't. The derivation of homophobe suggests "fear of the same", but we all know how ludicrously ignorant you are of Greek :lol:

And there was nothing racist at all. But even that should not be punishable by law unless it incites violence. Better to refute racist silliness, including Holocaust denial, by argument and even ridicule than by court action.


This is half the problem with you literalists.
What literalists?:uhoh: :hmm: :eek:


Which leftist sacred cows are you talking about?
Bill of Rights, protection of politically appointed victim groups above other in line with identidy politics.


While I respect the appeal judgment and concede on that basis that their conduct did not fall within the scope of the legislation, there is no question in my mind that the Dannys made comments intended to inflame religious tensions
Like what? The original judge Higgins made gross errors in fact. And the religious tensions were inflamed by the court case, not what was meant to be a talk to Christians. The worst thing the Dannys did was apparently make the Christians laugh; how shocking. They even told the Christians to love Muslims:

"We have to love them".

"Love should be not only in theory, in word, but should be shown in practice. You invite them for (a) cup of tea. You invite them for dinner, for lunch."

"Of course do not criticise their culture . . . We should not criticise their dress . . . Don't be afraid of (the) Koran . . . there are a lot of things in (the) Koran, which are very similar from (the) Bible."

The main "offence" was quoting the Koran.

But Judge Higgins spruiked that they:


“failed to differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, that he preached a literal translation of the Quran and of Muslims’ religious practices which were not mainstream”.

So I should stay out of legal questions completely, but judges can pontificate on religious matters? Daniel Scot is a former Muslim himself, so knows better than this christophobic judge.


and that they did not do so in good faith.
Irrelevant. Section 9 of the Act says a “person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant”.


Their conduct throughout that case was appalling
Justice Nettle's statements in his appeal decision disagree; GF is just once again showing his lack of objectivity when it comes to love for leftist sacred cows and hatred of true (i.e. biblical) Christianity:


"I have listened to the tape recording of the Seminar... Unlike [Judge Higgins], however, I was unable to perceive from the tape anything in the manner of Pastor Scot's delivery which rendered his statements more likely to incite the audience to hatred and other relevant emotion of or towards Muslims. To the contrary, as it seemed to me, what one hears is a speaker who, although endowed with an admirable command of the English language, speaks it as a second language with all the difficulties which that sometimes entails. I hear a degree of nervousness in delivery, a pattern of speech which is idiomatically incongruous and consequent double entendre which the speaker sounds not to have intended. Admittedly, his style is given to ridicule in places, and the ridicule results in cynical laughter at places. But on any analysis his plea to love Muslims and to "minister" to them comes across as sincere enough as do the sounds of his audience's reaction to it."


and even went so far as to try to argue that Islam was not a religion, such was their profound dishonesty.
What are you on about? But even if you're right, the correct response is refutation, not court. The anti-vilification laws have incited conflict, not solved it. But extra litigation is good news for lawyer types. but there was no problem to solve. In March 2001, just months before the Government passed its laws, the then chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission said: “I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that suggests that discrimination is increasing.” As Andrew Bolt points out (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/pastors-toil-and-trouble/story-e6frfifx-1111112714204):


“Pity our discrimination police. In 2001, they finally got these juicy laws to jail racists, but small problem: Victorians still refused to be rude. Indeed, we were so nice to each other that a year later the EOC conceded just five people in the entire state had complained of any religious vilification at all in the previous 12 months. Five. The EOC couldn’t accept the obvious — that we are decent — and claimed instead that people must have been too scared to complain. And, by heavens, it would fix that. Over the next year the EOC taught nearly 10,000 Victorians, particularly Muslims and Arabs, about the new vilification laws – and how to complain.”

Kevin Bonham
09-12-2009, 05:57 PM
and its also a way of saying "I don't agree with your beliefs".

It may say that as well and I assume that it does. Clearly it says much more than just that.


This whole sorry mess (Canada's experience) is what I fear happening in Australia if the hand-wringers and black armband brigade get their way and introduce an Australian Bill of Rights. I should have the right to express my views; and those that disagree with me should also be able to express theirs. As long as it is (a) just words, not actions; and (b) the words do not incite to violent actions ... then I think pretty much anything should be able to be discussed, promoted, and criticised.

I think the comments by Boissoin are not that far from inciting violence actually. There is an explicit call to take "whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness". There is no explicit suggestion that such action should be confined to actions that are legal. As Justice Wilson found in his appeal, potential to incite is still a matter that needs to be demonstrated based on evidence in court, and it may well be that Boissoin's comments have no innate capacity to incite - but if so I suspect that the main reason is that they are such a pile of longwinded incoherent babble.

I am sceptical about a Bill of Rights on the grounds that such Bills tend to include too many rights that are sometimes then "protected" overzealously, but equally I don't see any merit in protecting a "right" to spout brain-damaged homophobic babble like Boissoin's. That said I don't see that much point in wasting state resources prosecuting him either.

Goughfather
09-12-2009, 06:04 PM
Prove me wrong then, instead of you pathetic attempts at arguments from authority.

I did this, by showing you (a) that contrary to your claim, this is not a criminal offence; and (b) that contrary to your claim offence and disparagement are not illegal. If you want to argue about the legal merits of such legislation, I'd at least urge you to get the most elemental facts right first.


This pastored was ordered not to preach on a topic. Obviously one can't control thoughts literally. But for all practical purposes they are controlled if one is streng verboten to speak one's mind.

Nothing stops him from having those thoughts.


Stop being a lefty wuss. Nothing I say imposes huge costs on people who disagree with me, unlike the Human Rights Gedankenpolizei of the People's Republic of Canada.

If you want to circumvent reasonable debate with your crass comparisons with Stalin, then go ahead. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.


It isn't. The derivation of homophobe suggests "fear of the same", but we all know how ludicrously ignorant you are of Greek :lol:

As you literalists seem to be blissfully unaware of, the meaning of a term is influenced by the way in which it is commonly used.


Bill of Rights, protection of politically appointed victim groups above other in line with identidy politics.

Some groups, because of their minority status are in more need of protection than others. However, there was nothing inherent in the Victorian legislation that prevented Christians from making a complaint.


Like what? The original judge Higgins made gross errors in fact. And the religious tensions were inflamed by the court case, not what was meant to be a talk to Christians. The worst thing the Dannys did was apparently make the Christians laugh; how shocking. They even told the Christians to love Muslims:

"We have to love them". ...

A few platitudes doesn't compensate for an otherwise derisive speech.


So I should stay out of legal questions completely, but judges can pontificate on religious matters? Daniel Scot is a former Muslim himself, so knows better than this christophobic judge.

The law is an interdisciplinary animal. But of course it is recognised that the judiciary is not trained in all matters of science, culture and religion. Which is why evidence is provided by those who are, such as Gary Bouma.

What does it matter if Daniel Scot calls himself a "former Muslim"? It's pretty clear that ever since the death of his brother (or was it his cousin?) at the hands of some Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan, he has been on a crusade to undermine Islam.

If Scot appeal to his status as a former Muslim, can I appeal to my status as a former evangelical as justification for my perspective?


Irrelevant. Section 9 of the Act says a “person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant”.

Again incorrect. Section 11 provides an exception for religious debate, in which case "good faith" is indeed relevant.


Justice Nettle's statements in his appeal decision disagree; GF is just once again showing his lack of objectivity when it comes to love for leftist sacred cows and hatred of true (i.e. biblical) Christianity:

Any form of Christianity that labels itself as being "true" or "biblical" seems to protesting too much, most likely out of a sense of insecurity and is likely to be neither.



“Pity our discrimination police. In 2001, they finally got these juicy laws to jail racists, but small problem: Victorians still refused to be rude. Indeed, we were so nice to each other that a year later the EOC conceded just five people in the entire state had complained of any religious vilification at all in the previous 12 months. Five. The EOC couldn’t accept the obvious — that we are decent — and claimed instead that people must have been too scared to complain. And, by heavens, it would fix that. Over the next year the EOC taught nearly 10,000 Victorians, particularly Muslims and Arabs, about the new vilification laws – and how to complain.”

I'd rather pity Andrew Bolt. The very fact that there were so few actions taking place seems to suggest that the threshhold to meet vilification is much higher than that promoted by those alarmists who make comparisons with Stalin.

Kevin Bonham
09-12-2009, 06:28 PM
Not a legal argument.

It wasn't intended as one. It was intended for the purposes of pointing out that the outcry here is not about expression that has the slightest intellectual or any other value. By all means, we should discuss the question of whether the free speech of this sort of nutter should be protected, and whether attempts to limit it have exceeded their scope, but we should be clear about what sort of speech we are protecting here and how utterly worthless and irrational it is.


Fining or imprisoning people for religious speech that incited no violence, then prohibiting said speech is something they had in common.

So? This behaviour has occurred with respect to various modes of religious and anti-religious speech in innumerable polities down the ages. It was not invented by Stalin, is not unique to Stalinism (indeed, political systems are more remarkable if they lack it), and it is not one of the primary defining characters of why Stalinism is so widely despised today. If these trials are "Stalinist" because (questionably) non-incitory speech supposedly motivated by views on "religion" can be suppressed in them, then so were/are blasphemy laws and so are all religious institutions that have ever supported such laws and have failed to publicly admit that doing so was illiberal and wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2009, 06:33 PM
I did this, by showing you (a) that contrary to your claim, this is not a criminal offence; and (b) that contrary to your claim offence and disparagement are not illegal. If you want to argue about the legal merits of such legislation, I'd at least urge you to get the most elemental facts right first.
More pontificating. The fact remains is that non-violent speech can be penalized with heavy fines and restictions on future speech.


As you literalists seem to be blissfully unaware of, the meaning of a term is influenced by the way in which it is commonly used.
I don't know any literalists; my best-selling books point to the need to take its grammatical-historical context and usage into account. But "homophobia" is a nonsense term.


Some groups, because of their minority status are in more need of protection than others.
Equal protection under the law is foundational to justice. Politically appointed victim groups makes a travesty of this. It's a form of legal "affirmative action", even more disastrous than other forms of this evil policy (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2183) which has made a mess all around the world (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3010426.html). And many of these "victim groups" are anything but, in terms of income, prestige, political power etc.


However, there was nothing inherent in the Victorian legislation that prevented Christians from making a complaint.
Some thought that Christians should complain about their vilification by islamofascists, homonazis and atheopaths, and thus "appeal to Caesar" to their advantage. My view is that it's a bad law, and we shouldn't give it any credence.


A few platitudes doesn't compensate for an otherwise derisive speech.
Where was the derision? And more to the point, where was the incitement to hatred or violence, since derision should not be a matter for the courts.


What does it matter if Daniel Scot calls himself a "former Muslim"? It's pretty clear that ever since the death of his brother (or was it his cousin?) at the hands of some Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan, he has been on a crusade to undermine Islam.
Who is to say that these Islamic fundamentalists didn't have the right exegesis of the Koranic text? Certainly not an ignoramus like Higgins. And certainly it should not be a matter for courts anyway.


If Scot appeal to his status as a former Muslim, can I appeal to my status as a former evangelical as justification for my perspective?
By all means—and you won't be taken to court!


Any form of Christianity that labels itself as being "true" or "biblical" seems to protesting too much, most likely out of a sense of insecurity and is likely to be neither.
Or out of a sense of fact and abhorrence for counterfeits.


I'd rather pity Andrew Bolt. The very fact that there were so few actions taking place seems to suggest that the threshhold to meet vilification is much higher than that promoted by those alarmists who make comparisons with Stalin.
His whole point was that there wasn't a problem, but lefties wanted to solve it by an imposing bureaucracy and court crackdowns on free religious expression. As shown, the vile anti-vilification bill incited inter-religious problems rather than solving them.

Goughfather
09-12-2009, 07:40 PM
More pontificating. The fact remains is that non-violent speech can be penalized with heavy fines and restictions on future speech.


The classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill and the "harm principle" was established before psychology had developed to the point where we could appreciate the impact of hate speech upon victims. You may want to check out the writings of Mari Matsuda on the subject.

Perhaps there should be exemptions for literalists who are mentally incapable of toning down their speech and/or lack the requisite communication skills to construct arguments in a much less emotionally charged manner?


Equal protection under the law is foundational to justice.

We may all have right to protection under the law, but the way in which this protection is applied may differ. For instance, we protect minors by implementing age of consent law because we realise that such individuals require protection from unscrupulous adults.


Some thought that Christians should complain about their vilification by islamofascists, homonazis and atheopaths, and thus "appeal to Caesar" to their advantage. My view is that it's a bad law, and we shouldn't give it any credence.

Then don't. But don't claim that the law discriminates against you given that you would potentially have this option available to you.


Where was the derision? And more to the point, where was the incitement to hatred or violence, since derision should not be a matter for the courts.

Oh, come on. Even though you play down the significance of Christians laughing at Muslims, you can't deny that this demonstrates a conscious attempt to ridicule Muslims from the speaker.


Who is to say that these Islamic fundamentalists didn't have the right exegesis of the Koranic text? Certainly not an ignoramus like Higgins. And certainly it should not be a matter for courts anyway.

At least an ignoramus like Higgins had evidence brought before him, unlike an ignoramus such as yourself. You seem to have sidestepped this point, which I addressed in my last post.


By all means—and you won't be taken to court!

But I have had my right to free speech curtailed by evangelicals in the past and often by those who have whinged about their right to belittle and demean others being suppressed.


Or out of a sense of fact and abhorrence for counterfeits.

No, not out of a sense of fact. People have access to the Bible and to church tradition - if that 200 year old construct known as evangelicalism was really "true" and "biblical" Christianity, they wouldn't need the petulant insistence of evangelicals to know that this was the case.


His whole point was that there wasn't a problem, but lefties wanted to solve it by an imposing bureaucracy and court crackdowns on free religious expression. As shown, the vile anti-vilification bill incited inter-religious problems rather than solving them.

As you've again omitted, these "lefties" created a specific exception for religious debate conducted reasonably and in good faith. Shows what you know.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 12:01 AM
I must confess that whatever one's perspective is on the limits of free speech, it's not really a good look to see Christians fight for the right to be racist, homophobic and otherwise prejudiced against minority groups.

Indeed; if a nutter like Boissoin not being allowed to embarrass himself, his faith (if any sincerely held) and his species by promulgating his worthless and offensive gibberings is some kind of critical blow against religious freedom then that hardly gives the impression that it is worth defending anyway.

Perhaps Jono is concerned about the silencing of Boissoin and others like him being the "thin end of the wedge".

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 06:40 AM
Indeed; if a nutter like Boissoin not being allowed to embarrass himself, his faith (if any sincerely held) and his species by promulgating his worthless and offensive gibberings is some kind of critical blow against religious freedom then that hardly gives the impression that it is worth defending anyway.
But is it worth attacking?


Perhaps Jono is concerned about the silencing of Boissoin and others like him being the "thin end of the wedge".
Pretty much. As well as the concern about still more expansion of bureaucracy and the "small laws".

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 07:19 AM
The classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill and the "harm principle" was established before psychology had developed to the point where we could appreciate the impact of hate speech upon victims.
The problem is that "hate speech" makes some politically appointed victims more important than others. E.g. white-on-black killings are "hate crimes", but apparently not black-on-white (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5086), even if racially motivated. Another example is killing of homosexual Matthew Shepard (for drugs not homosexual advances as it turned out (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1288709/posts)), which already resulted in the maximum penalty under existing laws. But Mary Stachowitz was brutally murdered by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez (http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher112602.asp) in anti-Christian rage, but apparently this was no hate crime.


We may all have right to protection under the law, but the way in which this protection is applied may differ. For instance, we protect minors by implementing age of consent law because we realise that such individuals require protection from unscrupulous adults.
Totally different. We have laws against discrimination on basis of sex, race and orientation, and the same should apply to victims of crime.


Then don't. But don't claim that the law discriminates against you given that you would potentially have this option available to you.
But not in practice.


Oh, come on. Even though you play down the significance of Christians laughing at Muslims, you can't deny that this demonstrates a conscious attempt to ridicule Muslims from the speaker.
How terrible; we need laws to stop Christians laughing. While we are at it, ban all the comedians like Dave Allen and Rowan Atkinson who poke fun at the church and provoke far more laughter (including from me).


At least an ignoramus like Higgins had evidence brought before him, unlike an ignoramus such as yourself. You seem to have sidestepped this point, which I addressed in my last post.
Isn't that even worse? He had evidence, but the appeals court found that he had ignored some of the Two Danny's talk, and quoted other parts out of context. So this undermines your adulation of legal elitists.


But I have had my right to free speech curtailed by evangelicals in the past and often by those who have whinged about their right to belittle and demean others being suppressed.
I doubt that you were taken to court. I doubt even that the evangelicals concern had any power to curtail anything, except what occurs in their own meetings.


No, not out of a sense of fact. People have access to the Bible and to church tradition — if that 200 year old construct known as evangelicalism was really "true" and "biblical" Christianity, they wouldn't need the petulant insistence of evangelicals to know that this was the case.
There is an insistence because of the bellyaching by liberals and atheists. And as shown, the tenets of evangelicalism, such as inerrancy of Scripture, go back right to the beginning of church history.


As you've again omitted, these "lefties" created a specific exception for religious debate conducted reasonably and in good faith. Shows what you know.
Apparently this "exception" hasn't worked very well, as shown by the Canadian case and the two Dannies, since the "in good faith" can depend on the whim of the judge. I would also argue that an "exception" shows that the law concerned is an ass.

Desmond
10-12-2009, 11:20 AM
my best-selling books ...Book sellers' translation of good-better-best is best-best-best.

Goughfather
10-12-2009, 11:59 AM
Indeed; if a nutter like Boissoin not being allowed to embarrass himself, his faith (if any sincerely held) and his species by promulgating his worthless and offensive gibberings is some kind of critical blow against religious freedom then that hardly gives the impression that it is worth defending anyway.


As worthless and as offensive as we might see Boissoin's ramblings, there are an unfortunate number of conservative Christians who found his words resonated with them. There were many more who generally agreed with Boissoin's general argument, but suggest that they would have perhaps addressed the issue more tactfully. I'm sure Jono probably fits within one of these two categories.


Perhaps Jono is concerned about the silencing of Boissoin and others like him being the "thin end of the wedge".

Well, yes. There were a great number of conservative Christians who saw the Victorian legislation as a threat to their right to proselytise, citing the Catch the Fire Ministries case as proof of this. This wasn't even abated when a subsequent decision affirmed clearly that the right to proselytise was not affected by the legislation and the proselytism did not come under the scope of prohibited conduct. It does seem to me, that one really has to rethink their faith if ridicule of Islam and gay-bashing is central to one's gospel presentation.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 12:17 PM
As worthless and as offensive as we might see Boissoin's ramblings, there are an unfortunate number of conservative Christians who found his words resonated with them. There were many more who generally agreed with Boissoin's general argument, but suggest that they would have perhaps addressed the issue more tactfully. I'm sure Jono probably fits within one of these two categories.
All irrelevant smears, typical of the Lefty Anointed (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1295h.asp). What should matter is: how many homosexuals have been bashed because of them? Merely taking offense should not be a matter for the courts.


Well, yes. There were a great number of conservative Christians who saw the Victorian legislation as a threat to their right to proselytise, citing the Catch the Fire Ministries case as proof of this. This wasn't even abated when a subsequent decision affirmed clearly that the right to proselytise was not affected by the legislation and the proselytism did not come under the scope of prohibited conduct.
Yet some proselytism of the truth of A entails the falsehood of not-A, and holders of not-A might take offense at this. When being offended becomes a matter for the courts, free speech and robust debate is curtailed.


It does seem to me, that one really has to rethink their faith if ridicule of Islam and gay-bashing is central to one's gospel presentation.
What a sensitive little soul you are. And content of one's gospel presentation should not be a matter for the courts, as much as lawyer types lick their finger at the prospect of extra litigation money.

Goughfather
10-12-2009, 12:25 PM
The problem is that "hate speech" makes some politically appointed victims more important than others. E.g. white-on-black killings are "hate crimes", but apparently not black-on-white (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5086), even if racially motivated. Another example is killing of homosexual Matthew Shepard (for drugs not homosexual advances as it turned out (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1288709/posts)), which already resulted in the maximum penalty under existing laws. But Mary Stachowitz was brutally murdered by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez (http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher112602.asp) in anti-Christian rage, but apparently this was no hate crime.

You're taking the word of Matthew Shepard's killers at face value? The same killers who raised the "gay panic" defence at trial? The same killers whose girlfriends gave evidence at trial that they were plotting to rob a gay man that night?

And it's correct that the Stachowitz was no hate crime. Gutierrez killed because of his objection to being criticised by Stachowitz, not because she was a Christian.


Totally different. We have laws against discrimination on basis of sex, race and orientation, and the same should apply to victims of crime.

Not different at all. It goes straight to the point of recognising that more vulnerable members of society require additional protection.


But not in practice.

Well, that's debatable.


How terrible; we need laws to stop Christians laughing. While we are at it, ban all the comedians like Dave Allen and Rowan Atkinson who poke fun at the church and provoke far more laughter (including from me).

Dave Allen and Rowan Atkinson are comedians, not ministers purporting to give an accurate appraisal of Islam. And nothing is wrong with laughing per se, otherwise a lot of people on this forum would be in trouble for their reaction to your arguments. The issue is the vilification and the marginalisation of vulnerable groups in society.


Isn't that even worse? He had evidence, but the appeals court found that he had ignored some of the Two Danny's talk, and quoted other parts out of context. So this undermines your adulation of legal elitists.

Not at all. The appeal system recognises that there are some decisions that need to be corrected.


I doubt that you were taken to court. I doubt even that the evangelicals concern had any power to curtail anything, except what occurs in their own meetings.

I may well have been, if I'd said anything the least bit actionable. Besides, my point was in highlighting the hypocrisy of those who have gone out of their way to silence me in the past while whinging about their own right to free speech being eroded.


There is an insistence because of the bellyaching by liberals and atheists. And as shown, the tenets of evangelicalism, such as inerrancy of Scripture, go back right to the beginning of church history.


I don't see anything like a systematic understanding of this concept in early Church history, let alone your mind-numbing literalism.


Apparently this "exception" hasn't worked very well, as shown by the Canadian case and the two Dannies, since the "in good faith" can depend on the whim of the judge. I would also argue that an "exception" shows that the law concerned is an ass.

Another comment demonstrating that you are completely out of your depth when discussing matters of legal import. Exceptions are an important part of any legislation i.e. controlled delivery of drugs, medical operations, etc.

Goughfather
10-12-2009, 12:32 PM
All irrelevant smears, typical of the Lefty Anointed (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1295h.asp). What should matter is: how many homosexuals have been bashed because of them? Merely taking offense should not be a matter for the courts.

...

Yet some proselytism of the truth of A entails the falsehood of not-A, and holders of not-A might take offense at this. When being offended becomes a matter for the courts, free speech and robust debate is curtailed.


As I've said repeatedly, mere offence is not actionable under the legislation. Apparently, you just don't want to listen.


What a sensitive little soul you are.

In what sense do you make this crude allegation? I'm merely pointing out that even in my evangelical days, "No gays allowed" was not one of the Four Spiritual Laws. Perhaps things have changed since then.


And content of one's gospel presentation should not be a matter for the courts, as much as lawyer types lick their finger at the prospect of extra litigation money.

Another crass argument. Most lawyer types, myself included, do not stand to make a cent out of such legislation.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 12:38 PM
As I've said repeatedly, mere offence is not actionable under the legislation. Apparently, you just don't want to listen.
Because you're talking bollocks. Many of the complainants are really due to someone being offended, without the slightest evidence that there was the slightest danger of violence.


In what sense do you make this crude allegation? I'm merely pointing out that even in my evangelical days, "No gays allowed" was not one of the Four Spiritual Laws. Perhaps things have changed since then.
Should not be legally actionable; this is freedom of association.


Another crass argument. Most lawyer types, myself included, do not stand to make a cent out of such legislation.
But some will, and lawyer types stick together. Hence in the Obamovcare "reforms", there was deliberately nothing to curb the ambulance chasing that drives up costs, because trial lawyers donate so much to the Dems.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 12:53 PM
You're taking the word of Matthew Shepard's killers at face value? The same killers who raised the "gay panic" defence at trial? The same killers whose girlfriends gave evidence at trial that they were plotting to rob a gay man that night?
And you take them at face value during their defence. And even that doesn't mean they planned to kill a gay man. And once again, under existing laws, that defence did them no good and they were given maximum sentences. So "hate crimes" laws" (as opposed to "love crime" laws no doubt) are a load of bollocks: they protect no one, and merely legislate inequality of victims of crime.


And it's correct that the Stachowitz was no hate crime. Gutierrez killed because of his objection to being criticised by Stachowitz, not because she was a Christian.
He was specifically angry at the Christian faith behind her criticism. And if you want hate, look at the homosexuals who thought that she got what she deserved.

Once again, this shows how the lefties decide that some victims are less important than others.


Not different at all. It goes straight to the point of recognising that more vulnerable members of society require additional protection.
Yet they get it under existing laws. And who decides "vulnerability"? Mary Stachowicz was vulnerable enough to have used extra protection. Again, it's politically apointed victim groups who may not be vulnerable at all. Yet homosexuals threatened Californian churches who supported marriage = one man + one woman.


Well, that's debatable.
How likely is it that a Christian would win a case even against the most vile abuse of Christians by atheopaths and homonazis?


Dave Allen and Rowan Atkinson are comedians, not ministers purporting to give an accurate appraisal of Islam.
Doesn't matter: they are making fun of people's deeply held religious beliefs, and not even in good faith as ministers.


The issue is the vilification and the marginalisation of vulnerable groups in society.
More lefty piffle. The promoters care not for vilification and the marginalisation of conservative Christians, for example. But we prefer to fight our own battles rather than squeal to the courts to do it for us.


Not at all. The appeal system recognises that there are some decisions that need to be corrected.
Yet this Higgins blatantly quoted the Dannys out of context, yet unlike the Dannys faced no penalty.


I may well have been, if I'd said anything the least bit actionable.
The point is that robust debate about religion or politics should not be actionable. Attacking someone's beliefs should not be equated to attacking the person (as Judge Nettle said in the Two Danny's appeal).


Besides, my point was in highlighting the hypocrisy of those who have gone out of their way to silence me in the past while whinging about their own right to free speech being eroded.
Paranoid nonsense: a particular group has the right of association and what speech to listen to. "Free speech" means that there is no government punishment for it, not that someone is forced to listen to you.


I don't see anything like a systematic understanding of this concept in early Church history,
We know about your absurd understandings of Church history with your forays into Greek.


let alone your mind-numbing literalism.
The Göbbels tactic again. And it's mind opening, as opposed to your dogmatic leftist interpretive grid. There is copious evidence right from the Church Fathers that they believed Scripture said = God said, so it could not be mistaken on anything.


Another comment demonstrating that you are completely out of your depth when discussing matters of legal import.
Another comment illustrating the Lefty Anointed tactic of unfounded intellectual snobbery and dismissal rather than refutation.


Exceptions are an important part of any legislation i.e. controlled delivery of drugs, medical operations, etc.
Different issues. When it comes to an issues like this, if we have to make religious exemptions

Goughfather
10-12-2009, 03:54 PM
And you take them at face value during their defence. And even that doesn't mean they planned to kill a gay man. And once again, under existing laws, that defence did them no good and they were given maximum sentences. So "hate crimes" laws" (as opposed to "love crime" laws no doubt) are a load of bollocks: they protect no one, and merely legislate inequality of victims of crime.

Why do you persist in trying to make arguments about legal matters when it is clear that you simply do not have the background to speak in an informed manner about the subject? The defence didn't work because the defence wasn't bought by the jury. I'm not sure about the relevant position in Wyoming, but I suspect that it is at least similar to Australia, where "homosexual advance defence" is a partial defence (dropping a charge of murder to that of manslaughter) where it can be established on the balance of probabilities that the offender had latent suppressed homosexual tendencies and killed the victim because of unwanted advances.

I'm not saying I accept the defence at face value, I'm simply saying that given the original defence, their subsequent representations should be treated with some suspicion, especially given the independent testimony of their girlfriends. Whether they wanted to kill Shepard or just rob him, it is quite clear that he was targeted as a victim *because* he was gay.


He was specifically angry at the Christian faith behind her criticism.

Rubbish. If it was a Muslim or even a particularly strident person of no religious faith making the criticism, they would have received the same treatment.


Yet they get it under existing laws. And who decides "vulnerability"? Mary Stachowicz was vulnerable enough to have used extra protection. Again, it's politically apointed victim groups who may not be vulnerable at all. Yet homosexuals threatened Californian churches who supported marriage = one man + one woman.

See above.


How likely is it that a Christian would win a case even against the most vile abuse of Christians by atheopaths and homonazis?

That's not clear. When a case is taken before the Tribunal, we'll see.


Doesn't matter: they are making fun of people's deeply held religious beliefs, and not even in good faith as ministers.

Again, failing to see my point. As a comedian, the audience knows not to take your commentary too seriously. But if you pretend to be an informed minister, your words will tend to hold a lot more weight.


More lefty piffle. The promoters care not for vilification and the marginalisation of conservative Christians, for example. But we prefer to fight our own battles rather than squeal to the courts to do it for us.

Oh, cry me a river Jono, if you honestly think that Christians are seriously marginalised in Western society. Simply more of the victim complex which seems to be endemic in evangelical circles.


Yet this Higgins blatantly quoted the Dannys out of context, yet unlike the Dannys faced no penalty.

I'm not sure that the appeal judgment suggests any ill will on behalf of Judge Higgins. Why should Higgins face a penalty for simply getting his decision wrong, when we have a judicial structure that tacitly acknowledges the fallibility of the judiciary?


Paranoid nonsense: a particular group has the right of association and what speech to listen to. "Free speech" means that there is no government punishment for it, not that someone is forced to listen to you.


It's broader than that and includes the issue of censorship.


We know about your absurd understandings of Church history with your forays into Greek.

And we all know about your absurd understanding of academic integrity.

Really, to hold one mistake I made months ago about a particular text against me whenever you get criticised really is pathetically weak.


Another comment illustrating the Lefty Anointed tactic of unfounded intellectual snobbery and dismissal rather than refutation.


Different issues. When it comes to an issues like this, if we have to make religious exemptions

Given that you seem to be unable to write complete sentences, let alone understand elementary legal concepts, I think it would be best if I did not waste my time responding to your ill-informed commentary on legal issues in future. I'll address your arguments in other areas as I see fit.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 06:28 PM
The defence didn't work because the defence wasn't bought by the jury.
And all without "hate crimes" law too.


I'm not saying I accept the defence at face value, I'm simply saying that given the original defence, their subsequent representations should be treated with some suspicion, especially given the independent testimony of their girlfriends. Whether they wanted to kill Shepard or just rob him, it is quite clear that he was targeted as a victim *because* he was gay.
From your sentence, they could have targeted this particular person who happened to be gay.


Rubbish. If it was a Muslim or even a particularly strident person of no religious faith making the criticism, they would have received the same treatment.
But in this case, it was specifically the Christian faith of Mary Stachowitz that was the target of Nicholas Gutierrez' hatred. Or do you think this was a love crime?

Let's face it: you leftards would be screaming if Gutierrez was heterosexual and Stachowicz were a lesbian, showing that you care only for certain classes of victim.


Oh, cry me a river Jono, if you honestly think that Christians are seriously marginalised in Western society. Simply more of the victim complex which seems to be endemic in evangelical circles.
Of course: the hate rhetoric by the Sydney Gay parade and the Californian gay protesters outside churches was far greater than anything Boisson did, but they are in no danger of prosecution. A number of Christians have been fired for crossing the Gay-Stapo (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2008/08/19/fat_lesbians_on_crack), or prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Gedankenpolizei as with Boisson, and even imprisoned in the case of 63-year-old Pastor Åke Green under Sweden's homonazi laws. It's the militant gays who are crying rivers about non-existent danger and persecution.


Simply more of the victim complex which seems to be endemic in evangelical circles.
It's the secular and churchian left who obsess about creating victimitis. E.g. demanding anti-vilification laws even though there were hardly any cases of racial and religious vilification (only 5 complaints in the year before the Vic law was imposed), screaming for hate-crimes laws although the attackers of their favorite victims already received the maximum penalties under existing laws. But the left needs these victim groups for votes, so is happy to create the illusion.


I'm not sure that the appeal judgment suggests any ill will on behalf of Judge Higgins.
Yet he showed gross incompetence in quoting the Dannys out of context, and overweening arrogance in presuming to pronounce on the correct interpretation of the Koran.


Why should Higgins face a penalty for simply getting his decision wrong, when we have a judicial structure that tacitly acknowledges the fallibility of the judiciary?
There is something very dangerous when one party can impose huge costs on another with no penalty for being wrong.


And we all know about your absurd understanding of academic integrity.
What would you know? Because I reject evolution from goo to you via the zoo and globull warm-mongering?


Really, to hold one mistake I made months ago about a particular text against me whenever you get criticised really is pathetically weak.
You're the one who invokes a presupposed intellectual superiority, yet you've been exposed as a bluff artist.


Given that you seem to be unable to write complete sentences,
I'm the author of best-selling books (about a million copies), while you're a lefty who writes a blog, so I won't take writing advice from you.:P

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 07:01 PM
What should matter is: how many homosexuals have been bashed because of them?

Or people falsely assumed to be gay as is quite often the case with "gay-bashings"?

I doubt the case against Boissoin would have gone so far were it not the case that a 17-year old male involved with Boissoin's youth groups homophobically assaulted a gay male shortly after Boissoin's letter was published. Was there a connection? We don't know; it was not adequately tested in court as unfortunately the basher was not called as a witness and questioned.

The whole area of determining what causes gay-bashings is tricky. Rants like Boissoin's are an obvious target for restriction because they are easily identified and restricted, and they certainly create fear that bashings will occur. But the whole corellation/causation thing is always difficult; to what extent do idiotic rants trigger violence (including indirectly) and to what extent are both ranting and violence symptoms of an underlying culture (which in turn is caused how?)



Perhaps Jono is concerned about the silencing of Boissoin and others like him being the "thin end of the wedge".
Pretty much. As well as the concern about still more expansion of bureaucracy and the "small laws".

Thanks for the clarification. I'll contrast this with my own attitude towards fringe-atheists like CC's own antichrist. It's my understanding that AC has in the past been involved in demonstrations in which he confronts religious gatherings with placards bearing references to "666" and so on.

Supposing that AC gets himself into legal trouble and perhaps gets dealt with excessively by police as a result of those campaigns, I might say that I don't agree with that treatment, depending on the exact issues. But at the same time I would point out that AC was cruising for trouble, was not making any significant point and really only had himself to blame. I wouldn't see a case like that as the thin end of the wedge of freedom of anti-religious objection because, so far as the important part of the debate about what sorts of potentially offensive things atheists should be allowed to say or do is concerned, AC's behaviour is just irrelevant.

I'm surprised that in criticising this case and the laws under which it was (incorrectly) brought, you haven't bothered to indicate any view of the merit or otherwise of Boissoin's letter itself.

Goughfather
10-12-2009, 07:03 PM
And all without "hate crimes" law too.


*Jono's Legal Opinion ("J-LO")*


From your sentence, they could have targeted this particular person who happened to be gay.

How do you come to this conclusion?


But in this case, it was specifically the Christian faith of Mary Stachowitz that was the target of Nicholas Gutierrez' hatred.

Wrong. I've addressed this already.


Let's face it: you leftards would be screaming if Gutierrez was heterosexual and Stachowicz were a lesbian, showing that you care only for certain classes of victim.

If she was killed *because* she was a lesbian, then yes. If she was killed regardless of the fact that she was a lesbian, then no.


Of course: the hate rhetoric by the Sydney Gay parade and the Californian gay protesters outside churches was far greater than anything Boisson did, but they are in no danger of prosecution. A number of Christians have been fired for crossing the Gay-Stapo (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2008/08/19/fat_lesbians_on_crack), or prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Gedankenpolizei as with Boisson, and even imprisoned in the case of 63-year-old Pastor Åke Green under Sweden's homonazi laws. It's the militant gays who are crying rivers about non-existent danger and persecution.

Which hate rhetoric are you talking about? A Fred Nile float?


It's the secular and churchian left who obsess about creating victimitis. E.g. demanding anti-vilification laws even though there were hardly any cases of racial and religious vilification (only 5 complaints in the year before the Vic law was imposed), screaming for hate-crimes laws although the attackers of their favorite victims already received the maximum penalties under existing laws. But the left needs these victim groups for votes, so is happy to create the illusion.

Sure, because the gay community plan to flock to the Right and vote for a political party that despises them?


Yet he showed gross incompetence in quoting the Dannys out of context, and overweening arrogance in presuming to pronounce on the correct interpretation of the Koran.

*J-LO*


What would you know? Because I reject evolution from goo to you via the zoo and globull warm-mongering?

No, because you claim that support for a position from articles in journals without even bothering to read the article in its entirely. For shame.


You're the one who invokes a presupposed intellectual superiority, yet you've been exposed as a bluff artist.

When have I done this?


I'm the author of best-selling books (about a million copies), while you're a lefty who writes a blog, so I won't take writing advice from you.:P

So you've tapped into a market of similarly literate literalists from the Deep South of America. That might prove your business nous, but it hardly earns you a Pulitzer.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 07:09 PM
But in this case, it was specifically the Christian faith of Mary Stachowitz that was the target of Nicholas Gutierrez' hatred.

What is your evidence that it was her Christian faith specifically, as opposed to her attempts to criticise his sexuality and lifestyle, her hectoring manner on the subject and the fact that she reminded him of his mother with whom he had issues?

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 07:53 PM
Or people falsely assumed to be gay as is quite often the case with "gay-bashings"?
OK, where are these?


I doubt the case against Boissoin would have gone so far were it not the case that a 17-year old male involved with Boissoin's youth groups homophobically assaulted a gay male shortly after Boissoin's letter was published. Was there a connection? We don't know; it was not adequately tested in court as unfortunately the basher was not called as a witness and questioned.
That should have been the crime that was prosecuted. After all, it is already against the law to assault people.


I'm surprised that in criticising this case and the laws under which it was (incorrectly) brought, you haven't bothered to indicate any view of the merit or otherwise of Boissoin's letter itself.
As long as Boisson didn't hurt anyone or encourage other people to hurt anyone, he should not have been prosecuted. The merits of his letter should not be an issue.

antichrist
10-12-2009, 08:13 PM
.................
Thanks for the clarification. I'll contrast this with my own attitude towards fringe-atheists like CC's own antichrist. It's my understanding that AC has in the past been involved in demonstrations in which he confronts religious gatherings with placards bearing references to "666" and so on.

Supposing that AC gets himself into legal trouble and perhaps gets dealt with excessively by police as a result of those campaigns, I might say that I don't agree with that treatment, depending on the exact issues. But at the same time I would point out that AC was cruising for trouble, was not making any significant point and really only had himself to blame. I wouldn't see a case like that as the thin end of the wedge of freedom of anti-religious objection because, so far as the important part of the debate about what sorts of potentially offensive things atheists should be allowed to say or do is concerned, AC's behaviour is just irrelevant.

I'm surprised that in criticising this case and the laws under which it was (incorrectly) brought, you haven't bothered to indicate any view of the merit or otherwise of Boissoin's letter itself.

As stated in earlier post in rince mince you have to read between the lines at what I am getting at. It is also a matter of horses for courses. It is no use using intellectual arguments to fundamentalists - even the Bible warns against that. One must use their language and mentality. Also in protesting one is severely limited in what short snappy message one can get across. I am surely there to provoke and get the headlines - that is all one can hope for in such circumstances. Just as I provoked Jews with swastika = Star of David sign.

The 666 sign was used most effectively against the Pope, and that was relevant coz the papacy is accused of by the prodos of being the Anti-Christ.

When I used against the prodos a deaf and mute woman was so riled that she actually started making noises - worked a miracle this A/C did!

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 08:19 PM
*Jono's Legal Opinion ("J-LO")*
It happens to be true: the killers of Shepard got life; the killers of black man James Byrd received the death sentence without hate crimes laws.


How do you come to this conclusion?
It is a possibility.


Wrong. I've addressed this already.
Addressed wrongly.


If she was killed *because* she was a lesbian, then yes. If she was killed regardless of the fact that she was a lesbian, then no.
Shepard was killed during a drugs robbery. But the usual lefty suspects would presume that any brutal killing of a lesbian is a hate crime (it is of course, but so all brutal killings).


Which hate rhetoric are you talking about? A Fred Nile float?
Among other things. Around the same time, the Australian Army in Timor had a play that mildly ridiculed gays, and the gaystapo whinged.


Sure, because the gay community plan to flock to the Right and vote for a political party that despises them?
The Gay Patriots (http://www.gaypatriot.net/) prefer the GOP including Sarah Palin, and generally right wing policies. They rightly think that the Left has nothing to offer gays either.

Similarly, the Left has done nothing for minorities but keep them as victims. The US Dems have achieved by welfare programs something they couldn't achieve by the slavery they supported, the KKK (founded by Dems), the Jim Crow laws (again imposed by Dems): the destruction of the black family.


When have I done this?
Sounding so authoritative in your pro-homosexual eisegesis of Scripture, for one thing.


So you've tapped into a market of similarly literate literalists from the Deep South of America.
My books were favorably reviewed by Ph.D. theologians and scientists. And my analysis of the original languages of Scripture is accurate, unlike your ludicrous attempts.


That might prove your business nous,
It is evidence that I know how to write. Once again you explain away success, just as with Fox News, that you hate because it's the one channel that doesn't worship Obamov. You lack such evidence.


but it hardly earns you a Pulitzer.
Who would want that, given that it was given to Stalin's apologist Walter Duranty for covering up his mass murders (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/stuttaford051501.shtml), yet the lefty New York Times proudly displays that (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWFkNjg1MWEyNjgxYTgwMzM3NTYzOTk5OTIzMGM3MTU=). Considering that Uncle Joe butchered more people than Hitler (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM), this is even worse than honouring a Holocaust denier.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 08:20 PM
What is your evidence that it was her Christian faith specifically, as opposed to her attempts to criticise his sexuality and lifestyle, her hectoring manner on the subject and the fact that she reminded him of his mother with whom he had issues?
How about both/and rather than "as opposed to"?

Many gays tried to excuse this brutal slaying because of what Mrs Stachowitz said. Very few Christians condoned Shepard's murder.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 08:21 PM
That should have been the crime that was prosecuted. After all, it is already against the law to assault people.

It is not clear from the findings whether anything was done about the assault.


As long as Boisson didn't hurt anyone or encourage other people to hurt anyone, he should not have been prosecuted. The merits of his letter should not be an issue.

Does your usage of "encourage" above include "attempt to encourage" or "unsuccessfully encourage"?

In any case, whether they are an issue or not to the merits of prosecuting him, I generally wouldn't raise concerns about the treatment of an idiotic defender of views I happened to share, without pointing out at the same time that I did not agree with the way in which they had defended those views.

Furthermore, in my view the meritless nature of the letter does take away much of the reason to be vitally concerned about the primary order imposed on him, incorrect and unnecessary as it was. Since he was not using free speech in any even arguably intelligent, effective, coherent, reasonable, important or useful manner, nothing would be lost to public discourse in isolation by preventing him from making those sorts of comments in the future. Nor would he lose any meaningful free speech right by being prevented from making a twit of himself in public concerning issues about which he is obviously clueless and bigoted.

So in my view the nature of the letter is important, because it reduces this from a serious case about free speech, to a case that is really best criticised on the basis of inappropriate orders that an activist be compensated for "hurt and distress", wastage of public time and money, and unnecessary publicity for a village babbler.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 08:25 PM
It is not clear from the findings whether anything was done about the assault.
A clear omission: they cared more about restricting the freedom of speech of a Christian pastor than the gay man who was attacked.


Does your usage of "encourage" above include "attempt to encourage" or "unsuccessfully encourage"?
Attempt to encourage.


In any case, whether they are an issue or not to the merits of prosecuting him, I generally wouldn't raise concerns about the treatment of an idiotic defender of views I happened to share, without pointing out at the same time that I did not agree with the way in which they had defended those views.
I could say the same.


Furthermore, in my view the meritless nature of the letter does take away much of the reason to be vitally concerned about the primary order imposed on him, incorrect and unnecessary as it was. Since he was not using free speech in any even arguably intelligent, effective, coherent, reasonable, important or useful manner, nothing would be lost to public discourse in isolation by preventing him from making those sorts of comments in the future. Nor would he lose any meaningful free speech right by being prevented from making a twit of himself in public concerning issues about which he is obviously clueless and bigoted.
Even clueless and bigoted free speech should not be restrained by law. Rather, it should be allowed into the open so it can be refuted.


So in my view the nature of the letter is important, because it reduces this from a serious case about free speech, to a case that is really best criticised on the basis of inappropriate orders that an activist be compensated for "hurt and distress", wastage of public time and money, and unnecessary publicity for a village babbler.
But this is par for the course when such laws are imposed.

Goughfather
10-12-2009, 08:33 PM
Among other things. Around the same time, the Australian Army in Timor had a play that mildly ridiculed gays, and the gaystapo whinged.

A Fred Nile float? You poor thing. How many months of therapy did it take you to recover?


Sounding so authoritative in your pro-homosexual eisegesis of Scripture, for one thing.

If you came to that conclusion from the way I addressed the subject, that's your problem, not mine.


My books were favorably reviewed by Ph.D. theologians and scientists. And my analysis of the original languages of Scripture is accurate, unlike your ludicrous attempts.


What should we make of the reviews of people with similar or higher qualifications who have called your work "hopelessly confused" and a "crude piece of propaganda"?

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 09:04 PM
How about both/and rather than "as opposed to"?

Do you even have any evidence that it was both (ie that his view of her religious views as distinct from her lifestyle advocacies had anything to do with it)? Of course, even if it was "both" then the "specifically" you used previously is already overturned.


Many gays tried to excuse this brutal slaying because of what Mrs Stachowitz said. Very few Christians condoned Shepard's murder.

Last time I heard, "many" and "very few" were not empirical quantities. If there was any robust evidence of significant difference in attitudes I might find it of interest. That said, the cases aren't exactly parallel anyway.

My view of the Stachowicz case is that given the mitigating factor of harassment over his lifestyle and the fact that he snapped impulsively, he should have been found guilty of manslaughter not murder. However he did himself no favours by not turning himself in immediately following the killing.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 10:45 PM
A Fred Nile float? You poor thing. How many months of therapy did it take you to recover?
Don't be a moron. My point was that evangelical Christians are far thicker skinned than homosexual activists, who mimophantically squeal at the slightest ridicule directed at them, while foully abusing Christian.


What should we make of the reviews of people with similar or higher qualifications who have called your work "hopelessly confused" and a "crude piece of propaganda"?
Oh goody, you can read the Wiki article on me. They are talking crap, and haven't sold nearly as well.:lol: Much like your excuse for Fox News gathering more viewers than all the other news networks combined. But hardly surprising that lefty churchians like you find such kinship with atheopaths; there is hardly any difference.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 11:09 PM
A clear omission: they cared more about restricting the freedom of speech of a Christian pastor than the gay man who was attacked.

How does this follow? The "they" responsible for hearing a human rights case and the "they" responsible for policing an assault by a minor are different bodies. And furthermore, just because the case doesn't reveal anything about the fate of the assailant doesn't necessarily mean nothing was done.


Attempt to encourage.

I don't think Boissoin was attempting to encourage violence. I do think his comments had a very small potential to unintentionally encourage violence, and that he easily could have avoided that potential and negligently and carelessly failed to do so. However the potential is small precisely because his letter was so ludicrous. It's rather unlikely that the sort of person who engages in homophobic thuggery is going to have the attention span to read all that drivel.


Even clueless and bigoted free speech should not be restrained by law. Rather, it should be allowed into the open so it can be refuted.

Only in this case the speech in question is so clueless and so bigoted that anyone who actually takes it seriously most likely lacks the mental equipment to comprehend that it has been refuted when it has. So I doubt that publishing it for the sake of refutation provides any particular good, aside perhaps from blowing it out of the water making passable target-practice for teenage gay-rights defenders of the future. :D


But this is par for the course when such laws are imposed.

Then that only further underlines that in general such laws are merely wasteful and silly, rather than significant outrages against free speech, which makes comparing them to the deeds of Stalin even more melodramatic and inappropriate. Indeed, if you call them Stalinesque you run the risk of convincing those who in principle support such laws, that in practice the tribunals must be doing an excellent job for you to find the outcomes so evil.

Goughfather
10-12-2009, 11:21 PM
Don't be a moron. My point was that evangelical Christians are far thicker skinned than homosexual activists, who mimophantically squeal at the slightest ridicule directed at them, while foully abusing Christian.


And my point is that despite the histrionics of conservative Christians, who are not thick-skinned at all, they rarely suffer any real persecution in Western society, so get off your high horse.


Oh goody, you can read the Wiki article on me. They are talking crap, and haven't sold nearly as well.:lol:

Gee, their lack of popular appeal *must* be because they are wrong. Do you even realise how embarrassing that argument is?


But hardly surprising that lefty churchians like you find such kinship with atheopaths; there is hardly any difference.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that your appeal to friends with qualifications who share your biblical literalist worldview doesn't really count for very much given that it's quite easy to find people with similar or higher qualifications who are quite scathing of your work.

Goughfather
10-12-2009, 11:32 PM
It's rather unlikely that the sort of person who engages in homophobic thuggery is going to have the attention span to read all that drivel.

One could also go via the John Laws' defence i.e. the only type of person who would have been persuaded by my homophobic rant would have been someone who was homophobic themselves. :P

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2009, 07:22 AM
I don't think Boissoin was attempting to encourage violence. I do think his comments had a very small potential to unintentionally encourage violence, and that he easily could have avoided that potential and negligently and carelessly failed to do so. However the potential is small precisely because his letter was so ludicrous. It's rather unlikely that the sort of person who engages in homophobic thuggery is going to have the attention span to read all that drivel.
Exactly. This is evidence for my point that laws are unnecessary.


Then that only further underlines that in general such laws are merely wasteful and silly, rather than significant outrages against free speech,
Yet such restrictions usually expand in scope. When they punish readings from the Bible, as they have in places, they go too far.


which makes comparing them to the deeds of Stalin even more melodramatic and inappropriate.
Many jokes by those under Soviet chains referred to the punishments of expressed opinions, as per these kangaroo courts. E.g.

Q: What is the hardest surgery in the USSR?
A: Dentistry: it must be performed via trepanation of the skull, because we are forbidden to open the mouth.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2009, 07:27 AM
And my point is that despite the histrionics of conservative Christians, who are not thick-skinned at all, they rarely suffer any real persecution in Western society, so get off your high horse.
Yet they have been fired from jobs or denied awards like Miss America for merely supporting marriage = one man + one woman (your hero Obamov got away with it because all the lefties know he was lying).

But what about your own high horse? There is precious little racism from Europeans in Australia and America these days: in fact white racists are mostly despised by other whites; it's a shame that black racists are often widely admired by other blacks. Similarly, gay-bashings are extremely rare these days—except in the Islamofascist countries so admired by the Left.

As Thomas Sowell says: “Traditional justice, at least in the American tradition, involves treating people the same, holding them to the same standards and having them play by the same rules. Cosmic justice tries to make their prospects equal.” This describes lefties perfectly: they believe in trying to equalize outcomes rather than equalizing opportunity and protection under the law. Hence lefties love "affirmative action" (as long as their own jobs are not affected) and "hate crimes" laws (as long as their own ideology is protected).


Gee, their lack of popular appeal *must* be because they are wrong. Do you even realise how embarrassing that argument is?
What is really embarrassing is the way you squirm around the obvious popularity of my books and Fox News. My books have changed people's minds, so they clearly are not read only by "biblical literalists" (your swear word for those who take a textualist/originalist approach to the original languages of Scripture).


Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that your appeal to friends with qualifications who share your biblical literalist worldview doesn't really count for very much given that it's quite easy to find people with similar or higher qualifications who are quite scathing of your work.
The ones you cite are known rabid atheopaths.

Mephistopheles
11-12-2009, 09:35 AM
What is really embarrassing is the way you squirm around the obvious popularity of my books and Fox News.
What is actually and truly embarrassing is the posting of another logical fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) on your part. Popularity of a position or positions (as espoused in your books and on Fox News) does not equate with merit.

At this rate, you'll be denying the antecedent before we know it. Oh wait ... you've done that already (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechmann_sarfati_pratfall.htm), haven't you?

Goughfather
11-12-2009, 10:19 AM
Yet they have been fired from jobs or denied awards like Miss America for merely supporting marriage = one man + one woman (your hero Obamov got away with it because all the lefties know he was lying).

Yeah, Miss California is a true martyr for her faith. It couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that she couldn't string two sentences together, even with a second chance and an eternity to think about her answer by Fox News, not to mention her dubious category of "opposite marriage".


But what about your own high horse? There is precious little racism from Europeans in Australia and America these days: in fact white racists are mostly despised by other whites ... Similarly, gay-bashings are extremely rare these days

What planet are you living on? I'm guessing you don't have many Sudanese or gay friends?


What is really embarrassing is the way you squirm around the obvious popularity of my books and Fox News. My books have changed people's minds, so they clearly are not read only by "biblical literalists" (your swear word for those who take a textualist/originalist approach to the original languages of Scripture).

I've not denied the popularity of your books, or Fox News, although you might wish to come clean about how much of your merchandise is simply given away. What I'm truly staggered about, however, is your honest belief that popular appeal equates to legitimacy.


The ones you cite are known rabid atheopaths.

Oh, I get it. When literalists with qualifications affirm your literalism, they're perfectly objective in their praise, but when those with a different worldview to yourself criticise your work, it *must* be because they are are involved in some diabolical conspiracy to undermine you?

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2009, 11:37 AM
What is actually and truly embarrassing is the posting of another logical fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) on your part. Popularity of a position or positions (as espoused in your books and on Fox News) does not equate with merit.
Certainly not. But it is supporting evidence that I am a good writer needing no instruction from GF, and supporting evidence that Fox is giving viewers what they want, i.e. News, as they switch from the rabidly left bias of the other news channels where leftist commentary is masquerading as news.


At this rate, you'll be denying the antecedent before we know it. Oh wait ... you've done that already (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechmann_sarfati_pratfall.htm), haven't you?
Oh, trust you to rely on an article by an ignoramus on a gutter atheopathic site (http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp), who criticised me for using the correct logical definition of validity, something which a philosopher on Chesschat recognized as a "dodgy" part of the article (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=205230&postcount=8):



The site certainly has its dodgey points.




"Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument."

This, of course, is why the syllogism, far from being a common argument, is seldom found outside introductory logic textbooks and creationist sophistry.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2009, 11:50 AM
Yeah, Miss California is a true martyr for her faith.
Indeed, showing how Christians are in more danger of punishment than homosexuals. And in many cases, oppression mounts gradually, as per the proverbial frog being slowly boiled alive.


It couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that she couldn't string two sentences together,
No it couldn't. She was doing well before that honest answer ruined her chances.


even with a second chance and an eternity to think about her answer by Fox News, not to mention her dubious category of "opposite marriage".
Prejean gave a practically identical answer to that of Obamov (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/12/miss-california-usa/miss-usa-runner-carrie-prejeans-comments-same-sex-/), one of the heroes of that repulsive little creep Perez Hilton. Any fair contest would have disqualified such a prejudicial judge.

The message is: defend the Christian position and you will be punished; defend the gay position and you'll be rewarded, and even asked absurdly to judge a beauty contest.


What planet are you living on? I'm guessing you don't have many Sudanese or gay friends?
Any actual evidence? There is now more racism by Australian Aborigines and African Americans than by "white" people in those countries. And there is much more vicious Christophobia by homosexuals than "homophobia" by Christians.


I've not denied the popularity of your books, or Fox News, although you might wish to come clean about how much of your merchandise is simply given away.
I just write it; I don't even receive royalties. But I didn't even have the help of the ABC (Atheopathic Bigots Corporation) or other tax-payer funded publicity, as for instance Plimer's Lies did, yet I far outsold his. Rather, people must freely choose to buy my books from their own money.


What I'm truly staggered about, however, is your honest belief that popular appeal equates to legitimacy.
Nope, this started with your criticism of my writing style, and the popularity of my books as opposing evidence.


Oh, I get it. When literalists with qualifications affirm your literalism, they're perfectly objective in their praise,
I don't know any literalists who like my books, since they oppose literalism. But experts in the original language and culture of the Bible like my books.


but when those with a different worldview to yourself criticise your work,
The ones you cited are known rabid misochristic atheopaths.


it *must* be because they are are involved in some diabolical conspiracy to undermine you?
Who said anything about conspiracy? Yet another Lefty Anointed straw man.

Mephistopheles
11-12-2009, 01:19 PM
Certainly not. But it is supporting evidence that I am a good writer needing no instruction from GF, and supporting evidence that Fox is giving viewers what they want, i.e. News,
What viewers want does not necessarily equal "news", Jono. You really have to sort out your tendency towards bald assertions ...


as they switch from the rabidly left bias of the other news channels where leftist commentary is masquerading as news.
... and the presentation of your opinion as fact.

[quote=Jono]Oh, trust you to rely on an article by an ignoramus on a gutter atheopathic site (http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp),
The link to an article ineptly penned by you is probably indicative of the reasons that I find most of your posts about politics and religion an utter joke. Your opinion that the site is "gutter" and your use of the risible neologism "atheopathic" is irrelevant to the point that was made and made entirely accurately at that.


who criticised me for using the correct logical definition of validity, something which a philosopher on Chesschat recognized as a "dodgy" part of the article (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=205230&postcount=8):
I don't believe that it's dodgy at all but that's just an opinion (and we all know what opinions are similar to, even those of "philosopher[s] on Chesschat"). Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that the article caught you with your pants around your ankles in a way that's almost impossible to deny. Perhaps they were misquoting you ... ? Otherwise, you're well and truly nicked.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2009, 01:39 PM
What viewers want does not necessarily equal "news", Jono.
Yet many viewers want news rather than leftard commentary.


The link to an article ineptly penned by you is probably indicative of the reasons that I find most of your posts about politics and religion an utter joke.
Who cares what a nonentity like you thinks?


Your opinion that the site is "gutter" and your use of the risible neologism "atheopathic" is irrelevant to the point that was made and made entirely accurately at that.
Still true, and all words started off as neologisms.


I don't believe that it's dodgy at all but that's just an opinion (and we all know what opinions are similar to, even those of "philosopher[s] on Chesschat").
Rubbish: validity has a specific definition in logic; I was right, so he was wrong to criticise it.


Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that the article caught you with your pants around your ankles in a way that's almost impossible to deny. Perhaps they were misquoting you ... ? Otherwise, you're well and truly nicked.
Since both of you make elementary blunders about the meaning of "validity" in logic, I'd be surprised if you even knew what that fallacy means.

Mephistopheles
11-12-2009, 02:02 PM
Yet many viewers want news rather than leftard commentary.
Caught out yet again, you shuffle backwards. Previously "news" being something provided by Fox to give "viewers what they want" and now it's what "many viewers want". Next thing we know, it'll be what "a few viewers want".


Who cares what a nonentity like you thinks?
Ad hominem attack noted. Another elementary argumentative error on your part. We'll add that one to the fast growing pile, shall we?


Still true
Another bald assertion. You're not big on the "supporting evidence" thing, are you?


Rubbish: validity has a specific definition in logic; I was right, so he was wrong to criticise it.
He wasn't criticising validity. He was pointing out that the syllogism was rarely employed in real world debate and, therefore, not terribly useful.


Since both of you make elementary blunders about the meaning of "validity" in logic, I'd be surprised if you even knew what that fallacy means.
It seems that I know enough about fallacies to pull you up on the numerous howlers that you appear to insert into almost every one of your posts here in the Non-Chess forum.

Goughfather
11-12-2009, 03:24 PM
Indeed, showing how Christians are in more danger of punishment than homosexuals. And in many cases, oppression mounts gradually, as per the proverbial frog being slowly boiled alive.


No it couldn't. She was doing well before that honest answer ruined her chances.

Well, while we may disagree on the specifics, at least we can agree that she was doing well until she opened her mouth.

I can understand how conservative Christians would wish to champion the cause of a good looking woman like Carrie Prejean, but they really did back the wrong horse. I mean, between her decision to get breast implants and her further displays of stupidity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R0a9xq6uek), she isn't the best of role models.


Prejean gave a practically identical answer to that of Obamov (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/12/miss-california-usa/miss-usa-runner-carrie-prejeans-comments-same-sex-/), one of the heroes of that repulsive little creep Perez Hilton. Any fair contest would have disqualified such a prejudicial judge.

The difference was that Obama's version sounded coherent and made no reference to "opposite marriage".


The message is: defend the Christian position and you will be punished; defend the gay position and you'll be rewarded, and even asked absurdly to judge a beauty contest.

No, the message is, if you're going to defend your understanding of the Christian position, at least express your view coherently enough to avoid embarrassing yourself and other Christians.


I just write it; I don't even receive royalties. But I didn't even have the help of the ABC (Atheopathic Bigots Corporation) or other tax-payer funded publicity, as for instance Plimer's Lies did, yet I far outsold his. Rather, people must freely choose to buy my books from their own money.


Nope, this started with your criticism of my writing style, and the popularity of my books as opposing evidence.

On that basis, given that Spong's book sales exceed yours, does that make him a better writer than you?


I don't know any literalists who like my books, since they oppose literalism. But experts in the original language and culture of the Bible like my books.

So the literalists who don't like your books oppose literalism? But your literalism is liked by experts in the original language and culture of Bible? Which ones? I guess those ones who are closet literalists.


The ones you cited are known rabid misochristic atheopaths.


Translation: They're meanies who didn't give me the free pass that fellow literalists did because we need to stick together. So I guess I might as well insult them.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2009, 06:02 PM
Well, while we may disagree on the specifics, at least we can agree that she was doing well until she opened her mouth.
Opened her mouth to give the same basic answer that Obamov did. Also, none of the other girls were asked something so controversial. That vile little freak Hilton targeted Prejean because she was attending an evangelical Christian college — (and does volunteer work for a Christian organization for kids with disabilities. And he explicitly said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009359.stm):


She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that.


Interesting that even pro-gay and christophobic San Fransisco mayor Gavin Newsom said (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Newsom-Defends-Miss-California.html):


I want to challenge her on her point of view, but she spoke her conscience, I think she's being a little unfairly maligned.

Interesting that leftychurchians like hate Prejean even more than pro-gay activists like Newsom.


I can understand how conservative Christians would wish to champion the cause of a good looking woman like Carrie Prejean,
I'm happy with my own good-looking wife. I was pointing out the blatant Gaystapo persecution of someone for expressing the true (Biblical) Christian position.


but they really did back the wrong horse. I mean, between her decision to get breast implants and her further displays of stupidity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R0a9xq6uek), she isn't the best of role models.
I know, and conservative Christian commentator Rebecca Hagelin writes a more balanced appraisal, avoiding both the hero-worship on one hand and the sewer journalism (favoured by GF) on the other:


Carrie's book, Still Standing reveals a courageous woman whose Christian faith is still in its infancy. She was thrust into the national spotlight and all too quickly became a heroine for those who are sick and tired of Hollywood and the thought police. Unable to yet see the disconnect between her desire to be a "Victoria's Secret Angel" and the biblical morality she professes, Carrie is painfully discovering truth as she goes. Eager to support a young woman so viciously attacked, many supporters also missed the disparity between the sexy image Carrie loves to be and the virtuous woman she seems to want to become. As Carrie matures and becomes more sensitive to which behaviors reflect her faith and which ones tarnish it, she is learning the difference under glaring lights, scowling faces and an unforgiving media.

But Prejean didn't deserve the disgusting viciousness of the attacks, far worse than anything Boisson said, and being done out of Miss USA. This was true politics of personal destruction. But of course leftard Christophobes like GF wouldn't call for "hate crimes" or "religious vilification" laws for that sort of thing, although he'd be squealing piteously if one tenth the viciousness was directed at some gay he idolizes, like that activist lefty judge Kirby.

As for your hatred of the anti-slavery Republican party:


In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml).

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]


The difference was that Obama's version sounded coherent
No, the difference was that the homonazis knew he didn't really mean it.


and made no reference to "opposite marriage".
Yet it was still the same basic answer, even acording to Politifacts. What a fusspot you are—presumably "opposite marriage" was short for "opposite-sex marriage" as a contrast to "same-sex marriage".


No, the message is, if you're going to defend your understanding of the Christian position, at least express your view coherently enough to avoid embarrassing yourself and other Christians.
No, don't bother to defend it at all, unless you want to feel the wrath of the Gaystapo.


On that basis, given that Spong's book sales exceed yours, does that make him a better writer than you?
Do they? If so, not by much (http://astore.amazon.com/bishopspong-20/detail/006123074X):


His twenty-plus books, including The Sins of Scripture, A New Christianity for a New World, and his autobiography Here I Stand have sold over one million copies.

I guess he has his following among leftychurchians similar to you who are basically atheopaths but want to retain the trappings of the church.

That's why he gets away with writing basically the same book several times. This makes him the ultimate greenie theologian: recycling the same trash over and over again.


So the literalists who don't like your books oppose literalism?
Göbbels again. Couldn't tell you, since I don't know any literalists, let alone those who don't like my books.


Translation: They're meanies who didn't give me the free pass that fellow literalists did because we need to stick together. So I guess I might as well insult them.
No, known opponents of any sort of Christianity or even theism.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2009, 07:18 PM
Exactly. This is evidence for my point that laws are unnecessary.

No, because Boissoin's statements were not in fact in breach of those laws, as the appeal judgement demonstrated. The reasons for which Boissoin's statements are unlikely to be taken seriously certainly do not apply to many other statements that are proscribed under such laws.


Yet such restrictions usually expand in scope. When they punish readings from the Bible, as they have in places, they go too far.

Of course you would say this, since you claim to be axiomatically committed to scripture being true. But you provide no evidence for the claim above.


Many jokes by those under Soviet chains referred to the punishments of expressed opinions, as per these kangaroo courts. E.g.

Q: What is the hardest surgery in the USSR?
A: Dentistry: it must be performed via trepanation of the skull, because we are forbidden to open the mouth.

That jokes were made about it and found funny further underlines the inapplicability of the comparison to Stalin. It is not so easy to make such lighthearted jokes about the wanton murder of tens of millions.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2009, 07:40 PM
Any actual evidence? There is now more racism by Australian Aborigines and African Americans than by "white" people in those countries. And there is much more vicious Christophobia by homosexuals than "homophobia" by Christians.

I note here that you ask for evidence despite not supplying it for your side of this particular part of the debate. So what is your empirical evidence for the above?

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2009, 11:08 AM
I note here that you ask for evidence despite not supplying it for your side of this particular part of the debate. So what is your empirical evidence for the above?
I have pointed out Christians being fired from jobs, fined, denied awards, and being subject to vicious personal destruction, for daring to cross the Gay-stapo. Where are homosexuals being fired from jobs, fined, denied awards and being subject to vicious personal destruction, for attacking Christianity?

As for the comments on race, I've pointed out that white racists are rare and generally despised by other white people; black racists like Jesse Jackson have a wide following among black people, and Obamov himself sat under a black racist preacher for 20 years. Also, around half of white Americans voted for him; >90% of blacks voted for him even against a fellow liberal Democrat. If those figures were reversed, there would have been mucho screeching about racist America.

Even white-on-black crime is rare—much rarer than black-on-white crime (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5086), or black-on-black crime.


Of course you would say this, since you claim to be axiomatically committed to scripture being true. But you provide no evidence for the claim above.
I do say that, as evidence that these laws are blatant attacks on religious freedom.


That jokes were made about it and found funny further underlines the inapplicability of the comparison to Stalin. It is not so easy to make such lighthearted jokes about the wanton murder of tens of millions.
How does this follow? Those living under the Soviet yoke probably didn't realize the extent of the mass murders, but knew that free speech was restricted severely. But it's notable that those who sympathize with the Nazis have no future in politics, and rightly so, but sympathizing with the even worse Stalinist regime has little political penalty. Walter Duranty even won a Pullitzer for whitewashing the latter.

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2009, 01:20 PM
I have pointed out Christians being fired from jobs, fined, denied awards, and being subject to vicious personal destruction, for daring to cross the Gay-stapo. Where are homosexuals being fired from jobs, fined, denied awards and being subject to vicious personal destruction, for attacking Christianity?

You have given a relatively small number of instances of so-called "vicious Christophobia" on gay issues but when examined these do not generally turn out to represent blanket opposition to Christianity considered broadly, but rather exception to the conduct of particular so-called Christians.

Your request for examples of gays "being fired from jobs, fined, denied awards and being subject to vicious personal destruction [whatever that is], for attacking Christianity?" constitutes serious drift from your far more general reference to ""homophobia" by Christians."


As for the comments on race, I've pointed out that white racists are rare and generally despised by other white people; black racists like Jesse Jackson have a wide following among black people, and Obamov himself sat under a black racist preacher for 20 years. Also, around half of white Americans voted for him; >90% of blacks voted for him even against a fellow liberal Democrat. If those figures were reversed, there would have been mucho screeching about racist America.

One of your claims was about "racism by Australian Aborigines" and none of the above substantiates it at all.

That there is a following and that there is voter support for political actors who you claim (not necessarily always incorrectly) to be "black racists" does not substantiate your claim about "more racism [...] by African Americans" since an alternative possibility is that these politicians are supported by black voters for reasons other than their alleged racism.

As for your claim that "white racists are rare and generally despised by other white people", openly active white racists are indeed considered negatively. But there is a difference between being a card-carrying activist racist and displaying racism.


Even white-on-black crime is rare—much rarer than black-on-white crime (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5086), or black-on-black crime.

This has been discussed before. There are many potential confounding factors and racial differences in assault rate are only relevant to racism if the assaults are actually racially motivated.


I do say that, as evidence that these laws are blatant attacks on religious freedom.

What are some examples of specific bans on Biblical readings under such laws?

I don't think a "reading from the Bible" is automatically a case of "religious freedom" anyway. Context needs to be considered. For instance, if someone cherry-picks illiberal OT passages and presents them in a manner intended to imply that they are the modern Christian message, then this person is not actually demonstrating "religious freedom" at all, since that is not what the religion they claim to be following actually says.


How does this follow? Those living under the Soviet yoke probably didn't realize the extent of the mass murders, but knew that free speech was restricted severely.

My point was that they could make the latter a laughing matter (just as we still laugh about censorial regimes now.) But laughing about deaths and slaughters of millions is considered in poor taste, and whatever censorship he imposed is not the primary reason why he is reviled today.


But it's notable that those who sympathize with the Nazis have no future in politics, and rightly so, but sympathizing with the even worse Stalinist regime has little political penalty. Walter Duranty even won a Pullitzer for whitewashing the latter.

Given that that was in 1932 it hardly provides any evidence that sympathising with Stalin today has "little political penalty".

Goughfather
12-12-2009, 02:49 PM
Opened her mouth to give the same basic answer that Obamov did. Also, none of the other girls were asked something so controversial. That vile little freak Hilton targeted Prejean because she was attending an evangelical Christian college — (and does volunteer work for a Christian organization for kids with disabilities. And he explicitly said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009359.stm):


She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that.


Interesting that even pro-gay and christophobic San Fransisco mayor Gavin Newsom said (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Newsom-Defends-Miss-California.html):


I want to challenge her on her point of view, but she spoke her conscience, I think she's being a little unfairly maligned.

Interesting that leftychurchians like hate Prejean even more than pro-gay activists like Newsom.

I've seen a bit of amusement, but can you show me any examples of hatred, let alone a general pattern?


I'm happy with my own good-looking wife. I was pointing out the blatant Gaystapo persecution of someone for expressing the true (Biblical) Christian position.

Except that your argument is undermined by a number of high profile gay individuals who have defended her while disagreeing with her position, showing a great deal more Christian charity than yourself.


I know, and conservative Christian commentator Rebecca Hagelin writes a more balanced appraisal, avoiding both the hero-worship on one hand and the sewer journalism (favoured by GF) on the other:


Carrie's book, Still Standing reveals a courageous woman whose Christian faith is still in its infancy. She was thrust into the national spotlight and all too quickly became a heroine for those who are sick and tired of Hollywood and the thought police. Unable to yet see the disconnect between her desire to be a "Victoria's Secret Angel" and the biblical morality she professes, Carrie is painfully discovering truth as she goes. Eager to support a young woman so viciously attacked, many supporters also missed the disparity between the sexy image Carrie loves to be and the virtuous woman she seems to want to become. As Carrie matures and becomes more sensitive to which behaviors reflect her faith and which ones tarnish it, she is learning the difference under glaring lights, scowling faces and an unforgiving media.

A person who makes moral statements like Ms Prejean will and should be held accountable for their inconsistent ethics.


But Prejean didn't deserve the disgusting viciousness of the attacks, far worse than anything Boisson said, and being done out of Miss USA. This was true politics of personal destruction. But of course leftard Christophobes like GF wouldn't call for "hate crimes" or "religious vilification" laws for that sort of thing, although he'd be squealing piteously if one tenth the viciousness was directed at some gay he idolizes, like that activist lefty judge Kirby.

But of course, you think what Boissoin said was eminently reasonable. You make accuse me of strawperson at this point, but if so, what exactly is your position? Fess up.

Kirby has been subject to incredibly malevolent attacks upon his person and even upon his previous office because of his sexuality. I'm sure you think that he deserved everything he got.

As for you slur upon my faith, it's pretty offensive and indicative of the fact that you'd have to raise the tone of your argument to find yourself in the gutter. I've never questioned the legitimacy of your faith. Where specifically are my purported "Christophobic" statements?


As for your hatred of the anti-slavery Republican party:

[INDENT]In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml).

Pity you only have to go back 76 years to make something of a point, disregarding the disconnected continuity of the two parties in the first half of this century. I'm complaining about the GOP, circa 2009.


Yet it was still the same basic answer, even acording to Politifacts. What a fusspot you are—presumably "opposite marriage" was short for "opposite-sex marriage" as a contrast to "same-sex marriage".

It was incoherent and rambling. Full stop.


Do they? If so, not by much (http://astore.amazon.com/bishopspong-20/detail/006123074X):

Not the point. If you wish to point to your sales as evidence of the quality of your writing, you'd have to concede that Spong is a better writer than you.


That's why he gets away with writing basically the same book several times. This makes him the ultimate greenie theologian: recycling the same trash over and over again.

Ironically, that's a rather worn and tired insult that's been recycled over and over again.


Göbbels again. Couldn't tell you, since I don't know any literalists, let alone those who don't like my books.

Interestingly, it would seem that the Goebbels accusation (another typically classy slur from Jono) was first used to describe yourself before you recycled it to attack others.


No, known opponents of any sort of Christianity or even theism.

Naturally. After all, they had the temerity to criticise the content of your writing.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2009, 04:12 PM
I've seen a bit of amusement, but can you show me any examples of hatred, let alone a general pattern?
"Dumb bitch", "Klaus Barbie Doll" (Klaus Barbie was a Nazi war criminal) (http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/05/miss-califoirnia-carrie-prejean.html)...


Except that your argument is undermined by a number of high profile gay individuals who have defended her while disagreeing with her position,
Which is to their credit as I've said, but she was done out of a title rightfully hers because she expressed the traditional viewpoint on marriage.


showing a great deal more Christian charity than yourself.
What would you know or care about Christian charity? Esp. given your hostility to true (biblical) Christians or conservatives in general (not necessarily the same thing as I've said).


A person who makes moral statements like Ms Prejean will and should be held accountable for their inconsistent ethics.
And as Hagelin said, she has a lot of growing up to do. It didn't warrant the gutter attacks. Somehow the Left are never "held accountable", e.g. Wilhelm Klinton adulterating and perjuring himself and Je$$e Jack$son having a lust love child.


But of course, you think what Boissoin said was eminently reasonable.
The point I've always been making is that it shouldn't be subject to such kangaroo courts in the first place. If he said something to incite violence, then that is a matter for the real courts, under the laws that already existed.


Kirby has been subject to incredibly malevolent attacks upon his person and even upon his previous office because of his sexuality.
Nothing like Prejean, and nothing condoned by major news networks. He never lost his judgeship as Prejean lost her title.


I'm sure you think that he deserved everything he got.
It's pointless for you to try to read my mind.


As for you slur upon my faith, it's pretty offensive
A good reason not to make "taking offense" a matter for any court. But such leftard passive-aggressiveness won't work on me.


and indicative of the fact that you'd have to raise the tone of your argument to find yourself in the gutter.
No, it's a statement of honest opinion, and echoing the genuine Christian and scholar Gresham Machen's classic book Christianity and Liberalism (http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/) (1923). His conclusion that liberalism was not another branch of Christianity, but a totally different religion. Walter Martin, author of The Kingdom of the Cults, had a talk "The Cult of Liberalism", showing that liberalism copies the same language as Christianity but skews the meanings so it teaches something diametrically opposed.

It's hardly surprising that you dismiss cases of anti-Christian persecutions. If the government started this in earnest, there wouldn't be any evidence to convict you.


Pity you only have to go back 76 years to make something of a point, disregarding the disconnected continuity of the two parties in the first half of this century.
It's a statement of fact that the GOP has been the better party for blacks throughout its history.


I'm complaining about the GOP, circa 2009.
Why? Their problem is trying ineptly to appease the black racists by offering what the Dems can do much better. Dr Thomas Sowell (1930– ), himself African-American, has for over a decade pointed out the futility of trying to woo blacks by offering them things they can get more from the Dems. Instead, they need to point out how leftist policies hurt blacks, and provide a real alternative. For example:

The GOP could promote school vouchers that would allow black kids to escape failing schools, and show that the Dems care more about the teachers unions than black education.

The leftists have excused black crime with their grievance-mongering, but this means that black crims are more free to prey on the black community, their main victims.

The Dems just love abortion, including partial birth, which kills far more black babies than white ones.

Welfare has done far more to harm black families than slavery or Jim Crow laws. And this is the main reason more blacks are poor. Married blacks are just as well off as married whites; there is just a lower percentage of them.

The GOP was the party formed to abolish slavery, and a higher percentage supported the civil rights legislation. The Dems were the party to keep slavery, the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, school segregation, and which filibustered civil rights laws. They are still the enemy of blacks (aborting them, patronizing them with "affirmative action", sending criminals back to prey on them, keeping them in failed public schools), but have convinced 90% of them that they are friends. But as Sowell says, they are friends like Iago.

And of course, most blacks oppose abortion and gay "marriage", sacraments of the Dems.

Instead, the GOP still tries to appease race-baiting grievance mongers. Yet they still manage to win about 10% of the black vote at the most. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

But all they need to do is win 20% of the black vote, and the Dems would be deservedly finished as a political party.

See Dr Sowell's articles:

Republicans and Blacks (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell041008.php3) 2008
Republicans and Blacks (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell013106.asp) 2006
Dems, GOPers and blacks (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell092800.asp) 2000
Dems, GOPers, and blacks II (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100200.asp) 2000
Will the Republicans ever learn? (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110598.asp) 1998


It was incoherent and rambling. Full stop.
Sez you. She didn't have a teleprompter. And it was the content not the style that cost her the title, so stop making pathetic excuses for her attackers.


Not the point. If you wish to point to your sales as evidence of the quality of your writing, you'd have to concede that Spong is a better writer than you.
It could mean that both of us are quite good authors and need no stylistic advice from you; our sales are very similar although he's been doing it for much longer.


Ironically, that's a rather worn and tired insult that's been recycled over and over again.
Probably since I first used it in 1994 (http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#9).


Interestingly, it would seem that the Goebbels accusation (another typically classy slur from Jono) was first used to describe yourself before you recycled it to attack others.
Only on ChessChat, but in that case wrongly.


Naturally. After all, they had the temerity to criticise the content of your writing.
From their atheopathic blinders.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2009, 04:32 PM
One of your claims was about "racism by Australian Aborigines" and none of the above substantiates it at all.
I discussed that in another thread; a racist attack on whites happened just after "Sorry Day".


That there is a following and that there is voter support for political actors who you claim (not necessarily always incorrectly) to be "black racists" does not substantiate your claim about "more racism [...] by African Americans" since an alternative possibility is that these politicians are supported by black voters for reasons other than their alleged racism.
But it's hard to imagine another reason why >90 of blacks voted for Obamov over Heilary who had almost identical politics (OK, so Obama v McCain is understandable since most modern blacks would vote for a candidate under a sheet as long as he had D by his name, hence the Hillary example). Come on, if 90% of whites voted for Hillary, there would have been cries of how racist America is. Good grief, even recent criticisms of Obama have been accused of being motivated by racism.


As for your claim that "white racists are rare and generally despised by other white people", openly active white racists are indeed considered negatively. But there is a difference between being a card-carrying activist racist and displaying racism.
Racism in general is not very well regarded by the white community. Even in the Deep South of the USA, a hotbed of repugnant segregation and prejudice 50 years ago, anti-black racism is no longer an issue (Dr Sowell experienced racism there decades ago, but returned to the same place, with a white blonde companion as well, and had no problem). Also, the first black heavyweight boxing champ Jack Johnson was hated by white racists for marrying a white woman; now it's black racists who despise Tiger Woods for having a white wife (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2009/12/09/the-racism-of-the-black-community/).


This has been discussed before. There are many potential confounding factors and racial differences in assault rate are only relevant to racism if the assaults are actually racially motivated.
Of course. But it's more likely that white-on-black crimes will be accused of being racially motivate, but not black-on-white crime with shouts of "honky bastard" or some such.


What are some examples of specific bans on Biblical readings under such laws?
Bible verses regarded as hate literature: Court rules Scripture exposed homosexuals to ridicule (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080)


I don't think a "reading from the Bible" is automatically a case of "religious freedom" anyway. Context needs to be considered.
It should be, unless the Bible itself were to be banned.


For instance, if someone cherry-picks illiberal OT passages and presents them in a manner intended to imply that they are the modern Christian message, then this person is not actually demonstrating "religious freedom" at all, since that is not what the religion they claim to be following actually says.
That should not be a matter for the courts.


My point was that they could make the latter a laughing matter (just as we still laugh about censorial regimes now.) But laughing about deaths and slaughters of millions is considered in poor taste, and whatever censorship he imposed is not the primary reason why he is reviled today.
Yet Orwell's novels attacking totalitarian brutality also criticized the restriction on thoughts.


Given that that was in 1932 it hardly provides any evidence that sympathising with Stalin today has "little political penalty".
The NYT still displays this prize proudly.

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2009, 04:34 PM
The point I've always been making is that it shouldn't be subject to such kangaroo courts in the first place. If he said something to incite violence, then that is a matter for the real courts, under the laws that already existed.

But the finding got chucked out on appeal, which is hardly a feature of a kangaroo court. Indeed, the existence of evidently robust appeal rights is the antithesis of the concept of a kangaroo court, which entails that the verdict is pre-ordained and such procedure as exists is a token sham.

What really happened with Boissoin reflects not on the laws in question but on their incompetent usage by a particular judge.

Incidentally, I have just seen that the Steyn case brought under these laws was dismissed.

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2009, 06:45 PM
I discussed that in another thread; a racist attack on whites happened just after "Sorry Day".

According to the NT News anyway. But even assuming that is all true, and that the attacks were indeed purely "racist", a single racist attack or even a small spate of them is ludicrously short of the mark when it comes to establishing your claim that "There is now more racism by Australian Aborigines [..] than by "white" people in those countries."


But it's hard to imagine another reason why >90 of blacks voted for Obamov over Heilary who had almost identical politics

This is simply an argument from lack of imagination on your part. Most voters are not policy analysts and their perception of candidates is influenced by the way candidates market themselves as much as by the policy-based realities.

The fact is indeed that real policy differences between Clinton and Obama were relatively slight. The reality is that Obama was far more successful in marketing himself as someone who would effectively address perceived black disadvantages, especially as Clinton was closely associated with a presidency that disenchanted blacks did not think had done a great deal in this regard.

In this Obama was doubtless greatly assisted by right-wingers who did his work for him by flogging the idea that he was the most left-wing and radical Senator (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=183894&postcount=406) although in fact that reading arose in just one year, in which he voted distinctly from Clinton on precisely two bills; rankings from other years did not suggest he was so radical.


Even in the Deep South of the USA, a hotbed of repugnant segregation and prejudice 50 years ago, anti-black racism is no longer an issue (Dr Sowell experienced racism there decades ago, but returned to the same place, with a white blonde companion as well, and had no problem).

I'm sure the situation there has improved enormously but I wouldn't be inclined to take one black man's experience of lack of trouble as proof it is "no longer an issue".


Of course. But it's more likely that white-on-black crimes will be accused of being racially motivate, but not black-on-white crime with shouts of "honky bastard" or some such.

What they are accused of being is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is any compelling statistical evidence concerning differences in the incidence of racially-motivated attacks by race. If there are none then the whole issue is uninformative.


Bible verses regarded as hate literature: Court rules Scripture exposed homosexuals to ridicule (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080)

This is pretty much the sort of thing I had in mind - plucking and promoting certain passages in a manner very likely to lead to an out of context interpretation. In particular, referring to texts that promote OT punishments although they are, if I gather correctly from what you have said before, superceded - and doing so without any indication to that effect. I find it hard to see how that constitutes "religious freedom".


Yet Orwell's novels attacking totalitarian brutality also criticized the restriction on thoughts.

Yes, in the context that such a restriction would be exploited in a totalitarian and brutal fashion - without which the fictitious concept loses a lot of its edge.


The NYT still displays this prize proudly.

Actually the NYT's statement about the matter (http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html) notes that they do not have the prize in question and fairly thoroughly disowns Duranty's reporting.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2009, 08:54 PM
But the finding got chucked out on appeal, which is hardly a feature of a kangaroo court. Indeed, the existence of evidently robust appeal rights is the antithesis of the concept of a kangaroo court, which entails that the verdict is pre-ordained and such procedure as exists is a token sham.
That's what it is. What else would a court be with "a 100 per cent conviction rate for federal Section 13 cases (http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080326_105422_105422)". Only a costly appeal cleared Boisson, and here "the process is the punishment".


What really happened with Boissoin reflects not on the laws in question but on their incompetent usage by a particular judge.
Not so. The laws are still unjust when a person can bring a complaint at no cost, and impose huge legal costs on an opponent.


Incidentally, I have just seen that the Steyn case brought under these laws was dismissed.
That was a record. An internationally famous author like him, who doesn't live in the People's Republic of Canada, and a magazine, is not going to be intimidated. But many other people without that protection have been attacked in a most uneven fight.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2009, 09:15 PM
According to the NT News anyway. But even assuming that is all true, and that the attacks were indeed purely "racist", a single racist attack or even a small spate of them is ludicrously short of the mark when it comes to establishing your claim that "There is now more racism by Australian Aborigines [..] than by "white" people in those countries."
I don't hear of white racist attacks on Aborigines, but did hear of the reverse.


This is simply an argument from lack of imagination on your part. Most voters are not policy analysts and their perception of candidates is influenced by the way candidates market themselves as much as by the policy-based realities.
No lack at all, compared to the glaring lack when Obama opponents were routinely accused of racism.


The fact is indeed that real policy differences between Clinton and Obama were relatively slight. The reality is that Obama was far more successful in marketing himself as someone who would effectively address perceived black disadvantages, especially as Clinton was closely associated with a presidency that disenchanted blacks did not think had done a great deal in this regard.
Even though Billy was "the first black president"?


Once again, it's very simple: imagine if >90% of whites had voted for Hillary. Leftards would jump to the "racist" conclusion. Indeed, people had done so even when Obamov wasn't polling as high a percentage of white votes as leftards would have liked.

Similarly if Christians had said about some gay icon what was said about Prejean.

[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]I'm sure the situation there has improved enormously but I wouldn't be inclined to take one black man's experience of lack of trouble as proof it is "no longer an issue".
Innocent until proven guilty. Sowell is a black man who grew up a poor orphan and is old enough to have lived through segregation and rampant racism. Other black men of the same vintage, such as Walter Williams and Larry Elder, likewise say that blacks have plenty of problems, but white racism is not one of them. Good grief, the election of a black-skinned man to the highest office of the land should have shut up the black grievance mongers for good, but no, their livelihoods depend on grievances. This is just as former slave turned black leader Booker T. Washington said:


There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.

...

I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.


What they are accused of being is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is any compelling statistical evidence concerning differences in the incidence of racially-motivated attacks by race. If there are none then the whole issue is uninformative.
But in order to justify new laws, there needs to be proof of a problem. Where is it?


This is pretty much the sort of thing I had in mind - plucking and promoting certain passages in a manner very likely to lead to an out of context interpretation.
Who says it's out of context? What gives a court any expertise on the grammatical and historical context of the passages?


In particular, referring to texts that promote OT punishments although they are, if I gather correctly from what you have said before, superceded —
You gather correctly.


and doing so without any indication to that effect. I find it hard to see how that constitutes "religious freedom".
Even the Reconstructionists, who believe that they are in force, regard it as the duty of the government, and oppose anyone taking matters into their own hand. See for example Gary North's scathing letter to Paul Hill, who had killed an abortionist (http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html).


Yes, in the context that such a restriction would be exploited in a totalitarian and brutal fashion — without which the fictitious concept loses a lot of its edge.
Also, that totalitarian power can creep up with progressive restrictions on liberty.


Actually the NYT's statement about the matter (http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html) notes that they do not have the prize in question and fairly thoroughly disowns Duranty's reporting.
That's something, although there is alternative information (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWFkNjg1MWEyNjgxYTgwMzM3NTYzOTk5OTIzMGM3MTU=).

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2009, 09:33 PM
That's what it is. What else would a court be with "a 100 per cent conviction rate for federal Section 13 cases (http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080326_105422_105422)".

Is this still the case, and out of how many cases is the conviction rate?


Only a costly appeal cleared Boisson, and here "the process is the punishment".

Boissoin actually has the right to file for costs for the appeal; I am not sure if he has done so or a result has been reached.


Not so. The laws are still unjust when a person can bring a complaint at no cost, and impose huge legal costs on an opponent.

The costs situation does need fixing, but the same goes for very many legal or para-legal processes worldwide. The case in which I spent six months in and out of court just to have a fairly common snail taken off the Tasmanian Threatened Species List was like that too - the opposition were able to bring the case for about $200 and although they lost comprehensively, they were not required to pay costs. The court in question imposes costs on the losing side in less than 5% of cases.

There are also often issues with costs in cases where one side wins then the other side successfully appeals. It would make sense in such a case that the original cost orders be set aside, but that doesn't necessarily happen.

You've previously mentioned that the US system in general is hamstrung by each side bearing their own costs, meaning that if one side is spending other people's money then the process can be a punishment there too.


That was a record. An internationally famous author like him, who doesn't live in the People's Republic of Canada, and a magazine, is not going to be intimidated. But many other people without that protection have been attacked in a most uneven fight.

Any evidence that it has anything to do with his stature rather than the actual merits of the case? I indicated in #5 that by the typical standards of such laws the Steyn case was dubious.

Goughfather
12-12-2009, 09:40 PM
"Dumb bitch", "Klaus Barbie Doll" (Klaus Barbie was a Nazi war criminal) (http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/05/miss-califoirnia-carrie-prejean.html)...

You made the original claim against liberal Christians. The first quote comes from a gay man and the second comes from Olbermann, who has no involvement with any church and does not claim any current belief. So you've failed to provide any example, let alone a general pattern.


Which is to their credit as I've said, but she was done out of a title rightfully hers because she expressed the traditional viewpoint on marriage.

Well, that's your take on the situation. The mere fact that she may have been the front-runner after displaying her body does not guarantee that the title was "rightfully hers", given that it would seem that displaying some intellect is also part of the decision making process.


And as Hagelin said, she has a lot of growing up to do. It didn't warrant the gutter attacks. Somehow the Left are never "held accountable", e.g. Wilhelm Klinton adulterating and perjuring himself and Je$$e Jack$son having a lust love child.

Cry me a river, Jono. It seems that there is some angst about Jesus' guarantee that his disciples would face persecution and in the absence of anything of substance, minor criticisms are blown way out of proportion and conservative Christians have subsequently developed a persecution complex.


Nothing like Prejean, and nothing condoned by major news networks. He never lost his judgeship as Prejean lost her title.

Prejean never had a title to lose. And contrary to your claims, unlike Prejean, Kirby faced real persecution, which you predictably trivialise. I won't even repeat the scandalous accusation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirby_(judge)#Heffernan_allegations), but I suppose that you forget that Bill Heffernan use parliamentary privilege in a cowardly fashion to make comments that otherwise would have been defamatory and legally actionable in an effort to unseat him from the High Court? Also note the classy nature of Kirby's forgiveness.



A good reason not to make "taking offense" a matter for any court. But such leftard passive-aggressiveness won't work on me.

No, it's a statement of honest opinion, and echoing the genuine Christian and scholar Gresham Machen's classic book Christianity and Liberalism (http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/) (1923). His conclusion that liberalism was not another branch of Christianity, but a totally different religion. Walter Martin, author of The Kingdom of the Cults, had a talk "The Cult of Liberalism", showing that liberalism copies the same language as Christianity but skews the meanings so it teaches something diametrically opposed.

It's hardly surprising that you dismiss cases of anti-Christian persecutions. If the government started this in earnest, there wouldn't be any evidence to convict you.

I have no plan to take you to court, but I will take you to task for making stupid and offensive remarks. Again, I ask you, where have I made Christophobic statements? Point to them or retract your statement.



Instead, the GOP still tries to appease race-baiting grievance mongers. Yet they still manage to win about 10% of the black vote at the most. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

But all they need to do is win 20% of the black vote, and the Dems would be deservedly finished as a political party.

Evidently, most black Americans don't believe your propaganda, given the spectular failure of the GOP to capture the black vote.


Sez you. She didn't have a teleprompter. And it was the content not the style that cost her the title,

Sez you.



Probably since I first used it in 1994 (http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#9).

Are you seriously claiming to be the first person to use that insult? And indeed, even if you are, it would still make you guilty of recycling your own material.


Only on ChessChat, but in that case wrongly.

Also in an Amazon review of one of your books some time ago, I believe.


From their atheopathic blinders.

While those literalists who wrote in support of your book were perfectly objective in their comments? Give me a break.

Goughfather
12-12-2009, 09:50 PM
The costs situation does need fixing, but the same goes for very many legal or para-legal processes worldwide. The case in which I spent six months in and out of court just to have a fairly common snail taken off the Tasmanian Threatened Species List was like that too - the opposition were able to bring the case for about $200 and although they lost comprehensively, they were not required to pay costs. The court in question imposes costs on the losing side in less than 5% of cases.

Exactly right, Kevin. It's astoundingly easy, not to mention cheap to bring a Statement of Claim against someone. Indeed there is probably more incentive to make do this than to make a complaint of religious vilification, given that a litigant can often secure a handsome cash settlement from the mere threat of litigation, whereas the standard punishment for an individual or corporation found guilty of religious vilification is a fine.

Actually, I was unaware that the imposition of costs occurs so infrequently in civil litigation, so thank you for that statistic. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that it is very hard to demonstrate that a civil action is brought in a vexatious manner and not in good faith.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2009, 10:58 PM
Exactly right, Kevin. It's astoundingly easy, not to mention cheap to bring a Statement of Claim against someone. Indeed there is probably more incentive to make do this than to make a complaint of religious vilification, given that a litigant can often secure a handsome cash settlement from the mere threat of litigation, whereas the standard punishment for an individual or corporation found guilty of religious vilification is a fine.
This is indeed a serious problem. So no need to add to it with new anti-vilification laws to solve a non-existent problem.


Actually, I was unaware that the imposition of costs occurs so infrequently in civil litigation, so thank you for that statistic. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that it is very hard to demonstrate that a civil action is brought in a vexatious manner and not in good faith.
It's worse in America, because the trial lawyer/Dem lobby denounce the "English system" of "loser pays", which is really the Western system sans USA.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2009, 11:20 PM
You made the original claim against liberal Christians.
No, it was in answer to a context-free "I've seen a bit of amusement, but can you show me any examples of hatred, let alone a general pattern?"


The first quote comes from a gay man and the second comes from Olbermann, who has no involvement with any church and does not claim any current belief. So you've failed to provide any example, let alone a general pattern.
I was providing patterns of vilification against Prejean.


Well, that's your take on the situation. The mere fact that she may have been the front-runner after displaying her body does not guarantee that the title was "rightfully hers", given that it would seem that displaying some intellect is also part of the decision making process.
By "intellect", GF means toeing the Gaystapo line on marriage. That obnoxious little jerk made it clear that it was the support of traditional marriage that cost her the title.


Prejean never had a title to lose.
She did so, in that if it were not for her answer (almost the same as Obamov's ; the difference was that she was sincere) she would have won the title. Evidently christophobic viewpoint discrimination doesn't bother you.


And contrary to your claims, unlike Prejean, Kirby faced real persecution, which you predictably trivialise. I won't even repeat the scandalous accusation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirby_(judge)#Heffernan_allegations), but I suppose that you forget that Bill Heffernan use parliamentary privilege in a cowardly fashion to make comments that otherwise would have been defamatory and legally actionable in an effort to unseat him from the High Court? Also note the classy nature of Kirby's forgiveness.
Heffernan 's was a one-off, unlike Hilton and Olbermann, so stop grousing. And it didn't cost Kirby his judgeship, and his attacker was not fêted the way Hilton and Olbermann were; rather, Heffernan was demoted by his party. Prejean's slanderers have not apologized either.


Again, I ask you, where have I made Christophobic statements? Point to them or retract your statement.
As Machen said, liberalism is not a branch of Christianity but an anti-christian religion.


Evidently, most black Americans don't believe your propaganda, given the spectular failure of the GOP to capture the black vote.
I have not propagandized to the black community! Dr Sowell's complaints were that the GOP has been totally inept in its outreach to the black voters, trying to offer them more of the patronizing crap that the blacks know they can get better from the Dems. So they should change such an obviously failed strategy, and show how blacks would benefit from conservative policies.


Sez you.
The homosexual pageant judge didn't whinge because she was not eloquent, but because she opposed gay "marriage".


Also in an Amazon review of one of your books some time ago, I believe.
I wouldn't know.


While those literalists who wrote in support of your book were perfectly objective in their comments? Give me a break.
Name one of these "literalists"? But Hebrew and Greek scholars were happy with my analysis of the biblical text.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2009, 01:36 AM
I don't hear of white racist attacks on Aborigines, but did hear of the reverse.

So, are you a regular reader of the NT News? If not, where did you first come across that story? Determining how much racism there is in a society isn't something you can do just by considering your own media output.


No lack at all, compared to the glaring lack when Obama opponents were routinely accused of racism.

Incorrect. If your arguments are arguments from lack of imagination then they remain such irrespective of what arguments by others showing an even more comprehensive lack you may be able to find. Argumentative failure is not redeemed by finding a greater failure by someone of opposing views.


Even though Billy was "the first black president"?

A comment of unclear meaning and that according to its utterer was widely misconstrued.


Once again, it's very simple: imagine if >90% of whites had voted for Hillary. Leftards would jump to the "racist" conclusion.

What conclusion "leftards" would or wouldn't jump to is immaterial to whether or not your conclusions are valid.

Furthermore, there are two main possibilities here.

1. They would be right in jumping to that conclusion, in which case there is nothing leftarded about it.

2. They would be wrong in jumping to that conclusion, in which case you are probably equally wrong to more or less jump to the reverse.

You might think (and this is a common feature of your debating style) that it counts as a win in the culture wars if you can show your arguments to simply be less wingtarded than those of the more obvious patzers on the opposing wing. As I see it that whole style of debate (if it is even worth calling it that) is a double-forfeit.


Similarly if Christians had said about some gay icon what was said about Prejean.

Yes, I'm sure gay icons are extremely sensitive to unwarranted abuse about their breast implants. Those talent quests are fakery contests, and Prejean is a hypocrite who entered them on the pretext of a squeaky-cleanness she didn't posess (thus breaching contract) then abused that profile to push judgemental comments against gay marriage. I couldn't care less about what was said about her since the facts condemn her far more completely than any of the insults. Oh, and I couldn't care less about any other entrant in a Miss Fake Vanilla Not Really Bimbo But Capable Of Looking Like One (Oh But It's OK Because We Raise Money For Charity) Mainstream Limited Beauty Concept quest either. The sooner those silly things go the way of the dinosaurs the better IMO.


Innocent until proven guilty.

When you're generalising from a single anecdotal example in a debate about a complex social issue there is no "until proven guilty" about it.


But in order to justify new laws, there needs to be proof of a problem. Where is it?

I was not talking about whether new laws are justified or not in that particular context. I was talking about the foundation or otherwise of your view of the relevance of differences in assault levels between races, a subject you chose to introduce.


Who says it's out of context?

By implication, in this case, in my view, you do. :D


What gives a court any expertise on the grammatical and historical context of the passages?

It is up to the sides in such a case to bring that expertise to the court and convince the court of their standing. Called "calling an expert witness".


Even the Reconstructionists, who believe that they are in force, regard it as the duty of the government, and oppose anyone taking matters into their own hand.

Sure, but if someone puts about the view that it is the duty of the government to kill people for their sexuality (either as their real view or through clumsy expression) then that could create some risk that some unstable clueless goon will buy the duty part but think the government needs a little help with its job.


That's something, although there is alternative information (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWFkNjg1MWEyNjgxYTgwMzM3NTYzOTk5OTIzMGM3MTU=).

Your alternative information is six years old.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2009, 01:44 AM
Actually, I was unaware that the imposition of costs occurs so infrequently in civil litigation, so thank you for that statistic.

Actually technically a planning appeals tribunal rather than a typical civil court as such, so I doubt the stat holds up for civil litigation more generally.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2009, 06:52 PM
If your arguments are arguments from lack of imagination then they remain such irrespective of what arguments by others showing an even more comprehensive lack you may be able to find. Argumentative failure is not redeemed by finding a greater failure by someone of opposing views.
But when it comes to introducing new laws, there should be something more than imagination.


2. They would be wrong in jumping to that conclusion, in which case you are probably equally wrong to more or less jump to the reverse.
Or else it shows the inconsistency of opponents, since similar and stronger evidence against an opposite position is ignored.


You might think (and this is a common feature of your debating style) that it counts as a win in the culture wars if you can show your arguments to simply be less wingtarded than those of the more obvious patzers on the opposing wing. As I see it that whole style of debate (if it is even worth calling it that) is a double-forfeit.
Yet the leftard arguments have determined policy in many cases, so it is important to show how the reverse undermines their cause, as an a fortiori or reductio ad absurdum.

It has been especially damaging lately, since one result was leaning on lenders to make loans to minorities, a major factor in the housing crisis. I.e. banks had a lower percentage of loans granted to black borrowers, and thus were accused of racism. But as Sowell shows in his book The Housing Boom and Bust (http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/20/the-housing-boom-and-bust), (1) the default rate was about the same, suggesting that the banks used fair criteria (2) Asians were approved at a higher rate than whites, yet no one took this as evidence of discrimination against whites.


Yes, I'm sure gay icons are extremely sensitive to unwarranted abuse about their breast implants. Those talent quests are fakery contests, and Prejean is a hypocrite who entered them on the pretext of a squeaky-cleanness she didn't posess (thus breaching contract)
She had a past, as lots of young people do. So what? This was just an excuse.


then abused that profile to push judgemental comments against gay marriage.
She was asked, and gave basically the same answer as Obamov. The only difference was that she meant it. Would you have preferred her to lie like Obamov?


I couldn't care less about what was said about her since the facts condemn her far more completely than any of the insults.
Most doubtful. Yeah, she has done silly things in her past, but that didn't warrant the treatment she received.


Oh, and I couldn't care less about any other entrant in a Miss Fake Vanilla Not Really Bimbo But Capable Of Looking Like One (Oh But It's OK Because We Raise Money For Charity) Mainstream Limited Beauty Concept quest either. The sooner those silly things go the way of the dinosaurs the better IMO.
I agree.


By implication, in this case, in my view, you do. :D
I do, but I am better qualified to know than judges.


It is up to the sides in such a case to bring that expertise to the court and convince the court of their standing. Called "calling an expert witness".
It would be an absurd waste of court time to decide proper exegesis of a text!


Sure, but if someone puts about the view that it is the duty of the government to kill people for their sexuality (either as their real view or through clumsy expression) then that could create some risk that some unstable clueless goon will buy the duty part but think the government needs a little help with its job.
By that reasoning, one could ban the Bible and Koran as hate literature.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2009, 09:04 PM
But when it comes to introducing new laws, there should be something more than imagination.

Again you're drifting from points to unrelated points, because the point of my comments about argument from lack of imagination was to point out the lack of substance in claims that a high black vote for Obama was proof of racism by black voters.


Or else it shows the inconsistency of opponents, since similar and stronger evidence against an opposite position is ignored.

Try "and" instead of "or" and you may be right. :lol:


Yet the leftard arguments have determined policy in many cases, so it is important to show how the reverse undermines their cause, as an a fortiori or reductio ad absurdum.

But that does not justify claiming the high black vote for Obama to be evidence when you are asked to substantiate a claim of racism by African Americans.

When I ask what reason you have for thinking that a claim is true, I'm not asking you what reason you have for thinking that the claim is no sillier than some pile of piffle from some psephelogically inept race-card player on the left who neither of us will take seriously. Indeed, if flawed conclusions of racism in leftist "analysis" are such a problem, all the more reason not to offer the same from the other side.


She had a past, as lots of young people do. So what? This was just an excuse.

The formal requirements of these sorts of stupid quests screen out entrants who have "a past". It is a formal requirement of entry in Miss USA that an entrant "represents" that they have not and will not engage in any activities which may bring the event into "disrepute, ridicule and contempt" and this is defined to explicitly bar contestants who have ever engaged in:


any type of use of illegal drugs , any other illegal behavior or activity, professional or amateur nude or semi-nude dancing or modeling in any sexually oriented business or club, any type of nude or semi-nude photographs or video tapes, prostitution, any felony conviction, probation or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

There is no way that anyone who gets far in one of these contests would not know such kinds of things can get you booted. It has happened many times.

Now, I don't have any issue whatsoever with a 17 year old making explicit tapes of themselves for a partner if that's what they like doing, except that it is monumentally dumb given the high risk of such a tape falling into hands where it could cause embarrassment (including staying with the partner when, as virtually always happens in a racy relationship starting that early, the couple split up).

However, to have done so and to then enter a contest where there is a clear assumption of innocence and squeaky-cleanness is a case of blatant dishonesty. That those requirements are absurd and puritanical is entirely beside the point - nobody is compelled to enter these quests.


She was asked, and gave basically the same answer as Obamov. The only difference was that she meant it. Would you have preferred her to lie like Obamov?

I would have preferred her to avoid lying by not entering the contest in the first place, though I would prefer it more if the contest simply didn't exist. Given that the contests are such exercises in fakery, whether she was honest or not in answer to the question itself is something I'm completely indifferent about.


Most doubtful. Yeah, she has done silly things in her past, but that didn't warrant the treatment she received.

What was said about her that was more damning than the fact that she is a lying contract-breaking hypocrite who has the temerity to get involved in a debate about who should marry who despite having herself engaged in something that many of her new moralistic fellow travellers regard (incorrectly IMO) as child pornography?

I'll only grant that she was treated too harshly if you can find me a quote where somebody said she was an even bigger hypocrite than Tony Abbott. :lol: And then, only too harshly by that person.


It would be an absurd waste of court time to decide proper exegesis of a text!

Well, you were asking what gave a court expertise in such matters, and I was pointing out that if it is relevant for the court to have such expertise then the ability of the sides to call witnesses is the way it is acquired.

As it happens, I agree (on further thought) that it would be a complete waste of court time, but specifically because courts in cases like this (as with defamation courts) are much more concerned with received meaning than with intended meaning.


By that reasoning, one could ban the Bible and Koran as hate literature.

I don't think so. I think a punchy but deceptive out-of-context public presentation stressing selected excerpts in a manner that implies hatred and death-wishing carries more danger of incitement than people reading the texts as a whole, or even randomly dipping into them.

Also, as I have already indicated, there is no religious freedom argument in defence of the former practice. But for a full text of a major religion there is always the religious freedom argument, no matter how absurd the contents of the text itself.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2009, 11:47 AM
Again you're drifting from points to unrelated points, because the point of my comments about argument from lack of imagination was to point out the lack of substance in claims that a high black vote for Obama was proof of racism by black voters.
It has plenty of substance given the reasoning followed by many leftards to impute white racism. And a >90% vote for the person of the same skin pigmentation is very strange; equally reliable Dem voting blocs were more evenly split between Obama and Hillary. Some blacks are on record as saying they supported Obama because they wanted a black man to reach the highest office in the land.


When I ask what reason you have for thinking that a claim is true, I'm not asking you what reason you have for thinking that the claim is no sillier than some pile of piffle from some psephelogically inept race-card player on the left who neither of us will take seriously. Indeed, if flawed conclusions of racism in leftist "analysis" are such a problem, all the more reason not to offer the same from the other side.
Unless it's a reductio ad absurdum of their "analysis", especially as the evidence even under their own flawed statistical "analysis" is stronger for the reverse.



any type of use of illegal drugs , any other illegal behavior or activity, professional or amateur nude or semi-nude dancing or modeling in any sexually oriented business or club, any type of nude or semi-nude photographs or video tapes, prostitution, any felony conviction, probation or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.
The semi-nude requirement is indeed a hypocritical requirement for a context that involves a bikini walk.


However, to have done so and to then enter a contest where there is a clear assumption of innocence and squeaky-cleanness is a case of blatant dishonesty. That those requirements are absurd and puritanical is entirely beside the point - nobody is compelled to enter these quests.
So something she did many years before was supposed to disqualify her? And that was not what cost her the Miss USA crown, as the homosexual judge explicity said it was her answer on marriage.


I would have preferred her to avoid lying by not entering the contest in the first place, though I would prefer it more if the contest simply didn't exist.
Me too. Apparently lots of women like to watch them.


Given that the contests are such exercises in fakery, whether she was honest or not in answer to the question itself is something I'm completely indifferent about.
One can have honesty within an exercise of fakery. I would prefer that women's chess titles didn't exist either, but it doesn't mean that I can't say that such a title from a zonal is the bigger farce.


What was said about her that was more damning than the fact that she is a lying contract-breaking hypocrite who has the temerity to get involved in a debate about who should marry
She didn't start the debate!

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2009, 04:12 PM
It has plenty of substance given the reasoning followed by many leftards to impute white racism.

Again, this is irrelevant. I am interested in what evidence there is (if any) for your statements about racism actually being true, not what evidence there is for them passing muster under the standards imployed by "many leftards".


And a >90% vote for the person of the same skin pigmentation is very strange; equally reliable Dem voting blocs were more evenly split between Obama and Hillary.

Again, those "equally reliable" Dem voting blocs differ not only in race but also in demographics and in the manner in which they were marketed to in the campaign. Clinton did extremely well among poor white voters while affluent white voters were not that strongly split. But Clinton specifically marketed to that "rustbucket" constituency so that was not necessarily about race either.


Some blacks are on record as saying they supported Obama because they wanted a black man to reach the highest office in the land.

Sure, but that is not necessarily racist if they genuinely believe that a black man doing so is the most effective way to improve their life prospects. Polls showed the proportion saying they were more likely to vote Obama because of his race was relatively low, and as I've pointed out on the state elections thread, people who say they are more likely to vote X because of factor Y only rarely actually change their vote on that issue. Of course, some voters may have been unconsciously racist in their voting decisions, but the size of Obama's vote among black voters doesn't prove there were any more voting in that manner for him than whites voting likewise for McCain or for Clinton. It is a very difficult issue to untangle accurately but an easy one to overestimate.


Unless it's a reductio ad absurdum of their "analysis", especially as the evidence even under their own flawed statistical "analysis" is stronger for the reverse.

It wasn't presented just as a reductio ad absurdum of their analysis though, it was presented as an answer to my question. It doesn't answer my question convincingly.


So something she did many years before was supposed to disqualify her?

Yes, under the farcical rules of such contests; all the more reason not to enter them especially if one has to lie to do so. Most likely many of the entrants to these absurd contests lie about their pasts to enter them and the golden rule is "don't get found out".

Furthermore, if her story about being 17 at the time (and also of the time of revealing photos) is correct (which has itself been widely disputed) then the "many years before" still comes out at only about four.


And that was not what cost her the Miss USA crown, as the homosexual judge explicity said it was her answer on marriage.

He said it was the stupidity (as he perceived it) of her answer rather than his disagreement with it, and suggested a manner in which a similar answer could have been given that he would not have judged her harshly for. (But I would! :D )

But the fact that that is not what cost her the crown is irrelevant to my point that her agreement to enter the contest was a lie and her action in making a judgemental statement against gay marriage was hypocrisy.


She didn't start the debate!

This is true; she was asked the question, for which she may well not have been prepared, and she answered it. But having a past that some would be very morally judgemental about makes it much more difficult to get away with a judgemental answer to such a question. Furthermore, rather than leave it at that, she then went on to further entrench her hypocrisy by appearing in anti-same-sex marriage ads, without admitting that she herself had appeared in premarital racy videos and lied to get into beauty quests and was thus in no position to be lecturing anyone in favour of religious morals or about what gender they should be allowed to marry.

Of course, apologists can cut her slack and say (as the Hagelin paragraph you quoted did) that she is still only partway Christian and is yet to grasp the idea that commitment to Christian values cannot be halfhearted, and predict that over time she will develop more consistent views and realise that her present hypocrisy is completely out of order.

But these kinds of hypocritical halfway-house "Christians" are a dime a dozen - I have personally encountered quite a few of them and most of them never change. And something that is an extremely common facet of these types is that they love using the religion as a pretext to support restrictive politics and predictions of hellfire towards gays, atheists and women who have abortions (all the stuff that doesn't actually affect them personally), but they just don't get (at all) the concept that the moral codes they are getting all this from also expect them to severely restrict what they do with their own heterosexuality.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2009, 04:34 PM
Again, this is irrelevant. I am interested in what evidence there is (if any) for your statements about racism actually being true, not what evidence there is for them passing muster under the standards imployed by "many leftards".
Well, this threat is about human rights commissions, anti-vilification bills. So lets see evidence of white racism.


Sure, but that is not necessarily racist if they genuinely believe that a black man doing so is the most effective way to improve their life prospects. Polls showed the proportion saying they were more likely to vote Obama because of his race was relatively low, and as I've pointed out on the state elections thread, people who say they are more likely to vote X because of factor Y only rarely actually change their vote on that issue. Of course, some voters may have been unconsciously racist in their voting decisions, but the size of Obama's vote among black voters doesn't prove there were any more voting in that manner for him than whites voting likewise for McCain or for Clinton. It is a very difficult issue to untangle accurately but an easy one to overestimate.
OK fine, but let's hope leftards, including the black race-baiters, realize this whenever whites don't vote for a black candidate, or oppose Obamov's policies.


Yes, under the farcical rules of such contests; all the more reason not to enter them especially if one has to lie to do so. Most likely many of the entrants to these absurd contests lie about their pasts to enter them and the golden rule is "don't get found out".
So the only reason for the dirt-digging on Prejean was to find an excuse for what they already wanted to do: get rid of her for her non-PC answer. Then an angry detractor vowed that Prejean was "going to die broke, drunk, and lonely. We are going to destroy her. She doesn't know what she is up against."


Furthermore, if her story about being 17 at the time (and also of the time of revealing photos) is correct (which has itself been widely disputed) then the "many years before" still comes out at only about four.
Of course, 17yos are so mature ... and anything done as a teen should be used as a club to beat someone with, at least conservatives.


He said it was the stupidity (as he perceived it) of her answer rather than his disagreement with it, and suggested a manner in which a similar answer could have been given that he would not have judged her harshly for.
Most unlikely that it was anything but the content, esp. given his viciousness afterwards. And this Hilton moron is hardly a great intellect to judge anyone's stupidity.


But the fact that that is not what cost her the crown is irrelevant to my point that her agreement to enter the contest was a lie and her action in making a judgemental statement against gay marriage was hypocrisy.
It was an answer to a question. Much of the response to her answer was very judgemental. Yet since Obamov gave essentially the same answer, why was he not pilloried for being judgemental? Oh I know, because the same vile persecutors of Prejean know that Obamov is lying through his teeth.


This is true; she was asked the question, for which she may well not have been prepared, and she answered it. But having a past that some would be very morally judgemental about makes it much more difficult to get away with a judgemental answer to such a question. Furthermore, rather than leave it at that, she then went on to further entrench her hypocrisy by appearing in anti-same-sex marriage ads, without admitting that she herself had appeared in premarital racy videos and lied to get into beauty quests and was thus in no position to be lecturing anyone in favour of religious morals or about what gender they should be allowed to marry.
Unless she recognized that her past foibles really were mistakes. This is quite different to the warm-mongers who unrepentantly zip around in their private jets while moralizing about the need to reduce CO2-emissions.


Of course, apologists can cut her slack and say (as the Hagelin paragraph you quoted did) that she is still only partway Christian and is yet to grasp the idea that commitment to Christian values cannot be halfhearted, and predict that over time she will develop more consistent views and realise that her present hypocrisy is completely out of order.
Yes, it's hardly unfair to give her a chance. But apparently "christian charity" is not supposed to extend to people like her.


But these kinds of hypocritical halfway-house "Christians" are a dime a dozen - I have personally encountered quite a few of them and most of them never change.
Now who's using anecdotal experience? ;)


And something that is an extremely common facet of these types is that they love using the religion as a pretext to support restrictive politics and predictions of hellfire towards gays, atheists and women who have abortions (all the stuff that doesn't actually affect them personally), but they just don't get (at all) the concept that the moral codes they are getting all this from also expect them to severely restrict what they do with their own heterosexuality.
Yet Sarah Palin carried her Down Syndrome baby full term, while some on the left thought she should have aborted him. That certainly affected her, but she showed that she practised the pro-life policies she preaches. She is also faithful to the man she married two decades ago.

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2009, 09:53 PM
Well, this threat is about human rights commissions, anti-vilification bills. So lets see evidence of white racism.

You were quite content to assert that there is "precious little racism from Europeans in Australia and America these days" without providing any evidence for that statement. What kind of "evidence" will you accept?


So the only reason for the dirt-digging on Prejean was to find an excuse for what they already wanted to do: get rid of her for her non-PC answer.

Non-PC? The whole silly show is run by Donald Trump! After the first release of revealing images, Trump publicly defended her answer to the gay marriage question as "honourable" and the same as Obama's, and declined to sack her. She was sacked sometime later in the midst of ostensibly unrelated contract disputes and her contract was terminated (although she was contesting it) before the "sex tape" came out (after which she stopped).


Then an angry detractor vowed that Prejean was "going to die broke, drunk, and lonely. We are going to destroy her. She doesn't know what she is up against."

Do you have a source for that comment (as in, where and how it was originally delivered)? Who was the detractor? Who is the "we" in this instance?


Of course, 17yos are so mature ... and anything done as a teen should be used as a club to beat someone with, at least conservatives.

Quite aside from the questions about whether she was really 17 or older, it was the supposedly "mature" Prejean (age 21) who was willing to lie about her far from distant past to get into such a contest, and to make moralistic comments about what people should or shouldn't be allowed to do when at only a few years younger she had been giving Christian sexual morality the finger.


Most unlikely that it was anything but the content, esp. given his viciousness afterwards.

How does that follow? What's so odd about the idea that a person is more vicious towards the holder of an opposing (or even the same) viewpoint if the person expressing that viewpoint does so stupidly?


And this Hilton moron is hardly a great intellect to judge anyone's stupidity.

Whether his view of her intelligence was (a) well founded (b) hypocritical has no bearing on the point about whether that view was his reason for judging her harshly or not.


It was an answer to a question. Much of the response to her answer was very judgemental.

People can get judged for it when they are judgemental about the marriage decisions of others. Funny that. Judge and you could get judged - isn't something to that effect in your scriptures? :whistle:


Unless she recognized that her past foibles really were mistakes.

In that case she should have been upfront and honest about them and admitted her own "imperfections" while seeking to judge the lifestyles of others. Rather, she allowed them to remain unknown until others revealed them. Of course she did this because she was breaking the rules and did not want her lie to be detected.


Now who's using anecdotal experience? ;)

Anecdotal experience of too many data points. :lol:

Of course, it may be that there are only a dozen or so of these half-Christian homophobes in Tassie and that I just happen to have met them all. And I'm not sure empirical data measuring attitudes to gay marriage by sexual history and religion combined would be as easy to find as some of the stuff you can't be bothered looking up.

But it's not too hard to find evidence for a related proposition, namely that "Christian" (as self-described) attitudes to sex before marriage are far softer than - and in a significant number of cases contradictory to - Christian attitudes to pretty much anything gay.

Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll of the USA in 2003 showed the following responses to the following acts:

Sex before marriage:
Always acceptable 21%
Sometimes acceptable 34%
Unacceptable but should be tolerated 19%
Not acceptable and should not be tolerated 24%

Sex between two adults of same sex: 13, 14, 18, 53
Marriage between two adults of same sex: 13, 10, 15, 61

These are extremely wide discrepancies in a nation in which 79% claim to be Christians, leaving no doubt that many American so-called Christians are far more strongly opposed to gay sex/marriage than to sex before marriage. Indeed, on these figures a minimum of around 43% of self-described Christians in America think SBM is either sometimes or always OK, but the number of "Christians" believing SBM is sometimes or always OK exceeds the total number of respondents who condone gay sex or marriage.

If the pro-SBM anti-gay "Christians" aren't real Christians (and probably neither of us think they are) then nor is Prejean.


Yet Sarah Palin carried her Down Syndrome baby full term, while some on the left thought she should have aborted him. That certainly affected her, but she showed that she practised the pro-life policies she preaches.

Indeed. But she couldn't get the no-sex-before-marriage part of the message through to her own teenage daughter (which doesn't show any hypocrisy on her part, but should have at least given her more perspective on the unrealistic nature of her ideology.)

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2009, 10:11 PM
Christianity has been demoted by the political class (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/145370)
By Theodore Dalrymple
11 December 2009

BY FAR the most significant thing about the case against Benjamin and Sharon Vogelenzang was that it reached a court of law in the first place. This evangelical Christian couple who run a hotel were accused of making derogatory remarks about the religion of one of their guests, Ericka Tazi, a Muslim convert, and thereby spreading religious hatred and contempt.

Mrs Tazi was found to have exaggerated the couple’s verbal abuse grossly but the fact that the case was thrown out of court should not blind us to the insidious and creeping reign of terror that the Government has introduced in Britain by facilitating this kind of prosecution.

While the criminal justice system actively promotes real crime by its refusal to repress it vigorously, it attempts to make criminals of Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang because they expressed forthright Christian beliefs.

For myself I do not much care to be buttonholed by religious enthusiasts but in a free country that is a situation with which citizens must be expected to cope on their own without resort to the courts.

Apart from this, however, there is the strong suspicion that if the boot had been on the other foot, if the Vogelenzangs had complained about remarks made by Mrs Tazi about their religion, no case would have come to court.

The reason for the difference in approach is an officially-sponsored indifference or hostility to anything which might be considered part of the European and British cultural and religious heritage, combined with a tender regard for any non- European and non-British cultural heritage.

...

So when members of our political class express their adherence to multiculturalism they are not expressing their love of other cultures, they are expressing hatred of their own and it is this which explains the discrepancy in the way a Christian who derides Islam can now expect to be treated by comparison with a Muslim who derides Christianity. The hatred of that section of the political class for their own country’s culture, traditions and past is insincere in another sense also.

By expressing that hatred they imagine themselves to be exhibiting their own moral superiority for all the world and especially the intelligentsia, to see. Their hatred is actually moral exhibitionism. We all know the kind of odious patriot who believes everything in his own country is best merely because it is his own and who therefore despises every thing about all other countries, from their language to their cooking to their way of dress.

Our political class is a mirror image of this kind of person but preens itself on being morally superior to him.

...

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2010, 10:11 AM
Report Finds Over 1,200 Crimes Against [American] Churches in 2009


There were at least 1,237 crimes committed against Christian churches and ministries in the United States this past year, according to a report released Monday.

Included among the crimes are 12 homicides and 38 other violent incidents – including three sexual assaults and three kidnappings – 98 arsons and over 700 burglaries, according to the 2009 “Crimes Against Christian Organizations in the United States” report published by the Christian Security Network.

The network said the church burglaries resulted in an estimated $24 million in property loss.

Of course, the Leftmedia ignored most, and of course none resulted in prosecution for a “hate crime”. Of course, I think the notion of “hate crime” is crass (is there also a “love crime” category?), but this shows the hypocritical double standards of so-called compassionate liberal media (and their leftard churchian allies). It would have been front-page news if one of those crimes happened to a gay bar, or even a mosque, and there would be new calls for still more hate crimes legislation.

Capablanca-Fan
21-01-2010, 02:04 AM
The Truth Shall Set You Free (Offer Not Applicable in the Netherlands) (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmVmODIyM2JhMjgwYTNhMWIxMTliNzBmMmJiNGM1ZWI=)
Mark Steyn
17 Jan 2010

This sounds very familiar. During my long battles with Canada's disgusting and corrupt "human rights" thought-police, I was frequently told (by lawyers, experts, "human rights" activists, Islamists et al) that "truth is no defense." The factual accuracy of what I'd written was never in dispute; it was whether or not it was legal to say it, however accurate it may be. And so it goes at Geert Wilders's show trial:


“It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.

An "Openbaar Ministerie" sounds like my kind of government department, where the booze flows as freely as the trillion-dollar line-items. But it is, in fact, the prosecution service of the Dutch Ministry of Justice — although, given the state of Dutch "justice," the Ministry for Openly Barring Persons may be a more accurate translation.

What I find striking about the arrangements for this "trial" is that the Dutch state has declined to provide Mr. Wilders with the same degree of security they lavished on Theo van Gogh's killer. You'd almost get the impression it would suit them if he failed to survive till the verdict.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2010, 11:31 PM
The People's Republic of Victoria don't have enough complaints of racism or other forms of discrimination, so now they are letting loose their Discrimination Gestapo without any complaints being made (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/victoria_sets_loose_its_discrimination_witchhunter s/).