|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: HELL: The Official SoF Phelps-watch Thread
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
I thought the Phelpses were garbage?
No human being is garbage. Although I'll warrant the Phelpses tempt one to say so.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
This is Hell, mate. Go play in Heaven.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
This is Hell, mate. Go play in Heaven.
Sorry. A lie is a lie is a lie, even in Hell. Go play on the freeway.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I SOOOO want to acquaint him and his followers with Sections 176 and 319 of the Criminal Code. That is Obstructing Clergy or Disrupting a Religious Meeting, and Public Incitement of Hatred, respectively. Punishable upon summary conviction (up to two years less a day in jail).
Much as I don't like the Phelps, I don't think I'd like to reactivate an archaic law that gives clergymen and their congregants special protections not granted to anyone else. That strikes me as something that shoulda gone the way of the blasphemy laws a long time ago.
I rememeber in New Brunswick back in the 80s, some traditionalist Catholics tried to go to a church and get communion on the tongue from a bishop who had announced he would not be administering it that way. The bishop actually tried to get them charged under that law. As I recall, the judge threw it out of court, and lambasted the bishop for trying to use the judiciary to resolve a religious dispute.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Are you smoking something? Section 176 is anything BUT archaic. It is written to apply to any religious body, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Rastafarian. It is one of the primary guarantees of religious freedom in Canada. I learned that from a top-flight Bay Street lawyer. It doesn't protect people from disagreement, it protects everyone from violence and hatred.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Annieoldiron
Apprentice
# 11967
|
Posted
Is a funeral a public meeting? I'm not sure that it is being held in a church? I read somewhere that the family wanted a quiet , private funeral. I'm sure they wouldn't be inviting Mr Phelps and his Flakes!! Leaving aside the religious component, surely incitment of hatred would be a valid charge?
Posts: 46 | From: canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Section 176
It applies not only to religious meetings, but to any social or benevolent meeting. It doesn't have to be public, there merely has to be an assembly. A funeral certainly meets the criteria. Doesn't have to be in a church.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Blessed Pangolin
Shipmate
# 13623
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Could we please get Phelps to picket in Manitoba? Please, pretty please? I SOOOO want to acquaint him and his followers with Sections 176 and 319 of the Criminal Code. That is Obstructing Clergy or Disrupting a Religious Meeting, and Public Incitement of Hatred, respectively. Punishable upon summary conviction (up to two years less a day in jail).
He'll lose any protection of bullshit First Amendment arguments too the second he crosses the border. The Charter of Right and Freedoms has an explicit clause saying that all rights are subject to such limitations as are reasonable in a free and democratic society.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to Jail we go...
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Sadly, while whacko, they are cannier than that. Apparently, they are picketing a play this evening in Toronto (part of SummerWorks drama festival) entitled something like Pastor Phelps: A Fundamentalist Cabaret, but have said that they won't have "God Hates Fags" placards because they know that would leave them open to criminal prosecution here. Bugger. Or, rather, I'd like to see them buggered in Kingston Pen.
They inspire even less Christian thoughts in me than that. They really, really do. For that reason, they are obviously servants of the Dark One.
Posts: 460 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
He's picketing a cabaret held in his honour? C'mon, give him a free ticket. Since money is being made from his reputation, it's only fair to give him a seat. Preferably up front so he doesn't miss the message, and the rest of the audience can stare at him. If he remains silent for that long, which he won't.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Thoughtlessly posted by The Blessed Pangolin:
Or, rather, I'd like to see them buggered in Kingston Pen.
I share your dislike of Phred Phelps and his spawn, but must you use the horror of prison rape to make your point?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If Canada Customs is on the ball ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) they may be turned away at the border. They probably don't know you need passports if you fly into Canada.
IIRC, now you need one to re-enter the US. So even if Canada Customs slips up, US Customs might not let them back in!
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
quote:
Thoughtlessly posted by The Blessed Pangolin:
Or, rather, I'd like to see them buggered in Kingston Pen.
I share your dislike of Phred Phelps and his spawn, but must you use the horror of prison rape to make your point?
We can skip that part. Kingston Penitentiary was constructed in 1835. It looks like a prison. It feels like a prison. It does allows prisoners to have televisions, but that's better then the illicit drugs that get thrown in from the outside, or smuggled into the place in various orifices.
Though for a Summary Conviction, Phelps would be in provincial custody. For Toronto, that would mean a stay in the in the Lindsay Jail.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
I thought the Phelpses were garbage?
No human being is garbage. Although I'll warrant the Phelpses tempt one to say so.
They do tempt one to a certain nostalgia for the burning of heretics... Get thee behind me...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petrified
Ship’s ballast
# 10667
|
Posted
I see from his site that they are planning to picket the Olympic Stadium in China - that should be interesting.
--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"
Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Sober Preachers Kid wrote:
quote:
Are you smoking something? Section 176 is anything BUT archaic. It is written to apply to any religious body, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Rastafarian. It is one of the primary guarantees of religious freedom in Canada.
We have was against trespassing in Canada. If I go into a church, mosque or rastafarian whatever and start shouting slogans against the faith, I can be charged with trespassing as soon as I refuse any request to leave.
Therefore, I do not see why we need a special law about religious(or benevolent) meetings, UNLESS its intended to prosecute people who have not actually gone onto church property, or maybe to pile on extra charges over and above trespassing. Either way, it sounds pretty dubious to me.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Sober Preachers Kid wrote:
quote:
Are you smoking something? Section 176 is anything BUT archaic. It is written to apply to any religious body, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Rastafarian. It is one of the primary guarantees of religious freedom in Canada.
We have laws against trespassing in Canada. If I go into a church, mosque or rastafarian whatever and start shouting slogans against the faith, I can be charged with trespassing as soon as I refuse any request to leave.
Therefore, I do not see why we need a special law about religious(or benevolent) meetings, UNLESS its intended to prosecute people who have not actually gone onto church property, or maybe to pile on extra charges over and above trespassing. Either way, it sounds pretty dubious to me.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Annieoldiron
Apprentice
# 11967
|
Posted
Controversial U.S. church group stopped at Border
Residents rallied Thursday to protect the family of a young man murdered on a Greyhound bus last week from a posse of radical religious protesters planning to portray Tim McLean's death as God's wrath.
Good news. The local citizenry got wind of their plans, and organised a protest rally thru' FaceBook, and bombarded the PM's office and the local mayor with protests. For once Immigration was on the ball, and gave them the boot when they tried to get in. Shirley says they will be back to try at another crossing, and will make it this time, as they will not have banners, and the Officers will have to strip search them to find the slogans tatooed on their butts. Gross thought, shows where their intelligence is kept!!
I think they would have met some ugly opposition had they tried anything, The cops are planning a presence should they show up. Wonder if they would consider picketing a Mob funeral, or one for the Hells Angels? Likely not, need cojones for that kind of challenge, and that's something they don't seem to have, except maybe Shirley!!
Posts: 46 | From: canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
I thought the Phelpses were garbage?
No human being is garbage. Although I'll warrant the Phelpses tempt one to say so.
They do tempt one to a certain nostalgia for the burning of heretics... Get thee behind me...
May I humbly point to my latest suggestion on the matter? Thank you.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Wonder if they would consider picketing a Mob funeral, or one for the Hells Angels?
Yeah, I think they pretty much stopped picketting US miltary funerals afer that law was passed against doing so.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Blessed Pangolin
Shipmate
# 13623
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
quote:
Thoughtlessly posted by The Blessed Pangolin:
Or, rather, I'd like to see them buggered in Kingston Pen.
I share your dislike of Phred Phelps and his spawn, but must you use the horror of prison rape to make your point?
As I also said in the post, they make me think very unchristian things. They so anger me that they cause me to take leave of my otherwise reasonable nature. I was being honest, not admirable.
Posts: 460 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Blessed Pangolin
Shipmate
# 13623
|
Posted
Missed the edit window (damn opening ceremonies!)...
Phelps et al. have consciously, deliberately, caused so much anguish that I feel little guilt in my ill will. Call me stubborn in my sin, but I think that my post demonstrates the effect that they have as force of evil.
Posts: 460 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I'll take that for a, Yes. It's deplorable, really.
So, they are just words to you: "buggered in Kingston Pen," and not very potent ones.
Please take a moment to read a little bit more about prison rape, from just one of these three sources, according to your available time and inclination: Stop Prison Rape, Wikipedia, or this New York Times article.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
We have was against trespassing in Canada. If I go into a church, mosque or rastafarian whatever and start shouting slogans against the faith, I can be charged with trespassing as soon as I refuse any request to leave.
The downside of course is that they would actually have to make a request to leave, there would already have been a disruption etc.
I don't know anything about the history of s.176(2), whether it's used very often these days, or even whether the courts have had anything to say about its constitutionality. It does have an intent requirement ("wilfully") which ups the ante a bit in terms of what the prosecution has to prove.
The hate speech law (s. 319(2)) was narrowly upheld by the Supreme Court when it was challenged in the early days on the Charter. The consequence is that it is interpreted somewhat restrictively.
[ 08. August 2008, 18:21: Message edited by: marsupial. ]
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Marsupial wrote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
We have was against trespassing in Canada. If I go into a church, mosque or rastafarian whatever and start shouting slogans against the faith, I can be charged with trespassing as soon as I refuse any request to leave.
The downside of course is that they would actually have to make a request to leave, there would already have been a disruption etc.
I take your point about the trespassing laws being unable to stop the original disruption. I guess for me the question then becomes why religious groups are getting privileges not given to anyone else.
If I walk into a meeting of the Conservative Party Of Canada and start screaming about how everyone there is a bunch of homophobic asshole freaks, I can be asked to leave, and charged with trespasssing if I don't. It's unfortunate for the Tories that no law exists to prevent the original disruption, but oh well. We're all kind of expected to live with these little annoyances.
But if I walk into a Pentecoastal service and do the same thing, suddenly there is a whole new set of laws that can be tossed at me, over and above trespassing? Simply because the Pentecostals claim to do what they do in the name of God, as opposed to the Tories who do it in the name of politics? I dunno, seems like a fairly arbitrary distinction to be making.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
So, they are just words to you: "buggered in Kingston Pen," and not very potent ones.
I think the point for me is that these kinds of jokes are offensive not to the Reverend Phelps, but to people who suffer real-life prison rape.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Annieoldiron
Apprentice
# 11967
|
Posted
They're back in! Made it through another Border point, without any prob it seems. There will be 200+ gathered in Winnipeg to prevent them from caryying out their nastiness, Strange to relate, I crossed back from the USA yesterday, and had to produce ID and receipts for the $34.00 I had spent while away. I'm a scooter riding senior don't pack any hate banners, guess they were being very thoro' About time they stopped using immigration Officers as tax-collectors it seems! Then they could concentrate on protecting Canada from Phelps -idiots, who had already announced their intention of using another route!
Posts: 46 | From: canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I take your point about the trespassing laws being unable to stop the original disruption. I guess for me the question then becomes why religious groups are getting privileges not given to anyone else.
...
But if I walk into a Pentecoastal service and do the same thing, suddenly there is a whole new set of laws that can be tossed at me, over and above trespassing? Simply because the Pentecostals claim to do what they do in the name of God, as opposed to the Tories who do it in the name of politics? I dunno, seems like a fairly arbitrary distinction to be making.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Section 176
It applies not only to religious meetings, but to any social or benevolent meeting. It doesn't have to be public, there merely has to be an assembly. A funeral certainly meets the criteria. Doesn't have to be in a church.
Does that help? Or are you saying the Tories are neither social nor benevolent? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Annieoldiron:
They're back in! Made it through another Border point, without any prob it seems.
Aha! You're stuck with them! We ain't letting them back! Do you know if Phred himself was with the group? Maybe the lot will spend a couple of years behind bars.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Does that help? Or are you saying the Tories are neither social nor benevolent?
Heh heh. But seriously, I'd be very curious to know how the courts would define "social or benevolent" for the purposes of enforcing this law.
[ 08. August 2008, 20:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Annieoldiron
Apprentice
# 11967
|
Posted
Relax Gort, the time for rejoicing is not yet. You'll have them back, Canada can produce it's own azzholes by the bushel without help Seems that Shirley doesn't like the sound of Canadian pokeys. Just copied this from the CTV.ca website
[DELETED]
I undestand there will be 200 + people turning out in Winnipeg, to block the protest, so we'll see what happens there. The mood here is very angry, as you can imagine. I wonder if the Couriers realize there is a law against importing hate literature into Canada Think I'll e-mail a few.
[Deleted large quote of potentially copyright material.]
[ 08. August 2008, 21:14: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 46 | From: canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Annieoldiron
Apprentice
# 11967
|
Posted
Change of tune maybe?
[DELETED]
Maybe they could get Fed-ex to ship in a few cojones along with the hate signs. Seems the bullies have met some-one bigger than themselves!! Sorry the red carpet they were expecting has better uses on Saturday!!
[Deleted more copyright-questionable material.]
[ 08. August 2008, 21:23: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 46 | From: canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
[HELLHOST]
Annieoldiron, please refrain from pasting in large chunks of text that aren't yours or the Ship's - per commandment 7. Instead, try using a link.
-RooK
[/HELLHOST]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Heh heh. But seriously, I'd be very curious to know how the courts would define "social or benevolent" for the purposes of enforcing this law.
There's a very old case from 1902 that holds that the section "was not intended for the preservation of order at political or municipal meetings." It was cited without further comment in the SCC case that dealt with charges against the Roman Catholic parishioners you mentioned above.
The section itself seems to be very old, dating at least from the 1892 Code. Personally, I'd be a bit surprised if it were included in an attempt to recodify the criminal law from scratch. That said, it doesn't seem to be doing much harm, in terms of taking away rights that individuals would otherwise have but for the existence of the section.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I can think of a good number of sections that wouldn't make the cut in a new Criminal Code. Honestly, some of the sections are hilarious just for the fact that somebody bothered to make this a crime. Or its deadly serious but silly at the same time.
Section 49 - Prohibited Acts. From what I can tell, if you alarm the Queen such that she throws her handbag, you get 14 years in prison.
Sections 46(1) and 46(2) - High Treason and Treason; they are not the same thing. The first is antique and lifted directly from English law, the second is more 'real'.
Section 67 - The Riot Act Proclamation, in all its glory. This had been repealed in the UK, but is still in force in Canada. Silly to hear, serious in its consequences.
Section 70 - Unlawful Drilling. Our very own law against forming your own 'People's Militia'.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
So we need to get the Queen to throw her handbag at Fred Phelps?
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Yes, and he can't have a Petition of Grievance in his hand. Who said the law is serious?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I note (above, in this thread0 that the US has a law against disrupting a military funeral, enacted largely because of the activities of the Phelpses.
I also note there is disquiet among some because Canada has laws that might reduce the aggravation caused by the Phelpses.
Can't have it both ways guys. Would you rather have unfettered Phelpsness running amok, or would you be OK with families having uninterrupted funerals? (Note that a funeral isn't necesarily an "organised religion" thing)
If even the Land of the Free can legislate some limits on "free speech", then maybe the rest of us can too.
Tangentially, I've never understood why people who get right in your face to make a statement of their opinion are almost always so upset if you venture a differing opinion back. Does free speech only belong to the noisy and demanding?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
If even the Land of the Free can legislate some limits on "free speech", then maybe the rest of us can too.
Well, you can count me as someone who strongly disapproves of the law against picketting funerals, insofar as that law can be used against people who aren't actually on the property where the funeral is being held.
Why should military funerals be sacrosanct? Why was there no law passed when Fred was picketting HIV-victims funerals?
quote:
I also note there is disquiet among some because Canada has laws that might reduce the aggravation caused by the Phelpses.
My disquiet is caused by Canada having laws that declare certain types of meetings, including those related to religion, as deserving special protections not granted to other sorts of meetings. And also that people want to legitimize these laws by invoking them against Phelps.
[ 09. August 2008, 18:11: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Well, since this IS Hell, I'll just have to leave you to be disquieted, then.
I don't see why you feel the need for unfettered picketing at funerals, but, hey, have a good time!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I don't see why you feel the need for unfettered picketing at funerals, but, hey, have a good time!
So, if I'm against a law banning a particular activity, that means I "feel a need" for that activity?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
All societies, as opposed to individuals, have some sort of limit on what one can do in public. Why is it so grievous to you that there should be a law against disturbing people at a time when they are preoccupied and vulnerable?
Especially when the only reason to disturb them is just to ride a hobby-horse that has nothing to do with the event, or the people involved.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Because the Freedom of Religion has been enshrined in the Charter of Rights under its own heading, and long before that Religion received numerous special considerations, which continue to this day? When one is attending to the divine one ought to be left alone. It does go beyond mere inconvenience.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
All societies, as opposed to individuals, have some sort of limit on what one can do in public. Why is it so grievous to you that there should be a law against disturbing people at a time when they are preoccupied and vulnerable?
Because it legitimizes what I regard as a bad law. The fact that the law might have good consequences in one particular case(ie. by preventing these guys from picketting a funeral)does not negate the overall badness of a law which says rhat a church(among other things) should get protections denied to most other types of gwethering place.
If you think this law is such a great thing, do you think that the Queer Nation activists who were picketting Catholic ordinations a few years back should have been charged under it? What about the anti-scientology flash mobs that were protesting in front of Dianetics centres earlier this year?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
When one is attending to the divine one ought to be left alone.
So if a clergyman is known for giving sermons about how homosexuality is immoral, gay activists should not picket his services, because anyone who is attending to the divine has an inalienable right to be left alone?
[ 10. August 2008, 07:51: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Yes. The protesters can make alternate arrangements.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
I live in Winnipeg, but unfortunately was out of town this weekend. I would have been at the funeral as part of the human wall, if I had been at home.
The Phelps' truly disgust me. They deserve to be soundly ridiculed for their hateful, bile-filled rhetoric.
Gah. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
When one is attending to the divine one ought to be left alone.
So if a clergyman is known for giving sermons about how homosexuality is immoral, gay activists should not picket his services, because anyone who is attending to the divine has an inalienable right to be left alone?
I don't want to speculate about the exact bounds of s. 176 here, but clearly there's an issue here as to what the law covers and what it doesn't. Just as with the hate speech laws, there are freedom of speech issues here that are going to enter into the balance when a court decides what s. 176 ought to cover (assuming it is constitutional in the first place) and what not.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Yes. The protesters can make alternate arrangements.
But I have, numerous times, heard clergymen speak out against this or that alleged sociopolitical evil. If a Catholic priest doesn't like having communists(for example) picketting outside his church, maybe he should lay off the sermons explicating on the Blessed Virgin's denunciation of Communism at Fatima? Isn't he kind of setting himself up as a legitimate target for protestors by engaging in such speech in the first place?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatpanda
Shipmate
# 2709
|
Posted
Wrong thread .....
I've really been enjoying the Swimming at the Olympics ...... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
love S x
do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God
Posts: 242 | From: Weegieland | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
