|
|
|
|
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/27/2008 11:22:16 AM | Admittedly, this is the only international forum I participate in. (I do have a job even if I am dateless) *clears throat loudly*
However, from the looks of things around here, you will rarely see Americans expressing great interest in foreign affairs at the present. We have entirely too much to worry about at this point, than to fight with the Canadians about how they unfairly rob their priests of their right to free speech whenever they feel like it. (Buuuuurn) :laugh
Had Americans been so eager to run Canada, when their Catholic priests were treated as criminals a few months ago, many of our religious leaders would have torn the Canadian courts and their judges a new one..
It is not that we are so selfish that we do not care, it is that we have already too much to handle, our own nation at the brink of being sent to hell in a handbag. | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/27/2008 11:26:32 AM |
Had Americans been so eager to run Canada, when their Catholic priests were treated as criminals a few months ago, many of our religious leaders would have torn the Canadian courts and their judges a new one..
I'm a reasonably well informed Canadian, and I have no idea what you're refering to. But any politician, of any stripe in this country would have an orgasm if they were attacked by the right wing fundamentalist leaders in your country. S/he could ride that right to any office s/he desired. | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/27/2008 11:39:04 AM | As a reasonably informed non-Canadian, I caught this story months ago and was horrified.
Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!
Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 09, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern
A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.
In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.
According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of the Rev. Alphonse de Valk, who also cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.
Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer, Alberta, newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."
The activist, local teacher Darren Lund, filed a complaint, and the guilty verdict from Lori G. Andreachuk, a lawyer, was handed down Nov. 30, 2007. The latest decision involved the penalty phase of the trial.
"While agreeing that Boisson's letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to [stop expressing his opinion]," Vere reported.
Andreachuk noted that Lund, who brought the complaint, wasn't, in fact, injured.
"In this case there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward," she wrote.
However, that did not stop her from ordering the payment anyway.
And as for the future, she wrote:
"Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.," the lawyer opined.
Andreachuk also ordered Boissoin to apologize for the original letter in the Red Deer Advocate and told the two "offenders" to pay $5,000.
The apology letter, Vere said, "threatens civil liberties in Canada, according to Ezra Levant, an author and lawyer who himself was targeted by an HRC attack."
"[The] government now believes that if it can't convince a Christian pastor that he's wrong, it will just order him to condemn himself?" Levant wrote on his blog. "Other than tribunals in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, where is this Orwellian 'order' considered to be justice?"
"This is like a Third World jail-house confession – where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt," Levant wrote. "We don’t even 'order' murderers to apologize to their victims' families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian pastors."
"In essence, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering to the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible," Vere wrote.
WND reported recently about de Valk, the target of a Human Rights Commission case over his biblical references regarding homosexuality.
"Father [de Valk] defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman," Vere wrote.
Vere raised the question that Canada now considers morality a "hate crime."
"If one, because of one's sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered 'hate'?" he asked.
Vere wrote that the response he got from Mark van Dusen, a spokesman for the federal human rights prosecution office, shocked him.
The government agent confirmed the agency investigates complaints but doesn't set public policy or moral standards. He said the agency job is to look at the circumstances and decide whether to advance it or dismiss it.
What is shocking about that, Vere wrote, is the admission that unjustified complaints can be dismissed, yet the case against de Valk has continued now for more than six months.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66704 | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/27/2008 11:50:20 AM | I'm not going to defend the Human Rights Tribunals.
This is pretty typical actually. Nobody has ever actually challenged their ability to impose fines - mainly because the fines they are allowed to impose are lower than what it would cost to challenge it.
But they've become the first place aggrieved parties go to now since the burden of proof is so much lower than in the courts. | |
|
| |
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/27/2008 5:33:57 PM | I'm not going to defend the Human Rights Tribunals.
I will.
I don't expect Americans to accept this idea, simply because of the cultural filters they have. We have very different ones, and that's why these tribunals can exist here - and never there.  We have religious freedom , as you do. Thanks to our view of the collective over the individual (the opposite polarity of America) this allows us to do many things much more easily than you can that "enhance the collective (society)"
Things like the HRTs, gun control, and health insurance all can be clearly seen as springing from this same central philosophy.
We don't want priests (or anyone else) escaping from their pulpits and trying to ignite fires in the general population with a bully pulpit. Whatever you think about things like abortion, and homosexuality, our government and courts have allowed people a free choice without risk of oppression in this regard.
If you stand up, and start dragging a religious reason into the argument with vitrol , or start to somehow "pick" on a group that has a legal right to do what they want here - you will probably get your hand slapped rather hard.
Believe what you want to believe as a person, or within your family, but that right to attack a sub-group in society (that has legal rights here NOT to be attacked) ends at your doorstep, or church door.
Again, a failure to see those filters means that we are at odds, when we should not be.
It's like a Canadian entering a gun control forum and saying that you'd have to be stupid to NOT have such regulations. That's not true, you just have to be different.  In each case, it's the cultural filters that make us think "everyone" should think this way - and they can't.....because of THEIR cultural filters.
As I said, we can learn a great deal about each other, and even more ironically ourselves, by discussing things. | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/27/2008 6:24:04 PM | the collective ....resistance is futile. Admit it, it's communist being coated with sugar and calling it liberalism, like a turd covered in sugar, calling it a Baby Ruth, it's a turd.
Poor guy was forced to renounce his faith over homosexuals, faith in Christ or get beheaded. How sick and sad. | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/27/2008 11:56:28 PM | In the UK, each and every "elected" government has a body of permanent "advisors" taken from the likes of our financial institutions, so really it makes no diference to us mere humblies who get's in, they are told wot to do by the same people...
In the U.S I beleive it's the same, with the added extra (and similar to us here) your presidents elect are groomed for the position, and having been in a private audience with the Man himself, I saw the younger generation of these groomed persons first hand...
You might get lucky in local elections, but really, there is no point in voting for your leader, as big, and I mean BIG, BIG money tells our people in "power" wot to do...Having said that, just look at the chairmanship of the conglomorates and you will get a better insight into (world) "interests"...
Sorry if that bursts any bubbles... | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/28/2008 3:41:23 AM | Jumpwings,
You've been reading the Sun again mate. Big money?. Do me a favour, try watching the parliamentary channel now and again and watch these people get hauled over the coals by our elected representatives when the need arises. The worlds not really like you read in the Sun. We have one of the most vibrant and effective political systems in the world. You keep thinking like you do and your going to turn into an American and start demanding your guns and joining a well armed malitia gang to overthrow the government one day.
The vast majority of our elected representaives have little or no experience or knowledge of the issues they are trying to resolve and would take months if not years to fully understand the indivcidual nuances and details of some issues. Having people on hand that they do understand is an absolute necessity. Otherwise you just end up with the sort of nonsense discussions you see in here.
You haven't burst any bubbles, just showed that you're living in one. | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/28/2008 8:05:14 AM | I'm not going to defend the Human Rights Tribunals.
I will.
I don't expect Americans to accept this idea, simply because of the cultural filters they have. We have very different ones, and that's why these tribunals can exist here - and never there.
Hate to point out the obvious, but that statement is more than a little arrogant.
We Americans can not conceive an idea that is different than what we know? What, are we stupid? To know that you think so little of us is irritating to say the least.
Besides, you have already claimed to have the ability to understand our politics and our justice system, so different than yours. I guess youre just smarter than the average American idiot, oh mighty brilliant one.. | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/28/2008 11:00:40 AM |
I don't expect Americans to accept this idea, simply because of the cultural filters they have. We have very different ones, and that's why these tribunals can exist here - and never there.
Many Americans tend to be completely self-absorbed. As a country, we pretty much act like we are the center of the universe and every thing else revolves around us.
Hate to point out the obvious, but that statement is more than a little arrogant.
We Americans can not conceive an idea that is different than what we know? What, are we stupid? To know that you think so little of us is irritating to say the least.
Please! So many Americans cannot even conceive that there IS a different way of thinking. Just mention trying to help any one less fortunate and they start screaming SOCIALISM. pathetic.
Besides, you have already claimed to have the ability to understand our politics and our justice system, so different than yours. I guess youre just smarter than the average American idiot, oh mighty brilliant one..
Girl, I think you nailed it! | |
|
| |
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/28/2008 11:43:40 AM |
I don't expect Americans to accept this idea, simply because of the cultural filters they have. We have very different ones, and that's why these tribunals can exist here - and never there.
Hate to point out the obvious, but that statement is more than a little arrogant.
We Americans can not conceive an idea that is different than what we know? What, are we stupid? To know that you think so little of us is irritating to say the least.
He said "accept" not "concieve (of)".
There's nothing arrogant about that statement. | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/28/2008 11:55:18 AM | Beachbum
As you seem to know so much about the Sun tabloid, I would therefore assume it's your favourite read?... Can I therefore ask the question?...Is the meaning of life there also?
For your interest I "read about it" in Stevenson College, Edinburgh when I was studying there back in 1991-92....
As I said, local politics is where it might look like yer getting somewhere, much like what you wrote about...Perhaps you missed that one mate...Go back to your beach, blow some smoke, and look at the waves man....They go back and forth with the tide...
btw, Bush in person ain't the bumbling fool he looks like on TV...
For your consideration:
“World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen...most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings." Denis Healey, former British Defence Minister
Read the Sun..... | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/28/2008 4:14:00 PM | At the risk of disagreeing with MontrealGuy, I'll give my take on Human Rights Tribunals:
Back in the 60's, there was an issue about how to enforce the law regarding guaranteed rights over small things. The classic example (which did happen numerous times) was a landlord who refused to rent to a black family. Hardly worth it to hire a lawyer, since we've never been as big on punitive damages in Canada as they are in the states. And since you have to live somewhere, the family will find a place to rent so the actual, demonstratable harm will be negligible.
But there should be a way to address this sort of thing - the Human Rights Tribunals were the common sense solution. Didn't need a lawyer; the tribunal would investigate and rule. But this is the country where the Halifax Disaster Commission was still going strong when I was studying political science in the 80's (the Halifax disaster happened in WW 1). So they have gotten a little out of control.
Two examples from my province:
A young man had had a really crappy adolescence - bullied all through high school. The school tried to deal with it, but they could only do so much. However, because his tormentors used the language common to that age, they called him "fag" while bullying him. He wasn't gay. But because they said the magic word, the Human Rights Tribunal decided it was in their bailiwick, so the school got fined. The case never would have stood a chance in real court.
A transgendered individual wanted to volunteer at a women's crisis centre. She was preop, and many of their clients had real fear issues around men. So the centre tried to accomodate her, but not on the premises. Guess how that one was ruled? | |
|
| US Politics & Non-Americans...
Posted: 8/28/2008 7:49:08 PM |
We Americans can not conceive an idea that is different than what we know?
Look, this entire thread is about (generally) how a foreigner can learn and discuss another country's politics. There are some good ideas here, and (as we all might agree) perhaps the best way is in this dialogue we continually have with each other.
We learn about each other and (as I've said previously) ourselves when we do that.
If we sit here and simply assume that "everyone" thinks like we do, that risks sitting here thinking that what "they" think is some universal truth that applies to all mankind.
That isn't the case, and you can see it over and over again on international forums like this one.
Not only is there a certain spectrum of differing opinions within your own country, there's also a much broader one when you start talking about someone else's country (which also has it's own spectrum).
Look at this thread, just as an example.
I mention the weight of the society over the individual in importance here (comparative difference) , and the instant reaction of an America is that it's some communist haven.
Look in the gun control threads, where a Canadian mentioning "gun control" is heard by an American as saying "ban guns".
This isn't because of any ignorance on anyone's part (except of those cultural filters) , it's because it clashes WITH those cultural filters. The essential and primary self-definition of being an American is the individual over the group, at almost every turn.
Individual rights, free speech (to say almost anything) , free access to guns (comparatively) , etc.
These are all comparative things, differing things, that define our view of ourselves, others, and the world.
So yes, Americans CAN conceive of such things.....but it may clash with their perceived values......unless they can understand the "why".
At the risk of disagreeing with MontrealGuy, I'll give my take on Human Rights Tribunals:
Like anything, such forums are not perfect. There's injustice in courtrooms, too. The essential idea, however, provides a bulkhead between those who hate - and the rest of society.
I don't want to live in a society where a "Christian" can show up at a soldiers funeral with a sign that reads "God Hates Fags" . I'll support anything that ensures that such hatemongers are kept out of society, and that's only because of those cultural filters.
If I was an American, I'd probably be totally against them. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
