Moderator: Moderators
So, the questions for debate are:1John2_26 wrote:I consider what is happening to Christians as a hate crime. And liberal theologians are on the side of the hatred.
What about the second half of the term? Crime. Are we dealing with legal issues? If so, within which countries? Etc.McCulloch wrote:I believe that a "hate crime" is one where the main motivation is hatred towards an identified group of people as opposed to a crime of passion, revenge, opportunity or greed.tselem wrote:I think the term "hate crime" should be defined, as there are a number of manners in which one could use the term.
tselem wrote:I think the term "hate crime" should be defined, as there are a number of manners in which one could use the term.
McCulloch wrote:I believe that a "hate crime" is one where the main motivation is hatred towards an identified group of people as opposed to a crime of passion, revenge, opportunity or greed.
State of Alaskatselem wrote:What about the second half of the term? Crime. Are we dealing with legal issues? If so, within which countries? Etc.
CanadaHate Crime --An offense committed against another person, with the specific intent to cause harm to that person due to their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or culture, etc.
What is a hate crime?
CBC News Online | June 2004
The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.
Criminal Code of Canada, Section 318: Hate Propaganda wrote:(1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
Section 319
(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
Consent (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(7) In this section,
"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;
"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;
"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.
Subsection 718.2
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner or child,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
Sorry, I missed that. What particular tennet of Christianity is being outlawed in Canada?1John2_26 wrote:It looks to me like Canada has outlawed Christianity.
Is it that Christianity requires the right to make untrue statements? Gee whiz, there is even an allowable religious defence.(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Do these acts of vandalism fit the definition of a hate crime? Are they specifically directed towards an identifiable group? Are they in any way comparable to the vandalism of Jewish places of worship by holocaust deniers? Or are they simply part of the pattern of vandalism of apparently public property?1John2_26 wrote:The vandalism of Churches is abundant in America and worldwide.
A few examples of this terrorization would be helpful here. Are Christians in power in any liberal democracy living in fear of their lives like abortion providers are in North America?1John2_26 wrote:Too many anti-Christians are in political power or the Christians that have political office have been terrorized as proponents of hate if they promote morality.
Has anyone seen Spong with a spray can and brick visiting the fundamentalists' shrines? Can you show how his freely published opinion fits any current legal definition of a hate crime? Please note that I have provided my country's definition for reference but feel free to use the definition of hate crime as enacted by any other liberal democracy.1John2_26 wrote:By being anti-Christs and destroying the ability of real believers a place of worship. Many Churches are broken to pieces by Godless (liberal) clergy taking over. "Christianty Must Change or Die!" A popular book by a "Christian" Reverend. One guess what he advocates?
I take offense at this rather serious charge. If you read the legislation, you will notice that Christianity (and other religions) are given an unfair level of protection against the charge of committing hate crimes. Please prove your statement that "Canada has outlawed Christianity" or retract it. It looks to me that you were in error.1John2_26 wrote:It looks to me like Canada has outlawed Christianity.
It is just awaiting a few anti-Christians to apply the lop-sided hateful outlawing wording - that dwarfs the support - that would be gleaned from what you have posted.
1John2_26 wrote:
The vandalism of Churches is abundant in America and worldwide.
They do at mosgues, synagouges and gay bars.Do these acts of vandalism fit the definition of a hate crime?
Churches are a place you would find an accurate definition of "identifiable group."Are they specifically directed towards an identifiable group?
More Christians having been killed worldwide since World War II than Jews in Nazi Germeny would be a good research topic. Russia and China would lend support to that assertion.Are they in any way comparable to the vandalism of Jewish places of worship by holocaust deniers? Or are they simply part of the pattern of vandalism of apparently public property?
1John2_26 wrote:
Too many anti-Christians are in political power or the Christians that have political office have been terrorized as proponents of hate if they promote morality.
Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Zimbawe, public schools etc., etc..A few examples of this terrorization would be helpful here.
Are Christians in power in any liberal democracy living in fear of their lives like abortion providers are in North America?
1John2_26 wrote:
By being anti-Christs and destroying the ability of real believers a place of worship. Many Churches are broken to pieces by Godless (liberal) clergy taking over. "Christianty Must Change or Die!" A popular book by a "Christian" Reverend. One guess what he advocates?
"Die." I think would cover it.Has anyone seen Spong with a spray can and brick visiting the fundamentalists' shrines? Can you show how his freely published opinion fits any current legal definition of a hate crime?
Ake Green was arrested and convicted in Sweden for doing what Christians have done for centuries, preach the truth. It was seen as a hate crime against homosexuals and he was arrested. Canada has also prosecuted Christians have they not?Please note that I have provided my country's definition for reference but feel free to use the definition of hate crime as enacted by any other liberal democracy.
1John2_26 wrote:
It looks to me like Canada has outlawed Christianity.
It is just awaiting a few anti-Christians to apply the lop-sided hateful outlawing wording - that dwarfs the support - that would be gleaned from what you have posted.
"Unfair level of protection," would that opinion show one Canadian that thinks hate crimes should be defined and applied to what Christians believe, teach and preach?I take offense at this rather serious charge. If you read the legislation, you will notice that Christianity (and other religions) are given an unfair level of protection against the charge of committing hate crimes.
I couched it in the correct view that the law against Christians is just a waiting a precedent setting lawsuit to be applied to Christians under Canada's hate crimes laws. I believe that it has already happened?Please prove your statement that "Canada has outlawed Christianity" or retract it. It looks to me that you were in error.
1John2_26 wrote:The vandalism of Churches is abundant in America and worldwide.
McCulloch wrote:Do these acts of vandalism fit the definition of a hate crime?
1John2_26 wrote:They do at mos[q]ues, synagouges and gay bars.
McCulloch wrote:Are they specifically directed towards an identifiable group?
I meant, is there any evidence that the vandals were targeting churches because they are Christian institutions or were they simply targeting available structures that seem to be unprotected. The vandalism of public schools and subway stations is abundant in America too.1John2_26 wrote:Churches are a place you would find an accurate definition of "identifiable group."
McCulloch wrote:Are they in any way comparable to the vandalism of Jewish places of worship by holocaust deniers? Or are they simply part of the pattern of vandalism of apparently public property?
The crimes against Christians during the Nazi and Soviet eras certainly fit current definitions of hate crimes. I was under the impression by your statement, however, that you believed that Christians are the target of hate crimes currently in liberal democracies. I am sorry if I misinterpreted your remark.More Christians having been killed worldwide since World War II than Jews in Nazi Germeny would be a good research topic. Russia and China would lend support to that assertion. Many, Christians were also killed in Nazi Germany.
1John2_26 wrote:Too many anti-Christians are in political power or the Christians that have political office have been terrorized as proponents of hate if they promote morality.
McCulloch wrote:A few examples of this terrorization would be helpful here.
Any liberal democracy? Can you provide an example of terrorism in public schools that is being allowed or sanctioned by any liberal democracy? etc. etc. is a bit vague.1John2_26 wrote:Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Zimbawe, public schools etc., etc..
McCulloch wrote:Are Christians in power in any liberal democracy living in fear of their lives like abortion providers are in North America?
When was the last time your republic elected a president that was not a Christian of some stripe or other?1John2_26 wrote:Christians in power in Liberal democracies? First let's establish that fact.
1John2_26 wrote:By being anti-Christs and destroying the ability of real believers a place of worship. Many Churches are broken to pieces by Godless (liberal) clergy taking over. "Christianty Must Change or Die!" A popular book by a "Christian" Reverend. One guess what he advocates?
Has anyone seen Spong with a spray can and brick visiting the fundamentalists' shrines? Can you show how his freely published opinion fits any current legal definition of a hate crime?
If you would take the time to read his material rather than simply react in a knee-jerk kind of way, you would realize that Spong is not referring to any kind of violent death (even allegorically) but he is referring to a natural slow death by apathy. His argument is that Christianity must change or it will simply cease to exist, because it will become irrelevant, similar to Pierre Berton's THE COMFORTABLE PEW (1965). Do you seriously believe that this qualifies as a hate crime?1John2_26 wrote:"Die." I think would cover it.
McCulloch wrote:Please note that I have provided my country's definition for reference but feel free to use the definition of hate crime as enacted by any other liberal democracy.
You have shown that Christians have evidently been guilty of hate crimes. Now show that they are the victims.1John2_26 wrote:Ake Green was arrested and convicted in Sweden for doing what Christians have done for centuries, preach the truth. It was seen as a hate crime against homosexuals and he was arrested. Canada has also prosecuted Christians have they not?
1John2_26 wrote:It looks to me like Canada has outlawed Christianity.
It is just awaiting a few anti-Christians to apply the lop-sided hateful outlawing wording - that dwarfs the support - that would be gleaned from what you have posted.
McCulloch wrote:I take offense at this rather serious charge. If you read the legislation, you will notice that Christianity (and other religions) are given an unfair level of protection against the charge of committing hate crimes.
By unfair level of protection, I mean that all you have to do to avoid being convicted of a hate crime it to show that your statement was an opinion on a religious subject.1John2_26 wrote:"Unfair level of protection," would that opinion show one Canadian that thinks hate crimes should be defined and applied to what Christians believe, teach and preach?
McCulloch wrote:Please prove your statement that "Canada has outlawed Christianity" or retract it. It looks to me that you were in error.
I'll wait.1John2_26 wrote:I couched it in the correct view that the law against Christians is just a waiting a precedent setting lawsuit to be applied to Christians under Canada's hate crimes laws. I believe that it has already happened?
I'll search conservative sources to see if I am right or wrong.
Mental and emotional trauma is claimed by many people as being someething they actually suffer from Christian "Judgments" without any physical actions being leveled against them. Hate crime speech.Any liberal democracy? Can you provide an example of terrorism in public schools that is being allowed or sanctioned by any liberal democracy? etc. etc. is a bit vague.
1John2_26 wrote:
Christians in power in Liberal democracies? First let's establish that fact.
I never heard a word from a politiciam until Bush, about their religious beliefs. I have voted for a long time.When was the last time your republic elected a president that was not a Christian of some stripe or other?
Congress: Compared to the general population, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Latter-day Saints, Congregationalists, Christian Scientists, Orthodox, Assemblies of God, Christian Reformed, Seventh-day Adventists, Quakers, Community of Christ, Foursquare Gospel, United Brethren in Christ and "Protestant" (not further specified) are all over represented in your Congress.
Unspecified, which it appears includes atheists, are under represented. 13.2% per cent of Americans represented by 0.7% per cent of Congress.
I cannot find any Canadian Prime Minister who was not affiliated with some Christian church. Best I can come up with is Kim Campbell who is listed as a lapsed Anglican. But she was never elected into office.
C'mon now. Spong is in league with anti-Christian forces. Yes, it IS absolutely a hate crime. Saying that Christianty and Christians have to change is no different than saying gays have to change. THAT, IS seen as a hate crime McCulloch.1John2_26 wrote:
By being anti-Christs and destroying the ability of real believers a place of worship. Many Churches are broken to pieces by Godless (liberal) clergy taking over. "Christianty Must Change or Die!" A popular book by a "Christian" Reverend. One guess what he advocates?
Quote:
Has anyone seen Spong with a spray can and brick visiting the fundamentalists' shrines? Can you show how his freely published opinion fits any current legal definition of a hate crime?
1John2_26 wrote:
"Die." I think would cover it.
If you would take the time to read his material rather than simply react in a knee-jerk kind of way, you would realize that Spong is not referring to any kind of violent death (even allegorically) but he is referring to a natural slow death by apathy. His argument is that Christianity must change or it will simply cease to exist, because it will become irrelevant, similar to Pierre Berton's THE COMFORTABLE PEW (1965). Do you seriously believe that this qualifies as a hate crime?
McCulloch wrote:
Please note that I have provided my country's definition for reference but feel free to use the definition of hate crime as enacted by any other liberal democracy.
1John2_26 wrote:
Ake Green was arrested and convicted in Sweden for doing what Christians have done for centuries, preach the truth. It was seen as a hate crime against homosexuals and he was arrested. Canada has also prosecuted Christians have they not?
Which of course proves what I just wrote. You cannot see the victm status. Green did nothing wrong and yet was arrested and convicted. He was lucky there is enough political influence left to Christianty that he was freed. Many imprisoned Christians aren't as lucky.You have shown that Christians have evidently been guilty of hate crimes. Now show that they are the victims.
No, the difference is that Spong is not advocating that any laws be changed or any coersion be placed on Christians to being about this change. He is simply stating his opinion that if Christians do not change they will die out. He is not advocating any kind of hatred towards Christians or saying that they should be denied any kind of civil rights or acceptance in our society. The worst thing that Spong accuses the Christians of is irrelevance.1John2_26 wrote:C'mon now. Spong is in league with anti-Christian forces. Yes, it IS absolutely a hate crime. Saying that Christianty and Christians have to change is no different than saying gays have to change. THAT, IS seen as a hate crime McCulloch.
McCulloch wrote:You have shown that Christians have evidently been guilty of hate crimes. Now show that they are the victims.
1John2_26 wrote:Which of course proves what I just wrote. You cannot see the victm status. Green did nothing wrong and yet was arrested and convicted. He was lucky there is enough political influence left to Christianty that he was freed.
This appears to be a judicial ruling not a political decision. The courts in Sweden appear to uphold the same exemption that I have cited in the Canadian law. Apparently, you are allowed to practice certain hate crimes as long as you can show that you are doing it for religious reasons.STOCKHOLM, November 29, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) Swedens Supreme Court has acquitted Pastor Ake Green of a charge of inciting hatred against homosexuals.
The 5-0 ruling, handed down today, maintained that Greens sermon was protected by freedom of speech and religion.
Green apparently believes that God could very well visit some kind of terrible vengeance on Sweden because they tolerate gays. THAT IS HATE. Yet the Swedish courts allow it.Green wrote:However, our country is facing a disaster of great proportions! Of that we can be sure. God said the land would vomit out its inhabitants. They were not allowed to remain if they continued living like the people who had previously inhabited the land. When the children of Israel were about to possess the promised land, should they begin to have such relations that were contrary to God's Word, then God says the land will once again vomit out its inhabitants. I think it could happen in Sweden. I think it could happen in our country, because we have adopted such laws. Our country has not the least concern about what God has spoken. Our country is facing a disaster. Who is to say that we cannot have an earthquake where hundreds of thousands of people could die in an instant? Who is to say that we cannot have any monsoon rains that drown thousands of people in our country? Who is to say that other catastrophes cannot reach Scandinavia? We are so safe and secure. And we sit here so sheltered and cozy, and "it cannot happen to us," but in southern Europe - there it happens, and in other parts of the world and China - there it happens. God can turn it around, so that the inhabitants of our land may experience precisely these [events]. We may be vomited out of the land because our nation has left God. This is devastating.
