In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Uncle Sparky]

It should also be noted that bill C-250, being a private member's bill, is non binding on the government. I suspect though, it will be forwarded to committee.

[Berzerker]

Can saying "All white males should die!" be criminal under current Canadian legislation ? Theoretically yes. But first someone would have to be insecure enough to ask that charges be brought against the person(s) uttering the statement.

So the law is based on insecurity? Aside from the irrational nature of the law, do you really believe a member of a liberal "oppressed" minority would be prosecuted if a white male did complain?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In theory, it ought to protect everyone equally. In practice, hate crimes only come into play when involving a minority group.

In practice, it protects many people of all groups. The existence of laws against hate crimes acts as a general deterant by saying the community will not tolerate this type of criminal behaviour.

The specific application of the law is, however, extremely rare simply because it is difficult to prove.

EDIT: When I wrote the last sentence I was thinking about crimes of physical violence.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. Initially proposed as a PMB, the bill made it to the third reading, and becomes a law. It had already passed the committee stage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tingkai:

In practice, it protects many people of all groups. The existence of laws against hate crimes acts as a general deterant by saying the community will not tolerate this type of criminal behaviour.

The specific application of the law is, however, extremely rare simply because it is difficult to prove.

We already have laws against those who assault homosexuals, without resorting to hate crimes.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's one thing for the student governement, it's another for the BC Supreme court. We lost our case challenging these restrictions this summer.

No money to pursue an appeal, since everything we do relies upon donations.

And why did you lose?

My guess is that you lost because:
1) University grounds are private property. Property owners have the right to decide what takes place on thier property.
2) Freedom of speech is not absolute. The University allowed you to protest against abortion, but merely set limits about graphic nature of your posters.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Tingkai:

We already have laws against those who assault homosexuals, without resorting to hate crimes.

IF this law is redundant then that would mean it won't change anything so why are you complaining about it.

[Uncle Sparky]

Ah, but it isn't redundant in all cases. It would now be illegal to preach or proselytize ... and yes I chose those words specifically... hatred against homosexuals.

Just as it is illegal to preach hatred of Jews. It wasn't all that long ago that many Christian denominations regularly preached against Jews btw. A minority still do and find scriptural references to back their claims...

[Ben Kenobi]

Without going into greater detail...

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the university, but with the student society. They passed a motion several years ago banning the display of graphic abortion pictures within the Student Union Building for any purposes.

They also posted a motion to fund another club in opposition to our club alongside the censorship motion.

They confiscated club yearbook photos because they included pictures of our display, while allowing the campus newspaper to report our events on their headlines, placed throughout the SUB.

Finally, we are not allowed to hold club meetings for members within the SUB building using these materials.

We tried to go to the student court, to find the only precedent made the student court decisions non-binding on the student society. Then we decided to go to the BC supreme court to get a decision binding on the AMS.

Granted the pictures we show are shocking, but they are no worse than what some of the other clubs have shown during their holocaust memorial week.

We agree to reasonable limitations, in terms of signage, time, etc. but not to outright censorship.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Without going into greater detail...

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the university, but with the student society. They passed a motion several years ago banning the display of graphic abortion pictures within the Student Union Building for any purposes.

In other words, the owners of a private building decided to limit your displays. That is certainly their right just as a church has the right to deny pro-choice groups from setting up a display on church property.

The courts are not going to overturn this principle of property rights.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We agree to reasonable limitations, in terms of signage, time, etc. but not to outright censorship.

But there was no outright censorship. They only limited what you could display.

[Ben Kenobi]

Our student fees go to build the building, so why should we not be able to use the facilities like any other club?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Are there groups in Canada that enjoy special protection?

Yes, there are many groups that enjoy special protection.

As with many countries, Canada has laws that specifically protect:
1) children, such as laws that make it illegal for an adult to have sex with a child;
2) Senior citizens, such as laws designed to provided them with greater protection from poverty (e.g. old age pensions)
3) citizens of good standing, such as libel laws which have a basic criteria that a statement must lower a person's standing in a community in order to be libel.
4) Job classification: there are many laws that only apply to specific types of work;
5) the disable, such as laws that provide special parking places for them

All of these laws provide special protection because of special needs.

I question why people would oppose laws that ban hatred against homosexuals. Is it because some people want the right to incite hatred against homosexuals?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Our student fees go to build the building, so why should we not be able to use the facilities like any other club?

That's a decision that must be made by the Student Union, not the courts.

It may well be that the majority of the students at your university agree that your display went to far. They may well agree that you have the right to set up a pro-life display, yet limit the extend of what you display. Then again, they may agree with you.

Instead of wasting money on a court challenge, your group should have tried to win control of the student government through the election process.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tingkai:

They also posted a motion to fund another club in opposition to our club alongside the censorship motion.

Do you understand my point here? The student society not only barred the pictures, but agreed to fund a club that would directly oppose ours. That's the reason why we could not go to the council, since the members who forwarded the motion, naturally became part of the opposing club funded by the council.

Their arguments, even in court never centered around your property argument, but only on the fact that our display 'upsets' people, and that our club has been targeted for violence on several occasions by those who were opposed to our club. They feared that to hold such a display inside the SUB would produce violence, even though we are entirely peaceful. In short, we are held responsible for the violence done to our club.

Now, time has passed since the motion, and we are working on meeting with the Student council, since many of the members who were there have left.

[Berzerker]

Our student fees go to build the building, so why should we not be able to use the facilities like any other club?

Because the means of conveying your message did not find favor with those in power. But as you point out, images of the holocaust certainly would have found favor, so those in power are being hypocritical (assuming of course the double standard exists - a safe assumption).

I question why people would oppose laws that ban hatred against homosexuals. Is it because some people want the right to incite hatred against homosexuals?

Because freedom includes "hating" those you find worthy of "hate". And because these laws won't be used consistently, they will be used to suppress "hatred" of the politically connected while allowing "hatred" of those who are not. Ever hear of the Alien & Sedition Act? It was passed in the 1790's by Congress and John Adams to suppress criticism of Congress and John Adams, not to suppress criticism leveled by those in power against their political opponents. Does that answer your rhetorical question designed to indict the motives of your opponents?