Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

They never fail...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 7:18pm
I got a good laugh outta that Whale.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 April 2010 at 7:52pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:


I notice you're no longer mentioning 'hate crimes'. Did you take the time to read up on the cases that I've cited?

I'm unsure what the relevance is of the costs incurred to Coulter, since that had not been discussed whatsoever up until now. But if you honestly think she's lost sales because of what happened at University of Ottawa, you must not know much about marketing.The Coulter brand got a lot of free advertising in a lot of very prominent media. 

In any case, I'll content myself with the fact that you've failed to substantially refute a single point I made in the reply you're now (partially) quoting,, and that you ignored them all in order to focus on the part where I justifiably call you an idiot for accusing me of condoning physical harm to people I disagree with politically. Changing the subject to speak of Coulter's sunk costs does nothing to salvage your earlier errors.
 
 
Wow, so sad.
 
So again, since you clearly didn't look at the link I posted about what a hate crime constitutes.
 
I will post it for you. Maybe you can't see it on canadian internet, as it has been banned for being hateful?
 
"Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[2]"

1. So, who owned the signs that were torn down?
 
2. So, who wrote a letter which any sane person will read as harrassment?
 
3. So, who actually committed a hate crime?
 
 
I realize that your mind won't make a connection between these concepts as they aren't laid out in a manner that fits your education style. In order to combine multiple concepts to form an opinion would require complex thought, something not needed in a typical A, B, C or D answer which are required by todays students.
 
 
And based on your response and the fact that you think I am the idiot. Here is the definition to help you.
 
idiot:
 
noun
1.
an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2.
Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
 
 
 
 
Even I (with only IQ of 25) can see that the provost acted in a way that would constitute a hate crime against a conservative woman. Your inability to see that point, even when presented in the most basic of ways, proves that you are incapable to comprehend this discussion.
 
What is most humorous is the way you guys all love to pile on, even when it is so obvious that your position is wrong.
 
Quite humorous. I will try and refrain from posting when the provost is penalized for his written hate crime against conservative women...


See, the difference between you and I is I don't need to look on Wikipedia to get a grasp of what 'hate crime' means in Canadian statutory or common law. Like I said, unless you're prepared to intelligently discuss R v Keegstra, R v Zundel, Canadian Islamic Congress v Macleans Magazine, Soharwardy v Levant,. or Lund v Boissoin, you simply aren't in any position to try to make me look foolish on the topic of Canadian hate crimes law. 

In Canada, and actually in your country too, law is not defined by what's written on Wikipedia, but instead by a combination of legislation passed by - wait for it - the legislature, and judicial decisions (this will blow your mind) returned by various levels of the judiciary. The concept of stare decisis (or binding precedent to a layman) define the relationships between prior verdicts and future cases. Typically a body of law is based on legislation, then further defined through the cases that come to the courts contesting points of law. In Canada, of course, most of the cases surrounding hate legislation have involved Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenges to some degree. Of particular interest has been the balance struck between section 1 (the reasonable limitations clause) and sections 2(a) and (b), the sections governing freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of though belief, opinion and expression respectively. Would it be too much to expect you to be familiar with the works of J.S. Mill, and consequently the 'harm principle'? If you are, you might actually find this balance within your grasp, but if not I'm merely pissing into the wind again.

I could refer you to the specific sections of the Criminal Code of Canada delineating what actually does and does not constitute hateful expression, but you've shown no inclination to study any of the cases I've cited, so I don't reasonably expect that you'll have any interest in looking up actual law when Wikipedia better suits your purpose. Of course, you still overlook the key term in your own provided definition. Wikipedia is capable of recognizing that hate crimes must, in fact, be criminal acts as defined by the processes I list above. Apparently that fact eluded you.

I'm not sure what you, in your mind, would characterize as my 'education style', but it has included a decent helping of human rights and charter law, criminal law, and the functioning of the legal system, as well as a history of how our system of law has evolved. A system not unlike your own in fact. It would seem that in this particular discussion my 'education style' is serving me rather well, since only one of the two of us appears capable of actually looking at law when discussing matters of a legal nature.

Simply put, don't hold your breath. If the provost is penalized for his letter, it will not be by any mechanism of Canadian law, because Canadian law just doesn't support that kind of frivolous prosecution.


Edited by brihard - 05 April 2010 at 7:53pm
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 April 2010 at 11:31am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
JohnnyHopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I.O.U. a punch

Joined: 15 June 2002
Location: North Chuck SC
Status: Offline
Points: 4664
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JohnnyHopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 April 2010 at 1:48pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tory+Senators+call+changes+Canada+Human+Rights/2745478/story.html




FE, Quebecers don't count. They don't even speak canadian. That's like pointing to a white supremacist site out of Idaho and claiming it represents the rest of the country fairly.
My shoes of peace have steel toes.
Back to Top
Tical3.0 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
this space for rent

Joined: 02 September 2008
Location: The Beer Store
Status: Offline
Points: 1589
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tical3.0 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 April 2010 at 1:52pm
Originally posted by JohnnyHopper JohnnyHopper wrote:




FE, Quebecers don't count. They don't even speak canadian. That's like pointing to a white supremacist site out of Idaho and claiming it represents the rest of the country fairly.
 
This is true
I ♣ hippies.
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 April 2010 at 1:57pm

I hadn't checked this thread since it got past page 1, but after quickly catching back up...

 
...facepalm.jpeg
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 April 2010 at 1:58pm
Very true
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 April 2010 at 5:23pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tory+Senators+call+changes+Canada+Human+Rights/2745478/story.html

Google news searching "Canada human rights" (which results turn up exactly the story you linked as the most recent, relevant search result as of the time you posted) does not demonstrate any increased knowledge or expertise in the subject matter. If you seriously intend to discuss the subject, why not actually look up the cases I cited, research the relevant laws so you can understand the legal and jurisprudential context, and then come back and we'll discuss it? I don't mind waiting a few days if it results in an actual meaningful discussion, but simply posting a random news story contributes nothing to this. It's unfortunately not even a particularly well written article, misrepresenting a B.C. Human Rights Commission investigation (Pardy v. Zesty Food Services Inc.) as a civil lawsuit.

Not that I disagree with the basic premise of the article, because I feel it makes good points. If you insist on trying to continue this by resorting to news stories, though, at least have the decency to educate yourself to the point where you can determine if they present points of law in a factual manner.


Edited by brihard - 06 April 2010 at 5:29pm
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.