# Funeral Protesters



## tnokie (Jan 30, 2007)

Has anyone been watching on the news about the father of dead soldier having to pay court cost for the religious fanactics who protested at his sons funeral? What are your thoughts on that? I think its a digrace and there should be someway to stop them from protesting at soldiers funerals. Thats alomost like treason its so anti American.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

I think it is too bad they didn't have a large contingent of the Patriot Guard available to shield the family from the protesters and the media.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Privacy rights vs constitional rights, are always a tough battle.

The WBC are hurtful, vengful and self-centered animals, but they do have a right to free speech, just like the rest of us.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

They are horrible people and I only wish the worst for them. But freedom of speech applies to them and everyone else. It may be painful to hear, but those sum sucking jerks have the right to say their awful things. If they lose their right, we lose ours. I look for them to have an interesting conversation outside the Pearly Gates.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

He should sue his lawyer for malpractice. It stinks but everything they did, from what I've read, was constitutional. After all do you _*REALLY*_ want the courts ruling what a chruch can and can not say in the public arena?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

According to the news tonight, it's going to the Supreme Court to see if it remains free speech or a form of harrassment (or something like that).

Angie


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> He should sue his lawyer for malpractice. It stinks but everything they did, from what I've read, was constitutional. After all do you _*REALLY*_ want the courts ruling what a chruch can and can not say in the public arena?


They almost had it. 

A lower court granted the Father a $11 million verdict. A higher court overturned the verdict, thus making the Father liabalbe for $16K for the WBC's legal fees.

The Supreme Court agreed to see the case later, so who know which way it might go.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> According to the news tonight, it's going to the Supreme Court to see if it remains free speech or a form of harrassment (or something like that).
> 
> Angie


I wonder if eventually things might change in the States to be similar to the hate speech laws we have here in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

(1) No person shall publish, display or broadcast, or permit to be published, displayed or broadcasted on lands or premises, or in a newspaper or through a radio or television broadcasting station or by means of any other medium, any notice, sign, symbol, implement or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion upon any subject in speech or in writing.

.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

naturelover said:


> I wonder if eventually things might change in the States to be similar to the hate speech laws we have here in Canada:



I hope not.

Once a group of people, determine what can and cannot be said by other's, it is no longer free speech.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

naturelover said:


> I wonder if eventually things might change in the States to be similar to the hate speech laws we have here in Canada:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
> 
> ...


Remember the Anne Coulter controversy? These guys are doing worse than her....


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

I'd like to see a couple bus loads of **** show up in full regalia and have a big protest against the nut church. I wonder how mr. phelps would like to have to put up with a group of nekid butt chap protesters. 
I can't know it for sure but I'm guessing the trooper being honored and laid to rest, while he might not care for their comments, would agree that he died preserving their right to be misguided fools. I'm also surprised that since they announce where they plan to protest next that they've not been met by a couple pick ups full of good ole boys to clean their clocks.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

So how does this fit into the Hate Crime push lately? We are being told that by singling out a particular person we are guilty of a Hate Crime, why doesn't this apply here?!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jenn said:


> Remember the Anne Coulter controversy? These guys are doing worse than her....


Oh, we know what they're like. They've already visited Canada 2 or 3 times too, they're not welcome here anymore. Last time they tried they were denied entrance and informed that their safety (from citizen reaction) couldn't be guaranteed if they did come in.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

I'm amazed to find the supposedly peace-loving polite Canadians have to warn travelers that they will be hurt. On another thread, a Canadian refused to rule out throwing rocks at Coulter. These Phelps idiots have been bothering us here for years and nobody has hurt them yet. 

Also, every stinking Phelps is a lawyer so they know how to get the lawsuits going and how to cause the biggest grief for everyone involved.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

LOL Ed, why does that amaze you? It's true, we really are peace-loving polite Canadians and we'll fight to keep it that way if we have to. :hysterical: 

It's all good. 

.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Let the Phelps clan keep speaking. One day they will protest at the wrong place, at the wrong time and against the wrong group of people and they will cease to be a problem. 

Freedom of speech goes both ways. 

I believe an appropriately motivated group should express their freedom of speech in a counter protest however they wish. If it means there are no Phelps clan left to bring a lawsuit, so be it.

I do not wish them harm, but if harm finds them, I would not feel one tinge of pity for any of them.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> Privacy rights vs constitional rights, are always a tough battle.
> 
> The WBC are hurtful, vengful and self-centered animals, but they do have a right to free speech, just like the rest of us.


Do you have a right to go to a private funeral and yell insults? Was the funeral public? 
Freedom of speech is fine, but there are some things that you just cannot say without consequences.


----------



## Gregg Alexander (Feb 18, 2007)

All I will say, May God have Mercy on them if they came to a family member of mine's burial. 
Need I say more, Not a threat ,But a Promise!!!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shygal said:


> Do you have a right to go to a private funeral and yell insults? Was the funeral public?
> *Freedom of speech is fine, but there are some things that you just cannot say without consequences*.


Whose call is it? Some else's idea of freedom of speech, is defferent than your's or mine.

I believe that the WBC protesters were outside in a public area.

The Ropers are lawyers. They know exactly what they are doing.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Do you have a right to go to a private funeral and yell insults? Was the funeral public?
> Freedom of speech is fine, but there are some things that you just cannot say without consequences.


Yeah. Didn't we just do over all this 'abuse of free speech'??

There's a LAW against disturbing the peace. Does anyone think this would NOT apply here????

While its really a tragedy, heard on O'Reilly that Mr Snyder lost on the appeal b/c he was late filing or some strange technicality. Consensus seemed to be that the higher court could rule in his favor, and the fees from the last one (not lawyer fees, court costs) were paid by O'Reilly. (we donated, he'll still need a pack o dough to go to the higher court)

I agree w/most here, that "Patriot" group needs to be aware of where WBC is going next-and meet them there. Also, JMHO but the baptist Church should make them stop using the name "Baptist".


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

If these nutcases had chosen instead to protest in front of this family's house, is this really free speech? What does this family have anything to do with their cause? This is harrassment. If this is what free speech means - then I believe constitutional limits should be applied, just like they are with other areas of free speech. Free speech is NOT unlimited, sorry. They have the right to public protest, and protest on their own private property - and if a private funeral counts as public protest, then that's a nasty loophole that needs to be fixed to strengthen our constitution, not weaken it. Your mileage may, and WILL vary, but my opinion on this will not.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I wonder if eventually things might change in the States to be similar to the hate speech laws we have here in Canada:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
> 
> ...


One, I'd have to say after reading that I can't see how any of the three major religions can survive. IIRC, all three say homosexuality is wrong. 

Two, it seems to be in conflict with itself. The first section says you can not do something and the second section says the first sections doesn't say you can't say it. Talk about a legal nightmare.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Oh, we know what they're like. They've already visited Canada 2 or 3 times too, they're not welcome here anymore. Last time they tried they were denied entrance and informed that their safety (from citizen reaction) couldn't be guaranteed if they did come in.
> 
> .


Hum. . .you have the right to free speech but if the government thinks someone might really dislike what you are GOING to say they can prevent you from saying it? Man, I thought it was bad when I found out the Canadian government can prevent a news story from being printed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

reluctantpatriot said:


> Let the Phelps clan keep speaking. One day they will protest at the wrong place, at the wrong time and against the wrong group of people and they will cease to be a problem.
> 
> Freedom of speech goes both ways.
> 
> ...


They already have. There's a group of bikers who show up and peacefully sit on their bikes while the nuts protest. It just happens that their bikes are sorta loud.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

1.We DON"T need canadian speech nazi laws in USA,thanks anyway NL,just keep them in canada.And your little HRC seems to pick and choose whose "speech"rights they don't like...
2.As distasteful and ignorant as Phelps and his morons are,I'll defend their right to spew.
3.In a perfect world,these ignorant fools would have a blanket party thrown for them,but I guess I'm just not being PC...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Do you have a right to go to a private funeral and yell insults? Was the funeral public?
> Freedom of speech is fine, but there are some things that you just cannot say without consequences.


In most cases where these nuts show up they do. They are smart enough to only protest on public property. Cemeteries are usually considered quasi-public property because while privately owned they allow anyone to enter during 'business' hours. Side walks are public property you can stand on them and yell all you want, well there are some limits.

Expressing your opinion on religious grounds (and political grounds) is the very reason for the 1st amendment. If we start to limit what this church because we don't agree with their views where do we stop? 

I disagree with their actions but I have to support their right to take them.

With all that said I told the wife if it had been my son's funeral I don't think I'd bothered with a law suit. I probably would have had a "discussion" with the preacher one dark night in which I would "express my opinion" of his actions with a baseball bat to his knees and elbows. Not exactly politically correct but actions have consequence.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Maybe in an vary harsh sort of way, the Ropers are actually giving great honor to the fallen soldier.

They are excercising free speech, guaranteed to them under the US Constitution, that the Soldier took an sworn oath to defend.

Frankly, If I were a soldier, I'd rather die defending the Ropers, than I would fighting "the war on terror", which has mostly deteriorated to deadly babysitting of third world savages, most of who have been unable to peacefully coexist for two thousand years.

At least I would have died for something.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

watcher said:


> > Originally Posted by *naturelover*
> > _Oh, we know what they're like. They've already visited Canada 2 or 3 times too, they're not welcome here anymore. Last time they tried they were denied entrance and informed that their safety (from citizen reaction) couldn't be guaranteed if they did come in._
> 
> 
> Hum. . .you have the right to free speech but if the government thinks someone might really dislike what you are GOING to say they can prevent you from saying it? Man, I thought it was bad when I found out the Canadian government can prevent a news story from being printed.


Are you truly having difficulty comprehending, or are you just being obtuse for the sake of being obstreperous? 

Here's a scenario for you, and you can tell me what you would do.

You come to my gate (border crossing) with the STATED intention of AGAIN coming into my home (my country) and desecrating my home, my loved ones, and my honored dead and causing great disturbance, emotional harm and anguish to everyone there. 

My gatekeeper who is speaking for me, stops you at the gate and issues 2 fair warnings to you, he says: 

1 - "You've been here twice before and had your say, and now we don't ever want you here again. You are no longer welcome. You can't come in, you weren't invited, we don't want you here and you're not permitted to come in here and commit these desecrations." 

2 - "If you do sneak in behind my back and commit these trespasses and desecrations, you will be harmed by those inside this home and I won't be able to protect you from them, I won't even try."


Would you prefer to have or not to have fair warning given to you? Is it wrong to give fair warning? 
Keeping in mind that my home is not your public property - What would you do after receiving fair warning that your life is in danger if you trespass?


.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Privacy rights vs constitional rights, are always a tough battle.
> 
> The WBC are hurtful, vengful and self-centered animals, but they do have a right to free speech, just like the rest of us.


So did the war protesters, who were sectioned off from the main activities and given a tiny roped off area. Only there were they allowed to exercise their right to free speech. It wasn't done freely anywhere in public. Especially outside of an event where government officials were meeting or the press would be present.

I think similar rules could be designed for grieving families if they can be implemented for government officials.

If they don't have to listen to protesters, why should the families burying their kids have to?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

pickapeppa said:


> So did the war protesters, who were sectioned off from the main activities and given a tiny roped off area. Only there were they allowed to exercise their right to free speech. It wasn't done freely anywhere in public. Especially outside of an event where government officials were meeting or the press would be present.


Forcing people to protest where no one can hear them, is not excercising free speech.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Forcing people to protest where no one can hear them, is not excercising free speech.


Are you saying it's okay to force people to listen to free speech that they don't want to hear???

.


----------



## Cande (Feb 5, 2008)

I&#8217;m a member of the PGR (Patriot Guard Riders)&#8230;&#8230;.and I have been to more soldiers funerals than anyone should attend in a life time&#8230;&#8230;. In the state I live in the WBC has to get a permit to protest&#8230;&#8230;.they have threaten to show up to most all of the funerals here in my state, but only actually showed up twice&#8230;&#8230;

The first one, we did not let them bothered the family. We did not let them disrupt the funeral. We had 150 Harleys, Gold Wings and other bikes there with each and every person holding a 3 x 5 USA flag on a 6 ft pole surrounding the grave site&#8230;&#8230;.and yes our bikes do get a little loud&#8230;..the family was so grateful we were there&#8230;..nothing touches your heart more than to do that for the family and have the family thank each and every one of us&#8230;.. brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it&#8230;..they have already given so much.

The other one that we (PGR) knew they had purchased a permit for, was in a very small town and there was about 300 of us there&#8230;..the city had roped off their little protest area, but after driving by from the airport and seeing all us and not being really warmly welcomed by local LEO&#8230;.they changed their mind and went back home&#8230;..

These people (WBC) are really not nice at all&#8230;..

I know they are only expressing their belief, but as long as they are in my state, the families of our soldiers will not be bothered&#8230;..and the families of our soldiers know us well and know all they have to do is pick up the phone and call&#8230;.we&#8217;ll be there. And not just for funerals, for what ever they need.

There are a few things here in the South that we just won&#8217;t put up with, and this is one of them!!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Are you saying it's okay to force people to listen to free speech that they don't want to hear???


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Free speech is not about what someone does or does not want to hear.


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

Last I knew we all had the right to freedom of speech, unless BO has a another bill that we dont want and I have not heard about it


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> Privacy rights vs constitional rights, are always a tough battle.
> 
> The WBC are hurtful, vengful and self-centered animals, but they do have a right to free speech, just like the rest of us.


Privacy rights vs constitional rights, are always a tough battle. And in a battle with a one ton truck, with a cow catcher bumper Privacy Rights win!

I daresay a local jury of peers would bring a 'no bill' in front of a grand jury, if someone plowed into a bunch of folks disrespecting the dead. We still pull off the side of the road when a funeral passes, and take off our hats. Anyone, regardless of sanity levels, disrespects the dead, they ought to be offered the chance to join them, quickly :shocked:, and see how much respect they get.


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

Cande said:


> Iâm a member of the PGR (Patriot Guard Riders)â¦â¦.and I have been to more soldiers funerals than anyone should attend in a life timeâ¦â¦. In the state I live in the WBC has to get a permit to protestâ¦â¦.they have threaten to show up to most all of the funerals here in my state, but only actually showed up twiceâ¦â¦
> 
> The first one, we did not let them bothered the family. We did not let them disrupt the funeral. We had 150 Harleys, Gold Wings and other bikes there with each and every person holding a 3 x 5 USA flag on a 6 ft pole surrounding the grave siteâ¦â¦.and yes our bikes do get a little loudâ¦..the family was so grateful we were thereâ¦..nothing touches your heart more than to do that for the family and have the family thank each and every one of usâ¦.. brings tears to my eyes just thinking about itâ¦..they have already given so much.
> 
> ...


My hat is off to you! Thanks for providing this service!

These people need to stop. Disrespecting the dead is bad Karma and they will get theirs either in this life or the next. I am still surprised that this has not turned into a shooting match.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Cande said:


> .... There are a few things here in the South that we just won&#8217;t put up with, and this is one of them!!


Well said Cande. Likewise, there are a few things here in the North that we just won't put up with, and WBC is one of them.

.


----------



## Cande (Feb 5, 2008)

Well I&#8217;ll be honest, the second one, I was a little concerned if they (WBC) would have stayed&#8230;. That was a very tense day for us all&#8230;.We had &#8220;all&#8221; kinds of bikers there from 3 different states. We always have a meeting with all the bikers that show up to let everyone know, either you will just stand the line with your flag and ignore WBC or you have to leave&#8230;&#8230;.It&#8217;s our place to just protect the family and show our heart felt respect for the family&#8230;&#8230;it&#8217;s the one place that you truly have to keep the other cheek turned&#8230;&#8230;..and I&#8217;ve seen some of the &#8220;hardest core&#8221; bikers, most ex vets, turn and stand very proud with their flag, with tears running down their face&#8230;&#8230;just that will bring tears to your eyes&#8230;.

Never met a biker yet I didn&#8217;t like&#8230;&#8230;..wonderful people, no matter how we dress!! <smile>

I was just informed we have another funeral do go to tomorrow&#8230;&#8230;..please pray for our troops, current and past ...............&#8230;


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cande said:


> Well Iâll be honest, the second one, I was a little concerned if they (WBC) would have stayedâ¦. That was a very tense day for us allâ¦.We had âallâ kinds of bikers there from 3 different states. We always have a meeting with all the bikers that show up to let everyone know, either you will just stand the line with your flag and ignore WBC or you have to leaveâ¦â¦.Itâs our place to just protect the family and show our heart felt respect for the familyâ¦â¦itâs the one place that you truly have to keep the other cheek turnedâ¦â¦..and Iâve seen some of the âhardest coreâ bikers, most ex vets, turn and stand very proud with their flag, with tears running down their faceâ¦â¦just that will bring tears to your eyesâ¦.
> 
> Never met a biker yet I didnât likeâ¦â¦..wonderful people, no matter how we dress!! <smile>
> 
> I was just informed we have another funeral do go to tomorrowâ¦â¦..please pray for our troops, current and past ...............â¦


You have my utmost respect & praise. Have a safe journey & God speed.

Patty


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Cande, I just love what you do. I am absolutely thrilled that you and your fellow riders take such a stand against these free speech abusers. Thank you so much for your selfless service. One less thing for a poor grieving family to worry about.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Are you saying it's okay to force people to listen to free speech that they don't want to hear???
> 
> .


They can always walk away..who's "right" triumphs? I despise the Phelps people and all that they say that they stand for..and I'd fight for their right to say it in a public place any day. That's American. There is no law here which prevents citizens from being offended.

edited to add..if you were referring specifically to the WBC showing up at funerals..well, obviously the mourners cannot just walk away during the service. There are other ways to deal with people such as WBC..we don't need a law.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

bostonlesley said:


> ..if you were referring specifically to the WBC showing up at funerals..well, obviously the mourners cannot just walk away during the service. There are other ways to deal with people such as WBC..we don't need a law.


That is what I was referring to. And I agree, you don't need a law. You just don't let them in to get near the mourners.

.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

watcher said:


> I disagree with their actions but I have to support their right to take them.
> 
> With all that said I told the wife if it had been my son's funeral I don't think I'd bothered with a law suit. I probably would have had a "discussion" with the preacher one dark night in which I would "express my opinion" of his actions with a baseball bat to his knees and elbows. Not exactly politically correct but actions have consequence.


So you would violate the constitutional rights of someone simply exercising his own constitutional rights? 

I would support your version of "free speech" here under the circumstances!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

SunsetSonata said:


> So you would violate the constitutional rights of someone simply exercising his own constitutional rights?
> 
> I would support your version of "free speech" here under the circumstances!


Hey if you take a legal action you know is going to upset someone you better be ready for when that someone gets upset. As I said there are consequences for actions. Right actions, wrong actions it doesn't matter. If you aren't willing to live with that then its best if you don't take the action.

BTDT.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Are you truly having difficulty comprehending, or are you just being obtuse for the sake of being obstreperous?
> 
> Here's a scenario for you, and you can tell me what you would do.
> 
> ...



IOW, there is no free speech. Only speech approved by the state. If your speech upsets someone then you are no longer allowed to speak. 

Let me ask you this, using your laws would MLK been allowed to speak in a southern state in the 60s? After all look at all the "great disturbance, emotional harm and anguish" his speeches caused.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

watcher said:


> IOW, there is no free speech. Only speech approved by the state. If your speech upsets someone then you are no longer allowed to speak.
> 
> Let me ask you this, using your laws would MLK been allowed to speak in a southern state in the 60s? After all look at all the "great disturbance, emotional harm and anguish" his speeches caused.


Nope, you're still not getting it.

There is free speech in my country. It is only discrimination and discriminatory speech that is not approved and not allowed in my country. 

*We the People* approve our own laws and then the state enforces those laws for We the People. We the People do not permit discriminatory speech in this country.

I'm not concerned about what MLK may or may not have said in your country 50 years ago. I'm only concerned about discriminatory speech in my country now. If somebody from your country comes into my country and exercises discriminatory speech which is not allowed in my country, then they are not welcome in my country and may be charged with a criminal offense according to our laws. It's as simple as that. 

We are not forced to permit or listen to discriminatory speech the way you are forced by your laws.

Was MLK speaking out _against_ discrimination, or was he speaking out _for_ discrimination?

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Naturelover neither supports nor understands free speech. Naturelover (he/she?) thinks Naturelover does, but Naturelover doesn't.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Naturelover neither supports nor understands free speech. Naturelover (he/she?) thinks Naturelover does, but Naturelover doesn't.


I'm a she. I support free speech and I exercise my right to it. I do NOT support discrimination nor discriminatory speech.

.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

During the Jackson presidency, Old Hickory fully agreed with his Secretary of War hunting a man down with a loaded pistol, because the Secretary's wife's reputation had been besmirched.

Wonder how Phelps would have fared in those days?...


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> I'm a she. I support free speech and I exercise my right to it. I do NOT support discrimination nor discriminatory speech.
> 
> .


Hi she. Good to know ya.

You were raised in your country with your beliefs, laws and customs. I was raised here where free speech is not a right given to us by politicians, but is one of the rights that they affirmed was a God-given pre-existing right. I could say horrible things about you and your country if I pleased, but it wouldn't be very nice or polite. And so I don't. Plus, I don't really have any hard feelings to make me say those things anyway. The WBC bunch doesn't know polite from a sandwich, and they spew their carp in public at funerals. Trouble is, being lawyers, they always apply for and get any permits needed before they make their protests, and you will never beat a Phelps in court. They are experts at this game. 

I heard the story about a Canadian comic, Guy Earle, who has been battling a court case for years because somebody got their feelings hurt at a comedy club. Can't anybody take a joke any more?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Hi Ed, nice to know you too.



> Trouble is, being lawyers, they always apply for and get any permits needed before they make their protests, and you will never beat a Phelps in court. They are experts at this game.


I know they can do that there. It's all just a game to them there because they can do that and get away with it. 

Can't do that here. Nobody can file for a permit to exercise discriminatory hate speech in Canada. People here can protest and exercise free speech all they want about things and they do NOT need a permit to do so, but they cannot use inciting discriminatory hate speech during their protest under any circumstances.



> I heard the story about a Canadian comic, Guy Earle, who has been battling a court case for years because somebody got their feelings hurt at a comedy club. Can't anybody take a joke any more?


Yes, I know about the Guy Earle story. He was doing a comedy act in a club 3 years ago and singled out two of his paying customers in the audience and then made discriminatory accusations against them about their (supposed) sexual orientation. Things got nasty after that and they threw drinks in his face. They filed charges against him for discrimination and hate speech. He appeared before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal last week. The case hasn't been settled yet because his own lawyer walked out on him during the hearing.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

For anybody interested to know what Canadian officials and Canadian citizens did about the WBC group last time they came to Canada in 2008. This is just a short excerpt from the article, you can read the full story at the link. They haven't been back here since.



> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/08/08/westboro-protest.html
> &#12288;
> Canadian border guards are under orders to prevent members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a controversial Kansas-based sect, from entering the country. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's office sent an alert to border patrol .... to keep them out of the country.
> 
> ...


She got them out of there because she feared for their safety, and like I said above, they haven't been back since.

.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Nope, you're still not getting it.
> 
> There is free speech in my country. It is only discrimination and discriminatory speech that is not approved and not allowed in my country.
> 
> ...


You are not getting it. You do NOT have free speech because you limit speech based on what your government feels is correct speech. Here unless your speech is calling for violence you may speak. Example one day the Black Panthers can hold an event and speak on how blacks should not associate with whites because the white race is evil. The next day the KKK can hold an event and speak on how whites should not associate with blacks because they are evil. The day after that a third group can hold an event saying we should be a color blind society because under our skin we are all the same.

What difference does it make what MLK was speaking about? The fact was his speaking caused all kinds of "disturbance, emotional harm and anguish". Is this not what you stated is forbidden?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I'm a she. I support free speech and I exercise my right to it. I do NOT support discrimination nor discriminatory speech.
> 
> .



No, you support speech as long as it is nice speech. I do not support discrimination but I do support your right to speak for or against it.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Yes, I know about the Guy Earle story. *He was doing a comedy act in a club 3 years ago and singled out two of his paying customers in the audience and then made discriminatory accusations against them about their (supposed) sexual orientation.* Things got nasty after that and they threw drinks in his face. They filed charges against him for discrimination and hate speech. He appeared before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal last week. The case hasn't been settled yet because his own lawyer walked out on him during the hearing.


Here is the story, with a lot less sugar-coating.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/786944--when-a-comedian-insults-lesbians-is-it-discriminatory

Now, even artistic expression need to be muzzled.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

That's really very funny. I never heard the account of him telling her to stuff the _'something something'_ in her mouth. :smiley-laughing013: :lookout: 

Personally I think they were all wrong and I hope they all get a big slap down for it. A lot of grief could have been prevented for everybody concerned, including the rest of the audience, if the manager had just gotten the security guys to bounce those 2 rowdy women out of there as soon as they started their heckling - if indeed they actually started it first. Hecklers at comedy shows spoil all the fun for everyone and women with 'issues' can be the worst, especially if they've been drinking. That's what bouncers are for. 

It's definitely not cool that all of that happened at a charity event and they all should be ashamed of themselves for their behaviours.

Tsk tsk.

.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Oh, we know what they're like. They've already visited Canada 2 or 3 times too, they're not welcome here anymore. Last time they tried they were denied entrance and informed that their safety (from citizen reaction) couldn't be guaranteed if they did come in.
> 
> .


Naturelover - Canada has it going on..my thanks for your country's good sense. 

I fail to understand how someone can be so low as to protest during a funeral- free speech and all that aside. Have these people NO RESPECT at all?

Guess not..but I can tell you that if they showed up down here, some certain "Bubba's and good ole boys" would likely teach them the error of their ways. And that is as it should be.

There's a time for free speech and a time for respect - obviously these people have not learned that.


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Some of you are apparently unaware of the laws now dealing with laws regarding funerals in Kansas and also enacted by Bush for across the nation.

Check out the Wiki article on Fred Phelps and it tells about those two pieces of legislation turned law in 2006 and 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean I should have to or be forced to listen. Protests should be outlawed at funerals. Period. 

I can't believe people would support the opportunistic abuse of their own military families arguing it's a constitutional right. 

There has to be a reasonable alternative to "I have the right to free speech, so I'm going to stand here at your dead kid's funeral and spew hate while you stand there crying."

This is an instance where people hold a rope of ideology and hang themselves with it.

I like it when bikers take a stand. It's usually for the right reasons. How long before the WBC sues the towns for allowing bikers to inhibit their right to free speech?


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Phelps & his gang literally make me sick. Ditto those saying he has the *right* to do what he does because of "free speech".

Regardless of how I feel about the reasons for the "war", I support our troops 100%, and it totally sickens me to know this scum is causing these families even more pain & anguish, on top of the agony of having lost a loved one. What about the rights of the FAMILIES, to be able to freakin MOURN in peace?!?!?!??!?! Who the hay knows what this cult of lunatics "stands for" anyway??? There is nothing even remotely "Christian" about this "church".
I am SOOO dang sick & tired of these types of people getting away w/ hurting people, committing crimes, all the while hiding behind their pretend "church". I lump them in w/ the FLDS PERVS who rape children & enslave women, & call it "religion". This BS has gone on WAY too long. :flame:

And the fact that these freaks are less than an hour from me makes me even *more* ticked off. This is NOT what Kansans want to be known for. I've seen the Patriot Guard at a few funerals near here, where The Freaks were supposed to show up, & it was quite a sight! They are men of better valor & self-control than myself, as I doubt I could keep my cool having to deal w/ those fools' BS up close & personal. 
:rock: :thumb:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

watcher said:


> What difference does it make what MLK was speaking about? The fact was his speaking caused all kinds of "disturbance, emotional harm and anguish". Is this not what you stated is forbidden?


Watcher, you're a real sharp cookie game player at asking questions and then dodging and evading other people's questions by asking more questions of your own. 

I've answered your questions but you have NOT answered mine. 

*YOU* were the one that brought MLK up in this topic to start with, now please answer my questions to you about him without any more of your evasive tactics. Can you answer my questions honestly and give me some straight answers without attempting to sidetrack and distract with more of your hair splitting questions? Are you capable of that? If not then just say so and I won't pay any more attention to you. Thank you.


*How does MLK and his purposes tie in with the purposes of the Westboro Baptist Church and the Phelps family?*

*Was MLK speaking out FOR discrimination or AGAINST discrimination? *

*Who did MLK cause disturbance, emotional harm and anguish for?*

*If MLK actually did cause anguish for these defined anguished people then what was his purpose in causing anguish for them? *


*.*


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Did anyone else read the wiki account of this monster? OMG-he believes Jesus died only for certain people??!?!?
More amazing than that is he's a democrat. LOL! For Al Gore, then against Al Gore. Yeah, I can see how you'd get confused...
Even more amazing than that is wiki didn't mention the incest allegations (?) against him.

I'm waiting for the Baptist church to force him to take their name off his organization. (not gonna call it a 'church')


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

I'm sorry, but I think Canada has it right. I want MY country to do the right thing, too. And the right thing is not limited by the Constitution.

Don't care about whether allowing Phelps to protest at funerals supports the Constitition or not. I care about what the Constitition is supposed to protect - PEOPLE, not ideals! The Constitution is NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PEOPLE IT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT. So it is pointless to me to point to the Constitution and worry about THAT more than worry about fringe group's right to abuse free speech by harrassing a grieving family. 

Pointing out that the U.S. has the right to Free Bigoted Speech is NOTHING to brag about. I hardly look to Canada and think wow, what a fascist nation for not allowing unlimited free speech, what will they outlaw next, it's a slippery slope! What they don't allow is pretty specific. Whereas some in my country are happy to pay the price in the name of Freedom of Speech - or rather, they are happy for OTHERS to pay the price of Freedom of Speech, as the ones writing have not buried sons and daughters and had the honor of Phelp's entourage as they did so. I value people over ideals so I support the grieving family's legal attempts to punish and end Phelp's harrassment.

Canada has deemed the cost of allowing such freedom of speech (as opposed to free speech in general, do I really have to point out the difference?) as too high, and I agree. If you have been personally affected by Phelp's "rights", I would then listen to any family who agrees that our Constitution completely unlimits free speech, and supports that right, including where and when.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Wonder how many would give the Phelps' a free-speech pass, if they only protested at the funerals, of gay people who died from AIDS?


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Even if we DID have American-style "freedom" of speech in Canada, I would hope we'd restrict it to citizens of Canada, not troublemakers coming in from another country with no other cause for crossing the border but to insult people.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

naturelover said:


> I'm a she. I support free speech and I exercise my right to it. I do NOT support discrimination nor discriminatory speech.
> 
> .


What happens if someone else who has the authority to do so, , for whatever reason, determines that _your _words, are considered discriminatory and wants to restrict you from speaking them?

Would you be all right with it, just because some one else said so?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> What happens if someone else who has the authority to do so, , for whatever reason, determines that _your _words, are considered discriminatory and wants to restrict you from speaking them?
> 
> Would you be all right with it, just because some one else said so?


Do you mean like how a forum works? Can you see the parrallel?

Do you mean, for example, restriction like when I, or you, or somebody else on this forum gets too snarky and stupid and makes personal attacks against others on the board, and then the abusive post gets deleted because the admin or mods determined those were discriminatory and abusive posts? And if I, or you, or somebody else, continues the abuse, then we can recieve demerits or even be banned from the forum. 

People come to this forum because it's a well run forum and they get treated fairly and they can stay as long as they treat other people fairly. If people behave like trolls they get banned.

The whole world is one big forum and WBC is a nasty troll. The exact same principles of a well run forum should apply to people like the Phelps family, a family of trolls headed by the grand-daddy of all trolls.

Is that a good enough example of an answer that fits with your question?

.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Do you mean like how a forum works? Can you see the parrallel?.


No, not really.

Everyone joins here of their free will and AGREE to abide by the rules. In the real world, this would be FORCING everyone to follow a certain group's set standards. These standards could be set for today and changed different and made more restrictive, next month or next year. Forum users could quit if they don't like the new standards. Not so in the real world.

Besides, setting "standards", based on one group's opinion, can and will often conflict with someones true beliefs, even for the nasty Ropers. We think they are nuts, but they may believe that what they are doing is godly just.

For instance, There is probably few Christian Preachers alive, that have not stood in the pulpit and extolled the shame, evil and eternal darnation of homosexuality.

Ooops, Gays are now protected and therefore are now being discriminated against by the Christians.

Time to send in the Speech Police? Probably can no longer even play the church/state card, to get out of that one.

The fact that most Christians are against the gay, is now too bad for them and they must start talking "nicer". Maybe someone from a "tribunal", will start looking at their sermons.

Limiting free speech is an very gray area that can only get grayer (it that a real word).


----------



## brreitsma (Jan 14, 2003)

> I'm waiting for the Baptist church to force him to take their name off his organization. (not gonna call it a 'church')


I am sure many Baptists wish they could. The thing with the name Baptist is that it is free for anyone to use much like say, Pentecostal or Holiness. Unlike Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian there is not a corner on the market so to speak for those names.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Watcher, you're a real sharp cookie game player at asking questions and then dodging and evading other people's questions by asking more questions of your own.
> 
> I've answered your questions but you have NOT answered mine.
> 
> *YOU* were the one that brought MLK up in this topic to start with, now please answer my questions to you about him without any more of your evasive tactics. Can you answer my questions honestly and give me some straight answers without attempting to sidetrack and distract with more of your hair splitting questions? Are you capable of that? If not then just say so and I won't pay any more attention to you. Thank you.


Yep. Will you do the same?




naturelover said:


> *How does MLK and his purposes tie in with the purposes of the Westboro Baptist Church and the Phelps family?*


Because what he was saying was very unpopular and many people wanted to use governmental force to shut him up.




naturelover said:


> *Was MLK speaking out FOR discrimination or AGAINST discrimination? *


Against.




naturelover said:


> *Who did MLK cause disturbance, emotional harm and anguish for?*


The people who supported the law of the land he was speaking against and the people who had to deal with the results of his speeches and marches.




naturelover said:


> *If MLK actually did cause anguish for these defined anguished people then what was his purpose in causing anguish for them? *


To make a political point.




Say I told you that there was a person wanting to come into your country and give a speech. But I inform you in this speech he was going to offer support to people who were knowingly and willingly violating the laws of your country. Also in the past he not only had made speeches supporting this violation of the law but had *LEAD* groups of people in illegal actions. At times such actions had lead to violence. Would your government let such a person into your country?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

watcher said:


> Say I told you that there was a person wanting to come into your country and give a speech. But I inform you in this speech he was going to offer support to people who were knowingly and willingly violating the laws of your country. Also in the past he not only had made speeches supporting this violation of the law but had *LEAD* groups of people in illegal actions. At times such actions had lead to violence. *Would your government let such a person into your country?*


I doubt it. If that person is already known of and on the watch list then no, they wouldn't be allowed in. There are several other countries, including your own, that have similar watch lists (i.e. DHS and American anti-defamation groups) on the lookout for such types of inciters and/or terrorists and their governments (including yours) probably wouldn't allow them into their countries either.

Here's some further information for you, you can make of it what you will.

*My note: In America, because they call themselves a church, the WBC legally enacts a hate speech crime and incites hate under the guise of expression of religious opinion*.
&#12288;
&#12288;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' *It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.*
&#12288;

*************************************

*Note: following criminal code information is not copyrighted material and is free for emailing and other publication.*

http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli.../federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm
&#12288;
Criminal Code of Canada: Hate Provisions - Summary

"Hate" is defined as a crime under two parts of Canada&#8217;s Criminal Code: sections 318 and 319. To convict anyone under the Code, very specific proof is required: both of the criminal act itself, and of the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn&#8217;t enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the Code exactly, and if they did it deliberately.

In most cases, hate propaganda communicated through the Internet is an offence under the Criminal Code. Amendments to the Code, made under the Anti-Terrorism Act in December 2001, further clarify measures and offences regarding Internet hate crimes.

*Section 318: Advocating Genocide*
The criminal act of "advocating genocide" is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group" &#8212; persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. The intention or motivation would be the destruction of members of the targeted group. Any person who promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

*Defining Genocide*
Section 318 defines genocide as any acts committed with intent to destroy an identifiable group &#8212;such as killing members of the group, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group&#8217;s physical destruction.

*Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred*



The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

communicate statements,
in a public place,
incite hatred against an identifiable group,
in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.



All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.



Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

are established to be true
were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada
*Warrants of Seizure*
Section 320 of the Criminal Code provides for the seizure and forfeiture of physical hate propaganda material kept on any premises for distribution or sale.

Section 320.1 added under the Anti-Terrorism bill in 2001, allows the courts to order publicly available hate propaganda to be deleted from computer systems, such as a Web site. The individuals responsible for posting the offensive material are given the opportunity to convince the court that it does not constitute hate propaganda. This provision applies to any hate propaganda located on a Canadian computer system, regardless where the owner of the material is located.

*Additional Hate Provisions*
The courts may define the motivations of hate, bias or prejudice as aggravating factors when sentencing an offender for other offences, such as assault, damage to property, threatening, or harassment. The result is usually a more severe punishment (section 718.2(a)(i)).

The law (subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), to be specific) encourages judges to consider in sentencing whether the crime was motivated by hate of: the victim's race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor. 


**************************************

*In recent news:*

This case marks the first time in Canadian history that an *Internet service provider* has been found guilty of hosting a website promoting ethnic hatred against visible minorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Ethnic_Cleansing_Team


**************************************

A Somali militant group that has been actively recruiting in Canada has been outlawed under the anti-terrorism law. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is expected to announce shortly that the Islamist militia Al-Shabab has been added to Canada's list of banned terrorist groups. Al-Shabab is the first group to be added to Canada's list of banned terrorist groups since 2008, when the Tamil Tigers front organization, the World Tamil Movement, was outlawed.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2652029


**************************************

American Congress wants to put hate-group ban into law
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_hate_groups_enlistment_ban_101909w/


*************************************

Canada wants to avoid this kind of violence happening.
Eugene Terreblanche killed in South Africa - South African white supremacist leader Eugene Terreblanche (translates as "white earth") has been killed on his farm in the country's north-west. Mr Terreblanche, 69, was beaten to death by two farm workers ............
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8602347.stm

&#12288;
.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> ..... We think they are nuts, but they may believe that what they are doing is godly just.
> 
> For instance, There is probably few Christian Preachers alive, that have not stood in the pulpit and extolled the shame, evil and eternal darnation of homosexuality.
> 
> ...


I agree that limiting free speech is a gray area, especially in democratic nations such as ours. I would also put it to you that the opinions of those who call themselves christians are not the be all to end all for all of society, no more so than any other religious group. What the Phelps-Ropers are doing is manipulating your own legal system under the umbrella of religious expression to target your own citizens, your nation, the citizens of other nations, and the whole of the other nations themselves. This makes WBC no different from those islamic jihadists who we label as terrorists. The Phelps-Ropers are literally terrorists legally sanctioned in your own country to continue with their terrorism because they are christians expressing religious opinions. That's what I call a double standard. It's okay for them to be terrorists because they're a so-called christian group in America, but not okay (by christian standards) for any other religious groups elsewhere to express similar opinions about christians.

Aaaiiieee! They have you twisted around their little fingers through your own legal systems and your ideologies about what constitutes freedom of speech in America. You are hoist by your own petard. :shocked:

I am sorry. You truly have my deepest sympathies that you have to keep them there at home with you and tolerate their poisonous abuses. It makes me very sad. If I had any say in the matter I would put them on an Ark and set them loose at sea, not allowed to set foot on any land again or mingle with any other society. And may god have mercy on their souls.

.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I doubt it. If that person is already known of and on the watch list then no, they wouldn't be allowed in. There are several other countries, including your own, that have similar watch lists (i.e. DHS and American anti-defamation groups) on the lookout for such types of inciters and/or terrorists and their governments (including yours) probably wouldn't allow them into their countries either.



First off let me say I mis-typed. I meant to say the laws of another country, not your country but I don't think it would matter. With that said. . .

So, if the current law was in effect and MLK had tired to enter Canada he would have been forbidden entry. Because if you read a little history you will see that MLK did everything I said in the paragraph. You government would have branded MLK, one of the great preachers of non-violence, a violent threat. What does that say to you?

This goes to prove my point. Once you start limiting speech _you_ don't support what's to prevent someone from limiting speech you do support?




naturelover said:


> Here's some further information for you, you can make of it what you will.


I make of it that you do not have free speech because the government can limit what you say about who. All that is necessary to intimidate you into not speaking out is to threaten to brand you a "hate speaker". All that is necessary to force you to sit down and shut up is to add a group to the list. What if they added all members of the government to that list? Then if you spoke out against them you could be said to be instilling hate against them.

I will say it is reaching that point in the States as well. We are on the verge of thought police. You are not only judged on your actions but what the police think you were thinking when you took these actions. I've told people if you ever are forced to defend yourself you might want to shout "I love you!" while doing it so you could not be accused of a hate crime.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I agree that limiting free speech is a gray area, especially in democratic nations such as ours. I would also put it to you that the opinions of those who call themselves christians are not the be all to end all for all of society, no more so than any other religious group. What the Phelps-Ropers are doing is manipulating your own legal system under the umbrella of religious expression to target your own citizens, your nation, the citizens of other nations, and the whole of the other nations themselves. This makes WBC no different from those islamic jihadists who we label as terrorists. The Phelps-Ropers are literally terrorists legally sanctioned in your own country to continue with their terrorism because they are christians expressing religious opinions. That's what I call a double standard. It's okay for them to be terrorists because they're a so-called christian group in America, but not okay (by christian standards) for any other religious groups elsewhere to express similar opinions about christians.
> 
> Aaaiiieee! They have you twisted around their little fingers through your own legal systems and your ideologies about what constitutes freedom of speech in America. You are hoist by your own petard. :shocked:
> 
> ...



Yea, it stinks. But so does our system of "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" because it allows so many guilty people go free. Why do we allow this? Because we think the rights of the ones which could be wrongly convicted are much more important that letting those go free. 

The same way with our system of free speech. We would rather put up with a bunch of nut cases ranting and raving about repugnant things than forbid one person from being free to stand up and speak their mind on a 'good' issue. If we have to allow the KKK to speak to be able to have a MLK speak, we think its a good bargain. After all who won in the end?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

watcher said:


> So, if the current law was in effect and MLK had tired to enter Canada he would have been forbidden entry. Because if you read a little history you will see that MLK did everything I said in the paragraph. You government would have branded MLK, one of the great preachers of non-violence, a violent threat. What does that say to you?


I understand what you're getting at. I don't think you understand Canada though. I think MLK is not a good example to use as he wouldn't have had a reason to come into Canada to incite people against discrimination and racism in Canada. He was well received in Canada.

http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/history/kingjr/

*Martin Luther King Jr.'s View of Canada*

_It is a deep personal privilege to address a nationwide Canadian audience. Over and above any kinship of U.S. citizens and Canadians as North Americans, there is a singular historical relationship between American ******* and Canadians._

_Canada is not merely a neighbour to *******. Deep in our history of struggle for freedom Canada was the North Star. The ***** slave, denied education, de-humanized, imprisoned on cruel plantations, knew that far to the north a land existed where a fugitive slave, if he survived the horrors of the journey, could find freedom. The legendary underground railroad started in the south and ended in Canada. The freedom road links us together. Our spirituals, now so widely admired around the world, were often codes. We sang of 'heaven' that awaited us, and the slave masters listened in innocence, not realizing that we were not speaking of the hereafter. Heaven was the word for Canada and the ***** sang of the hope that his escape on the underground railroad would carry him there. One of our spirituals, 'Follow the Drinking Gourd', in its disguised lyrics contained directions for escape. The gourd was the big dipper, and the North Star to which its handle pointed gave the celestial map that directed the flight to the Canadian border._
_Martin Luther King Jr._

*Acknowledgements*

The quotation from Martin Luther King Jr is taken from p. 1 of Conscience for Change, published by CBC Learning Systems in 1967 - the printed form of the 1967 Massey Lectures. Reprinted by permission of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

zant said:


> 1.We DON"T need canadian speech nazi laws in USA,thanks anyway NL,just keep them in canada.And your little HRC seems to pick and choose whose "speech"rights they don't like...
> 2.As distasteful and ignorant as Phelps and his morons are,I'll defend their right to spew.
> 3.In a perfect world,these ignorant fools would have a blanket party thrown for them,but I guess I'm just not being PC...


So I ask, is the War in Iraq Just? 

Is it wrong for someone to tell you that you are going/or gone to hell?(backed by historical standards?)

Is it wrong to be a minority?

I hold the proposition that it IS a unjust war, based on lies. 

I also hold the Ideal that it is RIGHT for someone with deep conviction to tell you why something is wrong.

It is also very much RIGHT to belong to a minority, because we all belong to minority groups.

Fred Phelps has the RIGHT to do what he does, period. If there is one American left in this country, it would be Pastor Phelps.

Seriously, while most of us ROLL OVER and get our vaccines, send out kids to Iraq and get blown up.....

I wonder if we changed "Iraq" to "Vietnam" I would almost guarantee Pastor Phelps would NOT be a issue! However since there are no real Americans left to PROTEST peacefully, as they have all been CONNED by...

GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED NEWS MEDIA, don't believe me, look at the Hutaree Milita raids, THERE IS YOUR PROOF. America is a Nation of SUCKERS.

You have the right to be who you are and say what you think, because here we have personal freedom, we have liberty. If we allow any minority to loose it's Freedom by persecution, or by prejudice, we are threatening our own freedom.

The Ideal of the Constitution is to PROTECT us FROM the Government. That outstanding Document should never be allowed to be dismantled.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Wow. There is one of them among us.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Vern, Phelps does not believe in free speech unless it is his. If you do not obey his demands (like closing a park at an earlier time) he will slander and libel you. most of his family are lawyers and much of their income comes from the suing the people who do not obey him.

He has lost an awfull lot of court cases, but he keeps appealing (most of his family ARE lawyers, he is a disbarred lawyer himself) and so he puts off paying the judgements against him.

He has the right to tell people when he thinks they are wrong, yes. 

He does NOT have the right to commit false witness, to accuse his opponants of sleeping around and of taking bribes, or to scream in the faceof somebody who is burying their child and also to make up lies about the dead person. Some of the above are sins and some are crimes.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

VERN in IL said:


> It is also very much RIGHT to belong to a minority, because we all belong to minority groups.
> 
> If we allow any minority to loose it's Freedom by persecution, or by prejudice, we are threatening our own freedom.


Vern, with your above quote you are contradicting yourself.

Phelps is prejudiced against and is persecuting a minority group. He is also persecuting and punishing other people who are not part of that minority group because the minority group is allowed it's freedom. In doing so he threatens the freedom of everybody.

How is this right and just in your eyes?

.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Vern, with your above quote you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> Phelps is prejudiced against and is persecuting a minority group. He is also persecuting and punishing other people who are not part of that minority group because the minority group is allowed it's freedom. In doing so he threatens the freedom of everybody.
> 
> ...


I am NOT AWARE of any incident where Phelps plotted to shut down a Funeral, as far as I KNOW, he stays on PUBLIC PROPERTY and DEMONSTRATES with SIMPLE Biblical phases. 

He has the right to be prejudice, and he is not persecuting a minority group. He is not punishing other people! The minority group still have their funerals, and Phelps, just as those patriot guard riders all get to exercise their freedoms on the public property, the law states you cannot protest immediately in front of a PRIVATE residence.(focus picketing) Phelps knows our laws, and that is why he is free. 

The ones that should be locked up are the ones that attempted to SET FIRE to the WBC. The Phelps have never destroyed property(unless it is a flag burning, or a burning of a Koran, but that is solely for demonstration purposes, and it is their property.

You have the RIGHT to say what you want, but you don't have the right to be heard. 

Phelps is not in jail, the Hutarees are, and even THAT is seemingly a fraud set up by the Government. 

I wish to continue this conversation, but I must keep a _sharp_ eye on the developments in the Hutaree/FBI fraud. 

WBC will continue their preaching, and notice my Sig, yip that is Pastor Phelps, I've watched some of his videos on his site. Yeah, they make me angry, I actually LIKE it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I understand what you're getting at. I don't think you understand Canada though. I think MLK is not a good example to use as he wouldn't have had a reason to come into Canada to incite people against discrimination and racism in Canada. He was well received in Canada.


I think he is almost the perfect example. Here you have a man whose entire life was based on doing good but he could have been legally prevented from coming to your country to speak. The only reason he wouldn't be is because the _*government*_ approved of his speech. 

But you seem to be hung up on the specific man or the specific message.

Say MLK was coming to do a speech against the laws in the South. Because his message was government approved he'd get to come. But say a supporter of the laws wanted to give a rebuttal speech. He would be forbidden entry. That means the government is deliberately slanting the speech toward the position IT wants. Is that what you call free speech? Government control?


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

VERN in IL said:


> I am NOT AWARE of any incident where Phelps plotted to shut down a Funeral, as far as I KNOW, he stays on PUBLIC PROPERTY and DEMONSTRATES with SIMPLE Biblical phases.
> 
> He has the right to be prejudice, and he is not persecuting a minority group. He is not punishing other people! The minority group still have their funerals, and Phelps, just as those patriot guard riders all get to exercise their freedoms on the public property, the law states you cannot protest immediately in front of a PRIVATE residence.(focus picketing) Phelps knows our laws, and that is why he is free.


I am not certain which minority group you are referring to: Phelps mostly pickets the funerals of the military. And, the majority seems to be Christian military.

Kansas law now prohibits picketing too close to a funeral: this was because nobody could hear the prayers being said.

Phelps is from Kansas and he used to make the papers regularly. There were a FEW Bible passages on those signs, but, most of them said things that the server does not want posted here. Such language is not allowed here.

It is possible that the site you were at is kept relatively clean.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Just as an aside:

At the time of his death, MLK had a higher disapproval rating among blacks than his approval rating.

Now, back to our Canadian silliness....I'm sure we'll change their laws when we annex them...


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jolly said:


> Now, back to our Canadian silliness....I'm sure we'll change their laws when we annex them...


I see your name reflects your sense of humor. I think it's great when somebody can still make fun of themself in their own hour of defeat, it shows strength of character. :clap:

.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Jolly said:


> During the Jackson presidency, Old Hickory fully agreed with his Secretary of War hunting a man down with a loaded pistol, because the Secretary's wife's reputation had been besmirched.
> 
> Wonder how Phelps would have fared in those days?...


I stopped on the way home from town today, to talk with a fella, an older brother of a friend I went to school with... basically wanted to know if he was going to do any custom bandsaw mill work in the future, since the other guy in our area sold his mill....

anyway, back to the point....

This guy got a call one day that a guy had besmirched/disrespected his (searching for the word...) devoutly modest Christian wife in town... he went to the place, got the story and a description, tracked him down, and didn't use a pistol, but did give him a very forceful smiting... upon hearing the details, the local sheriff didn't arrest him, but did have a long conversation with the besmircher.

{no, he's not custom milling..., so I'll probably have to buy my own}


----------



## dezingg (Feb 25, 2010)

I guess that I haven't been paying enough attention. I had to read up on Phelps and his WBC to understand what was going on.

I support free speech, but it saddens me that a group of people can be so insensitive and hateful.

I like the instances where the WBC protesters were totally out numbered by supporters, thus giving them the signal that they are truly an insignificant and unwelcome minority.


----------

