was fined $17 500 for by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for distributing flyers denouncing homosexual behaviour.
Actually, looking at his material (this and earlier stuff), I am inclined to think that it does meet the criteria of a hate-crime. Apparently, Connie intends to fight this battle to the last dog, but I think she's talking crazy talk. I can't see how any of the culture warriors at Free Dominion would be able to stand up and say they're proud of Mr. Whatcott's contribution to their forum. But I guess they may have that chance.
50 comments:
How is it a hate crime to criticize a religion? Seriously, this is done all the time to Catholics. No one thinks a hate crime is committed against us. We manage.
You are talking in generalities when we are dealing with particulars. Look at Whatcott's pamphlets on Islam, (or on homosexualty)and tell me honestly that this is not some kind of kook spreading hate. This debate will not be about criticizing religion in general, it will be about Whatcott and his pamphlets. D'you want to defend those?
(And besides, you are stuck with a totally crap Pope. Can't you dump him for someone with more charisma (and over 5'2" in height)?)
I don't think they're hateful. Saying bad things about a group of people isn't necessarily hateful, and even if it were, I think hate is such a vague concept in this day and age that it shouldn't be criminalized.
Reading the threads at FD, I'm truck more than anything by the complete ignorance of the law, and the utterly boneheaded approach being taken by Ms. Fournier and Mr. Wilkins.
I chose the handle Reality Bites because I deal in reality - pleasant or unpleasant. FD deals in fantasy. They deal in fantasies of a Canada where they and their ilk are the majority, instead of an embarassment shunned not only by all decent, normal, people, but also by the prime minister and political party that played them for prize chumps - as I repeatedly told them they would.
Well here's the unpleasant reality. Whether Ms. Fournier and Mr. Wilkins agree or not, Whatcott is by all Canadian human rights commission standards a spreader of hate speech. It doesn't matter what THEY think. It's what the law thinks and the law and jurisprudence is PAINFULLY clear on this. And no, their silly little disclaimer doesn't help them one little bit.
Compounding their foolishness in offering him a forum for the filth he dwells in, is their response to this complaint.
It's always been painfully obvious to observers that Whatcott's fondest wish is to be a martyr to hatemongering. It does come as a bit of a surprise that Mr. Wilkins and Ms. Fournier have so much in common with him.
They are certainly going to get their wish. There is ample evidence to support the accusations being made and this complaint is going to stick. FreeDominion is going to be shut down. Period. Not a bit of doubt about it. Cheryl Gallant has a better chance of becoming Prime Minister than FD has of seeing the next decade.
It's hard to decide who's going to be made happiest by this inevitable turn of events. Mr. Wilkins and Ms. Fournier, martyrs to their own stupidity and nothing else; legend in his own mind, Bill Whatcott, who can chalk up another "victory" or Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
Because there isn't a liberal (big or small 'L') or "socialist" in the country who wishes for the disappearance of FD more fervently than the Conservative Party. Not, as FDers like to imagine, because they threaten it with their "principled" "conservatism." But quite simply because they're an albatross around the party's neck. A boil on the ass of the Conservative Party. Always have been. Once upon a time the party was willing to exploit those poor misguided fools, take their time and money, but that time is over. FreeDominion is as welcome in the Conservative Party as Monica Lewinsky in a bikini at a Hilary Clinton fundraiser.
Reality, And what do you foresee as the ramification for other sites. If this goes through and I too suspect it will, that makes the host/administrators responsible for all the comments on their sites even with the little BS disclaimer that are always posted, i.e, I am not responsible for other thoughts or statements on this site.
Don't miss this gem including at least one veiled threat:
First Hailey wrote:
"You guys need to leave her alone - don't make this worse."
And Roy Wilson replied at 07/20/07 10:03 pm:
"Now yes."
I think hate is such a vague concept in this day and age that it shouldn't be criminalized.
Well, hate isn't criminalised. The expression of hate in a very specific manner is.
I don't think you really understand this issue; you're just trying to protect the social/religious conservatives who you realise are crossing the line. You'd be more useful counseling them than discussing concepts of which you have a poor grasp.
As for hate being a vague concept, I am astonished that a Catholic would even venture such a thing. You are really one bad Catholic, I'm afraid.
"As for hate being a vague concept, I am astonished that a Catholic would even venture such a thing. You are really one bad Catholic, I'm afraid. "
Ti-guy you are absolutely ignorant about Catholicism. I meant that the concept of hate, as it is used in common everyday life-- is vague.
In Catholicism, it's not. But you wouldn't want my religion to be the source of laws now, wouldn't you?
SUZANNE said: ..."the concept of hate, as it is used in common everyday life-- is vague.
In Catholicism, it's not. But you wouldn't want my religion to be the source of laws now, wouldn't you?"
***
By all the gods and goddesses who ever have, will or shall walk this planet I say NO! to Suzanne and her religion which pretends to have not written the laws that people all over the world rise up against.
Refute me now, SUZANNE, without resorting to the religion or its laws you seem to leave by the wayside in your brave foray into logic.
I have no beef with any religion which does not require bad people or punishment inflicted by people who themselves turn out to be bad.
Your religion? I'm a Catholic, Suzanne.
Anyway, the distinction you're making is meaningless (and I'm compounding that by nit-picking). The only issue of importance here is the expression of hate within the context of the Criminal Code.
As I remarked, you're confused as to what exactly is criminalised here.
Canada's New Government would like to issue the following statement:
Connie Wilkins is the back stabbingest "conservative" ever. As the archives at FD will corroborate Connie has literally banned members of FD for supporting Stephen Harper.
Apparently she's all bent out of shape over losing some national council election a few years back and to say that she hates Harper and the CPC is an understatement. Think Carol Jamieson, only without the team skills.
She has publicly advocated for a new conservative national party along the lines of the Reform party, and was famously and accurately described by the CPC president Don Plett as a "more heat than light...professional victim."
Connie has closed threads dealing with racial issues and strongly discourages criticism of feminism, which calls into question whether she is even a small c conservative to begin with.
In short, however this shakes down, she is no conservative and in no way affiliated with the Conservative Party of Canada. Very much the opposite, in fact.
While Canada's New Government only pretends to support these Star Chamber proceedings, at least until we get a majority, we are happy to say that this couldn't have happened to a nicer person.
This message brought to you by Canada's New Government.
Canada's New Government.
Getting things done for all of us.
"Connie has closed threads dealing with racial issues"
Obviously not often enough.
"and strongly discourages criticism of feminism"
In yer dreams, buddy. No one gets banned there for attacking feminists.
However, I think we could spare some blame for the Harper dictatorship which lay down with jackals and got up with fleas.
Three quick points:
Whatcott's pamphlet and pictures are very disturbing. Do they rise to the level of hate-speech? I dunno. He seems to call Islamic theology a violent theology and asks Muslims to convert to Christianity. He repeats that not all Muslims are violent (which is vague).
All we have so far is a complaint with the CHRC charging FD with providing facilities for a post by a forum member. There is precious little upon which to predict the demise of FD at this point.
The sentiment fight words with words is more compelling than the claim that Connie's declared intention to fight the complaint is crazy talk. - (but that is just me, I don't like the hate speech laws).
The sentiment fight words with words is more compelling than the claim that Connie's declared intention to fight the complaint is crazy talk.
Funny how the people who usually recommend this aren't the ones doing much of the fighting, not persuasively anyway.
Go over and sign up to FD and start taking them to task on the hateful nonsense and see how far you get.
Let us know how it works out.
For Christ's sake Suzanne, are you that dense?
Sure people put down catholicism, I do daily myself but it is not something even comparable to what we see here. I have never wished death on them, and never will. I have no problems with personal and beliefs just the projection of them on to others. You don't have to agree with homosexuals but that doesn't give you the right to wipe us out as a group of people.
This stuff is coming from people known to push hate speech and are attacking and singling out a specific group to which they have attached blame for 911, and all other evils in the world. A little different than saying th Pope is a useless twat.
You don't know what hate is Suzanne. I doubt you have ever been the victim. You may get criticized for ridiculous beliefs but thats because the pope is backwards a long with your beliefs, but no one is saying you should be deported, banned from entering the country. No one is telling you that you can't wear your crucifix in public not are they making nuns take of their "burkas". We also don't request orthodox Jewish women not wear their hair covering (they use wigs instead of cloth in case you didn't know that).
I have been the subject of hate speech from the catholic church while at the same time having a priest covet my ass. You don't know or understand hate speech or how it makes you feel. Try being told day in and day out that you are useless, a deviant, a criminal, pervert, of no value and of no use to society. With that on your mind, go and try to enjoy life. Now combine that with the fear of being beaten to death by religious people who disagree. Things are different now but I remember being frightened to even walk outside by myself. All of this occurs because of an absurd take on a 2000+ years old book.
So if you disagree with homosexuals, you now know how people like you have treated us and try to make us feel daily. Its pretty obvious when you condone this type of behavior you will have difficulty recognizing hate speech. No one listens to themselves.
You can criticize people for their actual beliefs but you cannot criticize people for something you say they believe or are because you believe it so. Thats simply propagating a lie and then making a second group accountable for a lie you started. Something it seems is quite common on the right side of the political spectrum and its supporters lately.
Jay, good post, but did you really have to ask?
For Christ's sake Suzanne, are you that dense?
I've never seen such a bunch of whiners that would like to be martyrs...
Kingston, I don't see anything in this case as establishing a new precedent regarding disclaimers. Nor do I see it as a problem for normal moderators/hosts, etc. It's possible that something Whatcottish in nature could get past BigCityLib on one occasion or another. But if it were brought to his attention, he would do what any other responsible moderator would do - delete it. And if it was on a membership-based forum, ban the person who posted it.
That's not what happens on FD though. Wilkins is clearly aware of the filth Whatcott posts on a regular basis, and while she has removed pictures that might offend some (while ironically being perfectly legal), she's made it more than clear she sees nothing wrong with his verbal diarrhea.
You can't get around a law by posting a disclaimer that you're magically exempt from it. For example, if I were to post a sign on my car saying "Drunk driver. Not responsible for any injuries caused to others" it would in no way diminish my culpability in an accident.
People at FD have a child-like sense of their own power and a woeful misunderstanding of their position in decent society. They truly believe that their sickening beliefs are the true Canada, and it's some bizarre accident that they're repudiated by every political party that ever has and ever will elect a single MP in this country. Yes, at one time the CPC espoused them, and goodness knows many of their MPs are merely FDers with a gold-plated pension plan, but when push comes to shove, and when holding power is on the line, the CPC is not willing to tear up the laws of this country in order to hold on to the affections of fanatical bigots.
While it's a fascinating look into their minds to read "Free Dominion does not advocate violence, hate speech or an overthrow of the government" them saying it doesn't make it so. And what boggles the mind is why on EARTH they would ever think such a declaration would do anything but convince people that they do indeed advocate all those things but hope to remain just inside the letter of the law.
I based that opinion on the ruling in the recent "Canadian Nazi Party
(Slightly edited for clarity. Link is http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=852&lg=_e&isruling=0#1002341 )
[53] I have already determined that a number of the messages posted by the forum administrator, Bobby Wilkinson constitute hate messages within the meaning of s. 13 of the Act, as do several other messages posted on the CNP Forum under different monikers. While the evidence does not suggest that Mr. Wilkinson authored the posts issued under the monikers other than Rocket440 (i.e. it has not been shown that he "communicated" this matter), he may still be found to have engaged in a discriminatory practice under s. 13 if he caused these messages to be communicated. I have determined that Mr. Wilkinson was the administrator of the CNP Forum. ...message board administrators apparently have the ability to edit or delete postings or the content of entire discussions.
[54] On the basis of this evidence, I conclude that Mr. Wilkinson, as the CNP Forum's administrator, had the means to ensure that the impugned postings made by other participants were never viewed publicly or were subsequently removed. Moreover, since Mr. Wilkinson personally contributed to some of the discussion groups in which these postings were made , Mr. Wilkinson must have viewed them. He nevertheless allowed these messages to remain publicly posted. As such, I am satisfied that Mr. Wilkinson caused these messages to be communicated within the meaning of s. 13
Change "Wilkinson" to "Wilkins" and you can predict the ruling in advance.
People on FD are also making the mistake of imagining that they will look only at the two or three posts cited in the complaint. They won't. And there are literally THOUSANDS of expressions of hatred towards Muslims and homosexuals there, in threads that Wilkins and Fournier definitely read and participated in, including direct calls for violence.
You can also be sure that before the complaint was ever sent to Wilkins, all the evidence was compiled and archived.
TiGuy, I want to point out that this case has nothing to do with the Criminal Code. The bar for criminal hate speech is much higher, and results in a prosecution initiated by the attorney general of the province where the offense occured. This is a complaint under the Human Rights Act and is absolutely NOT a criminal matter.
Ti Guy: "Go over and sign up to FD and start taking them to task on the hateful nonsense and see how far you get."
You'd be forgiven for not believing this but Connie bans new users who support Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, I am not exaggerating. She hates Harper and the CPC more than she hates Liberals and if you doubt that spend a few minutes in the Conservative Issues section of her forum.
She's also paranoid that secret Conservative operatives are trying to take over her site and pretty openly accuses pro-CPC members of being party hacks.
Connie is a professional victim who is enjoying every moment of her victimhood, never forget that.
One wonders if she'll enjoy losing her professional status when she has to sell her house to pay for the fine and they lawyer's bills - and when she doesn't have gullible FDers to soak for thousands of dollars a year for the alleged costs of running a message board.
I'd love to get a look at her tax return. All the donations are payable to her personally. Wonder if she's declaring them. Nice of her though, to mention right on the site every quarter how much she's received. I'm sure the CRA will appreciate it should they ever choose to audit her.
Jay, as someone who was the constant subject of bullying throughout her high school years, you have no lessons to give me on bullying and hate speech. I have been villified up and down the blogosphere (and message boards), and you said I should be thrown in jail for the things that I write, so don't give me any lessons about not being the victim of hatred. You don't know me or my past.
Lefties talk about hatred, but have not trouble spewing their hatred of right-wingers.
The flyer in question that is the subject of the human rights complaint is NOT hateful. It is a well-thought out critique of Islam. I think there have been hateful things written on Free Dominion, against groups that I belong to-- Catholics and French Canadians come to mind-- but I defend their right to say it.
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=56494
His point is that Islam, as a theological system, is inherently violent. Not Muslims themselves. If we can't criticize ideas, then we might as well claim there's no free speech in this country.
This is a baseless complaint.
Whatcott might be wacko but his comments are not 'hateful', and there's no threats or incitement to violence.
I've read some stuff on rabble and other left wing boards which make me vomit - there's more hate on there against Christians and Jews than anywhere I've seen. They should be careful what they wish for.
as someone who was the constant subject of bullying throughout her high school years
Yeah, well sorry you thought my opposition to your ceaseless moralising was bullying, Ste-Nitouche, but really, you should have been getting better help during that time. I blame your parents.
Seriously, Suzanne. Grow up and get over your childhood traumas. You're not in high school anymore.
I've read some stuff on rabble and other left wing boards which make me vomit - there's more hate on there against Christians and Jews than anywhere I've seen.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Funny, there's never anything actionnable despite how hysterical righties get.
Why is that, I wonder?
Let us know how it [fighting words with words] works out.
Lately it doesn't work out well in the Canadian blogosphere. Usually we just praise those we we agree with and insult those we disagree with. The principle still stands and it beats any alternative.
Usually we just praise those we we agree with and insult those we disagree with.
Not necessarily. Some of us do privilege credible evidence over baseless assertions and mindless speculation, no matter who it comes from.
The principle still stands and it beats any alternative.
"The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization."
Sigmund Freud
Ti-guy I believe that pro-choice people who advocated for abortion are automatically ex-communicated and are not considered valid Catholics.
Jay, I think what makes it different is the sheer number of Catholics or christians. It becomes harder to argue persecution with those demographics. I think it's valid to critique the church but you can't say that people don't wish death on Catholics. People rejoiced publicly over the death of John Paul and Jerry Falwell and infact anticipated their deaths with glee. That seems pretty hateful to me. I am not suggesting it's not free speech protected but it comes from a hate-filled heart.
I would agree with you that advocating to wipe out gay people is unacceptable and hateful.
You have indicated that you want Suzanne jailed for holding orthodox Catholic views on matters like abortion. I don't agree with that.
You raise fair points about the horribly unkind things that have been said to gay men over the years. That extends beyond one particular church though - that's a vast societal issue.
I am not going to tell you what your experiences are though around physical safety or emotional mistreatment because I don't live your life but I had always understood that Toronto was one of the most inclusive places. If your experience is otherwise then I'm genuinely saddened to hear that.
Hailey (who is apparently locked out of her account!)
Hailey,
Honest. I had nothing to do with that.
Hailey,
Does anybody advocate for abortion? People advocate for choice>. It is not the same thing.
Are you saying that you believe people who advocate for choice should be ex-communicated? I don't believe that the Catholic Church actually does ex-communicating people in Canada for their political beliefs. (In fact, project Rachel is a Catholic ministry/counselling service for women and couples who have had an abortion. )
Ti-guy I believe that pro-choice people who advocated for abortion are automatically ex-communicated and are not considered valid Catholics.
Yeah, I believe you've expressed this twaddle before.
Why don't you take it up with the Pope and get a ruling already?
I've never procured an abortion, never had one myself (obviously) and never advocated for them personally, since I believe it's primarily a women's issue (supporting choice does imply supporting abortion). So, take all that to Benedict when you deal with my case and see what he says.
...Meanwhile, I'll be in Church if you need to find me.
does imply supporting abortion s.b. does not imply supporting abortion
Some things never change, LOL! My comments here are now the subject of TWO threads at FD, one posted by none other than Bill Whatcott herself.
The comments demonstrate quite nicely FDers' problems with reading for comprehension. I'm criticized for believing FD should be shut down.
Far from it. FD is a source of great amusement to me and others, the only forum I read daily. The pathetic mewlings of these professional victims and their laments over their cruel treatment by the Conservative Party are the best comedy produced in this country. Rick Mercer is also known to be a reader and frankly, he can't hold a candle to them. Honestly, what could be funnier than knowing the only woman Jason Kenney has ever screwed is Connie Wilkins? (Metaphorically of course)
What I said, and what I stand by, is that FD will be shut down. Not should. Will.
Ironic, isn't it? The longterm accomplishments of the Harper government will be permanently enshrining equal marriage, closing down FreeDominion, shutting down all debate on abortion and getting us out of Afghanistan (if they last until 2009). Good work, Connie! I don't know how much the left is paying you, but whatever it is, it isn't enough!
I'd almost be tempted to vote for the Conservative Party myself, but they're not THAT funny.
Advocating for choice on abortion is advocating for abortion itself to suggest otherwise is word smithing. It would be like saying I'm not pro-rape I am pro-choice about rape. Obviously there is an inherent comfort level with the act itself as a legal option if you are pro-choice.
I am saying that it is my understanding that a pro-choice person separates them from the church and is not eligible for the sacrament.
Project Rachel is a ministry for women who have come to see their abortion as a decision that was flawed and they want to seek healing. That is different from someone who maintains abortion as a rightful choice.
If you do not believe my view ask the Priest.
Hailey
P.S. Bigcityliberal it's a mistake on my end not yours.
Hailey it seems quite clear from the treatment of Catholic politicians, lay people and indeed some priests that the Catholic church is not in the least bit serious about excommunicating people who are pro-choice. No better evidence of that is in the funeral in the basilica for Pierre Trudeau.
Advocating for choice on abortion is advocating for abortion itself to suggest otherwise is word smithing.
No, it isn't. You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Just because you believe that doesn't mean it's true. If I don't oppose the sale of alcohol, does that mean I condone the consumption of alcohol?
It would be like saying I'm not pro-rape I am pro-choice about rape.
What moral vacuity and incomprehension. Evil. Utterly evil.
Reality Bites, we won't agree on this issue. Church isn't a democracy whatever lay people do doesn't change teaching. And I understand that PET went through a difficult period after losing his son which included much reflection and he reconciled some of his choices with his life as a Catholic and left this earth in good standing with the RC church. If that is true then that's a great thing.
TiGuy I would say that if you don't oppose the sale of alcohol that you are supportive of drinking. One flows from the other.
T-Guy you are welcome to think whatever you wish. I am neither for rape or abortion. I'm not evil or immoral. If you feel otherwise you are welcome to say that. Perhaps you can look in the mirror though and ask yourself some questions about the disdainful terms you use for women such as "harlot" and your disdain for children.
Hailey
TiGuy I would say that if you don't oppose the sale of alcohol that you are supportive of drinking. One flows from the other.
No, you're wrong again. As a religious person, you should also understand that there is no real virtue without temptation.
I don't know where you get this conceit and arrogance but I find it highly offensive, and glaring in contrast to your pious murmurings of charity and good-will.
Why are either you or Suzanne over here purposely offending people you know don't agree with you? Is it a sadism of some kind? Really, I suspect you enjoy attempting to make someone feel less holy than you. That is astonishingly mean-spirited.
Perhaps you can look in the mirror though and ask yourself some questions about the disdainful terms you use for women such as "harlot" and your disdain for children.
Oh, God not this again. Get over the harlot thing (remember when you called feminists sows? That wasn't very nice). And disdain for children? That is an out-and-out fabrication and I expect an apology.
You offend me one more time, Hailey, and you're gettin' the c-word.
Ti-Guy I don't think that I'm arrogant. I have lots of flaws.LOTS!
I cannot speak for Suzanne. I rarely wonder over to blogs to post but it was linked on FD and I was tempted. If Big city liberal asks me to leave no problem!
I did use the term SOW for that ill-named organization and that WAS an error in judgement. If you notice after a period of using SOW I did switch to Status of Women in recognition of the fact that people that pointed that error out had a point. I'll apologize for my mistakes around that.
I think harlot is a very poor word o use and it was an error in judgement on your part to say it. I am intent on remembering it. Your comment about that was wrong. And you called me that because of the fact I had a large family. If you say women are whores because they have children I can't think of anything more anti-child than that.
If you want to use the "c-word" that's really up to you Ti-guy. You are an adult and you'll decide how you choose to address women. It just says a lot about you that you use that term for women to put women who disagree with you back in their place.
Hailey
Hailey I think you are VERY naive about churches, particularly large, worldwide ones. They are, more than anything else, political bodies. Little of what they do has anything to do with religious dogma.
You know as well as I do that there are hundreds of pro-choice Catholic Canadian politicians and MILLIONS of pro-choice Catholic lay people. Except for Turner and Campbell, every PM from 1968 to 2006 was Catholic. All pro-choice, not one of them ever even threatened with ex-communication, except by lunatic nutbars like Fred Henry.
Quebec premier Rene Levesque brought in state-funded abortion on demand in Quebec, introduced gay rights and in his personal life was in an adulterous relationship, divorced and married his mistress. He had a Catholic state funeral in a basilica too.
There are priests like Paul Martin's, and the openly gay one who's an MP, who are also pro-choice.
And none of them have been excommunicated. The lay people would not stand for it. And the lay people may not control the Church, but they pay the bills.
The Pope can pontificate all he wants. That's his job, after all. But when push comes to shove, despite all the bleating on extremist hate propoganda sites like Lifesite and FreeDominion, the Church doesn't go around cutting its own throat by living up to the principles it pretends to have.
Reality Bites — In case you're interested, your remarks here are being held up over at FD as being representative of the perspective of the Left. You may want to go check it out. Quite amusing.
Red Tory, see my 8:27 post above. It seems I'm responsible for rabble's opinions on SUVs and therefore live in a fantasy world.
When I have a minority opinion on an issue - which is most of the time - I'm fully cogniscent that it's a minority opinion. Those people really think the sewer they dwell in is the way most people think.
Of course it that were true, they wouldn't need to be constantly exhorting each other to "freep" meaningless online polls (and yes, the left is equally guilty of indulging in that masturbatory enterprise). And they'd be in power, instead of being locked in the closet by the one party that was willing to pretend they mattered.
I'm honestly surprised FD has never managed to attract Viagra as a sponsor. A larger gathering of impotent middle-aged white guys is hard to imagine.
One has to wonder what's really behind FD's full-fledged support of Bill Whatcott.
Bill lives in Edmonton. He is - by any sane definition - rabidly homophobic. And yet, he's smoked more poles than the most devoted freeper. He worked as a male prostitute in Toronto's gay village to supplement his income as a male nurse. And for all his supposed devotion to heterosexuality, he chose this current vendetta over a normal life with his wife and children. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to realize what's at the core of this sad, insane freak.
And then there's Mark. Middle-aged. Never married. Thin. Neat. Comes from Edmonton, the city that Bill currently infests. Publically homophobic - far more than Connie. And in private, far more so than he'll even cop to in private.
And now, after a couple of years of being shacked up with Connie, they're getting married.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that Mark is, in his heart of hearts, as much of a raving dick-obsessed queen as Bill Whatcott, let alone insinuating the Connie's marrying Bill's sloppy seconds.
I'm just saying that say what you like about Laureen Teskey, at least she gets to be beard for a cabinet minister AND married to the prime minister.
Connie could do SO much better.
Of course that should have read "And in private, far more so than he'll even cop to in public."
RB — That'll teach me to read the whole thread beforehand. ;)
Wow, I never visit FD — it's too depressing — what a depraved cesspit. This Whatcott guy is just toxic.
Here's a sad fact, RT. He's nowhere even CLOSE to being the worst in terms of violating that section of the Human Rights Code. Just the most attention grabbing.
It just says a lot about you that you use that term for women to put women who disagree with you back in their place.
Hailey
No you're wrong. It's just to offend you because I don't like you. I'd stick out my tongue or give you the finger, but the c-word has more force textually.
In real life, however, I'd far mor likely simply walk away from you. And I'm doing the equivalent now.
Suzanne
Bullying does not equal hate speech. Even when bullying and hate speech are combined there are two separate issues at play.
Any language which causes duress to a identifiable group is hate speech. Whether you call it examining issues or not. You have no right to discredit someones faith when you yourself have a similar problem. Christianity is as violent as Islam and these two groups have been doing a tit for tat for some time now. Why not address the issues within Christianity like suicide bombing clinics, child molestation, christian militias etc before admonishing another faith for the same issues.
Seems to me you just want to "one-up" the competition. Your dogma is best kept out of the public realm. Go crazy in the privacy of your own home and stop worrying about what others believe, you can't change that. Its best to unite people among common elements than berate them for their differences.
It tends not to accomplish much but piss more people off.
Sorry, ti-guy you have a pattern of addressing women who do not submit to your view of the world or your expectations of behaviour by being name calling and being derogatory. Walk away because you do not have a defendable reason for doing so but know that your behaviour speaks volumes about the kind of men that feminism attracts.
You will never put me "my place" by abusing me verbally. I don't respond submissively to men who engage in that.
Apparently FD has now been threatened with a "law suite" by some little twerp who says he has "half a mind to do so."
Half a mind? No wonder he's a loyal CPCer.
anon at 10:48 PM; what makes you think Ti-guy is attracted to feminism?
Reality Bites said:"Bill lives in Edmonton. He is - by any sane definition - rabidly homophobic. And yet, he's smoked more poles than the most devoted freeper. He worked as a male prostitute in Toronto's gay village to supplement his income as a male nurse. And for all his supposed devotion to heterosexuality, he chose this current vendetta over a normal life with his wife and children. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to realize what's at the core of this sad, insane freak."
Bingo RB, you hit the nail on the head. Another thing I've noticed about the other homophobes (in addition to Billy) at Freak Dom, they seem obsessed with queer sex practices, even describing them in explicit detail. Me thinks there are a lot of self loathers there with some serious issues.
As for the CHRC, I truly hope they look at ALL the threads there (not just Whatcott's garbage) because some of them openly call for ALL Muslims to be ethnically cleansed from Canada. This is a violation of both Canadian and international law and is an incitement to commit crimes against humanity.
I found a best seller that has made sense please read a book it will make you see the world how it is. Jonah Goldberg has hit the nail on the head. Looks like Hitler may have won the war after all.
From his Book cover;
Post a Comment