Was If PH ban is coming then.... Changed to general politcal
- Thread starter Matthew D
- Start date
bigmark1972
Board Supporter
Same here, I also vote this law and the agenda behind it SUCKS, they are bending over to media hype. Ignorant fools they will only force those they are trying to protect to use real steroids or simply increase the drive to make new legal possibly less healthy ones.
Oh well, at least they can spend more tax dollars on law enforcement and encarceration for evil people like us bodybuilders.
BTW I have been to Somalia and many iother places but I have to ask you who is the more free as a people? At least there I could juice if I wanted to, or do pretty much anything else I wanted to TO MY OWN DAMN BODY.
Government has its place for sure, but it is not up my ass telling me what I can put in my body that will have no negative effects towards others.
FrTimothy
Member
what does the executive branch have to do with both houses of congress passing it...overwhelmingly...it wouldn't matter of Nader was in the white house...both houses of congress republicans and democrats overwhelmingly are going to support this ban. I happen to like the current incarnation of the executive branch though I don't agree with about a quarter of what he does...I agree with the other three quarters.
jrkarp
Registered User
Exactly. It wouldn't matter who was in the White House, with the bipartisan support this bill has any president who vetoed it would be committing political suicide.FrTimothy said:
I agree. Bush is a good man, but I'm not thrilled with some of the things he does. However, he is much better than Gore would have been, and is a helluva lot better than Kerry would be.
/karp
enzo
New member
I do think this country is going down the tubes. I have so many friends right now in Iraq and they even agree with me. Some of the letters I get from them really make me question what we are doing. You gotta understand we are fighting wars that make no sense. This war is about oil and nothing more. We have a oil tycoon in office.
The government is requiring my friends to take vaccines that are making them sick. Any of yours in the military. If they are I think they will agree. II don't mean some guy sitting in an office but the Marines that are fighting in the fields. BTW most of my friends have been in the Military for the last six or seven years.
Secondly, if you think Vitamin C and Creatine are going to be around indefinitely then do a search under Codex laws. Then go do a search under Codex with reference to the FDA. You will be alarmed at what you learn.
The United States is turning into a socialist country where many of the freedoms we believe in so much are going to be diminished. Take a look at free speech. This has already been diminished with the new laws governing radio. The United States is no longer going to be a free country as we knew it ten years ago. Also, as each day grows closer our right to bear arms is being challenged. Go read the NRA website and that is clear.
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding the need to protect consumers from intrusive regulations which interfere with the availability of dietary supplements. Today’s hearing is just the latest example of the leadership you have shown on this important issue. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Over the past decade the American people have made it clear that they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to the truth about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which liberalized the rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Despite DSHEA, officials of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. However, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ first amendment right to learn about how using dietary supplements can improve their health without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The FDA has been forced to revise its regulations in order to comply with Pearson. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court’s order. Clearly Congress must continue to monitor the FDA’s action in this area. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The freedom of consumers to use, or even obtain truthful information about, dietary supplements could also be threatened by the United States participation in the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). Codex is a part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization Food Standard Program operating under the authority of the Sanitary Phytosanitary Agreement and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Codex is the vehicle through which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is working to "harmonize" (e.g., conform) food and safety regulations of WTO member countries. Codex is currently creating a guideline on the proper regulations for dietary supplements with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We are concerned that the end result of this process will force the United States to adopt the same strict regulations of dietary supplements common in European countries such as Germany, where consumers’ cannot even examine a bottle of dietary supplements without a pharmacists permission. By participating in this process, the FDA is ignoring the will of Congress as expressed in DSHEA and in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, which expressly forbid the FDA from participating in the harmonization process, as well as the will of the American people. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]While Codex has no direct authority to force Americans to adopt stringent regulations of dietary supplements, we are concerned that the United States may be forced to adopt Codex standards as a result of the United States’ status as a member of the WTO. According to an August 1999 report of the Congressional Research Service, "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It [the US] is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules." Thus, Congress may have a legal obligation to again change American laws and regulations to conform with WTO rules! [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Invalid Link RemovedIf Congress were to refuse to "harmonize" US laws according to strict Codex/WTO guidelines, a WTO "dispute resolution panel" could find that the United States is engaging in unfair trade because of our failure to "harmonize" our regulations with the rest of the world. [/font][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In any such trade dispute, the scales are tipped in favor of countries using the Codex standards because of WTO rules presuming that a nation who has adopted Codex has not erected an unfair trade barrier. [/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Invalid Link Removed[/font][/font][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Therefore, in a dispute with a country that has adopted the Codex standards it is highly probable that America would lose and be subject to heavy sanctions unless Congress harmonized our laws with the other WTO countries. Harmonization may be beneficial for the large corporations and international bureaucrats that control the WTO but it would be a disaster for American consumers of dietary supplements! [/font]
It is a tragic commentary on the American media that the extraordinary event of which you are about to read has to come to your attention first, not through a local or major national newspaper or through the television news, but instead courtesy of Whole Foods, a monthly industry magazine. We are so inundated with "news" wherever we turn that we can easily delude ourselves into thinking that we are well-informed about all newsworthy events. Unfortunately, as I hope you have noticed, the news is so selected and so filtered by the time it is slickly offered to you - like so much processed, plastic-wrapped cheese - that it rarely resembles reality. When you have the chance to compare, for instance, European reporting upon American news events with American reporting on American news events, you notice a difference that is at times remarkable. Truly important news goes unreported more often than you would suspect.
The extraordinary event alluded to above is that, for the first time in American history, the United States Congress voted to change a domestic law because we were told to do so by an international body. Considered "unthinkable" only a few months before, and despite clear constitutional prohibitions against its actions, Congress knuckled under to the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) dictate that the United States must change its tax laws governing foreign sales corporations. In particular, the WTO objected to the fact that U.S. tax law exempted from the income tax a small portion of income earned abroad by U.S. corporations. WTO called this a "subsidy," even though most European countries do not tax their own corporations on any income they earn abroad. The WTO handed the U.S. an ultimatum to change this law by October 1, 2000, or else.
How We Joined the WTO
For those of you not familiar with the World Trade Organization, it is an international bureaucratic body established to "manage" international trade. In December 1994, in its twilight hours and in the wake of the sweeping Republican congressional victories that would soon hand control of Congress over to the Republicans, a lame-duck United States Congress voted to have the United States join the WTO. Both the Republican and Democratic party leaders cooperated to quickly push this legislation through with little discussion before "fresh faces" could take office and possibly derail the process.
Nearly six years later, we are truly historical witnesses to the inevitable logic of that WTO membership. During its final days, the 106th Congress has voted to change American tax laws to comply with WTO's bureaucratic dictates. The significance of this action to you, the reader, a member of the natural products industry, is far more important than that a single section of the U.S. Tax Code was changed. Even those who were confused by the ballots in Florida's Palm Beach County can figure this one out. We are looking at the legislative equivalent of the visible party line, or the camel's nose in the tent.
For all too long you and I have heard from all quarters how the Codex Alimentarius Commission, or Codex, will not have any impact upon U.S. domestic laws governing dietary supplements, especially the Dietary Supplement and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Even members of our own industry have reassured us that Codex will not impact domestic laws such as DSHEA. Others have disagreed. Now, we have the evidence.
If the WTO can dictate domestic changes in our tax laws, then you can be absolutely certain that all of our legislation is vulnerable to international dictates. The precedent has been established and will continue to be reinforced in the future. Eventually, we will all forget how laws used to be made and come to think that non-democratic WTO and other international-body dictates are normal. Not only environmental, labor, and tax laws, but food, dietary supplement and other domestic American laws will be increasingly subject to international review and revision. Unfortunately, few outside the United States are as receptive to consumer freedom of choice as are we, so you can also be certain that our single vote in these international bodies will not count for much.
Welcome to the future. It's just a shame that you can only read about it here.
Ephedra and PH are just the beggining. Do a search and there is much more information on this subject. The government of the United States is very patient. This will take time but is inevitable.
This is by far still the best country to live in but is going downhill fast. In the next twenty years we will not recognize our country as we do today. I am still proud of being an American but am saddend at what we are becoming. i am also proud for the sacrafices our military. Does anyone think we are going to be out of Iraq by June 30. Hell no. Has Bush came up with a plan of action. Hell no. All he does is give some bullshit dreams he has like Martin Luther King that will not materialize.
The government is requiring my friends to take vaccines that are making them sick. Any of yours in the military. If they are I think they will agree. II don't mean some guy sitting in an office but the Marines that are fighting in the fields. BTW most of my friends have been in the Military for the last six or seven years.
Secondly, if you think Vitamin C and Creatine are going to be around indefinitely then do a search under Codex laws. Then go do a search under Codex with reference to the FDA. You will be alarmed at what you learn.
The United States is turning into a socialist country where many of the freedoms we believe in so much are going to be diminished. Take a look at free speech. This has already been diminished with the new laws governing radio. The United States is no longer going to be a free country as we knew it ten years ago. Also, as each day grows closer our right to bear arms is being challenged. Go read the NRA website and that is clear.
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Don’t Regulate Supplements![/font][/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Invalid Link Removed, and Invalid Link Removed[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Joint Statement from Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) submitted to the House Committee on Government Reform: "Invalid Link Removed." [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding the need to protect consumers from intrusive regulations which interfere with the availability of dietary supplements. Today’s hearing is just the latest example of the leadership you have shown on this important issue. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Over the past decade the American people have made it clear that they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to the truth about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which liberalized the rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Despite DSHEA, officials of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. However, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ first amendment right to learn about how using dietary supplements can improve their health without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The FDA has been forced to revise its regulations in order to comply with Pearson. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court’s order. Clearly Congress must continue to monitor the FDA’s action in this area. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The freedom of consumers to use, or even obtain truthful information about, dietary supplements could also be threatened by the United States participation in the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). Codex is a part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization Food Standard Program operating under the authority of the Sanitary Phytosanitary Agreement and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Codex is the vehicle through which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is working to "harmonize" (e.g., conform) food and safety regulations of WTO member countries. Codex is currently creating a guideline on the proper regulations for dietary supplements with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We are concerned that the end result of this process will force the United States to adopt the same strict regulations of dietary supplements common in European countries such as Germany, where consumers’ cannot even examine a bottle of dietary supplements without a pharmacists permission. By participating in this process, the FDA is ignoring the will of Congress as expressed in DSHEA and in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, which expressly forbid the FDA from participating in the harmonization process, as well as the will of the American people. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]While Codex has no direct authority to force Americans to adopt stringent regulations of dietary supplements, we are concerned that the United States may be forced to adopt Codex standards as a result of the United States’ status as a member of the WTO. According to an August 1999 report of the Congressional Research Service, "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It [the US] is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules." Thus, Congress may have a legal obligation to again change American laws and regulations to conform with WTO rules! [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Invalid Link RemovedIf Congress were to refuse to "harmonize" US laws according to strict Codex/WTO guidelines, a WTO "dispute resolution panel" could find that the United States is engaging in unfair trade because of our failure to "harmonize" our regulations with the rest of the world. [/font][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In any such trade dispute, the scales are tipped in favor of countries using the Codex standards because of WTO rules presuming that a nation who has adopted Codex has not erected an unfair trade barrier. [/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Invalid Link Removed[/font][/font][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Therefore, in a dispute with a country that has adopted the Codex standards it is highly probable that America would lose and be subject to heavy sanctions unless Congress harmonized our laws with the other WTO countries. Harmonization may be beneficial for the large corporations and international bureaucrats that control the WTO but it would be a disaster for American consumers of dietary supplements! [/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. Peter DeFazio is a Democratic member of Congress from Oregon.[/font][/font]
Here is another article:
International Law Trumps Domestic Law" by Scott Tips
It is a tragic commentary on the American media that the extraordinary event of which you are about to read has to come to your attention first, not through a local or major national newspaper or through the television news, but instead courtesy of Whole Foods, a monthly industry magazine. We are so inundated with "news" wherever we turn that we can easily delude ourselves into thinking that we are well-informed about all newsworthy events. Unfortunately, as I hope you have noticed, the news is so selected and so filtered by the time it is slickly offered to you - like so much processed, plastic-wrapped cheese - that it rarely resembles reality. When you have the chance to compare, for instance, European reporting upon American news events with American reporting on American news events, you notice a difference that is at times remarkable. Truly important news goes unreported more often than you would suspect.
The extraordinary event alluded to above is that, for the first time in American history, the United States Congress voted to change a domestic law because we were told to do so by an international body. Considered "unthinkable" only a few months before, and despite clear constitutional prohibitions against its actions, Congress knuckled under to the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) dictate that the United States must change its tax laws governing foreign sales corporations. In particular, the WTO objected to the fact that U.S. tax law exempted from the income tax a small portion of income earned abroad by U.S. corporations. WTO called this a "subsidy," even though most European countries do not tax their own corporations on any income they earn abroad. The WTO handed the U.S. an ultimatum to change this law by October 1, 2000, or else.
How We Joined the WTO
For those of you not familiar with the World Trade Organization, it is an international bureaucratic body established to "manage" international trade. In December 1994, in its twilight hours and in the wake of the sweeping Republican congressional victories that would soon hand control of Congress over to the Republicans, a lame-duck United States Congress voted to have the United States join the WTO. Both the Republican and Democratic party leaders cooperated to quickly push this legislation through with little discussion before "fresh faces" could take office and possibly derail the process.
Nearly six years later, we are truly historical witnesses to the inevitable logic of that WTO membership. During its final days, the 106th Congress has voted to change American tax laws to comply with WTO's bureaucratic dictates. The significance of this action to you, the reader, a member of the natural products industry, is far more important than that a single section of the U.S. Tax Code was changed. Even those who were confused by the ballots in Florida's Palm Beach County can figure this one out. We are looking at the legislative equivalent of the visible party line, or the camel's nose in the tent.
For all too long you and I have heard from all quarters how the Codex Alimentarius Commission, or Codex, will not have any impact upon U.S. domestic laws governing dietary supplements, especially the Dietary Supplement and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Even members of our own industry have reassured us that Codex will not impact domestic laws such as DSHEA. Others have disagreed. Now, we have the evidence.
If the WTO can dictate domestic changes in our tax laws, then you can be absolutely certain that all of our legislation is vulnerable to international dictates. The precedent has been established and will continue to be reinforced in the future. Eventually, we will all forget how laws used to be made and come to think that non-democratic WTO and other international-body dictates are normal. Not only environmental, labor, and tax laws, but food, dietary supplement and other domestic American laws will be increasingly subject to international review and revision. Unfortunately, few outside the United States are as receptive to consumer freedom of choice as are we, so you can also be certain that our single vote in these international bodies will not count for much.
Welcome to the future. It's just a shame that you can only read about it here.
Ephedra and PH are just the beggining. Do a search and there is much more information on this subject. The government of the United States is very patient. This will take time but is inevitable.
This is by far still the best country to live in but is going downhill fast. In the next twenty years we will not recognize our country as we do today. I am still proud of being an American but am saddend at what we are becoming. i am also proud for the sacrafices our military. Does anyone think we are going to be out of Iraq by June 30. Hell no. Has Bush came up with a plan of action. Hell no. All he does is give some bullshit dreams he has like Martin Luther King that will not materialize.
jrkarp
Registered User
I most definitely do not want to get too far off topic and turn this into a political thread, but you seem to be grossly misinformed. Nobody EVER said we were going to be out of Iraq by June 30. The deal was (and still is) that we will transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis, meaning that they will be in charge of their own government. Our troops will continue to be there for quite some time, to help pacify the terrorists that are threatening the peace there, to train the new Iraqi military, and to help maintain law and order. In fact, we'll probably end up with a permanent military base there, like we did with Germany and Japan. Both of whom, by the way, are doing very well running their own governments, as we all hope the Iraqis will.enzo said:
Bush actually has a plan, and outlined the steps to it tonight, actually, in an address at the Army War College. Here's a link to the story: Invalid Link Removed
/karp
enzo
New member
Bush outlined his so called plan last night on cable news network. It is not a definitive plan. I meant to say we are not going to be pulling any troops out of Iraq which was the original plan almost a year ago. Paul Bremer, who is in charge of the transition of power in Iraq, made this statement while defending Washington's decision to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a longer period of time. The Iraqi government is still on schedule to be up and running on June 30 this year, but the power to control the security of the country is still up to the U.S. troops in Iraq. How are we going to transfer authority to a government which has very little training and no control. Remember, just a few months ago we had to add more troops. What happened to the reductions we were promised.
Secondly, the only reason Bush has been discussing this on T.V is b/c his approval rating is around 40%. Not good for an election year.
All I am saying is, all we hear are lies, lies, lies and more lies. If anyone believes much different it's b/c they are gulliable.
Also, I hate to say it but if you believe what ABC News says I am sorry. I just hope you don't believe the Washington Post for Gods sake. You get the best news out of Wallstreet Journal or read them all and overseas, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Secondly, the only reason Bush has been discussing this on T.V is b/c his approval rating is around 40%. Not good for an election year.
All I am saying is, all we hear are lies, lies, lies and more lies. If anyone believes much different it's b/c they are gulliable.
Also, I hate to say it but if you believe what ABC News says I am sorry. I just hope you don't believe the Washington Post for Gods sake. You get the best news out of Wallstreet Journal or read them all and overseas, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
DoctorX2k2
Member
Although off topic,
I totally agree with you enzo. What most American don't seem to understand is that war is great to get an economy back on track. Once you've destroyed tons of buildings and houses, you send your own workers over the country to rebuild everything with your own ressources, then you make an agreement on oil with the new government. What's even funnier is... who do you think is trying to rebuild Iraq? Bush's friends who paid for his electoral campaign.
Side note : Michael Moore won at Cannes... it's obvious that the world's film industry seems to approove his work. So why most Americans wont believe what he has to say or don't even listen to him? We need more people like Moore in America... people who can think by their own selves and open their eyes to the reality.
I totally agree with you enzo. What most American don't seem to understand is that war is great to get an economy back on track. Once you've destroyed tons of buildings and houses, you send your own workers over the country to rebuild everything with your own ressources, then you make an agreement on oil with the new government. What's even funnier is... who do you think is trying to rebuild Iraq? Bush's friends who paid for his electoral campaign.
Side note : Michael Moore won at Cannes... it's obvious that the world's film industry seems to approove his work. So why most Americans wont believe what he has to say or don't even listen to him? We need more people like Moore in America... people who can think by their own selves and open their eyes to the reality.
Matthew D
Well-known member
It is not a matter of greatness as a country but the responsiblity of a representive democratic government to uphold the rights that were set down in the Constitution. From what I have seen, this adminstration has done a lot to remove rights that were outlined in the Constitution. BUT it has not just been this adminstration, it goes back at least a few presidents back... Johnson and Nixon come to mind as two others that attempted similar types of limits on rights/freedoms..
phenom9950
New member
i feel ya enzo keep it comin bro... HEY EVERYONE VOTE bUSH! ... i like bush... nice and soft.. but i prefer shaved... * sorie guys hit 705 for dl but i do agree with you enzo great points and he has to find ways to get votes... even if that means crackin down on bbers to look like a hero and destroy "perfomance enhancing drugs" in sports...hes lookin for a way so the mothers of america follow anyone gullable that he can convince he will try and its just for a little power...
VanillaGorilla
Active member
The idea that changing the president will stop the ban or if we had someone else in office is ridiculous. As I stated on many other threads Bill Clinton's drug Czar held a press conference saying that they are looking into andro to see if it could be considered an anabolic steroid. The ban has been kicking around before Bush took office. IMO this is more about the drug companies taking control than anything else. I read they were or are considering a provision to make it illegal to buy large quantities of vitamins. I believe they tried to do this in the late 1990s but they must have been enough public opposition to it that killed it. However if you burry it in a anti steroid bill it is more likely to pass because everyone knows steroids are evil.
jjjd
Active member
VG, you are 100% correct. i get so tired of people saying it's the eeeeevil republicans. these bans see wide BIpartisan support. it's not just bush. clinton was just as bad. it's just that they have picked up steam now. andro was barely on the national radar when clinton was in office.
furthermore, is there ANY state that has banned more supps than California? A state totally run by democrats. They banned 4-ad, ephedrine, and all sorts of stuff (not to mention their confiscatory gun laws). All under DEMOCRAT governor and state congress.
Bill Clinton was one of the most ardent "war on drugs" presidents we have ever had.
furthermore, is there ANY state that has banned more supps than California? A state totally run by democrats. They banned 4-ad, ephedrine, and all sorts of stuff (not to mention their confiscatory gun laws). All under DEMOCRAT governor and state congress.
Bill Clinton was one of the most ardent "war on drugs" presidents we have ever had.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
We don't need any more people Like Michael ( Dude where's my waist line) Moore. I liked his first two films but the last one he went off the deep end with many distortions exaggerations, and lies. For example, he mentions a kid who takes his fathers gun to school and shot another student. He left out the kid lived in a crack house, his parents are crack addicts, and he had previously stabbed another student with a pencil. People don't believe what he has to say because he isn't reliable. Moore is about as far to the left as you can get and is a total hypocrite. He mentions Wesley Clark in his movie about bombing people then he turns around and endorses him for President. He calls Bush a deserter but says nothing about Clintons draft dodging or Al Gore having a body guard when he was in Viet Nam. He has a bat up his ass about the war in Iraq but it's funny I can't remember him protesting like he is now when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory or with Somalia. He loves to bring up all Bushes oil connections and other financial conflicts of interest but never got upset about any of Clintons or Al Gores. He was against NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO but Clinton and a lame duck democratic senate were the ones who passed it. A few weeks ago he basically said more of our solders needed to die so we can apologize to the worlds for our actions. He didn't support sending any other countries troops to help us because they might loose their lives. Yeah Michael Moore loves America and our troops. One last thing, the fat bastard who dresses like a hobo lives in a extremely expensive Manhattan condo and sends his kids to private school. Typical limousine liberal. So if you have a D at the end of your name instead of an R , I guess you can do no wrong.
The world approves of Michael Moore so we should too? In many of the countries that approve of Moore you can't buy a bottle of vitamin C with out a prescription should we do that to because that's what rest of the world does too?
jjjd
Active member
matthew, this was going on LONG before arnold. furthermore, arnold is governor. he does not MAKE law. he enforces it. he is executive branch. the LEGISLATURE of CA. is the primary culprit. and they are overwhelmingly democrat dominated. hth
my point is that there is this myth that dems are all about personal freedoms, and repubs are about restricting your rights. and it's utter rubbish. politicians on both sides of the offense have terrible records on this.
CA, dominated by dems, has confiscatory gun laws, and terrible supplement restrictions.
so does canada, a country far more leftwing than us.
college campuses are rife with unconstitutional fascist speech codes, largely the work of left wingers attempting to quell speech.
canada goes a step further by CRIMINALIZING offensive speech.
i just get tired of people blaming bush. this has been picking up speed for years, largely under clinton (since he was pres for 8 years). frankly, it all started with frigging ben jonson, even further back.
DSHEA is GREAT legislation. it expands freedom, and gives consumers choice. and congress, the FDA, etc. is trying to gut it. and that sux.
i am also pissed off at the supplement industry because they share part of the blame. they should have voluntarily restricted supp sales to ADULTS, and lobbied congress to pass laws making it illegal to sell them to minors.
but they were more interested in $$ than responsibility.
my point is that there is this myth that dems are all about personal freedoms, and repubs are about restricting your rights. and it's utter rubbish. politicians on both sides of the offense have terrible records on this.
CA, dominated by dems, has confiscatory gun laws, and terrible supplement restrictions.
so does canada, a country far more leftwing than us.
college campuses are rife with unconstitutional fascist speech codes, largely the work of left wingers attempting to quell speech.
canada goes a step further by CRIMINALIZING offensive speech.
i just get tired of people blaming bush. this has been picking up speed for years, largely under clinton (since he was pres for 8 years). frankly, it all started with frigging ben jonson, even further back.
DSHEA is GREAT legislation. it expands freedom, and gives consumers choice. and congress, the FDA, etc. is trying to gut it. and that sux.
i am also pissed off at the supplement industry because they share part of the blame. they should have voluntarily restricted supp sales to ADULTS, and lobbied congress to pass laws making it illegal to sell them to minors.
but they were more interested in $$ than responsibility.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
That's pretty damn scary what's happening in Canada. They just had something on the news about a "Hate Speech" law for homosexuals. Which means if you say anything disagreeing with them you could be sent to prison.
The andro ban on the left coast happened before Arnold was the gov. Also people need to keep in mind that Arnold isn't the hero people make him out to be he a very political person. In other words Arnold isn't going to knock off any percentage points of his popularity to save andro. It is also debatable if he is a real conservative allot he is liberal on many issues.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Enzo great articles! you should post the articles as treads so more people will read them. The WTO equates to the United States under foreign control which is blatantly unconstitutional.
jjjd
Active member
canada's speech laws (the UK too) are truly chilling.
they are NOT free in the respect we are. it is illegal to espouse "hateful" or "offensive" speech. note that, per precedent, even if the speech is TRUE, it can still be criminal. iow, in canada it is illegal to express ideas if they hurt people's feelings.
it is frankly disgusting.
i think canada is a great country, but their speech laws (and their supp laws) suck.
california is the model for how liberals can be authoritarian and stifling.
which state are you freer in? New Hampshire or California?
the answer is obvious
they are NOT free in the respect we are. it is illegal to espouse "hateful" or "offensive" speech. note that, per precedent, even if the speech is TRUE, it can still be criminal. iow, in canada it is illegal to express ideas if they hurt people's feelings.
it is frankly disgusting.
i think canada is a great country, but their speech laws (and their supp laws) suck.
california is the model for how liberals can be authoritarian and stifling.
which state are you freer in? New Hampshire or California?
the answer is obvious
Matthew D
Well-known member
Gentlemen... I knew that the ban on andro was way before Arnold.. I was about 1996-98 even before McGuire if I remember correctly... but the way you worded it, California is a totally Democrat still. Now I am personally I am more independent that anything else because like I said before, both parties have there own little restrictions that they want to place on everyone else PERIOD and don't try to say that Republicans are any different, they just have a slightly different view on who should be restricted... and we can debate this till the cows come home but your mind will not be changed and neither will mine. I really wish that we could get a GOOD bunch of candidates for all the federal branches.. not career political asses that don't have anyone good interest at heart.. just their own greed.. I KNOW there are good politicians I have one close to me.. but they are few and far between it seems..
jjjd
Active member
the powers of governors vary widely state by state (although in all states, they are executive branch, not legislative). california has what is generally referred to as a "weak governor", btw, in terms of power vs. many other states.
furthermore, the point is still that california, with a legislature dominated by dems for lord knows how long, is one of the most authoritarian states in the country.
if you say we can debate this all you want, but your mind won't be changed, then you are admitting that you are close minded. i HAVE changed my mind on topics ranging from gun control, to abortion, etc. BASED on debates i have had with people, and upon further reflection. at least you are apparently admitting you are close minded, but don't accuse me of being the same. you said my mind won't be changed. i am open to the possibility of it being changed because i am not close minded and set in my ideas. i am more than willing to change my mind when presented with data and/or more compelling visions. that is why democracy works. in the long run, the best ideas win out. but only if people are educated (which is partly a personal responsibility) and only if they are open to the ideas of others
furthermore, the point is still that california, with a legislature dominated by dems for lord knows how long, is one of the most authoritarian states in the country.
if you say we can debate this all you want, but your mind won't be changed, then you are admitting that you are close minded. i HAVE changed my mind on topics ranging from gun control, to abortion, etc. BASED on debates i have had with people, and upon further reflection. at least you are apparently admitting you are close minded, but don't accuse me of being the same. you said my mind won't be changed. i am open to the possibility of it being changed because i am not close minded and set in my ideas. i am more than willing to change my mind when presented with data and/or more compelling visions. that is why democracy works. in the long run, the best ideas win out. but only if people are educated (which is partly a personal responsibility) and only if they are open to the ideas of others
Matthew D
Well-known member
YES THEN I AM CLOSED MINDED... In your opinion.. and again thanks for putting words in my mouth and lecturing me on how a democracy works.. must have missed that in all my history classes in high school and college..
I ALWAYS evaluate the way I vote on what I BELIEVE in, and I have a set of core believes.. that is not going to change... that does not make you closed minded IMO. I believe that the individual should have the right to decide on things concerning raising kids, education, personal rights, etc
I know in my state, Republicans control most of it, and things have gotten extremely more restrictive and more religiously charged but that is partly the nature of my state. We have a governor that is not the sharpest tool in the shed but the last one, a Democrat, was not that good either. Going back to my whole thing, BOTH parties do not do what is in the public good. And we, along with everyone else, do nothing to help the situation because we sit back and never voice an opinion to our Representatives. We never take the time to sit down and write/call on bills that are important to us. (BTW, I am not pointing directly at you, because I have no idea, JJJD or VG, if you voiced your opinion on the upcoming ban). Right now we have a very broke system of government. It seems to live in a vacuum where it does as it sees fit and not what is in the overall best interests of the individuals. Special interest groups seem to have the money to influence the voting when it comes to issues like bans on drugs, weapons, etc. or how we educate our kids, No Child Left Behind. But the Democrats nationally have not done much better but ideology wise I tend to agree with the middle of the road Democrats a lot more. Sorry that is the way I think... I don't like the far left, they are to alien in the way they think to me.. and I don't like the far right again because of the alien way of thinking... in both cases, they are just trying to restrict the way that we think.. think like us or you are wrong..
I ALWAYS evaluate the way I vote on what I BELIEVE in, and I have a set of core believes.. that is not going to change... that does not make you closed minded IMO. I believe that the individual should have the right to decide on things concerning raising kids, education, personal rights, etc
I know in my state, Republicans control most of it, and things have gotten extremely more restrictive and more religiously charged but that is partly the nature of my state. We have a governor that is not the sharpest tool in the shed but the last one, a Democrat, was not that good either. Going back to my whole thing, BOTH parties do not do what is in the public good. And we, along with everyone else, do nothing to help the situation because we sit back and never voice an opinion to our Representatives. We never take the time to sit down and write/call on bills that are important to us. (BTW, I am not pointing directly at you, because I have no idea, JJJD or VG, if you voiced your opinion on the upcoming ban). Right now we have a very broke system of government. It seems to live in a vacuum where it does as it sees fit and not what is in the overall best interests of the individuals. Special interest groups seem to have the money to influence the voting when it comes to issues like bans on drugs, weapons, etc. or how we educate our kids, No Child Left Behind. But the Democrats nationally have not done much better but ideology wise I tend to agree with the middle of the road Democrats a lot more. Sorry that is the way I think... I don't like the far left, they are to alien in the way they think to me.. and I don't like the far right again because of the alien way of thinking... in both cases, they are just trying to restrict the way that we think.. think like us or you are wrong..
VanillaGorilla
Active member
If you think about it there is not all that much difference from far left and right. The extreme examples would be socialism and fascism. Socialist believe that the government should own and control every thing. Fascist believes the government should tell everyone and everything what to do.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
All I am saying is don't blame Bush for the ban. If you want to blame anyone blame the pharmaceutical industry and our one party system of government taking legal bribes from them. It might appear like we have two parties but they are two sides of the same coin. Side A is big government and side B is bigger government. Why do you think they took out DHEA out of the ban? Because of the elderly and baby boomer lobby maybe? This is why the supplement companies should have put their petty differences behind them and got organized. I guess we can expect move hmb feels like deca statements from them in the future when they start selling things that don't work.
DoctorX2k2
Member
VanillaGorilla said:
Where'd you get all that from? Washington Post? There are quite a few discordance with what you have said that Moore said and the actual texts he wrote. As for the prescription for vitamin C in some countries, it's obvious that some governments want more control over drugs running around than the FDA does. There are so many supplements on the US market and most of them don't contain exactly what is written on their labels. I bet those kind of prescription are easy to get, even if it's more time consuming. The way you talk, everything is black or white but there's a middle which is usually the ideal point.
As for Canadian laws about hatefull speech, Im not too sure where you got that from cause I've never heard anything about this and seen/heard plenty of people hurting others' fellings. There must be some kind of misinterpretation by jjjd. It might be some stupid law no one ever applied. I don't remember in what state sodomy is illegal... whateeeeeeeeeeever.
PS : I never said the ban was Bush's fault... just agreed with enzo that the war in Iraq is a waste of time and humans.
jjjd
Active member
matthew said:As for Canadian laws about hatefull speech, Im not too sure where you got that from
why don't you LOOK it UP. we are not making this up. try, for a start, the website for the CCLA (canadian civil liberties association)
canada bans speech that is hateful, offensive, that denigrates group identity.
it is fascist, anti-democratic, and freedom hating legislation.
look it up
why don't you LOOK it UP. we are not making this up. try, for a start, the website for the CCLA (canadian civil liberties association)
canada bans speech that is hateful, offensive, that denigrates group identity.
it is fascist, anti-democratic, and freedom hating legislation.
look it up
DoctorX2k2
Member
jjjd said:
First, it was me and not Matthew... plus : Canadian Civil Liberties Association- a non-profit, non-government law-reform organization
dealing with issues of fundamental civil liberties and human rights .
How about searching the Justice Ministary? Invalid Link Removed Because I haven't found anything about it. But of course... you're non-government web site must be such a much more better source
jjjd
Active member
doc, excuse me for the mixup. got my attributions wrong.
there are numerous govt. resources if you want to look up canada's hate speech legislation.
i did a bunch of research on this not too long ago. i will see if i can find my research.
i recently took a class wherein i was trained to train other instructors in investigating hate crimes in the US. it was taught by both canadian and US instructors, and this class was taught to both civilians and govt. types.
the canadian instructors made it quite clear that the laws in canada were MUCH more restrictive and prohibited speech that was offensive, hate, etc. we don't
here is a very BASIC link, but it will give you some idea of how canada's laws work.
if you want more, let me know and i can pull up some specific case law, etc.
keegstra is a good place to start.
Invalid Link Removed
also, look at the rushton case. note also that holocaust denial is ILLEGAL in canada. several holocaust denial websites ended up moving to the USA to avoid prosecution in canada. i need to make it clear that i think holocaust denial is factually wrong, and morally abhorrent. however, it is also free speech - in the US, but not in canada.
the issue is this. canada does not have anywhere near the speech rights we do.
the specific section is 319.
check it out
here's another link
Invalid Link Removed
look up 319.
see what i mean?
hth
there are numerous govt. resources if you want to look up canada's hate speech legislation.
i did a bunch of research on this not too long ago. i will see if i can find my research.
i recently took a class wherein i was trained to train other instructors in investigating hate crimes in the US. it was taught by both canadian and US instructors, and this class was taught to both civilians and govt. types.
the canadian instructors made it quite clear that the laws in canada were MUCH more restrictive and prohibited speech that was offensive, hate, etc. we don't
here is a very BASIC link, but it will give you some idea of how canada's laws work.
if you want more, let me know and i can pull up some specific case law, etc.
keegstra is a good place to start.
Invalid Link Removed
also, look at the rushton case. note also that holocaust denial is ILLEGAL in canada. several holocaust denial websites ended up moving to the USA to avoid prosecution in canada. i need to make it clear that i think holocaust denial is factually wrong, and morally abhorrent. however, it is also free speech - in the US, but not in canada.
the issue is this. canada does not have anywhere near the speech rights we do.
the specific section is 319.
check it out
here's another link
Invalid Link Removed
look up 319.
see what i mean?
hth
jjjd
Active member
personally, i agree. i don't believe in hate crime legislation.
for example, in my state if person a smack person b in the face that is a misdemeanor assault
if person a smacks person b in the face because he doesn't like b because of b's religion, etc. that is a felony
imo, hate crime legislation is anti-american
however, the difference is that in the US one still has to have an underlying criminal act (assault, etc.). hate SPEECH is not against the law, but it can be used to justify the additional sentence of a hate crime assault to prove the crime was racially motivated.
in canada, hate crime is a hate crime merely BECAUSE of speech.
free speech does not exist there
for example, in my state if person a smack person b in the face that is a misdemeanor assault
if person a smacks person b in the face because he doesn't like b because of b's religion, etc. that is a felony
imo, hate crime legislation is anti-american
however, the difference is that in the US one still has to have an underlying criminal act (assault, etc.). hate SPEECH is not against the law, but it can be used to justify the additional sentence of a hate crime assault to prove the crime was racially motivated.
in canada, hate crime is a hate crime merely BECAUSE of speech.
free speech does not exist there
VanillaGorilla
Active member
I got it from various news sources and allot of it comes from Michael Moore himself. In the case of the kid in the crack house it made national news before he put it in his movie. Many of the statistics he used are also wrong or purposefully misleading. Moore often has the habit of saying things then back peddling.
You bet but you don't know. Let me phase it this way...would you rather be able to run out to the store a pick of a particular vitamin or have to deal with a giant bureaucracy simply to pick up some vitamins? That's a pretty black and white issue to me. At least with black and white you have two options. With everything being gray you only have one.
It was on the nightly news here. I read another story about a year ago saying someone was put in jail for hate speech. The United States constitution has the first amendment for a reason. For some reason many people interpret this as freedom from being offended.When you have free speech eventually someone's going to say something that you don't agree with or that offends you. Free speech enjoy it wile it lasts.............. then welcome to the brave new world.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Am I the only one with a problem with "hate crimes". First of all it's pretty stupid way to phrase it........ not to be confused with death crimes and love crimes. It puts one group of people on a pedestal and second class citizens out of any one else. So if person A gets stabbed because they wanted his money and person B gets stabbed because of his skin color, what they are saying is the people who stabbed person B should get more time because it's a "hate crime"? That is unconstitutional. It violates equal protection under the law.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
nice points size.lol
DoctorX2k2
Member
VanillaGorilla said:
What about KKK being illegal? Anyways, even if it isn't outlawed in the US, I'm pretty sure you've never seen Pro-Hitler articles in the Washington Post or how fags are disgusting in some other magazine or even misogynist speech... outlawed or not, it's a norm. You fail to understand when this law is applied anyways cause I've never heard of anyone running to police to transmit a deposition because he just got called a n**** (note be very careful with this Matt D)
VanillaGorilla
Active member
The KKK isn't illegal and shouldn't be. They have a right to say and believe what ever they want. They don't have the right to hurt anyone.
Maybe not. However people who believe such things have a right to speak about threw other means such as the internet. As JJD stated holocaust deniers were moving their web sites here in order to avoid prosecution. I for example am against Homosexual marriage and most of the homosexual activist agenda. Should I be thrown in jail because I disagree with them?
Actually that did happen here. A couple got into a altercation with someone as they were walking away from it one of them muttered a racial slur. An off duty police officer followed them and arrested them. I have read at least one person was arrested for "hate speech in Canada. Maybe it's you who fails to understand?
VanillaGorilla
Active member
No but it's coming I think. It's more in the form of self censorship and being ridiculed. For example any one against affirmative action is a racist, anyone who is against any homosexual agenda is a homophobic ...
DoctorX2k2
Member
VanillaGorilla said:
I thought KKK became illegal when the supreme court decided so. As for Homosexual marriage, if that law was really applied, then a damn lot of canadians would be in jail right now. This law is as unapplied as the Vermont's law saying that it is illegal to deny the existence of God...
When you say "Actually that did happen here" I guess you're talking about the US? If so, then it seems to be illegal there too
Yet, it is probably true that Canada has more restrictive laws than US but what's your point excatly? It's still a very great place to live.
Cuffs
Well-known member
The KKK has never been illegal in the U.S. Just like the Hells Angels are not illegal. Now, the Hells Angels have been recognized as being a gang, and if they commit certain crimes, then gang enhancements can be placed during convictions of said crimes. These enhancements add many years of prison time, which is greater than the sentence for the original crime. The same may go for the KKK. I think this is why they have changed the way the spread "their word". More reading material, internet, rallies, etc. But, you do get the others who take it to the old level of violence.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
What do you mean by this? Do you mean if they hate speech law would put Canadians in jail because they are opposed to gay marriage? The law will be applied because as I said before I have come across a few causes of people being prosecuted for hate speech.
It's a great place to live until you speak out about something you disagree with. My point is there seems to be a group of people in most governments trying to bring about a Orwellian state.
jjjd
Active member
doctor, no offense, but if you think the KKK is illegal in the US, then you really don't understand the comparative legal aspects of US and Canada's laws regarding speech
whether or not you have HEARD of people being prosecuted for using "hate speech", the point is that they HAVE. for example, holocaust denial is considered illegal and is banned. just because the prosecutors don't choose to prosecute every piddly instance of a hate speech violation in canada does not mean it is not illegal.
i suggest that you look up the statutes and you look up the case law.
there is simply no comparison. you can stand in a town square in the US and use plenty of "hate speech" and not be arrested. the same is not true in canada.
note that in canada (if you read the statute) this same speech is illegal EVEN IF communicated between two consenting parties over the telephone. the mere act of using a telephonic device makes it illegal even if there is no complaining party.
canada's speech laws ARE orwellian. is it a great place to live? sure. but in regards to speech, it is far less free. otoh, if you want to smoke MJ in Vancouver, you are more free.
canada has made a tradeoff. they have chosen "civility" over "freedom" (and this mirrors much of the debate in their legislature when they passed these laws)
they feel that the govt. has the right to outlaw and prosecute speech based on content. they do not think that speech that makes people feel "icky" should be legal.
that is chilling and horrible.
whether or not you have HEARD of people being prosecuted for using "hate speech", the point is that they HAVE. for example, holocaust denial is considered illegal and is banned. just because the prosecutors don't choose to prosecute every piddly instance of a hate speech violation in canada does not mean it is not illegal.
i suggest that you look up the statutes and you look up the case law.
there is simply no comparison. you can stand in a town square in the US and use plenty of "hate speech" and not be arrested. the same is not true in canada.
note that in canada (if you read the statute) this same speech is illegal EVEN IF communicated between two consenting parties over the telephone. the mere act of using a telephonic device makes it illegal even if there is no complaining party.
canada's speech laws ARE orwellian. is it a great place to live? sure. but in regards to speech, it is far less free. otoh, if you want to smoke MJ in Vancouver, you are more free.
canada has made a tradeoff. they have chosen "civility" over "freedom" (and this mirrors much of the debate in their legislature when they passed these laws)
they feel that the govt. has the right to outlaw and prosecute speech based on content. they do not think that speech that makes people feel "icky" should be legal.
that is chilling and horrible.
DoctorX2k2
Member
So I guess both of you live in Canada and read Canadian newspaper more than I do :/ There are several radio station on which people talk against everything they don't agree with and they're not prosecuted.
Not to mention that Americans overuse the word freedom and fail to see that it's way more limited than that and Im not talking about the laws.
Not to mention that Americans overuse the word freedom and fail to see that it's way more limited than that and Im not talking about the laws.
That's so totally untrue wether there's a law or not against it. I live in Canada so I think I know a bit more than you about what happens there.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Doc I mean you no offence or disrespect , that being said you don't seem to be the most informed person in the world. You didn't know about Moore, the KKK, or Canada's hate speech laws and you live there.
Over use of the word freedom? The whole United States constitutions foundation is built on freedom. Explain how it's limited?
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Should I post more stories?
Canada 'Hate Crime'
Earns Record Jail Time
By Jeff Mitchell
Staff Writer
8-1-3
An unrepentant Brad Love stood in the prisoners' box and railed against political correctness Monday, before receiving a precedent-setting 18-month sentence for promoting hatred against minorities.
"You can't say anything in this country," Mr. Love, handcuffed and dressed in blue overalls, told the court after pleading guilty to 20 counts of willfully promoting hatred.
"I have to question for myself the state of affairs in my own country," he said.
"Folks like me, sometimes we create our own vision."
That vision, according to the Crown attorney's office, was communicated in numerous hate-filled letters to politicians, the national director of a Holocaust studies group and even York Region's police chief.
The racist screeds often consisted of newspaper clippings to which Mr. Love had added his own commentary, prosecutor Moiz Karimjee told Mr. Justice William Gorewich.
"The message being communicated is direct and clear: These groups must be despised," Mr. Karimjee said during the Ontario Court of Justice hearing in Newmarket.
Justice Gorewich agreed with a joint submission from the prosecution and defence, which called for a sentence of 11 months in jail in addition to the seven months Mr. Love served in pre-trial custody. He was also placed on probation for three years.
Mr. Love pleaded guilty to 20 counts of willfully promoting hatred; one count of criminal harassment, two counts of sending scurrilous material through the mail and one count of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public.
Mr. Karimjee hailed the sentence as the toughest ever handed down for promotion of hatred.
"A precedent has been set today," he said. "This is the highest sentence that has been handed down in Canada for hate mail."
Mr. Karimjee said the sentence was intended to send a message that police and courts will diligently pursue those engaged in the spread of hateful messages.
"Hate crime will be investigated thoroughly and prosecuted vigorously by the Crown's office," he said.
Sgt. Heidi Schellhorn, of the York Regional Police hate crimes unit, also applauded the sentence.
"I think it's going to send a strong message to the community," she said.
Jamie Klukach, the other half of the prosecution team, said the sentence exceeded those in other high-profile hate crimes, such as those involving Ernst Zundel and James Keegstra. Mr. Love's extensive criminal record, which includes convictions for assault with a weapon, intimidation and extortion, warranted the heavy sentence, she said.
In her submissions to the court, Ms Klukach also highlighted the "psychological terrorism" Mr. Love's propaganda campaign helped create.
"It has a menacing, quasi-violent dimension to it," she said.
Although Mr. Love framed his writings as legitimate criticism of Canada's immigration system, there was a more sinister undertone, Ms Klukach said.
"This is quite simply sheer hatred," she told the judge.
"Mr. Love is entitled to his views ... but his right to distribute them is not unlimited."
Court heard how over the course of months, Mr. Love has undertaken an ongoing campaign, targeting ethnic and religious groups including Muslims, Jews, Asians, Blacks, Roma, East Asians and other groups.
He sent letters to the offices of MPs such as Judy Sgro and former immigration minister Elinor Caplan, as well as politicians in his home municipality of Mississauga. Also targeted were the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies and York Regional Police Chief Armand La Barge, court heard.
Charges against Mr. Love were laid in York Region, Peel Region, Toronto and Ottawa. An agreement to hear all the charges in York Region resulted in the guilty plea being entered here. Mr. Love, 44, has been in custody since his arrest on charges in York Region in April.
Mr. Love appeared unfazed by the lengthy arraignment he stood through, or descriptions of his hate-filled messages, which included a expletive-ridden criticism of Chief La Barge's efforts to bolster race relations.
Prior to sentencing, Mr. Love stood in the prisoner's box and delivered a rambling dissertation in which he criticized "political correctness" and Canadians' fears of expressing views on immigration and race relations.
"I am of the belief people in this country are now afraid not just to do anything ... (but) to say anything about immigration," he told the judge. "It would be as if we were engaging in some kind of conspiracy just to discuss this sort of thing."
Often referring to himself in the third person, Mr. Love acknowledged he did "overstep the boundaries of good taste". But he insisted he was merely speaking his mind.
"Brad Love at least said it," Mr. Love said. "All he did was package up his thoughts and feelings in the mail and send them to the proper political authorities.
"Once the government comes for Brad Love, who will be next?"
Justice Gorewich accepted the joint submission on sentencing, noting he did not necessarily agree with it.
He said Mr. Love had engaged in a prolonged campaign that could enflame racial tensions.
"You used your intellect in a way that was as negative as possible and could well have a ripple effect that could be catastrophic in many communities," the judge said in passing sentence.
Copyright © Metroland, York Region Newspaper Group. - All rights reserved.
Invalid Link Removed
jjjd
Active member
doctor, fwiw, i DO listen to canadian radio.
second of all, i am talking case law. all you are talking is anecdotes and personal opinion.
let's deal with facts. the facts are clear. do i need to cite case law AND penal code, or will you recognize that canada criminalizes hate speech. the US does not
i think the problem is this. doctor has been fed the myth that he lives in a progressive, free society. this, he cannot reconcile with the fact that in many respects (specifically speech), he does not. therefore, cognitive dissonance kicks in.
if there is any doubt that leftists can be just as (if not more, imo) freedom stultifying and behavior restricting big brother nanny state acting as rightwingers (imo, they have historically been more so), it is canada's hate speech codes, and similar codes in the UK and the EU.
it comes down to this. canada does not trust its citizens to listen to different pov's and make their OWN decisions. canada, instead, says some IDEAS are so "hateful" that people have NO RIGHT to espouse them (even in text form, or over the phone to a consenting party, etc.).
that is a very bad thing. some of my best friends are canadian, and they also are unaware of these laws. that is kind of sad.
i think you need to study up on catherine mckinnon (aka mckinnon'ism), the rushton case, the zundel case, etc.
fwiw, the US constitution is designed to RESTRICT govt. it is mostly concerned (specifically the bill of rights) in protecting freedoms. not granting them.
whatever rights you have in canada are also essentially repealable via parliamentary override. that is not much more than saying your rights can be rescinded via a majority vote. in the US, we need a const. amendment which is FAR more difficult.
second of all, i am talking case law. all you are talking is anecdotes and personal opinion.
let's deal with facts. the facts are clear. do i need to cite case law AND penal code, or will you recognize that canada criminalizes hate speech. the US does not
i think the problem is this. doctor has been fed the myth that he lives in a progressive, free society. this, he cannot reconcile with the fact that in many respects (specifically speech), he does not. therefore, cognitive dissonance kicks in.
if there is any doubt that leftists can be just as (if not more, imo) freedom stultifying and behavior restricting big brother nanny state acting as rightwingers (imo, they have historically been more so), it is canada's hate speech codes, and similar codes in the UK and the EU.
it comes down to this. canada does not trust its citizens to listen to different pov's and make their OWN decisions. canada, instead, says some IDEAS are so "hateful" that people have NO RIGHT to espouse them (even in text form, or over the phone to a consenting party, etc.).
that is a very bad thing. some of my best friends are canadian, and they also are unaware of these laws. that is kind of sad.
i think you need to study up on catherine mckinnon (aka mckinnon'ism), the rushton case, the zundel case, etc.
fwiw, the US constitution is designed to RESTRICT govt. it is mostly concerned (specifically the bill of rights) in protecting freedoms. not granting them.
whatever rights you have in canada are also essentially repealable via parliamentary override. that is not much more than saying your rights can be rescinded via a majority vote. in the US, we need a const. amendment which is FAR more difficult.
bigmark1972
Board Supporter
:shoot:
I am without words.