Gay Hate Law Debate Marred By Homophobic Outbursts (France)

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/121004frHate.htm

Debate on a bill to make sexist or homophobic speech illegal and to protect gays and lesbians from job discrimination was peppered with homophobia much of it from the government's own members.

One member of the President's own right-wing party, the UMP, said he saw nothing wrong with anti-gay threats or publications.

Christian Vanneste said that the idea of making "homophobia" illegal was a "contradiction in terms".


sad sad people out there

[xchrom]

1. christian vanneste is a contradiction in terms

[Flagg]

2. The mayor of Paris (Bertrand Delanoe) is openly gay

He might even run for President in 2007

[arcos]

3. France's government is right wing...

what did people expect?

[Laughing Mirror]

18. Read the last line of the article

"The bill which has been pushed by President Jacques Chirac would give France the toughest hate-crime law in the European Union."

Jacques Chirac is right wing.

[BonjourUSA]

21. UMP = left-right wing ou right-left wing, as you like

to compare Chirac with Bush or Kerry is very difficult. For Kerry, Chirac could be a dangerous leftist

[darthmix]

4. nicely demonstrating the need for the law.

[Artemis Bunyon]

5. There is no need for such a law.

A desire perhaps. But no need.

[Anakin Skywalker]

6. FundaMENTALism. It isn't just for Americans.

Damn, G! I wonder what all the French-haters of the Freep population have to say now?

[Moloch]

7. Well I'm gay and I would protest this bill too....

People ought to be able to say any dumbass thing they want to...

[JohnOneillsMemory]

8. Homophobia is terrible. Banning speech is worse. First Amendment etc.

That's why I have reservations about criminalizing 'hate' speech.

It's the biggest step towards the creation of THOUGHT CRIME.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. I'm with you on this one

No speech should be banned. None. Nowhere. Not at all. Never.

And if someone chooses a certain type of speech, that's their choice. By your words will you be known.

For those who disagree, read your Constitution again.




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[Hosnon]

15. Well, I don't know about no speech - every principle has its

reasonable limits. To me, the freedom is primarily meant for political speech. I don't believe someone should go completely unpunished for telling a man his wife is cheating on him (when it is not true) and then that man does something illegal. Also, there is the Theater example. It's limits are real and need to be discussed to discover what they are.

[Cronus Protagonist]

16. OK, I hear you. I still disagree.

If someone shouts FIRE in a crowded theater, he will be punished, not for shouting FIRE but for the consequences of his action. If you do it, and every one ignores you, no harm done, right?

That whole fire in the theater thing is a canard used by conservative justices as a wedge to start limiting speech. It seems you bought it too, which is understandable as it seems almost the entire country bought it.

Additionally, telling someone his wife is cheating when she isn't is a simple lie - people do it all the time. The liar will be known by his words. The husband in your scenario who goes and say, punches someone out or beats the wife cannot use the defense that the liar made him do it. He would have to be responsible for his own actions in that case.

If you told me my wife was having an affair, I would question your credibility before I would take any action on the information. And any action I do take would be my own responsiblity.

So again, no speech should be limited. To ban speech for any purpose is to limit humnanity's greatest freedom and its greatest playground.

Tyrannical oppression counts on repressing dissent, and dissent is speech. Let's not go down that horrendous path any more than we have already.





http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[Hosnon]

20. I see your point...

However, it seems to me that in an example such as the theater, a DEFENSE should not be freedom of speech. Regardless of what action you take to cause such an event, if it is without merit, you should be punished in some way.

I guess I need to clarify (ah the beauty of debate) that I think you should be able to say whatever you want but in certain extreme circumstances, freedom of speech will not be a defense when it is so far removed from what seems to me to be the intent of the amendment.

But I still believe that it has its limits. To me, every principle has its limits - the question is what they are and also, if they are significant enough to be recognized as exceptions.

[Hosnon]

14. Agree...reasons for killing should not be graded. Plus it is hard to know

[readmoreoften]

17. homo against speech codes

Call me Aunt Sally. Call me a lazy day in Vermont. I don't care what you call me. I can talk back.

But if you fire me, keep me away from my partner, make my relationship a crime, or give me no protection under the law then you will find out that i have a very bad temper.

[mitchtv]

9. I hope you people who oppose this law/or concept

likewise oppose the hate/anti nazi laws in Germany.

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. Ja...

[Jack_DeLeon]

11. Sorry, but I oppose laws that restrict speech

even hate speech.

[Hosnon]

13. Why do people hate gay people? I simply don't get it. nt

[JackieO]

19. Making it illegal to say something is WRONG

why the fuck are they mixing that with an anti-discrimination law?