[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= peacedove] Child pornography is not art. It is child abuse. A racist speech is not freedom of speech. It is a speech promoting racism.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> By your own edict then...Shakespeare's 'Romeo & Juliet' would have to be banned since Juliet (Age 14) was bigtime underaged, and Romeo (Age 17) would be a hardcore pederast.<br /> <br /> And let's not even *start* with Nabokov's Lolita...I mean, I guess we'd have to BURN STANLEY KUBRICK'S CLASSIC.<br /> <br /> And 'hate speech'? Alright bucko...define that for me? I think a lot of what this website mandates can be defined as 'hate speech'. Should we have "Jesse" arrested for propaganting hate crimes? Hey, if it means seeing him having a "train" done to him while in the slammer...I'm all for it.<br /> <br /> The whole 'No Deep Integration' is basically a spinoff of 'Segregation Now, Segregation Forever'<br /> <br /> Funny that these old topics never seem to die, and on what a marvelous day, it being the Martin Luther King Jr's Day.<br /> <br /> The key here...is that as far as I'm concerned: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHILD PORN.<br /> <br /> If there is a video/pic of a grown man raping an underage girl, that is a CRIME SCENE PHOTO. It's EVIDENCE to be used against the perp. Just like a bank robbery.<br /> <br /> If there is a film where a 65 year old man screws a 22 year old girl that tries to 'act' like a 15 year old...the waters become very murky, and I'd have to error on the side of it being 'art'<br /> <br /> If someone makes a speech saying he/she hates blacks, I'm very happy for that person. Good for them, it's an indicator as to where we stand in terms of TOLERANCE for the INTOLERABLE.<br /> <br /> Once you get rid of these people in the name of 'hate crime', you then begin to question...'what else' can be deemed as a hate crime.<br /> <br /> Sorry to break it to you buddy, IT JUST AIN'T THAT SIMPLE.<br />

[Brent Swain]

There are provisions in the constitution where the courts can rule an infringement a reasonable limitation on the charter.That may be a reasonable substitute for the not withstanding clause. Then cases you point out ar just such reasonable limitations.The court made such a ruling when it ruled bans on communication with a hooker for the purpose of getting laid were a reasonable limitation, a ruling that I definitly didn't aggree with.<br />
Brent

[Brent Swain]

I think I prefer the judgement of judges to that of politicians ,who often respond to the flavour of the month when it comes to decisions over human rights.I think that as we haven't needed to invoke the not withstanding clause yet, it should be abolished. The constituion is working just fine, thank you.<br /> Brent

[Marcarc]

There's two issues there, one with child pornography, another with the notwithstanding clause. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure getting rid of the notwithstanding clause means a change to the charter, which needs to be ratified by the provinces, several of which have referenda legislation which dictates charter changes must be put to a public vote. But I may be wrong on that.<br /> <br /> As for child porn, there was recently a new law drafted, which made the criminal offences stricter, which the conservatives voted against. They claim that art is no defence for child porn, and so again we get into that murky territory.<br /> <br /> I agree, for once, with the poster above that claims when we sweep things under the rug we just let them foment there. If somebody is racist, I'd like to KNOW that. As for child porn, there is almost no case that I'm familiar with that the 'indictee's rights were placed over the rights of children. Perhaps you've forgotten that case in Saskatchewan where a couple were criminalized on the blatant lies of children. Ironically we live in a world where 'children' are thought to be fully culpable and responsible if they break the law, yet in other cases are canonized as absolute victims. In the above case the children were making up absolute nonsense which was taken as gospel by the judge. <br /> <br /> As a perfect example, what about the victim of child porn who writes a book on their experience. By the absolutist law they'd be banned from ever publishing it or even discussing it publicly. In other words, those who were victimized are continually traumatized by not being able to tell their story. So what you have left is a whole world full of perverts who watch porn and think 'they must be enjoying it' because they are smiling on camera and there is no vehicle for the victims to tell the true story. This is already the case in prostitution, where those who are victimized (and I'm not saying all are), have no way to tell their story because they'd immediately be arrested, threatened, or lose their livelihood. So it remains 'a dark secret' that most people believe doesn't exist because they don't HEAR about it. Yet that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Brent Swain]

I've been told that prostitutes can't tell their stories because so many of their customers are judges , prosecutors and cops.That prince George judge recently jailed for abusing underage hookers may just be the tip of as huge iceberg.How many other such cases will we never hear of?<br /> Brent