« Moonbats Against Human Reproduction | Main | BBC Spins for Islamist Murderers »

Time for every church in the Great White North to post the same on their websites and in their bulletins.

I'd like to read all her objectionable posts before deciding
that the Canadian courts sent a cease and desist order
on the basis of two verses. From what I understand, she
is a self-described Nazi, which of course is incompatible
with Christianity. Many "use" and abuse scripture to their
agenda and most are anything "but" Christians. Had this
young woman been a person of true conviction and shown
that she was so via her posts, then that would be
another matter. But I see nothing at the moment to cause
me to defend her. Until I see more evidence, it's unwise
to rush to her side.

I looked up Ms Beaumont and discovered a website that gives some details about what she's been doing (don't know if Van Helsing would want me to post the site, tho, so I won't unless he gives me the okay). But from what I read on this site, seems she's got quite the history, as fellowes above has indicated. However, the site DOES give information on exactly how the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Section 13 covers it, which is the scary thing. If Van Helsing gives me permission, I'll give him the site and he can add it to this thread.

Let's be fair here, the scriptures were included in the evidence against her but I think 30 postings she'd made were used as evidence. The scriptures are of course significant since they do clearly violate gay hate speech laws, but not central to the case.

The real issue here really is whether a genuinely free society would have a "star chamber" for prosecuting freedom of speech. Their authority from what I've read on the internets (and I freely admit this to be only skimming stuff since I read this post including looking at their website) seems to be fairly arbitrary. They're a court outside the normal judicial system.

But anyway, I'm a believer in absolute freedom of speech, even that which offends me personally (of which there is a fair amount). This being basically a conservative blog, I'll just balance the scales and point out that in general conservatives want to limit speech too (obsecenity, blasphemy, rude words like "willy" and "front bottom") so there's a danger of hypocrisy here.

As the Bible says...

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt.

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I know that's not relevant at all, I just think it's cool.

Where is the "public commons" here? Whatever I write on my web log is the product of my own thoughts, in my own space.

You are not required to go to that space. You may choose to never visit that space. Nothing I can do can make my space akin to that of a theater space, where within that crowded space I can use words that can cause harm.

She may be a boor. She may be a kook. Neither is a disqualifier from having the right to publish her beliefs, as looney as they may be.

Ah, but in the New Order, everything is a commons, and the commons==the state.

It's one of the glorious contradictions of the liberalprogressive movement. They rail endlessly against the government, how it's a police state, fascist, they demand constitutional rights- then the instant somebody suggests reducing the size or power of that government, then volte face! they announce that the government is the will of the people, anyone who opposes the government is the enemy of the people, and so on. Heh.

To a rational person, a commons is a place owned by nobody (which is why the famous Tragedy may occur). To a statist, a commons is a place owned by everybody, and the will of everybody is enshrined in the government, who have as a result despotic control of the commons. Which is why all statisms end up as (real) fascism, of course. And why they can't be trusted to keep the internet free, since they will naturally see the internet commons as their property, to be ruled by their collective will (through governmental organisations).

If there's a Democrat win in the US, gawd forbid, expect the deafening banging of the drum for a handover of internet "governance**" to transnats, i.e. the UN. They'll then be able to close down free speech worldwide. My guess there will be to make the useless 'crats of the W3C an official organ of the UN, with statutory authority.

**the term governance here meaning bureaucratic unaccountable control by committee, as beloved of modern "liberals".

Mister Prickly,

Sorry for the slow response. By all means post the link.

Whether Jessica Beaumont's views are obnoxious is irrelevant.

well, if ALL PROFESSING people of judeo/christian faith were to quote from scripture within the same day of the week in a public manner - there would not be enough jails or prisons to house us!

we ought to make a day specifically for that reason - let'em try u.s.~!

"Hate crimes" is the liberal trump card against free speech. That's why they've pushed it so hard and so long.

IMHO, they should be going after the KNOWN TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS who advocate jihad against the very countries they live, work and blog in.

Seriously, which seems more trheatening to you: A few Bible verses quoted without context, or "FELLOW MUJAHIDEEN COME AND BRING DEATH TO CANADA THE GREAT SATAN'S LITTLE WHORE BROTHER" ?

Of course, imminent physical threat is the more impressive isn't it? It's obvious and easier to rally against. A clear target and we all love a clear target eh?

But the subtle is always more dangerous. When Satan tempted Christ, he didn't use terrorism or military means, rather he twisted scripture or, in your own words, employed a "few bible verses quoted without context". Sure. All speech should be defended and nothing censored, otherwise, how will we know what people really think when it all comes down to the finish? I agree. She should be allowed to spout off all sorts of crap, including her nazi leanings.

My problem was with how Van Helsing made it look as though she was getting censored for her twisted scripture quoting exclusively while conveniently leaving out the OTHER trash she was spouting (and which constituted the bulk of her writings). If you're going to "put it out there" then by damn, tell the WHOLE story, not some sliver just so you can spur the crowd on. Fair enough?