a racist PC game

[CptStern]

There's a big difference between loudly proclaiming that you want people of a certain group killed and saying that you don't like them and they should all move back to wherever they came from. Making a game that simulates the killing of a group of people is different still. My point is that you can't say a game which simulates the killing of some is right, while another game which simulates killing should be banned. Killing is killing. More than likely this game will have a VERY small user base and will go away. Which is as it should be.

again you're missing the point ..under canadian charters of rights you cannot deciminate any body of work that propogates hate

this game couldnt be sold in canada

 

[Hapless]

I noticed that the Canadian law prohibits communicating statements willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group of people.

Would you say that Christians are an identifiable group of people?

 

[CptStern]

what are you getting at?

 

[Hapless]

what are you getting at?

What do you think I'm getting at?

 

[CptStern]

I dont know ...that christians are an identifiable group?

 

[Hapless]

When speaking of hate crimes, discrimination, etc., it is generally understood that it applies to race, sex, religion, etc. I recall you making several disparaging statements about Christians on this board. Does that mean you have committed a felony under Canadian law? Where's a Mountie when you need one?

Too bad the search function doesn't seem to be working, or I'd dig some up.

 

[CptStern]

When speaking of hate crimes, discrimination, etc., it is generally understood that it applies to race, sex, religion, etc. I recall you making several disparaging statements about Christians on this board. Does that mean you have committed a felony under Canadian law? Where's a Mountie when you need one?

Too bad the search function doesn't seem to be working, or I'd dig some up.

stating my opinion is hardly a crime ...and I defy to you to find anywhere were I call for their genocide or willfully promote hatred


I fail to see what my opinions of christians has to do with this topic

 

[Hapless]

stating my opinion is hardly a crime ...and I defy to you to find anywhere were I call for their genocide or willfully promote hatred


I fail to see what my opinions of christians has to do with this topic

So, what you're saying then is that if you were to get up at a rally and state "All black people should move back to Africa," that would not be a crime in Canada? Is that not an opinion? Is that not similar to saying something to the effect of, "Christians are brainwashed morons?"

BTW, here's my state's hate crime statute for comparison:

Sec. 12‑7.1. Hate crime.
(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12‑1, 12‑2, 12‑3, 16‑1, 19‑4, 21‑1, 21‑2, 21‑3, 25‑1, and 26‑1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1‑1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clause (a)(4) of Section 1‑2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (b‑5), hate crime is a Class 4 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent offense.
(b‑5) Hate crime is a Class 3 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent offense if committed:
(1) in a church, synagogue, mosque, or other
building, structure, or place used for religious worship or other religious purpose;

(2) in a cemetery, mortuary, or other facility used
for the purpose of burial or memorializing the dead;

(3) in a school or other educational facility,
including an administrative facility or public or private dormitory facility of or associated with the school or other educational facility;

(4) in a public park or an ethnic or religious
community center;

(5) on the real property comprising any location
specified in clauses (1) through (4) of this subsection (b‑5); or

(6) on a public way within 1,000 feet of the real
property comprising any location specified in clauses (1) through (4) of this subsection (b‑5).

(b‑10) Upon imposition of any sentence, the trial court shall also either order restitution paid to the victim or impose a fine up to $1,000. In addition, any order of probation or conditional discharge entered following a conviction or an adjudication of delinquency shall include a condition that the offender perform public or community service of no less than 200 hours if that service is established in the county where the offender was convicted of hate crime. The court may also impose any other condition of probation or conditional discharge under this Section.
(c) Independent of any criminal prosecution or the result thereof, any person suffering injury to his person or damage to his property as a result of hate crime may bring a civil action for damages, injunction or other appropriate relief. The court may award actual damages, including damages for emotional distress, or punitive damages. A judgment may include attorney's fees and costs. The parents or legal guardians, other than guardians appointed pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, of an unemancipated minor shall be liable for the amount of any judgment for actual damages rendered against such minor under this subsection (c) in any amount not exceeding the amount provided under Section 5 of the Parental Responsibility Law.
(d) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
(Source: P.A. 92‑830, eff. 1‑1‑03; 93‑463, eff. 8‑8‑03; 93‑765, eff. 7‑19‑04.)

 

[CptStern]

be that as it may ...where have i willfully promoted hatred of christians? calling them "morons" isnt promoting hate ..it's stating fact :E

again I ask what does this have to do with the topic ...you dont see me questioning your personal views

 

[Hapless]

be that as it may ...where have i willfully promoted hatred of christians? calling them "morons" isnt promoting hate ..it's stating fact :E

Uh huh.

Just to clarify so I know that we are discussing the same issue, you maintain that any public racist speech is illegal in Canada under the Wilful Promotion of Hatred staute, correct?

 

[CptStern]

I'm not a lwayer, I dont interpret law ..I'm just quoting sources here. But if you're trying to paint me with the brush of racism please do, as I look forward to seeing what evidence you've collected


3rd time asking ...what does this have to do with the topic? or are you just out to prove I dont like christians?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

you're right it doesnt directly infringe on MY rights because I'm not a minority ..but it does infringe on the canadian charter of rights in that it is a hate crime to:

Advocat genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

That's dangerous, it's not good to restrict anybody's right to free speech. It's not going to enrage me or anything because the people guilty under this are probably shitheads anyway, but as much of a shithead as they are, they should still be able to freely say what they please without having to watch their words for fear of the government coming for them.

 

[CptStern]

/me bangs head on wall ..read the quote ..you have every right to speak your mind ...promoting hate is a different matter all together

 

[Hapless]

I never said you were a racist. Your defense of the censorship of a racist game based on a Canadian law just seems a little odd considering the fact that you may very well have violated that same law.

 

[CptStern]

where do I defend the censorship of this game? I clearly said I agree with you when you said:

You don't have to agree with what someone says, but you should vigorously defend their right to say it. One shouldn't let one's personal beliefs trample on someone else's rights....right Stern?

but you cant see that because you're too busy trying to nail me to the proverbial wall because my views differ from your own



pot meet kettle, kettle pot

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

/me bangs head on wall ..read the quote ..you have every right to speak your mind ...promoting hate is a different matter all together

If someone went out and said "I think people of _______ should be killed" would they be arrested under the act?

 

[CptStern]

no ...not unless someone filed a complaint ..and even then it would have to be proved that their intention was to either incite or promote hate

 

[Hapless]

not if it infringes on my rights ...at least in canada ...dont know about the US but canadians cant deciminate hate because it infringes on the charter of rights

THis is not defending the censorship or outright banning of the game under Canadian law?

And I don't need to prove you don't like Christians. You've stated that many times over.

Is the search function working for anyone else????? I click and click and click and nothing happens....aaaaaaaarrrggghhhh!!!!

 

[CptStern]

nope, I'm just stating facts ...oh and I edited my last post

 

[gh0st]

no ...not unless someone filed a complaint ..and even then it would have to be proved that their intention was to either incite or promote hate

haha... wow. nice to know canadas laws are even more backwards than our own.

 

[Hapless]

but you cant see that because you're too busy trying to nail me to the proverbial wall because my views differ from your own



pot meet kettle, kettle pot

In what way? I'm not a Christian, I'm pretty much an agnostic if anything. I was merely pointing out what I perceived to be hypocrisy on your part. I don't know why you would take offense and claim I'm trying to "nail you to the proverbial wall." Unless you think I'm going to report you to the Canadian authorities for your crimes...

That's a joke, Stern. Chill.

 

[CptStern]

k can we leave jebus out of it ...I'm so freakin tired of jebus this jebus that


oh and your preceived misconception was wrong :E

 

[Hapless]

k can we leave jebus out of it ...I'm so freakin tired of jebus this jebus that


oh and your preceived misconception was wrong :E

Well, for someone who loves to post quotes from people *cough*Madeline Albright*cough* against them or their country, it's funny to watch you squirm when your statements are used against you. But I won't mention "jebus" again. Promise.:cheers:

 

[CptStern]

you didnt do anything of the sort ..first of all you couldnt/didnt find any jebus hating statements ..second of all I havent squirmed at all ..in fact I've stood my ground in this thread because all my original points still stand

oh and dont make it sound like I hate or fear christianity ...I see them more like Ned Flanders: well-intentioned but ultimately a little too ...archaic in their thinking and just a tad bit annoying

 

[smwScott]

There is no reason this game shouldn't be made available. It merely represents the sentiment of a group of people. Their sentiments are of hatred and bigotry, even genocide, but they should be allowed to say what they wish. Free speech should never be suppressed, under any circumstances.

If Canadian law prevents racist speeches or media from being heard on the basis that it is a hate crime, then that is a huge gap in your nations civil liberties. In my opinion the government has no right to restrict the speech of the people, and inciting hate is no exception.

 

[CptStern]

nope sorry because the rights of the majority supercede those of the minority. You cant defend their rights when it impinges on the rights of others

 

[smwScott]

So a racist speaking to his group of supporters at a rally, "All blacks, jews, and hispanics are vile creatures that should die" somehow infringes on their rights? How so? The only infringement here is if you prevented them from speaking their views and holding their meetings, even if it is in public.

Since when do people have a right not to be offended or challenged? I'm sorry but any law that restricts freedom of speech is inherently flawed.

 

[bliink]

So a racist speaking to his group of supporters at a rally, "All blacks, jews, and hispanics are vile creatures that should die" somehow infringes on their rights? How so? The only infringement here is if you prevented them from speaking their views and holding their meetings, even if it is in public.

Since when do people have a right not to be offended or challenged? I'm sorry but any law that restricts freedom of speech is inherently flawed.

You have the right to live in a democratic nation without people inciting your death.

Whether there is violence (or other crime) being incited is what is debatable.

A person's freedom of speech extends only as far as it can before it infringes on the rights of others. Thats why you have a constitution AND a legal system.

 

[Raziaar]

It's about time they started making games for southerners.

You're just as ignorant as these game developers.


Oh, and what an awful game... These racist bastards should die.

 

[CptStern]

So a racist speaking to his group of supporters at a rally, "All blacks, jews, and hispanics are vile creatures that should die" somehow infringes on their rights? How so?

incitement to violence because of race = hate crime

The only infringement here is if you prevented them from speaking their views and holding their meetings, even if it is in public.

again you're glossing over the point. He can say whatever he wants but as soon as he says that they should die it is incitement to a violent act ...if any of the mob commits murder they could rightly say that the speaker goaded him into doing it ...it's the same if I were to order a hit on someone ..I'd be guilty of a crime even though I didnt actually kill someone

 

[smwScott]

If a person delivers a speech saying a certain group of people should die ... and then someone hears that speech and kills someone, there is only one person responsible for that - the one who carried out the act. Now if there is a group of people that announce a plan to their supporters, and tell those people to commit an illegal act, and they go through with it ... then that is breaking the law. But when you get into specific cases such as this it stops being free speech and becomes conspiracy to commit. There are similar cases of things you can't say, like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded area.

However, if a racist figure simply delivers a speech stating that he believes a certain group of people simply should die or are "a threat to the white race" or whatever the hell else, that is covered under freedom of speech. If a person is inspired to commit a crime after hearing this then that is on their shoulders alone. In America, no one has a right not to be hated or to not be offended by opposing viewpoints (however ridiculous they may be).

There really isn't much debate to be had here. You clearly agree with Canada's policy on the matter while I do not. I believe in full free speech for all organizations or viewpoints, even if that viewpoint contains extremely racist propaganda that has the potential to incit violence. Once the government can exercise dominion over what people are allowed to say, it sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and suppression of political ideals.

 

[jondy]

Really? Is that a fact? Can you point me to some data on that? So what you're saying is that videogames DO inflence people? Unless, of course, they're videogames that you approve of? Sounds like you and Jack(ass) Thompson should get together.

Obviously, I can't point out any data. Don't ask rhetorical questions, it makes you sound even more intentionally abrasive than you already are.

You took my post the wrong way - I was simply pointing out that playing extremely racist videogames probably has more of an influence on young, suggestible minds than killing games; the racism in those games is real, the violence isn't.

Another factor is that racism isn't given an age-rating, whereas violent games are pidgeonholed as such and sold to the appropriate age groups.

 

[el Chi]

Y'know, I'm actually glad that this detestable product overtly encourages racial hatred, instead of being borderline racist. Surely in this case, it can't hide behind a veil of "free speech"? It's just actively condoning violence against other races and so is inciting racial hatred. So surely it can't be legal, can it!?
I'm positive that's where the borderline between free speech and racial hatred is in this country.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

If a person delivers a speech saying a certain group of people should die ... and then someone hears that speech and kills someone, there is only one person responsible for that - the one who carried out the act. Now if there is a group of people that announce a plan to their supporters, and tell those people to commit an illegal act, and they go through with it ... then that is breaking the law. But when you get into specific cases such as this it stops being free speech and becomes conspiracy to commit. There are similar cases of things you can't say, like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded area.

However, if a racist figure simply delivers a speech stating that he believes a certain group of people simply should die or are "a threat to the white race" or whatever the hell else, that is covered under freedom of speech. If a person is inspired to commit a crime after hearing this then that is on their shoulders alone. In America, no one has a right not to be hated or to not be offended by opposing viewpoints (however ridiculous they may be).

There really isn't much debate to be had here. You clearly agree with Canada's policy on the matter while I do not. I believe in full free speech for all organizations or viewpoints, even if that viewpoint contains extremely racist propaganda that has the potential to incit violence. Once the government can exercise dominion over what people are allowed to say, it sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and suppression of political ideals.

Exactly.

Example:
Extremist Muslim cleric says "ALL JEWS SHOULD DIE" - not a crime

Extremist Muslim cleric says "Kill the Jews tomorrow at 5:00PM as they leave synagogue on 5th and Main street" - A crime

 

[CptStern]

you guys dont seem to understand the laws behind hate crimes:


Advocate genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.



Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.




what's the penalty for uttering deaths threats in your part of the world?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

you guys dont seem to understand the laws behind hate crimes:


Advocate genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.



Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.




what's the penalty for uttering deaths threats in your part of the world?

Eh, so would the first example I gave in my reply be punishable if someone complained under your laws?

 

[CptStern]

no ..well I dont know ...I'm no lawyer but hate crimes are rarely enforced ..unless there's physical violence or vandalism (with a hate crime they have to make restitution + spend time in the community learning about the culture they attacked)

 

[MjM]

no ..well I dont know ...I'm no lawyer but hate crimes are rarely enforced ..unless there's physical violence or vandalism (with a hate crime they have to make restitution + spend time in the community learning about the culture they attacked)

LoL.

I guess they are only ever enforced if there is evidence of a hate crime, wouldnt you think?

 

[Hapless]

Obviously, I can't point out any data. Don't ask rhetorical questions, it makes you sound even more intentionally abrasive than you already are.

You took my post the wrong way - I was simply pointing out that playing extremely racist videogames probably has more of an influence on young, suggestible minds than killing games; the racism in those games is real, the violence isn't.

Another factor is that racism isn't given an age-rating, whereas violent games are pidgeonholed as such and sold to the appropriate age groups.

Fact is, a racist videogame is far more likely to influence someone's views in terms of racism, than a killing game is likely to influence someone's views as to murder.

You said "fact is," and I asked if that really was a fact. Sorry if you found that to be, "intentionally abrasive." As to the age-rating, can you show me a racist videogame that doesn't have an age rating? Especially a racist game that involves killing? I hope those questions aren't too rhetorical...

 

[CptStern]

LoL.

I guess they are only ever enforced if there is evidence of a hate crime, wouldnt you think?

no I mean very few people are charged with incitement to hate ..this guy being the most famous