[yendu bwam]

Just to be precise - the Human Rights Commission did not find the Bible to be hate speech, just Owens' use of it in his advertisement.

I'm glad I live in a country with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In your country, a man may not publicly quote the Bible. Whoa! You live in a liberal humanist theocracy.

[Snowyman]

Like I said in post #11 check out your own hate laws. Some of your states have one, "sexual orientation" we don't even have yet. Pick a state and print the same page and see what happens. Change it from Bible verse to Koran verse and see what happens. Dare you..:)

[Blue Scourge]

Huh, I don't know quite as much about Canadian law as some, but it sounds alot like a violation of Freedom of speech. If the Canadians even have such a freedom.

[RansomOttawa]

I'm glad I live in a country with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Thank you. So am I.

In your country, a man may not publicly quote the Bible.

Where did I say that? I said that the quoting of the Bible was not the issue, it was the use to which the quoted Bible verses quoted were put.

I am perfectly free to use the word "fire" any time I wish - such as in this sentence. Should I use that word repeatedly, with a loud voice, in a crowded theatre, I will in all likelihood find myself surrounded by large, uniformed men with bad attitudes.

I don't particularly agree with Canadian hate-speech laws, and I don't appreciate the way that the provincial Human Rights commissions are effectively unelected legislators who can prosecute you without your having been charged with a crime (Hugh Owens was never charged under the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with hate speech).

But for you to say that in Canada "a man may not publicly quote the Bible," is neither directly relevant to the Hugh Owens case nor factual in any case. It is as simple as that.