LGBT News Ecuador preacher sentenced for homophobic comments

This man would be considered part of the mainstream right in the US. Can't believe my country, the self-declared leader of the free world, has been passed by a small, Third World country in South America on an issue of equality.

 

Wow, you can actually get charged for something like this? In the US it's called a party line. :lol:

 

Exactly.

 

While I don't entirely agree with how he was treated, it's still really kick-ass nonetheless.

 

I saw an article in the BBC about Mexico issuing fines against hate speech against LGBT people.

 

Sorry guys, but I don't agree with what went down at all. We expect them to accept us, treat us equally, etc. but their opinion is their opinion and we should respect it just like they should respect out decisions.

 

This is positive? I find it ironic how many gays will ask for more freedom to do what they want, but at the same time want to restrict the rights of others. It's hypocrisy. How about we recognize that not everybody likes us and deal with it instead of trying to punish everyone who expresses a viewpoint we disagree with?

 

I completely agree with this ruling. He knew the laws of the election and he broke them. He deserves the consequences as a result.

Would this still be your opinion if he was calling for homosexuals to be put to death? (Not trying to start an argument or make a point, just genuinely curious.)

 

...and many of your comments are where I get totally confused about Americans' view of "freedom". Hate speech against ANY group is illegal in most "first world" countries and a lot of others. In Canada, I have the right to say whatever I like AS LONG as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights. In the US a group like the Westboro Baptist Church can get away with openly protesting at funerals. Do you honestly prefer that?

While admittedly this was mild, he broke the stricter rules for a presidential candidate, and the consequences are fair.

 

Yes, I honestly prefer that. I'd argue that hate speech shouldn't be a crime anywhere, even speech that incites violence. If someone else decides to kill a black person because someone speaking publicly encouraged killing black people, the murderer and the murderer alone is to blame for being such an impressionable idiot. I'd even prefer for people to be able to legally use slurs in public. How does hate speech infringe upon someone else's rights? By making them feel bad? Damn their feelings, emotions don't matter. Being able to voice your opinion is more important than keeping people happy.

On top of that "hate speech" is just another tool to influence populations by dismissing certain opinions as inconsiderable and immoral.

 

Because the entire point of having Free Speech is to protect minority opinions and unpopular speech. Neither popular speech nor majority opinions need to be protected by virtue of the fact that they are both popular and the majority opinion.

The United States is a large and diverse nation with people from pretty much every culture on the planet. Look at other first world nations - particularly in Europe. Look at how they are failing to integrate immigrants and other cultures into their nations.

In particular, I'm thinking of the 2009 referendum in Switzerland which banned the construction of Mosque minarets - a direct assault against the growing Muslim community in Switzerland. I'm also thinking about the 2010 French ban on face coverings - which was directly targeted at Muslim women who chose to wear a niqab.

These things could have never happened in the United States thanks to the First Amendment to our Constitution. And freedom of speech doesn't just protect religious people, it protects us as well. Again and again people have tried to silence the LGBT community on the grounds that just talking about our issues was somehow "obscene" or "indecent" on moral grounds.

In fact, since you're from British Columbia, Canada - I'm wondering if you've heard of the Little Sister's Book and Art Emporium of Vancouver? It's a gay bookstore that has been repeatedly targeted by the Canada Border Services Agency over the importation of what the agency has labeled "obscene materials". Those so-called "obscene materials" are simply LGBT related books. Glad Day Bookshop, another LGBT bookstore located in Toronto, has faced similar difficulties.

It's easy to point to whack jobs like the Westboro Baptist Church and wonder why the United States has such a strong stance on Freedom of Speech. Yes, they are protected, but have you considered what crazy people like this would do if they didn't feel their voice was being heard? They'd likely become violent. What's more, every time they open their mouth, they turn people against their cause. By acting in such an extreme and vile way they repulse the majority of people, which is actually good for us. Additionally, every time he stands up to spout his bigoted nonsense, it's an opportunity for us to stand up and counter his message of hate.

Limiting speech is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in practice is always directed at minority groups or those who challenge the prevailing point of view. Yes, it means that we sometimes have to deal with the occasional ass hat, but it's worth it if it means that we also can speak without being silenced. (For an example to how people would like to silence us, I'd point to the Tennessee "Don't Say Gay" bill. Such a bill is blatantly unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, and thus would be overturned by the courts should it ever pass.)

 

No, I haven't heard of this bookstore. I do know that it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so that's a job for the courts.

Let me ask you why the US has such a high violent crime rate if people being able to say whatever they like lowers their chances of violence? This is another of those things that leads to the States being described as still having a "wild west" mentality. People fight for the right to make all their own decisions, even to physically defend themselves, regardless of whether they're hurting anyone else in the process. The law is supposed to protect you, and it usually does a decent job of it.

Canada has as varied a population as the US (we used to be considered MORE multicultural, but I don't think that's true anymore) and the only place I've seen legal discrimination is in Quebec, which has shaky relations with the rest of the country--which interestingly is also an extremely religious province.

I have never doubted that I can say whatever I like, I simply must have the facts to back it up if my statements are contested. Hate speech has no facts behind it.

 

Yeah, Judgement day. Good for the Whereveradorian government (I am American, therefore I know no geography and Europe is all brits and commies) and these aggressively religious people need to shush.

 

Here is what Wikipedia has on the case which went before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would note here that Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for the government to ban obscene materials. The point in bringing this up is the following question: Who gets to determine what is and is not obscene, and why do they get to decide for the rest of society?

The high violent crime rate in the United States has virtually nothing to do with the First Amendment. It has to do with gang violence, drug related crimes, and conditions created by extreme economic inequality. So, the high rate of violent crime in the United States has very little to do with the discussion.

When I brought up violence, I was talking specifically about crazy folks such as the WBC. In all likelihood, if they couldn't get their voice heard any other way, they'd likely turn to violence. That's what religious wacko's like that do.

You're missing the point. It's not about whether -YOU- can say whatever you like. If you hold popular opinions, as I'm sure you do, then why is there a need to silence you? Free speech has nothing to do with an individual person, or even a group, it's about what you value as a society. In the United States we value peoples right to stand up and say widely unpopular things, yes - often, even widely offensive things. Things that are unpopular are often offensive.

Who gets to determine what is said is hate speech or what is said is obscene? Imagine that I'm an atheist artist whose attempting to make a political statement against the Catholic Church. I could paint an offensive cartoon portraying the new Pope using a crucifix dildo on the Virgin Mary, and include with it a caption, "At least he's not touching little boys." Would that be considered obscene? Would it be considered hate speech against the Catholic Church and Christians in general? What would happen if I decided to draw a picture of Mohammad? Where is the line drawn in the sand, and who gets to determine if I cross the line?

Having "facts" to back things up isn't necessary when you're talking about opinions.

Just as a side mention, if you believe art and the like can't be banned, then I'd encourage you to talk to the ice cream maker Antonio Federici. In 2010 they had their "Ice Cream Is Our Religion" campaign in the UK. Below are some of the images they were using.



These ads were banned by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA used the following justification: "it mocks the virgin birth of Jesus and the beliefs of Roman Catholics."

This is why the First Amendment is important. It exists explicitly to protect unpopular speech and opinions. So, by their very nature these opinions and views are likely to offend the majority of people.

Talking about gay people publicly once offended the majority of people - they would have considered it obscene. Culture and society changes; often as a result of once unpopular ideas becoming popular. Quite frankly, I don't think we'd be able to advance LGBT rights in the United States without the protection of the First Amendment.

 

we need really that in america.

---------- Post added 14th Mar 2013 at 06:04 PM ----------

and all of you that are complaining about his right to "free speech": sorry, but those are ecuador's rules. they were already in place. he should have known what the electoral code states as a running politician. i have no sympathy for someone who disregarded the rules.

 

Yes, we're all aware these are ecuador's laws. That doesn't mean they're justified laws or that this is a good thing. And what about people who openly display homosexuality in countries where it's illegal? Do you have any sympathy for them? What about people who publicly support homosexuality in countries where doing so is illegal? Should people just get over the injustice because the country forbids these things?

 

The problem I have with this statement is that it assumes that just because there is a rule about something that it deserves to be obeyed. By the logic you present here, every act of civil disobedience engaged in deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Consider Rosa Parks. She knew she wasn't allowed to sit in the front of the bus. It was a rule. She did it anyway. Should we have denied her sympathy because she decided to disregard the rule? If not, then why not?

 

They must have an opinion, like all of us.. but they shouldn't try to show it for kids as if they were right, instead of a point of view...

 

I'm from Ecuador, and in my own POV, the court's decision was appropiate. There were many other candidates in my country's elections who were openly opposed to homosexual marriage, but their speeches never adressed such issue the way Nelson Zavala did. Zavala said that homosexuality is an illness which is destroying families and their principles, and it should be cured or treated. I think it is highly dangerous to let such ideas spread in a very prejudiced country like mine, especially in a political level, which has a massive persuasive effect (doesn't matter if was the biggest loser, homophobic ideas always touches people's deepest feelings in Ecuador). Besides, unlike other countries, LGBTI people in Ecuador are way, but I mean WAY underrepresented. LGBTI activism in Ecuador is very poor compared to other countries' activism. LGBTI people themselves are very ignorant and homophobic themselves. I really think that law is needed on times like this. I don't know if this means I don't support freedom of speech the way other countries do, but I do think that freedom comes with an ulterior responsibility which must be guaranteed on a juridical level.

In Ecuador, when there's a clash on such fundamental rights (freedom of speech and no discrimination), the court decides on an organic law for jurisdictional guarantees and constitutional control. The 3rd article says that laws should be interpreted based on a principle of proportionality. This means that the court's decision should protect a constitutionally valid end, which is to protect people from discrimination. The decision should also be efficient and create an equilibrium between constitutional protection and restriction. In other words, the court's decision should not eliminate the right to freedom of speech while at the same time it must defend the right to not be discriminated. Basically, the law allows both rights as long as none prevails over the other.