CANADA: College Professor Fired After Saying “Queers Should Be Hanged”

CBC News reports:

An Ontario college announced one of its professors “is no longer an employee” at the school after he allegedly posted a homophobic comment on Facebook. St. Lawrence College said it had received a complaint about the recent comment that business professor Rick Coupland allegedly posted on Facebook. Spokeswoman Kelly Wiley called the comment “deeply concerning.” “As a result of complaints about comments made on social media that were brought forward to the College, this matter was investigated internally. Mr. Coupland is no longer an employee at St. Lawrence College,” the school tweeted on Tuesday. Screenshots of an alleged post by Coupland circulating on social media purport to show him sharing a link to a story about a rainbow flag being raised in St. Petersburg, Fla., accompanied with the comment, “It’s the queers they should be hanging, not the flag.”

Coupland’s Facebook page has been deleted.

  • BearEyes

    and a new martyr is hatched.

    • crewman

      Although I am guessing he won’t be a celebrity in the martyr speech circuit because advocating murder doesn’t play into the narrative that anti-gay bigots are poor, oppressed victims.

    • douglas

      He won’t be a martyr here in Canada. Most people here applaud St. Lawrence College for doing this.

    • MarkOH

      So, he advocated MURDER, Ms. Tur only suggested injury (to a pompous little twit) but they were pointing their steely fingers about intolerance. What will they say about this guy? Oh, that’s right, religious persecution by the gaystapo

      • BobSF_94117

        Tur put hands on another person and threatened physical harm. Why are we defending that sort of thing? If the tables were turned, we’d be screaming bloody murder.

        • MarkOH

          She laid her hand on his shoulder. Why are you blowing it up into something it isn’t?

          • BobSF_94117

            Excuse me. Tur put hand on another person.

            I’m not blowing it up into anything but what it is: entirely unacceptable behavior in the circumstances.

          • MarkOH

            PUH-LEASE. Unacceptable behavior? So, now noone can ever touch another person? Is a hand shake unacceptable? I guess I come from a different generation where things were a bit more polite and people didn’t go all bat shit crazy over nothing.

          • BobSF_94117

            I believe we come from the same generation… one in which people didn’t put their hand(s) on each other and threaten violence during a “debate”. Granted, the cage-match attitude of today’s “journalism” encourages that sort of thing, but one was once expected to control oneself, no?

            Personally, I much prefer the pre-Jerry-Springer world in which mere words would leave the opponent sputtering in rage, as Vidal did to Buckley. A baboon can throw a chair or grab a neck.

          • MarkOH

            Sigh, sorry. I see it as you are blowing up a non-issue into something, very typical of our current victimization oriented society.

            So you are calling Ms. Tur a baboon now?

          • BobSF_94117

            Of course not. She is a human being. My point is human beings have rules (so do baboons, of course, but that’s another matter). One of those rules is that you don’t put your hands on a debate opponent and threaten him/her.

            Would you have been AOK if the positions had been reversed? Of course not.

          • MarkOH

            “Would you have been AOK if the positions had been reversed?”
            If Ben Shapiro had put his hands on her shoulder, I would have been fine with that. But then, I’m not against people touching each other.

          • BobSF_94117

            And the threat about the parking lot?

          • MarkOH

            Ah, but that did not involve “hands on” now did it?

          • Bad Tom

            This what assault and battery looks like. Tur didn’t do anything remotely like it. The fact that she might be prosecuted for a mere touch does show how fucked up our laws are.

          • BobSF_94117

            I didn’t say nobody was blowing it up into something it wasn’t. I didn’t call it assault. I didn’t call it battery.

            Tur, in addition to making the mistake of getting physical, made the mistake of getting physical with a cowardly ass-hat.

        • ultragreen

          I agree with you. Tur’s behavior was too aggressive. It was not appropriate for a civilized public debate.

          • Nelson Kerr

            If it was a cilized debate the Moderator would have thrown Shapiro out of the room before Tur said a word to him.

      • douglas

        They won’t say anything about it obviously because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

  • MBear

    sorry bubba – you’re in Canada – no trailer park lottery for you!

  • Bluto

    So which one of you is persecuting the nice christian man?

    • Christopher

      It was me! And I’ll gladly do it all over again!

      Martyr McCheese Sammiches for everyone!

  • Ninja0980

    As he should have been.
    This man out and out called for violence against us, no way he should keep his job.
    And let’s face it, if this was about any other group, there wouldn’t even be a discussion if he should be fired or not.
    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    • Reality.Bites

      In some circles there would be. Nor is there any discussion about it here, except from our ardent defender of “free speech” who has proven time and time again he doesn’t have the most minute understanding of the concept

      • Peter Wde

        The US constitution is in full effect 24/7 throughout all US public univerities and here his speech is protected by the FA making firing him a civil rights violation.

        Hate speech = protected speech.

    • I’m not sure that the facebook post in question was an actual call to violence. More like a preference. (Not a nice preference, but not the same as “I have a rope handy, let’s go meet up downtown and string up some gay people.”

  • shellback

    “please pray for me and my job”
    You reap what you sow.

    • Michael Rush

      the lord worked in mysterious ways on that one .

      • Sporkfighter

        “God answers all prayers … sometimes the answer is ‘no’.”

        • Snarkaholic

          And sometimes the answer is, “Shut the fuck up…before you actually manage to incite violence!”

    • crewman

      Maybe everyone who read that prayed he’d be fired for saying something so offensive.

      • oikos

        OT-great avatar pic! Woof.

      • Lindoro Almaviva

        > OT-great avatar pic!

        as in, where did you get it, we want one

        • crewman

          Thank you…. Photoshop

    • LovesIrony

      I prayed for him to lose his job, my prayers were answered. Now I’m praying the postman’s pants fall off…he’s gorgeous.

      • RoFaWh

        Well, look, if you are determined to ogle a postman’s unclad nether regions, at least make sure he’s properly garbed for the occasion.

        No dreary, gray, horrible botton baggybriefs. The minimum acceptable is a pair of the currently fashionable assless briefs. (Or should I say maximum? I’m’ confused.) The approval rating rises as you proceed from there through low cut transparent briefs, thongs, and jockstraps, finally arriving at the long-awaited destination, a g-string.

        If he goes commando, Gregg Homme used to have a line under that name that might be an acceptable substitute. You can still buy this from various end-of-run sites.

        • Sk3ptic

          Mmmm. Donuts….er, those nuts!

      • BlueberriesForMe

        “Special Delivery – I’m on my lunch hour.”

      • Lindoro Almaviva

        I had my first time 20 years ago with the mailman. But I can not talk about that. I made a promise

        • John30013

          How about if you change names to protect the guilty?

    • Gerry Fisher

      “Pray that I can advocate mass murder and still keep my job.”

      • Reality.Bites

        Poor little bastard. Little did he ever imagine that another_steve would be the answer to his prayers.

    • Sk3ptic

      I did pray and I got what I wanted.
      Actually it was more like “had a thought process” than prayer, but I like the sound bite better!

  • Michael Rush

    give Rick Coupland enough rope and he’ll hang himself .

  • Maybe he might want to backtrack by suggesting he meant “hung” as in “well-endowed” in the manly bits area, as opposed to “hanged.” it seems to me to be a prof who didn’t stop to engage his brain before posting.

    • Gustav2

      Facebook comments are like what you used to hear at the corner bar, except they last forever and everyone can see them.

      At the corner bar they were forgotten the next morning.

      • Tor

        Never FaceBook or Tweet while drinking…..

      • I guess this is a lesson that the professor in question has learned the hard way.

        Personally, if the college had asked for my advice, I’d have suggested dealing with something like this facebook post or tweet with suggesting the prof apologize and take a sensitivity class (as well as warning against future intemperate commenting). Unless the prof already has had a history of intemperate commenting, I’d think firing is a bit more drastic than, say, a warning or a suspension.

        • ultragreen

          This happened in Canada, not the United States. There are stronger anti-hate speech laws in Canada. The university in Canada has an obligation to abide by Canadian laws, especially when one considers, if I’m not mistaken, that people can be criminally prosecuted for issuing such statements.

          • You are so right – and JMG did have “CANADA” right there in the hed in big capital letters. Thanks.

  • another_steve

    It’s horrible and reprehensible speech, of course — but I don’t like it when people are punished for speaking unpopular speech.

    Had he said something like “Everyone reading here: Go out and hang a queer,” I’d feel differently about it. But to punish someone for thinking something (speech being an extension of thought)…hmm…that makes me feel queasy.

    • Reality.Bites

      You’re a fucking idiot.

      As always.

      No employer should be forced to employ such a disgusting person and have themselves associated with such filth.

      (Which also applies to employing you)

      • fastlanestranger

        You seem kind.

    • Cousin Bleh

      If you can see enough of a difference between “they should be hanging queers” and “go out and hang a queer” to come to the defense of a bigot, then you’re a special kind of snowflake.

      • Gerry Fisher

        Aw, c’mon! That hair was split with expert precision!!!

    • seant426

      That’s not “unpopular speech,” Steve, that’s hate speech. There are repercussions for it, personally and professionally.

      • another_steve

        Well Sean, you and I consider it hate speech, certainly.

        When I am declared King (or Queen, for that matter) of the Universe, there will be no punishment for thinking and speaking nasty things. There will be punishment for doing nasty things (a call to action to hang this or that group of people is a nasty and punishable act), but not for thinking or speaking nasty or unpopular-according-to-who’s-in-charge things.

        I refer all readers here to the classic exploration of this: George Orwell’s 1949 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

        • LovesIrony

          I’d fire your hate supporting ass in a flash

          • another_steve

            I like to think that means you’d insert a warm (but not too hot) poker up my ass, LovesIrony.

            At my age, any act of tenderness is much appreciated.

          • LovesIrony

            you would be wrong on that too.

          • Schlukitz

            Like all good Christian ass-kissers, another steve will twist your words to suit his agenda and make his point.

            He does, after all, have a wonderful Christian mentor in the form of a significant other.

        • seant426

          His employer had no recourse. I would imagine most students would not bother taking any of his classes as a means of protest for his grotesque way of thinking.

          • another_steve

            Bingo. And that’s precisely how I’d have preferred this episode to have played out.

            Students of conscience publicize this monster’s hateful thoughts. Students of conscience decide that they will not enroll in this monster’s classes. The monster’s revenue stream dries up, and he goes elsewhere.

            This is the way a free market of ideas works.

        • Schlukitz

          There is a clear distinction between thinking nasty things and speaking nasty things.

          With your head so far up your hubby’s Christian ass, however, I would never expect you to be able to discern the difference.

      • Gerry Fisher

        He was free to say it. His employer was free to base actions on it. You gotta love freedom!

      • RoFaWh

        Coupland may be facing charges under Canada’s hate speech laws.

        Probably not, however, as the few times such charges have been brought, the offense has been repeated over a long period. A little spasm of hatred on Facebook may very well not be considered worth pursuing by the Crown.

    • Joe in PA

      really? I don’t see much difference myself. But more to the point, he wasn’t ‘punished’, yeah he lost his job, but he didn’t go to jail or suffer a fine…he was told to go away.

    • douglas

      He had free speech. So did his employer and they also exercised their right.

      • another_steve

        The guy was wrong for articulating hate in a public forum.

        The school was wrong for firing him.

        • Anon

          It depends on the terms of his contract. I worked (briefly) as a Teaching Assistant at a similar type of college in Toronto. My contract clearly stated that if I did/said anything that might cause damage to the college’s reputation, the college would have the right to fire me. Which doesn’t mean they would, it just means they could.

        • Schlukitz

          So, you believe that the homophobic professor has rights…while the college that fired him doesn’t???

          That an openly gay person can defend and support a clear call for genocide against the LGBT community, is not only mind-blggling, but deeply offensive.

          You are no better than the other scum of the earth who regularly call for the death of queers.

          You disgust me, Sir.

        • Douglas

          Sorry dude but this is Canada and that is hate speech. It’s against the law and as such they were entirely correct in firing him. Perhaps he can go teach at Liberty university. We can sign you up for his fan club.

          • another_steve

            Sorrow and sadness for my wonderful Canadian sisters and brothers, whose country has seen fit to legislate thought.

            Sorrow and sadness.

          • LovesIrony

            if he only thought that gays should be hung he’d still have his job. If you only thought people should get away with calling for gays to be hung without repercussions I wouldn’t think you are a self loathing patsy that lets bullies kick sand in your face while you say thank you.

          • Peter Wde

            Fully agree with you here Steve. I’m very saddened that Canada has seen fit to legislate such authoritarian and sinister laws.

          • Nelson Kerr

            Making it illegal to advocate mass murder is a bad idea?

          • Peter Wde

            Yes

          • Nelson Kerr

            Not thought, but words and actions

        • Nelson Kerr

          Do you let a nutcase who advocates murder teach? He advocated the murder of some of those students publicly

          • another_steve

            I acknowledge that there’s sometimes a fine line between pure speech and a call to action.

            If I say “I hate X people,” that’s pure speech and as such inviolate and untouchable by society. Or at least should be, in my opinion.

            If on the other hand I say “Let’s go get us some X people now and teach them a lesson,” that’s a call to criminal action and the purview of government. Again, in my opinion.

            “It’s the queers they should be hanging, not the flag” doesn’t come across to me as a call to action, but I can see how others might view it differently.

          • Peter Wde

            His FB posting was clearly hyperbolic in nature. There was zero evidence of actual intent.

          • another_steve

            That’s how I read it too, Peter.

            We (civilized society) must not censor — through hate crime laws (a de facto censoring of one’s thoughts), firings, refusal to post certain billboards based on content, etc. — speech solely on the basis that the speech is heinous and reprehensible.

            To do so prepares a path that civilized people should not want to go down.

          • Peter Wde

            Totally agree with you Steve and I think history provides ample evidence for our position here. Let his immediate social circle acquaint him with their opinion of his actions, which I’m sure they’re doing.

          • another_steve

            Exactly.

            I view this stuff in terms of a “marketplace of ideas.” You bring an idea, a thought (speech being an extension of thought) to the marketplace and the marketplace adjudicates it.

            As I suggested in another comment, the way I would have liked to have seen this current incident play out is that the students of this school hand out leaflets showing what this neanderthal said on Facebook. Stand there on campus with a bullhorn and denounce him for his homophobic comments. Make it such that no student in her/his right mind would ever choose to enroll in one of this guy’s classes.

            Fight heinous speech with more speech, not by suppressing speech.

            Always — more speech, not less.

          • Nelson Kerr

            We just see it differently, It may or may not be a direct call to violence, tht is arguable. But the pathology behind it makes it unsafe for him to be around potential victims while in a position of even marginal power.

            Freedom of association comes into play also as we don’t want to associate with scum like that.

    • zhera

      It was not the government who punished him, it was the college. The college is free to have their set of rules about conduct, for students AND teachers.

      Your obsession with free speech is curious, considering how you are part of a minority which is constantly discriminated and hated.

      • BobSF_94117

        It’s a public university. At least in the U.S., that would make it “the govt”.

        • Gerry Fisher

          Hmmmm…there might be a legal distinction that says otherwise. Not sure.

          “The government did not fine you or put you in jail.”

          • Peter Wde

            BobSF_94117 is correct.

        • Schlukitz

          Would you mind explaining that, please?

          • BobSF_94117

            The university is a branch of the Ontario government. If it were a state university in the U.S., free-speech law would apply, as the state is the government and the government cannot restrict speech as a private employer might.

          • Schlukitz

            Links, please?

          • Peter Wde

            Correct, here in the US it’s protected speech and a public university could not fire him. Check out the ample case history of cases such as this at FIRE:

            https://www.thefire.org/

      • another_steve

        Dear, it is precisely oppressed people who need to be obsessed with the right to think and speak as one chooses.

        • zhera

          Put that way, I will agree. The thing here is that I see a difference between hate speech and free speech, while you don’t.

          We’ve had this discussion before (you’ve had it with MANY) and it won’t lead anywhere. You’ll never change you mind on this and neither will I.

          • Schlukitz

            “You’ll never change you mind on this.”

            All the more reason why none of us should waste our breaths arguing with another steve.

            “Never argue with a fool onlookers may not be able to tell the difference” – Mark Twain

          • Peter Wde

            Why imply another_steve is a fool?

            He’s always gracious and respectful when replying to others, even when I’ve strenuously disagreed with him.

        • Peter Wde

          Precisely Steve, you get it.

      • Reality.Bites

        Those rules must still conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Act, even if the university was private.

        • zhera

          Of course!

      • Schlukitz

        St. Lawrence Colege is a Christian university.

        Another steve’s husband is a Christian.

        Throughout the history of this site, another steve has always, without excetion, defended all things Christian…whether they were right or wrong.

        Need more be said?

        Edit: Anon kindly corrected my comment about St. Lawrence being a Christian university.

        The rest of what I said still stands, however.

        • Anon

          I am pretty sure St Larrys (as the Kingston campus was called) is not Christian. It refers to the river – College Saint Laurent/Saint Lawrence College.

          • Schlukitz

            Since a Google search produced no links that would indicate a religious affiliation, it appears that you are correct. I should have done this search before flapping my gums.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_College,_Ontario

            I made an erroneous assumption that the “St.” before the name indicated that it was a Christian college. I am certain that you are familiar with the old adage about making assumptions. 🙂

            Thank you for correcting me.

          • Anon

            I just happen to know that area well. And you would have to be from around these parts to know about the Mighty Saint Lawrence. It has been celebrated in songs, paintings, novels, a tv show and a couple of films by Jacques Cousteau.
            ; )

          • Schlukitz

            I hail from upstate New York (Albany area), so I am familiar with the Saint Lawrence River.

          • agcons

            N/M my previous reply to you.

          • agcons

            If you search Google Maps for Rimouski, QC, then go to street view along the waterfront, turn the camera towards the water. That’s the St. Lawrence River.

            I’m from a province (BC) that has numerous deep and fast-moving rivers, heartily respected by all but the very foolish, and the St. Lawrence impresses the hell out of me. It should; it drains the Great Lakes.

          • Schlukitz

            I have nothing but the greatest of respect for any deep, fast moving river.

            My mama didn’t raise any fools for sons. Hee hee

    • Soren456

      He made himself a liability within the college.

      His words could be used against him in court if ever he were involved in a discrimination case against the college.

      That’s how it would work in the US. I assume that Canada is roughly similar in that matter.

    • Gerry Fisher

      We’ll agree to disagree. I mean, the only difference in the US is that we don’t have laws against that kind of speech, allowing each individual employer to decide if they want to be associated with someone who spews that stuff into the public square.

      • another_steve

        Yes, and I assume the school was within its legal rights to fire him.

        Personally, I’m more interested in the question “Should a school fire someone for speaking reprehensible speech” than I am with the question “Does the law condone the firing of someone who speaks reprehensible speech.”

        • Soren456

          See just above.

          Answer to your question: YES, a school/agency/business should fire an employee whose behavior can be used against the entity.

          A school has a right and—more important—a genuine obligation to protect itself against liability.

          This man, who has authority at least in his classes and among his grad students, took the trouble to express his animus toward a protected group. He destroyed any rebuttal he might be required to give against a future discrimination charge—and not just gay, but ANY protected class.

          He made himself a liability, and the school tossed him.

          QED. The End.

          • another_steve

            I respect that analysis, Soren.

            When evaluating and thinking about this stuff, I like to tackle it from “what’s the right/moral/ethical way to proceed,” rather than from “what’s the legally justified/practical way to proceed.”

            Just me, perhaps — that preference. Others see it differently.

            (Thank you for engaging me in this as thoughtfully as you have.)

      • Reality.Bites

        What he said is unlikely to be a violation of the hate speech law. There is no chance of a prosecution going forward.

        Nor would any employer be required to fire someone for violating a criminal law without so much as an arrest.

    • Toasterlad

      Welcome to 2015. People need to realize that social media is not the same thing as sitting in the backyard having a beer with your friends.

      I have no doubt I know lots of perfectly lovely people who, in the privacy of the own homes, hate gay people. Who think nothing of sharing a laugh with me at work, and making gay jokes when they get together with their buddies. Being bigot doesn’t in and of itself make you a bad person; it means your ignorant. Likewise, sharing those thoughts with others doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person. But the world doesn’t know you. They don’t know if your ignorance and bigotry is only skin-deep, or if it goes right to the bone. They’re going to judge you by what you say, which is all they have to judge you. And employers are going to take a dim view of their employees receiving negatives judgment by the rest of the world.

      It might not be fair, but it’s the reality of life on social media. There are plenty of things I’ve written, which, taken out of context, could possibly be used to get me fired (one of the reasons I’m not friends with anyone I work with on Facebook). I think the same is true for most people. If you’re just going to write blatantly hateful things online, though…you need to expect consequences.

      • another_steve

        “If you’re just going to write blatantly hateful things online, though…you need to expect consequences.”

        I agree.

        The question, for me at least, is what those consequences should be.

        • Toasterlad

          I would actually agree with you that people shouldn’t be fired for an isolated remark on Facebook. However, I’m not going to lose sleep over a man in a position to teach young people being fired for posting an anti-gay hate message on Facebook.

          More importantly, it doesn’t matter what you and I think. This is the way the world is now. The only way to insulate yourself from unsavory – possibly excessive – consequences based on remarks you make on social media…is not to make remarks on social media.

    • Nelson Kerr

      He got punished for advocating murder not unpopular s speech. He committed a crime,

      • Peter Wde

        Yes, a thought crime.

  • fastlanestranger

    LOL “please pray for me and my job”

    • Gustav2

      Gee, it’s almost like he heard a prophecy or something.

    • carrot festival

      Didn’t work. Wonder why.

      • zhera

        From what I understand, God answers all prayers. It’s just that sometimes the answer is ‘no’. 😀

        • David Walker

          Ah. You knew my mother. That’s what she’d say.

      • bambinoitaliano

        In Canada. In God we pass.

    • D. J.

      He didn’t get any likes on that comment.
      If one believes prayer works, there is no guarantee one will be pleased with the answer.

      • douglas

        It’s because Jesus don’t live in Canada like in Trailer Park, USA.

        • Snarkaholic

          If Jesus does live in T.P., then why does the pink plastic flamingo in the trailer’s front yard still only have ONE (rusted) leg?
          Oh, yeah…because He never heals the amputees!

  • Dreaming Vertebrate

    Awesome! Another bigot spontaneously combusts.
    Bye Felicia.

  • Ian

    On a similar note, I believe queers should be hung!

    • TerryInIowa

      Through my ongoing research, I find that many are!

      • Ian

        Praise Jeebus! Halleluyah!

    • Jeffrey

      Haha, let it be so!

    • Dreaming Vertebrate

      Those sound like sincere & deeply held beliefs.

      • chrisinphx

        very deeply

    • Male ones.

      • B Snow

        Hee. What is the equivalent of “hung” for women? Actually, let’s not go there. 😛

        • Shy Guy

          Stacked?

          • Snarkaholic

            Well-endowed, with massive chesticles.

    • Schlukitz

      I see what you did there.

    • CottonBlimp

      I think sodomites should be stoned.

      (It really loosens you up!)

      • Snarkaholic

        Luke 17:35 (KJV) (Rapture story)
        Two women will be grinding together…
        …one shall be taken, and the other left.

  • Charlie

    Hopefully this will get him into rehab. They not only need interlocks on cars to keep people from driving when drunk, they need them on computers too.

  • Cousin Bleh

    It always amazes (and delights) me when bigots post hateful comments and they’ve listed their employer on Facebook. There’s even a Tumblr for this, though someone really should start the homophobe version…

    http://racistsgettingfired.tumblr.com/

  • Bill

    Go Fund an advocate for murder now, christians!!! RUN!!!

    • Schlukitz

      I know.

      The sun “allegedly” rose this morning. *sigh*

  • zhera

    “…after he allegedly posted a homophobic comment on Facebook.”

    Allegedly?

    Good for the college! This is how it should be done.

  • TexPlant

    how does he think this comment is appropriate. If said about any group of people it would be cause for termination.

    • David Walker

      He thought was all right, if not appropriate, because everyone knows that only one’s friends read what you have to say on FB…and all one’s friends, of course, share those sentiments. Lord.

  • Dreaming Vertebrate

    What business does a business professor have posting such vicious hate speech? What parent would want their college kid in his classroom? Glad the vile little Christoid is out a paycheck.

    • Sporkfighter

      “What parent would want their college kid in his classroom?”

      What’s the enrollment at Liberty University?

    • Schlukitz

      The number of parents that do would probably shock you.

  • Joe in PA

    I’m not a grammar hound (clearly) but he said he was called ‘into work’…shouldn’t it be called ‘in to work’?

  • Inciting violence is not free speech.

    • Jeffrey

      I’m not sure how it works in Canada, I’m sure they have something similar to our first amendment. However, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. He wasn’t arrested for his speech, just fired. But you’re right, incititing violence is not freedom of speech.

      • Andrea_Rae

        Actually Canada does have laws about inciting violence against a group of individuals. He may be talking to the mounties before he is done. . . . .

        • Reality.Bites

          The mounties? Really?

          Sure, and if you drive your car over the speed limit in the United States the FBI pays you a visit.

          • Andrea_Rae

            Never could figure out why peeps on the interweb have the uncontrollable desire to be dicks……

          • Stev84
          • Prixator

            Don’t be rude. The RCMP are the local police for many areas in Canada.

          • Friday

            Yeah, it doesn’t quite work that way up there: the RCMP also do a lot of the stuff that Stateys or county authorities do here as well. But in the US, yes, state and Federal authorities and resources *can* be called in on civil rights violations, that’s why the haters down here oppose hate crimes laws of any kind. Many local departments either don’t have or don’t want the ability to properly investigate/build a case on these things. (Not a problem you hear about in a lot of big blue-state cities, but even they can call on FBI stuff at need. The *real* thing is if something comes down in a small town and there aren’t federal or state laws to actually find out the story and evidence, even if your little local police department want the help. )

      • bambinoitaliano

        Yup we do not have carte blanche when it comes to free speech.
        In May 2004, the House of Commons and the Senate passed Bill C-250,
        which added “sexual orientation” to the “hate propaganda” section of the
        Criminal Code, thus making it illegal for people to propagate hate based on sexual orientation. This did not include clergymen however.

        • David Walker

          Well, THAT’s shocking, isn’t it?

          • bambinoitaliano

            It was quite controversy then with the religious leaders spinning all kinds of definition on sexual orientation. The clergymen are not immune from this law 100%. If the officer of the law has ground to believe they meant harm to the LBGT community, they are still subjected to prosecution.

          • David Walker

            I suspected there had to be a provision. Canada is so un-American. I admire that.

      • FuBear

        Its the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Essentially it says that you can pretty much say anything that you want to you can even say bad things about someone, but you can not disparage a group.
        Its why all those “Straight Pride” parade fail.
        Sure you can have a straight pride parade, sure you can talk about how great being hetero is…as soon as it goes into “Straight is good and gays are gonna burn”, that’s where they shut you down.
        Unfortunately people that organize such events can’t keep themselves from inserting foot in anus, or mouth, when it comes to disparaging gay people.
        They really don’t have anything but to put down gay people to make them feel better about the closeted decisions they made 🙂
        So if this teacher (How do you teach when you are so stupid is beyond me), had said something like INSERT INDIVIDUAL needs to be hung for his taste in clothing/hair/ fingernail length. Its a pass.
        Saying they need to be hung for being gay/straight/bi/trans/black/white/red/male/female..
        Thats when it gets shut down.

        This sort of goes back to what my dear grandmum always said..if you don’t have anything nice to say…don’t say it.

        A lot of Americans don’t really get that.

    • Canadian Observer

      Glad to see the asshat handed his hat and sent away – but I think he will probably avoid facing criminal charges under the hate speech provisions of the criminal code – the way his comment is worded it skirts with, but does not cross the line, of inciting action. At the same time, it gets close enough that he has zero chance of claiming wrongful dismissal and it would be almost impossible for him to even qualify for an EI (unemployment benefit) claim… he would be ineligible on the grounds of having been terminated for just cause. All around a pretty good result. I doubt even the “free speech” pearl clutchers will be rallying around him.

      • bambinoitaliano

        Yes beside the National hate speech law, the Ontario Human Rights Code has one of the most comprehensive coverage when it comes to protecting the human rights in the province of Ontario. All institutions and corporations have to operate according to it’s guideline.

      • Friday

        Yeah, in the US we accept a *lot* of latitude there, to a fault, really, and one that the Christian Right exploit all the time…

        But I presume the bastards that there are up there have also found just how to get their hate across without it being prosecuteable.

        • Snarkaholic

          Did he attend the Worstboro Craptist Church’s School of Elocution?

  • Queequeg

    He should be fired. Smart enough to be a professor but dumb enough to post hate speech on Facebook.

  • bambinoitaliano

    I’m just glad we have hate speech and hate crime law in Canada. This kind of bullshit will not be tolerated. Most institutions and corporations usually have zero tolerance policy in place. We do not need to challenge such frivolous matter in the court.

    • Peter Wde

      I’m just glad we don’t have such authoritarion and creepy laws here in the US where we truly uphold freedom of expression.

      • bambinoitaliano

        We can debate about the differences of our laws in both countries. We can agree or disagree. For example the right to bear arms. To take your example of creepy law, I found this article yesterday. http://gawker.com/cops-find-more-than-1-200-guns-in-home-of-man-discovere-1719377393. To me a single person can do that legally that’s creepy. Can you cite an example that happened in Canada that deem our hate speech law as creepy?

        • Peter Wde

          It’s sad that you regard property rights and the right to own and bear arms as creepy. Luckily we have a 2A.

          As for creepy, sinister Canadian laws that bully and fine others merely for expressing unpopular opinions see:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

          All such statutes and laws listed there are forbidden here in the US by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  • Dreaming Vertebrate

    Hoisted and hung by his own petard. Perfect!

  • Blake Jordan

    Is he BFFs with the psycho pushing “The Sodomy Supression Act” in California?

  • tomfromthenews

    I like this: “No Likes Yet”.

  • Consul51

    Why do these bigots never consider to think really hard before posting a horrible comment on social media? He can believe all he wants, but he should have kept his comment to himself. I am sure Canada has laws about hate speech just like Great Britain to protect everyone from those awful assholes who believe in this type of stuff. This teacher was an idiot to say that all gays should be hanged instead of a flag. He got what he deserve, and may be he will think twice before posting another hateful comment. I am not sure any school would want to hire him after what he did on Facebook. He sure has screwed up his life for a long to come.

    • Ben in Oakland

      He obviously didn’t think even once. why would he think twice?

  • KQCA

    But…..but….. but isn’t it okay….. because he’s a Christian?

    I had to laugh at the Twitter post.. “Please pray for me and my job…”…followed by …”No likes yet.”

    • Dreaming Vertebrate

      No, Christoids are not racing to his defense, because every good Christoid knows the proper “biblical punishment” is stoning. It’s in their “good” book.

    • Bill

      For the LIFE of me, I have to ask “WHY” do these IDIOTS, post such stupid comments of their whatever Facebook and other sources. They are going to get caught certainly with consequences.
      I REALLY do not UNDERSTAND………..
      There must be some logic, that totally alludes me.

      • Todd20036

        When you are home, in front of your computer it can be really to think that what you are typing is private, or at least read only by like minded souls

        No sympathy though. Even in the U.S. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of speech

        • Bill

          Thank you Todd, but with ALL the news about Hackers, NSA, and all whatever possible “government” watching our personal information. Personally, I really just don’t get it. When I post something on JMG, I take responsibility for my words, just as I do on my emails ( mostly send to friends ). But to “Post”,something such as what this person did………..I just don’t get it, even if it’s being sent “private or to like minded people”
          NOTHING is private anymore, and I really don’t believe I am paranoid.
          To your “like minded person” of whatever——-Idiotic remarks still gets through and Idiot “Statements” then get re-tracked.
          Thank goodness “I think”, for those with cell phones that capture, horrific, treatments to people. That’s a whole other story.

          • Schlukitz

            Thanks to technology, it is becomming harder and harder to cloak or hide one’s bigotry, hatred and need to harm others.

            And that is a good thing.

        • Prixator

          You must add “drunk and angry” somewhere in there.

          I cannot believe a college teacher, even a crappy one, would make such a provocative public post if they were sober and calm at the time.

          Especially after all of the other well publicized examples of people paying dearly for stupid postings.

          • Schlukitz

            There seems to be a growing movement in the United States for people to state their bigotry, racism, hatred and homophobia loudly and proudly.

            And Trump is just the man to lead them.

          • Prixator

            But, as of yet, we don’t have that “movement” in Canada (and, hopefully, never will).

            We’re nice, eh?

          • Schlukitz

            Thank goodness.

      • Schlukitz

        Perhaps it is their ingrained need to become martyrs?

        • brian

          Yet another example of the look at me syndrome that most religious people seem to have.

      • Adam Schmidt

        Because for a long time they could say these things without consequences. Instead people would laugh along with them and probably follow up with something worse. They don’t understand that this belief is now very much in the minority and is now considered bigoted.

        For another example, see Ted Cruz commiserate with the couple who feels devastated “to be called bigots”.

        http://www.towleroad.com/2015/07/ted-cruz-interviews-anti-gay-wedding-venue-owners-discriminated-gay-couple-video/

        To them it’s not bigotry at all. It’s good, and loving, and Christian to show us tough love so that we will give up our sin and get right with God.

    • JT

      Yes, it’s part of their “religious freedom”. They can incite violence against others and terrorist acts so long as they have the right religious beliefs.

      • Schlukitz

        And heaven help anyone who might conceivably make any comments against him that sound in the least threatning to his welfare and safety.

    • StSean

      People prayed. God’s answer was, “No more job for you!”

    • Emma Duncan

      Well, my prayers were answered, he’s out of a job.

  • BlueberriesForMe

    Mr. Coupland, thanks for revealing your deeply held beliefs – I assume they are deeply held RELIGIOUS beliefs with your reference to “praying for your job.” As I’m sure you know, “when one door closes, another opens”. I am going to pray that opening door bonked you into a pile of freshly made pig shit.

    • Schlukitz

      He was a pile of shit long before any doors might possibly bonk him.

  • Dreaming Vertebrate

    Are there any cached copies of his FB pages?
    Have any additional “gems” been found?

    • Schlukitz

      Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.

  • Randy

    Over and above the obvious, where are people’s heads when they use social media? If you don’t want millions of people to see it, including everyone you’ve ever known or hope to know, maybe you shouldn’t post it.

    • Schlukitz

      This idiot Professor is yet another example of people who believe in the right to freedom of speech, but totally ignore taking any responsibility for what they say.

  • Toasterlad

    This man was a COLLEGE PROFESSOR???

    Thank you, Canada, for proving that, despite appearances, you are not free of all the problems that plague the U.S.

    • gaymex

      Probably an international student…online with Liberty.

    • Prixator

      Well, in Canada, what are called “colleges” are a step below “universities”. They do not offer degree programs.

      But, still, it boggles my mind how he could have been employed in the first place. He must have hid his bigotry very well… until after a night of heavy drinking, where he just had to post something to FB!

      • Snarkaholic

        It’s like that interview for the retail job you didn’t want (but desperately needed at the time); when you told the interviewer how much you LOVE working with people.

  • Macbill

    Sucks to be a bigot.

  • DesertSun59

    Two things:

    Canada has a hate speech law, which, sadly, we do not have.

    And

    Search for his Grindr profile. You will most assuredly find it.

    • Dreaming Vertebrate

      “We have several policies that apply to the conduct of our employees,” college spokeswoman Kelly Wiley told the Kingston Whig-Standard when the investigation began. “This includes the fact that we adhere to the Ontario Human Rights Code; we also have harassment policies, a policy around outside activities of college employees, and our collective agreement.” The human rights code bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    • Peter Wde

      And thankfully we are more civilized here in the US.

      Three cheers for the FA.

  • Jeffrey

    How did that “pray for me and my job” thingie work out for you?

    • People4Humanity

      Prayer = hot air

  • TallBearNC

    What’s funny is that a lot of people are going to start screaming and yelling about this man’s “right to free speech” because they are too ignorant, and don’t even realize that this man lives in Canada. While Canada has freedom of speech laws somewhat similar to that of the United States, Canada as freedom of speech laws are much more strict than here in the United States. Canada actually has countrywide hate speech lawns. So if you get on Facebook and say things like that about gay people, black people etc. using hate speech you can lose your job, you can be fined, charged with a misdemeanor, etc. etc.

    I see people running around lately screaming about their free-speech rights are being trampled on in the United States just because gay people got same-sex marriage which actually has nothing to do with their free-speech rights. But at the same time, people in the United States do not realize just how good we get it compared to pretty much every other country out there in the world. I don’t think there’s any other country out there that gives its citizens as much freedom to speech as United States does. Plus, even in the United States “free speech” does not mean you get to say whatever you want to say without consequences as some states and local governments have hate speech laws already – which they can and act because the Constitution does not even address hate speeds laws whatsoever. Tbh, we need a hate speech amendment to our Constitution in the United States

    • Randy Ellicott

      First off, in the US this would not in any way be a violation of his first amendment rights, his employer found his actions to not fit the culture of their company, end of story. No government agency forced his silencing. Second of all, as much as i like the hypothetical idea of Hate Speech laws in so much as how they would pertain to anti-gay blowhards, its just not a good option. We made so much progress in the US so quickly precisely because we started engaging the community around us and people started to realize that we were not what the haters said, and the more they spouted it off the more people started realizing what was hate and what was fact. Aside from that, just who will define what is and is not hate speech, and where or when something is or is not acceptable? If you think a few minutes about that and imagine a group of your friends sitting around talking about this, do you think you can get 3 people to agree on all the hate speech? I doubt it, and really why, let people spout off, we learn from exposure not punishment. Punishment teaches us not to get caught, exposure teaches us why we are wrong.

      • Douglas

        Well Canada has very strong hate speech laws and we got to full equality much faster than America did. So rather than just accept hate as free speech to hurry things along as you are arguing I dare say our method worked better. And by FULL equality I mean everything. We have had equal rights protection in housing, employment and public accommodations since the 1980’s and full marriage and adoption rights since 2005. Gays have served openly in the military since the 90’s and no one here refused to issue marriage licenses or say “no cake for you”.

        • Prixator

          I agree with everything you said but, would like to add that there have been very few instances of hate speech laws being used to prosecute anyone.

          I really doubt that Coupland will face any criminal prosecution under hate crimes law. Loss of his job (and the disgrace that accompanies that) is punishment enough.

        • Randy Ellicott

          I understand what you are saying, and i was just stating that as an example how unfettered hate speech can lead to positive change. That said, the expansion of rights to gays can not be boiled down to Hate Speech laws, in either Country. Once you limit what a person can express you place limits on discourse. Sure it can make for a much more polite society, it can also lead to a police state, and a lack of investment in the culture.
          The fact that Canada is the way it is says a lot more about the citizens of Canada as a group and less about their laws. I may be stereo typing, and this story proves that Canadians are not a monolith, but on average in my experience, most Canadians are generally more polite, generally more interested in collaborative work, and generally more invested in their government than Americans. So while it may make sense to Canada to enact hate speech laws as they are upheld by a culture that nearly universally abhors rudeness and celebrates inclusiveness, it does not make sense in America where we pretty much sensationalize rudeness and celebrates individualism to a fault (dont get me wrong, those are the parts i like the best).
          Quite frankly the idea of limiting my ability to call Pat Robertson a bigoted, narcissistic, racist POS Christian strikes at what i feel is the soul of the constitution. And make no mistake, laws that limit speech in the way hate speech laws are designed can and will be used by many special interests groups from all sides for “good” and “evil”. Everyone should be aloud to say and think what they want to, that does not mean that their are no consequences for such speech, it just means that the government will not limit your speech. As a culture we decide what is acceptable and what is not and manage the “punishment” , whether it be the removal of income through boycott or firing, or increased social isolation. Once you give the government, or at least the US Government, a power to limit and drive discourse and ideas, you will give up the very essence of what a free society should be.
          Also, we have just two political parties of note, one is always in control to a certain extent and pushes as ruthlessly as possible to get their agenda completed. In a more parliamentary system, or coalition building system with multiple parties, the parties in control have to work with the different viewpoints of those that make up the majority, leading to a much more balanced and representative body of legislation.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            You do realize that there is no law in Canada which would prohibit or punish you for calling Pat Robertson a “bigoted, narcissistic, racist, POS Christian.” Perhaps a little more research is due. For a nation which values free speech to such a degree as yours, the amount of government regulation on what can be said on TV is astounding. It seems everywhere I look there is another American demanding that some show or ad or what have you be banned.

          • Randy Ellicott

            I was not talking about Canada in that instance, but what would happen in america given our governing body who would word the law. If you think that the crazy christers would not work that in so one could not defame Christianity you would be at best naive.

        • Robert W. Pierce

          Similar to over here in the UK.

      • Peter Wde

        If he was employed by a public university here in the US firing him for his expressive acts would most certainly be a violation of his FA rights. The US Constitution is in full effect throughout all public university campuses 24/7.
        Hate speech = protected speech.

        • ultragreen

          I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

          The University of Illinois fired a professor who was offered a tenured position because it was later found out that he had made anti-semitic comments on either twitter or Facebook. The board of trustees had no qualms about firing him. This case is currently being litigated in the courts, but it is by no means clear that this professor is going to get his job back (I rather doubt it), not withstanding the first amendment. There could be an out-of-court settlement, however.

          • Peter Wde

            They revoked the offer I believe and its currently being litigated.

            A better example might be the infamous Ward Churchill at Colorado University. They canned him after his “9/11 little Eichmann” remarks, he sued for wrongful dismissal and won his case.

            The irony there was that I think there was grounds to fire the disgusting little fraud since there was ample evidence he’d forged elements of his c.v. and committed academic plagiarism.

        • Randy Ellicott

          Actually he could be fired for violating the code of conduct or any number of other articles that would apply when someone calls for the death of group of people, or for creating a hostile environment in the classroom and campus, all valid and useful techniques. His speech would not be silenced, but he would face the consequences of his speech.

          • Peter Wde

            And you would required to provide actual workplace evidence of his creating a hostile environment in the classroom. Merely posting a private opinion on a personal FB account does not even remotely approach that evidentiary standard.

          • Randy Ellicott

            except when that facebook page is shared with students and faculty, and linked to his faculty page creating an impression that the school promotes and believes as he does, which is exactly what happened here.

          • Peter Wde

            False. Merely creating an impression in someone is not synonomous with evidence of intent and would not pass judicial muster, you would have to provide actual evidence where a reasonable person would be entitled to conclude that the school actively promotes such a policy. An opinion on a private FB account does not remotely meet this standard. Current 1A jurisprudence requires evidence of actual intent in an individual’s expression and also makes provision for utterences that are hyberbolic in nature which clearly applies in this case.

          • Randy Ellicott

            Ok it seems that is correct in the letter of the law: http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20150724_Anti-Defamation_League__Professors_statements__offensive_and_outrageous_.html

            I still think that if the university really wanted to they could find a way to remove the professor, at the very least it could allow for difficult reviews and class assignments. Of course once they bring the sentiments into the class room i assume that could be a fire-able offense.

          • Peter Wde

            What a public university or college in the US actually wants is irrelevant, they are required to abide by the law and respect and guard the civil rights of its employees. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights here, to protect as from state-sponsored bullying by petty bureaucrats and politicians. Unfortunately Canadians are not so lucky in this regard.

    • bambinoitaliano

      Not to pick on your spelling, sky fairies know I made them every day. I actually like “Canada actually has countrywide hate speech lawns.” That get off my lawn law is appropriate in this instance 🙂

    • Peter Wde

      Nope we do not. Nothing could more violate the principles under which this counrty was founded.

    • Peter Wde

      False, there are no hate speech laws in the US. And the Constitution explicity addresses hate speech under the 1A where it forbids them. The term “hate speech” does not exist as a legal term in US jurisprudence and any attempt by states or local government to enact hate speech statutes would be met with constitutional challenge and struck down.

      • TallBearNC

        Several states, counties and cities have hate speech laws in the us because hate speech isn’t adressed enough in the constitution (what it does have is OLD and outdated) and deals with liable , etc. I’d be happy to list the states, cities, etc with hate speech laws etc

  • Lindoro Almaviva

    Martyrd(umb) in 10, 9….

    Now, how long until American idiots start saying this guy’s “first amendment rights” were violated, completely ignoring the fact that

    1. the first amendment only applies in the US
    2. Canadian laws have hate speech clauses and you can face consequences for shit like this?

    • Reality.Bites

      This would not be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights if he was a U.S. citizen living and working in the U.S. either.

      • Peter Wde

        It most certainly would be a violation of his FA rights if he was employed at a public university here in the US where the US Constitution is in full effect.

        Hate speech = protected speech.

  • Dreaming Vertebrate

    What triggered Coupland’s outburst on FB ?

    “It’s unclear what exactly motivated Coupland’s rage, although his post, now deleted but captured in a screen shot, came a few days after the St. Lawrence College campus in Brockville opened a “Rainbow Way,” the Whig-Standard reports. “Rainbow Way is the newly painted pathway on the Brockville campus that celebrates our LGBT staff and students and is a visual representation of the College’s inclusive community,” said a July 14 post on the college’s Facebook page. “We hope to bring similar pathways to our Cornwall and Kingston campuses as well.”

    Link: http://www.advocate.com/education/2015/07/21/canadian-professor-fired-antigay-facebook-post

  • Lakeview Bob

    Nice to know that Canada has a few jackasses too!

    • agcons

      There’s no shortage of them. I suspect, but cannot prove, that they’re a smaller percentage of the population than in the US, simply because we didn’t get quite so many Jeeziz-wheezers as immigrants in the first place.

      Two other major differences are that our jackasses aren’t organised in any effective way, and Harper notwithstanding they don’t have any effective political voice.

  • DaveMiller135

    I don’t know. When I put something on fb, I don’t think of having published it to the world. My “friends” may agree or disagree with my points of view, but how is it anyone else’s business? Beyond that, I’m leary of punishing someone for stating an opinion. If he’d said, “I’m hanging a queer right now,” I’d say “SWAT team, take the shot.” But this is just idle speech; roughly the equivalent of muttering it under his breath. Unpleasant, but should someone lose their job because they’re honest instead of hypocritical about their dislike for gays?

    • RaygunsGoZap

      You can be a barista or a movie star or baker who says hang the queers and keep your job. You can’t be someone with power over queer students, queer soldiers, queer parties to a suit and keep your presumption of impartiality and professionalism after saying such things.

    • Cousin Bleh

      I think one of the issues here is if you list your employer on Facebook or use Facebook to network with people you know via your workplace, which I believe is what he did… it was a former student who reported the post.

      When you do that, it makes you a representative of your employer.

      • Octavio

        You’re absolutely correct. And if he had posted the same drivel on Linkedin no one would have even noticed. 🙂

      • Bad Tom

        Many employee agreements explicitly ban such hate speech, whether made on your own time, or on company time, whether using your own equipment or company equipment.

        The last employment agreement I signed had just such a provision.

        • AtticusOsullivan

          It’s even more ironic that this guy taught in a business school where they have strict rules for their students use of social media.

    • Randy Ellicott

      I am not sure i would equate hanging queers with idle speech. However i get your point. You have to look at who the person is though, if it was crazy aunt Mavis spouting off her normal bigoted and insipid BS that’s one thing, if you are a professional who links your Facebook profile to your job then you are acting as an agent of that company, for better or worse. Your words can be seen as coming from the company you display, which then puts said company in a situation, possibly actionable, they have to deal with. So he was not fired for stating his opinion, he was fired for representing his employer and showing them in a bad light, which generally doesn’t make you friends with management.

    • Bruno

      It’s anyone else’s business because he made it other’s people’s business. If you don’t want your opinions to be other people’s business, keep them to yourself.

      As far as losing his job, that’s the judgment call of his employer. Employers have that kind of discretion in countries like Canada and the U.S.

    • Schlukitz

      When one publishes their biases, bigotry and hatred on a public site like Facebook, it becomes everyone else’s business.

      It may be freedom of speech, but it is still hate speech that calls for the killing of members of a minority group and which, to my way of thinking, is even more grotesque and frightening than calling for the murder of a particular individual. What people like this are asking for, is legalized genocide…and it’s wrong, wrong. wrong!

      It is precisely that kind of violent rhetoric that feeds the already frenzied Christian bigots, haters and homophobes and provokes them into perpetrating violence against LGBT people like the Wikipedia list that I just posted up a little further on this thread.

      Defend public calls for violence against the LGBT community if you will, but because this is a public site on which you have stated your beliefs, I will counter it with my opposition to them.

      Sorry if that offends you.

      • Peter Wde

        and its protected, protected, protected!

        Sorry, couldn’t resist.

      • DaveMiller135

        I know we’re supposedly living our lives in public now, but I do still think of Facebook, in particular, as a great betrayer of trust. And you get to figure out what limited control you do have, by making mistakes, video game style. I have had the experience of putting a comment that I intended for a particular group of friends, and doing all that I knew to do to keep it just for them, and then discovering that people I don’t even know still had access to it.

        Beyond that, I think the responses to this one are overblown, given that this sounds to me like a glib, smartass, off the cuff remark. This isn’t some preacher or preacher-substitute saying that God says, which implies to the stupid that if they harm gay people, they will be the holy arm of God. This is some run of the mill jackass, running his mouth. And I think the response should be proportional.

  • EdmondWherever

    ‘smatter, prayer didn’t work?

  • JaniceInToronto

    And that’s how it goes in Canada. No one is sorry for the hateful fool.

  • Kara Connor

    Perhaps he should move to Iran, where it happens quite frequently. Or is that the wrong kind of theocracy? Despite the fundamentalists crying persecution, I see an awful lot of them calling for us to be killed or interned, yet I don’t see prominent members of the LGBT community suggesting that happens to Christians.

    • Schlukitz

      ” I don’t see prominent members of the LGBT community suggesting that happens to Christians.”

      You’re absolutely right, of course, Kara. Not one instance can they produce to substantiate any intent on behalf of the LGBT community to physically harm Christians, much less, produce a list of significant acts of violence against Christians by LGBT people that is even remotely comparable to this one from Wikipedia.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people

      Alas, however, that does not stop the right from accusing us of intent to murder, which is just as violence-inciting among the knuckle-draggers. “Let’s stop them by any means necessary before they do start killing Christians.” is the preemptive mantra from the Christian bigots, haters and homophobes.

      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/renew-america-gay-marriage-satanic-plot-murder-christians

      Just looking at the evidence, these horrible people already have a pretty good start. And quite frankly, given the violent rhetoric that continues to emanate from the foul mouths of many Christians, I do not see much hope of this violence against us abating anytime in the near future.

  • Sporkfighter

    There are a lot of people I don’t like . . . publicly calling for their murder is another thing entirely.

    • Schlukitz

      And we all know where this hatred springs from.

      • BudClark

        The Bleeding Heart of Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-zus.

        • Schlukitz

          Amen.

  • JT

    “Please pray for me and my job”

    What an incredible prick.

    • BudClark

      Not having seen it, I cannot respond / comment.

  • TampaZeke

    GAYSTAPO! CHRISTIAN OPPRESSION! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! YADA, YADA, YADA MARTYR!

    My Go Fund Me page is….

  • Grafxbear

    Guess he should just move to Florida. He’d fit right in.

    • Schlukitz

      Florida has it’s share of Kristian knuckle-draggers, to be sure. There is no denying that.

      However, I can name any numer of other States in the Union that hold similar views.

      Florida is not the only state in which krazies live.

      • Grafxbear

        Exactly. I lived in Florida until recently. They got more wacky after Obama was elected.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    Clearly the gays are being intolerant of this perfectly reasonable comment by a good christian man. /s

  • Canadian Observer

    Does Liberty University have a faculty of business? If so, looks like they have a potential recruit for their teaching staff.

  • Clive Johnson

    And we keep hearing about “sincerely held religious belief” and “Christian morality” in opposition to gay equality.

    The fact is that if you lift up the lid of religious moral disagreement, what you almost always find instead is a toilet of received prejudice and mindless bigotry.

    • SilasMarner

      “The fact is that if you lift up the lid of religious moral disagreement, what you almost always find “… is a turd or two.

  • geoffalnutt

    Religion = Death.

  • Canada ain’t down with that. sorry bigot!

  • Porkie

    Free speach means that that you have the right to say whatever you want.
    It does not mean that what you say is free from consequences….consider, if you will, the simple statement;
    ” I have slept with your mother”.

  • RJ Tremor
  • madscntst

    Whoops! Looks like prayer didn’t work this time…

  • billbear1961

    You express a desire to see innocent people murdered and then ask others to pray that you won’t lose your job over it??

    If you’re really a believer, Christer, you should be asking God to FORGIVE you, and THEN you can worry about your job, you sick bastard.

    • Schlukitz

      Preach, brother!

    • Friday

      Frankly, I think they’re just praying this won’t spoil their expensive ‘reverse persecution’ ad campaign. 🙂

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    To those who think this has to do with his personal opinion being posted on his FB page. You should know that every employee of St. Lawrence College is bound by the ethics guidelines & code of conduct they agree to when they accept a job there. Among the regulations is the specific article regarding bias and/or discrimination of minorities. He freely chose to post an incredibly incendiary comment regarding gays and was called to account……as it should be.

    NOTE: Kingston, Ontario, Canada has a very large LGBT student body as both St. Lawrence College and Queens University are located there. In fact, Queens is home to one of the best Human Sexuality post-graduate courses in the world. Point is, in that environment, if you have issues with LGBT people, best to remain discreet about being a douchebag.

    • Friday

      Also I kind of think claiming as an authority of any kind, “These people should be executed instead of anyone flying an equality flag” is a bit beyond a ‘personal opinion.’ If he said he would rather *hang himself* than fly an equality flag, *then* that would be ‘just his opinion.’

      • Peter Wde

        It’s his personal opinion and as such enjoys complete protection under the FA here in the US.

        • Friday

          A) He’s not in the US, and B) In America we tolerate a lot of hate speech just like we accept a lot of risks about guns. That doesn’t make it right, neutral, moral, or suitable for a professor to advocate murder about.

          • Peter Wde

            I’m perfectly aware he’s in Canada, where unfortunately he does not enjoy the protections we do here in the US to express ourselves freely without fear of fines and imprisonment.
            And the 1A does indeed express a moral right, as does the 2A. Just a shame the Canadian government has seen fit to deprive its citizens of those rights.

          • Friday

            He is neither being fined nor imprisoned. He is merely no longer being paid to represent a university after advocating murder of a class of people.

          • Peter Wde

            He may indeed have opened himself up to prosecution. If he had been employed here at a public university his speech would have been completely protected as the 1A demands viewpoint neutrality and firing him would have constituted a civil rights violation.

          • Friday

            The fact remains he has not.

            Frankly, just because we protect such things to a *fault* in US doesn’t mean he’s somehow reverse-persecuted if someone doesn’t want to pay him to ‘teach’ hatred nd literal genocide, never mind treat anybody that way to any degree.

            I mean, seriously, do you really think he should be trusted with the academic careers of *Canadian citizens* when he’s claimed he’d sooner see them killed with everyone like them than look at a rainbow flag?

          • Peter Wde

            Just glad we have a Bill of Rights that protects us all against such bullying and intimidation.

            Hate speech = protected speech.

            Three cheers for the 1A.

          • Friday

            Really. Maybe if you’re cheering so much for our ‘freedom of speech’ especially about jobs, you ought to be doing away with ‘right to work’ laws in these states, which mean people can be sacked for no reason *at all anyway* before you act all reverse-persecuted.

            Or, like so many other things, maybe since we have such studious freedom of speech here, you ought to learn how to freaking *use* it for something worthwhile.

          • Peter Wde

            Sorry, maybe you weren’t paying attention in US Government class at school.
            That’s not how the natural rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights works. There’s no utility test for use of those rights and no permission is required of third parties before they are exercised.
            And it is precisely the type of speech that others find despicable and hateful that the 1A is intended to protect.

          • Friday

            Which wouldn’t apply here even if it *had* happened in the US. You can be a hater and advocate for murder, but no one has to *pay* you for it or consider you a qualified professor if you do.

            Our freedom of speech is *not* freedom from criticism or consequences, most *especially* when it comes to *your bosses.*

          • Peter Wde

            He could not be fired for holding those views here at a public university. As I’ve already told you the 1A demands government neutraity with respect to expressive acts and firing him would constitute a civil rights violation.

          • Friday

            Yeah, but as a public employee, he *doesn’t* get to claim ‘government neutrality means I should be a paid hater *as* part of that government.*

            I mean, I’m pretty sure, ‘We should execute some of these students’ is not ‘government neutrality’ itself. (Never mind exactly a job qualification.)

          • Peter Wde

            Yes it does.

          • Friday

            What does what?

            You mean, if this *were* in the US, he *would* be ‘reverse-persecuted’ if he couldn’t claim advocating something tantamount to genocide over a flag of equality didn’t make him someone the state ought to hire to a position of teaching and *public trust?

            No, that’s not what the First Amendment means, even if you put a cross on it.

          • Peter Wde

            As an academic at a public university he has a right to adopt any postion he wants and he is protected by the 1A from government retaliation, i.e. being fired. Here in the US at least. Sadly, not in Canada.

          • Friday

            Which is what the Right keeps trying to do anyway if anyone says anything non-negative of LGBT people or other religions, or opposes bullying or gives factual sex ed classes or teaches history they don’t like, etc anyway….

            But…No, even in the US, advocating *hanging minorities* doesn’t guarantee academic credentials and employment in public universities.

            Maybe at Orwellianly-named ‘Liberty University’ but not as people in positions of public trust on the public dime. He can’t be *prosecuted* if he doesn’t name targets (Canada doesn’t leave a loophole for Fundies and bigots to be like “Well, I didn’t say *you* should be executed, just you and everyone like you.” ) but that doesn’t mean he has to be paid for treating people that way or conducting himself that way.

            This is not a mere ‘opinion,’ it’s advocating *execution and murder of a class of people, including some of those he is expected to treat properly in a position of academic authority.*

            There is ‘having an opinion’ and then there’s ‘Showing unsuitability for the job by your behavior.’ And bald-faced statements, really.

          • Peter Wde

            Sorry, you’re quite wrong, retaliation by firing him for unpopular views at a public university would be a civil rights violation. As I’ve already explained the government is required to be viewpoint neutral. There is an extensive list of just such cases at:

            https://www.thefire.org/

            where they litigate these types of cases all the time.
            And you’re wrong about Liberty University as well, since, being a private university, it can regulate the type of speech that is acceptable on its campus. You completely fail to see the crucial difference between a public institution and a private one.

          • Friday

            No, even in the US, it would not be being ‘fired for unpopular views’ …it’d be ‘fired for advocating murder of minorities on the public dime.’

            (also I know “LIberty University” is privately-owned: it also collects *its money* from students with government subsidies it teaches them to oppose. That’s why I said he could go *there* if he wants to treat people with hatred and ignorance Advocate executing minorities all he wants, even, which they seem to do already.)

          • Peter Wde

            You really are quite ignorant of 1A jurisprudence.

            You can indeed “advocate for the murder of minorities” that is protected expression.

            Expressive acts only cease to be protected when they signal specifically the clear and immediate intention to commit criminal acts. General statements such as “I think all “x” should be rounded up and shot” enjoy complete 1A protection.

          • Schlukitz

            Another thread hijacked by Peter Wde.

          • Peter Wde

            Hi there Schlukitz!

            Just having a little debate and correcting some errors about 1A jurisprudence.

          • Peter Wde

            Please provide the evidence that Liberty University advocates such a position.

          • Peter Wde

            Liberty University is free to teach anything it pleases.

          • Schlukitz

            Friday, I admire your tenacity in trying to have a reasonable dialogue with Peter Wde. Unfortunately, as you have just discovered, it’s like pissing into the wind. He will twist everything that you say and he always make sure that he has the last word.

            One of his ploys is to wait until a thread has pretty much exhausted itself and then pick on a commentator with whom he can then try to intimidate, minimalize their importance and otherwise harrass with little or no intererence from other commentators who have moved on. He is never among the first to post a comment.

            Don’t waste your time with him. He just a trouble-maker and simply not worth it.

          • Peter Wde

            Not true! And I do believe I was quick through the door the other day.

          • Schlukitz

            I’m from Missouri.

            Show me.

          • Peter Wde

            You mean show you the door?

          • Schlukitz

            You are being deliberately obtuse. Then again, as I think about it, perhaps I am being much too generous. Perhaps you are just plain stupid.

            You said:

            “I do believe I was quick through the door the other day.”

            If today is any example, comments on this thread opened around 7 hours ago.

            You made your appearance on this thread some two hours ago.

            I rest my case.

          • Peter Wde

            I do have a life to lead you know!

            I was just responding to a post and then the poster responded and we debated the issue some. Frankly I’m at a loss to know what the problem is here.

            Any errors you see that need correcting?

          • Schlukitz

            Thank you for helping me to expose yet another one of the many ploys that you use when replying to commentators on this site.

            I asked you a direct question. You sidestepped it, which you constantly do when you get involved in one of your little tete-a-tetes with another commentator whom you wish to harass. Obviously, you have a very different understanding of the word “debate”.

            I’m still waiting for proof of your comment…

            “I do believe I was quick thorough the door the other day.”

            Drumming fingers on table and listening to crickets.

          • Peter Wde

            Well as I recall I was pretty quick to comment here, but as I said, I need to earn a living here:

            http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/07/louisiana-married-gay-man-denied.html#disqus_thread

            Not quite sure what this has to do with debating though. You certainly seem to have quite a novel definition of what constitutes harassment…I respond to a comment, the poster responds to my point, I do likewise etc etc. I was under the impression this is what constitutes debating an issue.

            You did accuse me of being indifferent to facts “facts dont matter…”. Though, as yet, you’ve yet to point to any error in my posts.

          • James

            It’s not sad. It’s good and proper for a university not to be represented by a person who calls for a minority population, a population whose members are among that university’s student body and faculty, to be murdered.

          • Peter Wde

            Nope, quite wrong. Truly the US is exceptional for being a beacon to the rest of the world for upholding the fundamental right of freedom of expression for all viewpoints.

          • James

            HAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

            Ohh, thanks, I needed a good laugh.

          • Peter Wde

            Glad to oblige!

          • Schlukitz

            James, it’s hopeless debating with a person who insists on arguing Canadian law, from the persective of American Law.

            Here is his disingenuous statement that started this whole ridiculous discussion.

            “It’s his personal opinion and as such enjoys complete protection under the FA here in the US.”

            It has been pointed out to him on several occasions that this did not happen in the US, therefore, US law has absolutely nothing to do with it.

            Note his reply to you just below this post.

            Damn those pesky facts.

          • Peter Wde

            I am sorry for the confusion, I did take it for granted that I was describing freedom of expression in the US versus that in Canada. I believe this is quite obvious in my posts, but I am sorry if this eluded you.
            In my second post to Friday I did write:

            I’m perfectly aware he’s in Canada, where unfortunately he does not enjoy the protections we do here in the US to express ourselves freely without fear of fines and imprisonment.

            Still waiting for you to point out any errors I’ve made.

          • Schlukitz

            So what the fuck are you arguing about then?

            21 posts to tell us something that we already know? Much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare would have undoubtedly said.

            The point is that this discussion was never about the freedoms of speech that we enjoy here in the US.

            It was about exactly about what Joe’s headline read.

            CANADA: College Professor Fired After Saying “Queers Should Be Hanged”

            Guess that part escaped you.

            But don’t let that stop you from getting the last word in. You always see to it that you do.

            I’m gonna enjoy a nice movie and a dish of Hazen Dazs Rum Raisin Ice Cream as you foam at the mouth while making a reply.

            ttfn.

          • Peter Wde

            Well, thanks for clearing all this confusion up. I still think it was obvious what I was doing. Friday, in her posts seemed to be of the opinion that a similar outcome could occurr here and I informed her in my posts that, in fact, it could not due to 1A protections we enjoy here that Canadians do not have.

            Enjoy your ice cream though! I’m not foaming at the mouth but certainly salivating at the thought of it here.

          • Peter Wde

            Sharknado 3?

          • David L. Caster

            Not necessarily, depending on the terms of the contract he was employed under. The FA will not protect your job if you have a contract with your employer saying you will not say certain kinds of things.

            The FA protects one’s speech from government reprisal, not entirely from employers one has a contract with. There are even limitations on what a government employee may say.

          • Peter Wde

            By default public universtiies and colleges in the US are agents of the state and cannot deprive its employees of the protections afforded by the Constiution which include 1A protections for private expressive acts (https://www.thefire.org/). Private institutions of higher learning can establish their own guidelines for employee behavior.

          • David L. Caster

            This is still not quite correct, and is still at least partially a function of individual state laws.

          • Peter Wde

            If there are state laws that abridge constitutional rights (and I’m sure they exist) the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution automatically overrides them. At FIRE you can read many cases where public universities and colleges attempted to negate the 1A rights of their employees, were taken to court, and lost.

          • David L. Caster

            Supremacy clause would come into effect were a state law (or state constitutional provision) in conflict with a federal one. I think the larger question is whether an employee can sign away some measure of constitutional protection by contract. The answer apparently is yes in some cases even though certainly some provisions one might find in employment contracts may not be enforceable. An at-will clause would, for instance, still allow the employer to deprive someone of their situation.

          • Peter Wde

            You may well be right with respect to contract law, an area I am not very familiar with, my point was merely to highlight the general default position.

            However, even with respect to contractors hired at-will, yes their positions can be terminated, but the termination conditions can be limited.For example, a company that fired at-will employees for “x” could jeopordize any federal funding it was the recipient of.

          • David L. Caster

            For example, a company that fired at-will employees for “x”
            could [jeopardize] any federal funding it was the recipient of.

            While not completely wrong, any civil servant or agency that attempted to do this extrajudicially would run afoul of the federal code of ethics and be subject to sanctions or termination.

            I’m making only one point here: employee contracts can restrict certain freedoms. We already have what amounts to illegal search (in the form of drug testing) and seizure in the US, courtesy of SCOTUS, in direct contravention of the 4th amendment. See, for instance, here, and here.

          • Peter Wde

            I’ve no reason to doubt you’re correct.

            Again, the point I was trying to make in my posts was merely that, absent other factors, the default position is that the actions of agents of the state are sharply constrained by the US Constitution.
            I would certainly agree that the 4th Amendment – and the 5th (Kelo v. City of New London) – has taken quite a few serious hits courtesy of SCOTUS.

          • Schlukitz

            Fact’s don’t matter to Peter Wde.

            Professor Rick Coupland is not in the US, just as you noted, but that will not stop Peter Wde from arguing in defense of him just as though he was, which is very disingenuous of him.

            He will play Devil’s Advocate just for the pure hell of it and for the sole purpose of hijacking a JoeMyGod thread, as he has done far too many times in the past.

          • Peter Wde

            On the contrary facts are of the utmost importance to me…I like to be accurate.

          • Schlukitz

            A pity that you choose not to observe those facts in your disingenuous commentaries.

          • Peter Wde

            I’m certainly open to correction.

        • AtticusOsullivan

          Would the code of conduct agreement he signed be ruled unconstitutional in the US as a violation of the FA? Would any professional code of conduct he might be subject to be ruled unconstitutional? If not, then free speech laws are irrelevant in this matter. Why do you keep bringing it up?

          • Peter Wde

            It would depend what he’d signed. If he had tenure here, he’s protected.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            Tenure allows Americans to violate their professional codes of conduct? Hardly. Violating professional codes of conduct are one of the few grounds in which tenure can be revoked.

          • Peter Wde

            Tenure certainly encompasses 1A protection and hate speech = protected speech.

            Hate speech does not exist as a legal term in the US.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            The College maintains that this prof violated codes of conduct and ethical guidelines. Free speech protections do not apply nor would they rescue this prof from dismissal due to his violation of the codes to which he agreed, nor would academic freedom or tenure. Else why have professional codes of conduct if tenure or the FA allow you to flaunt them with impunity?

          • Peter Wde

            This College is in Canada where there is no 1A.

            In the US, public universities and colleges must accord by the US Constitution which guarantees freedom expression via the 1A. Attempts to retaliate against a professor here for voicing unpopular opinions would be unlawful. For more information on this topic see:

            https://www.thefire.org/

          • Peter Wde

            Yes for conduct such as “moral turpitude” which has not the slightest relevance to expressing unpopular opinions, the protection of which, is the whole point of having a 1A.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            Since when does advocating genocide not fall under the rubric of “moral turpitude”?

            But haven’t your anti-terrorist laws pretty well gutted the Bill of Rights? Voice certain unpopular opinions in the US and all of your rights will be forfeit, right?

          • Peter Wde

            Since it falls under 1A protection, that’s when.

            I thought I’d made it clear in another post. The term “hate speech” has precisely zero legal traction here in the US. There are “hate speech” statutes in Canada, none exist in the US, none, zip, nada. The statement “all “x” should be rounded up and shot” falls under the umbrella of protected speech here.

            Where in my posts have I ever voiced support for the “Patriot Act” and how is that relevant to this discussion?

            And anyway, please provide examples where US citizens have been fined or jailed for voicing unpopular opinions or speaking out against the “Patriot Act”.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            And you will note that I have not mentioned hate speech or the Criminal Code of Canada. It has nothing to do with any of the points I have raised.

            My point is that the prof was fired for violating codes of conduct and ethics, not because he had committed a crime. One cannot agree to abide by a code of conduct and then violate it and claim FA, or Section 2, protection.

            Advocating genocide is by definition “moral turpitude” in most civilized countries and would be grounds for revoking tenure regardless of the amount of free speech protection. But not in the US? Ok.

            Aren’t there more anti-terrorist laws in the US than the Patriot Act? Don’t those laws allow government to abridge the Constitutional Rights of citizens? Your FA rights might not be so absolute as you seem to be indicating, nor Section 2 of the Charter be so inferior.

          • Peter Wde

            Yes thankfully, not in the US, but apparently and sadly under Canadian law you can be fired for a thought crime. Not here though.

            Nope, you’re quite wrong, there’s been no changes made to the Constitution here lately and The Bill of Rights remains fully in effect.

            I’m fully aware of the conditions under which expressive acts no longer enjoy 1A protection.

            And you really area quite ignorant of how the system works here, laws by definition must be consistent with constitutional principles otherwise they are struck down by SCOTUS, happens all the time.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            I’m quite familiar with the levels of scrutiny under which the constitutionality of laws are reviewed in the courts in the US. A law that merely passes “rational review” in the US would never pass constitutional scrutiny in Canada where all laws must pass strict scrutiny. In this regard, liberty protections under the Charter in Canada are stronger than those in the US under the Bill of Rights. Likely that’s why gay rights are so much further along in Canada than the US.

            Actually, now that I look, advocating genocide is an actual crime in the US, 18 U.S. Code § 1091, not an “unpopular opinion” protected by the FA.

          • Peter Wde

            Wrong. You’re evidently not familiar at all with 1A jurisprudence and the standards and criteria for judicial scrutiny of expressive acts.

            In order for speech to pass beyond 1A protection in the US it must signal a clear, immediate and specific credible intent to commit criminal acts directed towards a specific individual(s). An opinion on a FB account page of the nature “I think all members of group “x” should be shot” does not even remotely approach that evidentiary standard. The courts also make provision for speech that is clearly hyperbolic in nature and that no reasonable person could construe was of serious intent.

            For example, in Elonis v. United States (2015), just adjudicated, even where threatening rap lyrics were directed towards a specific individual (Elonis’s wife) on Elonis’s FB page the Justices struck down his conviction because the prosecutors failed to do enough to prove a credible intention to carry out his specific threat.

            Hence in absence of the above required criteria necessary to abrogate 1A protections, 18 U.S. Code § 1091 has no legal traction whatsoever.

            Of course, claims that fundamental liberties, like freedom of expression, are more strongly protected in Canada compared to the US are self-evident nonsense as is quite evident from the restrictions on speech and potential penalties involved for violations of such “hate speech” statutes listed at:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

            Compare this with the total absence of such hate speech and thought crime statutes here in the US… none whatsoever. The US is totally unique in this respect, no other country on the planet can match its commitment to uphold as basic and fundamental a right as the freedom to speak freely without fear of state-sponsored bullying. Maybe some day you will join us in this regard.

            The status of gay rights in the US compared to Canada has no relevance to this particular topic, you just appear to have tossed it in for…well, who knows why.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            I was musing whether the fact that all laws in Canada must past strict constitutional scrutiny might be the reason that gay rights are more advanced here than in the US. Before Windsor, gay people were not considered a quasi-suspect class. Perhaps now that they are, laws violating gay rights will be subject to higher scrutiny.

            The point was that laws that violate American’s liberties but pass “rational review” would not pass strict constitutional muster in Canada hence Canada has stronger liberty protections and that perhaps it’s more complicated in the US than laws simply “must be consistent with constitutional principles otherwise they are struck down by SCOTUS”. I don’t understand why Americans defer to government so easily and let laws that pass mere rational review violate their liberties.

            All this is besides the point anyway. You’ve avoided the fact that violating codes of conduct isn’t rescued by free speech protections such as the FA. Tenure is also irrelevant to this case.

            But reading more about cases like Sandra Bland has put me off arguing “free speech” with Americans for now.

          • Peter Wde

            That is because, unlike our Constitution, yours utterly fails to provide such fundamental protections like freedom of expression and the right to own and bear arms as ours does. Clearly the Canadian document as a constrainer of state sanctioned power is deficient here.

            And Americans most certainly do not defer to our government but instead to our Constitution with its enumerated rights and many checks and balances on state power.

            And I’ve avoided nothing; clearly Canadian academics who commit thought crimes in Canada that run afoul of its hate speech codes can be fired thus nullifying their means of earning a living and potentially opening themselves up to fines and as I’ve also clearly demonstrated the equivalent cannot happen to academics here on public campuses where they are protected from retaliation if they give voice to unpopular opinions or positions by the 1A, which is in full force 24/7 at all US public institutions of higher learning. The extensive case law at FIRE is unambiguous, universties that attempt to punish or silence the 1A rights of its employees are subject to judicial sanction for civil rights violations. So once again you are in error, US codes of coduct at public universities cannot abrogate enumerated constitutional rights since the Constitution is the highest authority and the Law of the Land.

            Also, I was glad to point out your additional error with respect to 18 U.S. Code § 1091…general .statements of the nature “all “x” should be killed” enjoy complete 1A protection.

            I can certainly see why you’re now “put off” from arguing free speech issues with other Americans, you clearly dont understand how this works here at all.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            I allude to Americans being arrested and killed for attempting to exercise their rights and you read that as a concession. Charming.

          • Peter Wde

            Not at all, I merely pointed out and corrected your numerous errors.

            You’re welcome.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            You have no comment about Americans being arrested and killed for attempting to exercise their rights? Even more charming.

          • Peter Wde

            Nice attempt at deflection but anyway, since you mentioned Sandra Bland, her death is currently under investigation and all persons of interest are of course presumed innocent until subject to due process in a court of law and found guilty. You have evidence she was murdered? If so, turn it over to the authorities.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            Well, yes, it’s academic now whether her rights were violated in the arrest, or in any of the subsequent events. But the rights of all the other persons of interest will be scrupulously observed. It’s America, after all.

          • Peter Wde

            And it is certainly my wish and hope they are scrupulously observed…maybe you desire otherwise.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            My wish would be that her rights and the rights of others like would have been as scrupulously observed as theirs will be.

          • Peter Wde

            And I’m quite confident that if her rights have been violated the investigation will reveal those culpable who can then receive due process and receive any penalty deemed necessary.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            One would think that in a country with superior protections of fundamental freedoms, cases like hers wouldn’t happen in the first place. The difference between theory and practice for many Americans is striking, if not deadly. Ivory tower professors can say what they want with impunity, not so much for those driving (or even walking) while black. Too bad the 4th Amendment isn’t as fetishized as the 1st and 2nd.

          • Peter Wde

            The death of Sandra Bland has been ruled a suicide since all the facts known to the coroner are consistent with this verdict.

            Why, you would almost think Canada was some kind of utopia…if it wasn’t for all those creepy statutes that tell you what it is permissable to say and what is not.

            By “fetishized” I assume you really meant “respected”.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            One statute, section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and it criminalizes only one thing. It’s exactly like the American code which criminalizes advocating genocide with the very similar standards required to trigger it. Actually charges based on the Canadian law are harder to bring since they need the assent of the Attorney General and not just an indictment. But you knew all this, right, your rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

            Were Sandra Bland’s 4th amendment rights respected when she was stopped and arrested? Watch the video yourself.

            Didn’t Snowden have a 1st Amendment right to leak documents alleging 4th Amendment violations? Shouldn’t all charges against him be dropped?

            Is Canada a utopia? Maybe so. Canadian police kill citizens at a rate 78 times less than the US.

          • Peter Wde

            I’ve already explained to you the judicial review criteria under which expressive acts escape 1A protection, complete with a recent SCOTUS ruling, and why general statements such as FB postings saying “they should hang all the gays” are completely protected plus your error in applying that US Code to the above.

            I know for sure that your country has “hate speech” statutes the violation of which can lead to fines with all that attendent chilling of free expression. I also know all such statutes are forbidden here under our Constitution. We have a 1A, you do not.

            Yes, Snowden is an American hero who should be brought home to a ticker-tape parade and awarded the Congessional Medal of Honor for exposing nation-wide criminal activity and civil rights violations against American citizens. In addition James Clapper should be put on trial for lying under oath while giving congessional testimony by denying the existence of those illegal programs.

            As to Sandra Bland, if the investigation reveals her 4th Amendment rights have been violated I hope those culpable are punished.

            But then I never described the US as perfect only accurately described 1A jurisprudence and corrected your errors.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            No, you never described the US as perfect only better at protecting fundamental freedoms than anywhere else in the world. But evidently it is not.

            You know very little about the hate speech laws in Canada and what it takes to violate them or whether they in fact have a chilling effect Of course we don’t have a 1st Amendment or a Bill of Rights. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See Section 2.

          • Peter Wde

            Yes indeed I did, the best at protecting freedom of expression, which it is, my statement was accurate.

            Actually I know a great deal, for instance the utterly disgraceful treatment of Ezra Levant, hauled before essentially star chambers for offending the delicate sensibilities of those who clearly wanted to shut him up using your hate speech codes, where the process is the punishment…there’s that chilling of free expression I was talking about:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant

            Above can’t happen here…its forbidden.

          • Peter Wde

            I mean you actually claim all the following has no chilling effect on free expression in Canada:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean%27s_magazine

            Wow.

          • Peter Wde

            In an exchange during the Marc Lemire case, lead CHRC investigator Dean Steacy was asked “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?” Steacy responded:“”Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value… It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.”[

            Canadian values?

          • AtticusOsullivan

            Didn’t you know the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights Act have been struck down? You really don’t know much about hate speech law in Canada. Have you read the Charter yet?

          • Peter Wde

            Yes I did know that, as I told you, I followed Ezra Levants persecution by agents of the Canadian state and its to a very significant degree that you can thank him and Mark Steyn for their being abolished. You still have speech codes and violaters of those codes can suffer very significant fines. Cant happen here.

          • Peter Wde

            You call this freedom of expression!!:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

            Yikes, you’ve been sold a bill of goods.

          • Peter Wde

            Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[4] “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.

          • Peter Wde
          • AtticusOsullivan

            The last paragraph in this 17 month old article reflects what I’ve already explained to you, thanks.

          • Peter Wde
          • AtticusOsullivan

            Do any of these cases involve the situation where someone was fired for saying something that he had promised not to?

          • Peter Wde

            Again your ignorance, public universities are forbidden by the 1A from muzzling their employees or retaliating for speech they don’t like or setting speech codes, it isn’t allowed here and if they attempt to do it it is a civil rights violation and they can be sued, as the information in my links make clear. Glad to correct you once again on this issue.
            I certainly understand, however, that this may be a difficult concept for you understand, coming from a country that punishes its citizens for thought crimes, and you have my sympathy.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            So there are no situations in public schools in the US where an employee can willingly and knowingly enter into a employment agreement that where he agrees to constraints on what he says? You’re talking about imposed codes rather than ones entered into willingly. Non-disclosure agreements are then illegal according to your argument, as would be dress codes. Are any codes of conduct enforceable in an American university?

          • Peter Wde

            The default position 24/7 at all public institutions of higher learning throughout the entire US is that the US Constitution applies fully and completely and trumps any attempt to constrain speech by its employees through codes of conduct, speech codes etc. which are all illegal. Not sure why you seem to have so much difficulty comprehending this important concept other than perhaps its something to do with living in a country that legislatively chills freedom of expression through its numerous hate speech codes and attendent fines for committing thought crimes.
            Oh, I’m sure stuff like academic fraud, plagiarism etc are a little frowned on though.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            Good to know that non-disclosure agreements and dress codes are illegal. I guess laws against whistleblowing would be illegal, too.

            Yes, only Americans are free. Well, only privileged Americans are free. The rest can be assured that those who violate their rights will be arraigned and tried. Mostly. Well, sometimes.

          • Peter Wde

            Oh I see that’s your tactic, suddenly deflect the topic under discussion away from that in the original thread where, lets see, you claimed that unpopular opinions such as “all “x” should be killed” do not enjoy 1A protection complete with a US Statute Code quote to prove your point only to shown that is in fact your error. That’s why I was careful in my response to say the “default” position, “hate speech” speech codes” all of which I accurately described in all my posts as illegal here.

            Quite sneaky really.

            Non-disclosure agreements have of course nothing to with the 1A issues under discussion here being concerned with confidential information, proprietry data, contract law etc. Of course, if any public university did try to muzzle its employees by asking them to sign non-disclosure agreements with respect to their political beliefs, religious convictions, personal opinions etc. on all manner of topics, those would be prima facie illegal here as well. Glad to help you out here with that one too.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            You need to read more carefully and not infer arguments I did not make. I had thought you much more able to separate snark from argument. My mistake.

            You keep on talking about employers imposing illegal agreements on their employees. I’m trying to talk about employees willingly and knowingly entering in to agreements with their employers and waiving certain rights. But you either cannot or will not see the distinction. Why is that, I wonder?

          • Peter Wde

            As I made clear above, non-disclosure agreements have nothing to do with the 1A issues under discussion. Universities could try all they want to impose contracts on their employees that restrict their speech and the employees could even sign them. They would have precisely zero legal traction and would be prima facie illegal. Any attempt to enforce them, they would get laughed out of court and probably sanctioned for illegal attempts to perform an end-run around the Constitution.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            So no, you either cannot or will not see the distinction.

          • Peter Wde

            I think rather the problem is your blindness. Universities could draw up such contracts requesting the waiving of 1A rights (excepting confidential information, proprietry data, etc) and employees could even sign them. They would be without legal relevance and completely unenforceable and hence wortheless.

          • AtticusOsullivan

            So you cannot see the distinction. You cannot conceive of someone wanting to work in a place where he could willingly waive 1A rights. So your problem is a cognitive deficit.

          • Peter Wde

            You are perfectly free to waive them if you want, as SCOTUS has previously stated, the 1A protects your right to refrain from speech acts as much as to engage in them. See, we have it all covered here.

  • BudClark

    Queers! Queers! Queers EVERYWHERE!

    Why is it the business of an ONTARIO, Canada college professor that St. Petersburg, FLORIDA, USA is or isn’t flying the Rainbow Flag?

  • JCF

    Coming Soon to GoFundM(y Violent Bigotry) near you…