On 9/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. There was a comma after the gun statement. > It was not a designation regarding Canada. > But to that point, consider Australia. > > 2. Regarding certain religious speech, here's a Canada example. > http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060808.html
Having read the article, and not wanting to debate the issue here, I'll just say that we disagree on whether this is an issue of religious speech - I think it's not, you think it is, and in this particular forum, I'm leaving it at that. > The problem is that the apparent exemption is a generalized statement, > the interpretation of which is at the whim of the enforcer. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but really, it's not an important enough issue for me to care - and again, not the forum here to do so. > And also consider that independent religious broadcasting is illegal in > Canada. > Many put their transmitters on the US border so to avoid government > intrusion. I can think of several Christian broadcasters in Canada. I am guessing that you and I may have different definitions of "independant" and "Christian" but we have Crossroads Broadcasting: http://www.crossroads.ca/index.html whose network is CTS and broadcasts a full network schedule both "on the air" and on cable. As far as I know, they're independant (from the government, at least). We also have Vision TV, which is multifaith, but is mostly Christian. I'm sure there are others that I don't know of, but those are among two of the biggest. Again, not arguing the right or wrong, but rather the accuracy of your statement. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
