Alex, as a system admin, if people don't report problems then I don't know about them. I do not have time to go through each & every page each & every day or hour.  Even if I did, the time to resolution is reduced by the speed of the reporting of the failure. 

The same can be said for this site.  We, as in users, cannot expect admins to read each & every post the moment it is posted, or even the day, or for that matter ..ever.  Gosh, what a waste of their time.

What we can do, is bring items to their attention.  A flurry of reports would act like what occurs in my world:  it draws attention, and it draws it fast.

If the issues are not being reported to admin, then, dang it, there is no wonder the problems aren't being addressed.

 Are you telling me and others that none of the administrators saw the disscussion about the media having a hidden gay agenda? It lasted for months and kept popping up on the currently active list. The title alone was hate filled, just as one questioning if the media had a secret Jewish agenda. 

 If we had people trained in community building like ministers, or theologians running the site, then they could work with trained and trusted volunteers to remove hate.

I reported one disscussion about gays and lesbians and comparing us to serial killers, and the disscussion continued for three days after reporting it.

Alex, I don't know you would have to ask them, but, I know I don't read all threads, and don't recollect reading that one.

If there is something on the site that I see, and I flag it, I have found that it is responded to quite well.

I think what you are saying is that it is the other person's responsibility to flag.  Good point, it is everyone's responsibility to flag.

At the same point, some may be more sensitive to topics than others, and so are more likely to identify something or be able to articulate why it is an issue to admin.

Alex, I am not on the same page as you regarding  who is responsible and the role of staff, or the function of staff.  I do feel that members of wondercafe, just like members of a congregation, are responsible for the behaviour in it. 

Also, as a note, I think you are making big suppositions regarding the resources at admin's disposal, admin's skillsets, and .....a bunch of other stuff.  Having attended emerging spirit's group sessions there is an amazing depth of skills and caring in the staff and resources. 

I need to take a break from this thread, and wondercafe for a while today...way too much energy put into it over the last 16hrs or so; however, I do think these dialogues have merit, which is why I have spun them up.  I say that as it is unlikely I will post, and don't want anyone to wonder...if I deserted somethign that I spun up.

I will look forward to reading the discussion upon my return.

 If I spent all my time pointing out the hate speech on wondercafe, and then having to explain why it was hatefully I would not have time for anything else.

Right now if you report something as hatefully, you are obliged to explain why. There is not even a category for hate in the flag as offensive. If we had people trained in theology or community building, I should just be able to tag something that is hatefu, and not have to explain it, unless the administration could defend it as not being hateful and against the law. 

Then who is responsible? If someone at my church started attacking transgender people (which has happened) then it is considered everyones responsibilty, but only the board and the staff have the authority to speak authoritively about it and do something.

I think as a community we are all responsible to look after one another. 

I have told my children that when they are on the playground at school they are to be responsible citizens.  That means not only  are they not to bully other kids, but also they are to stick up for the kids who are being bullied.  If something bad is happening, name it, try to stop it, and then reach out to the one who has been hurt to offer your support.  The teachers and principal can't see everything that is going on in the playground, but the kids who are playing there can look after each other.  My kids don't have the authority to discipline the attacker, but I do think they have the ability to make a difference when they witness poor behaviour.

I feel that the same thing applies on wondercafe, at my workplace, within my church family and in every aspect of my life.  If you see something bad happening, name it, try to stop it, and  then reach out to the one who has been hurt to offer your support. 

Note; just due to clarify, as my "departure" comment was easily misconstrued.  I am pumped by these dialogues -- it is ALL good.  I just have a whack of things to do today, in order to take tomorrow and go hang out with Namaste, Birthstone & Busymom....soo..not to worry,  I will be baaaccckkk......

  Good for you Pinga!

Bearhug to Pinga, I have a doctos appointment to go to as well 

What do you do if someone is abusing your kids, and its reported and yet the abusecontinues. What if  the teachers or police do not show up for three days.

Do you stay or would you take your kids somewhere else safer.

Or what if your kid was Ryan White, and the school expelled your kid for being sick, and when you speak out the community sets fire to your home.

Would you move like Ryans family did?

Now what would you do if Ryan was your neighbour and you found out your kid had the same illness. Wouldn`t you stay silent.

The situations explained are extreme.  I am going to suggest the same methods that I use here, at work, when my son was bullied and when we had a crackhouse nextdoor are what I would do

Name the abuse/activity to the individual.

If it doesn't stop or escalates

** repeat the statement that it is unacceptable

**  report abuse/activity  to appropriate authorities & follow-up

** engage friends / neighbours /peers as appropriate for safety / support

** speak out

I tend not to be someone who walks away.  I don't like giving in to bullying. I don't do well at ignoring unethical or unjust situations.

anyhow, back to wondercafe topic.....

Has anyone found that they have reported abuse and it wasn't counted as same.

Do you have any questions about "Hate Law" and what the boundaries are? 

I am sure they aren't clear to me.  I would rather they be higher than they currently are.  My sense is that is what Affirming would ask for.  SG gave some good examples of what hate law would support, but this site in some of our minds, should not.

 One of the problems is that if you flag something as offensive it is sent to the top of the recently active. Thus highlighting the hate. 

I haven't actually used the 'flag as offensive' option myself, so can't comment on the response.  I have however had a thread be the subject of such a complaint & I was rather miffed. 

I had posted info about a widely esteemed speaker (sociologist) coming to U of T for an engagement, talking  about role of religion in America today ... thinking it may be of interest to many on this site.  I had absolutely no connection to the event, other than reading it in the paper & being interested myself, which I made clear.  Unfortunately, this occured around the time of the big atheist bus ad flurry.  So one of the agressive new atheist posters flagged my thread as offensive - stating of course he would do so - and poof it was gone.  Somehow, that didn't seem quite right to me.  I asked for, but didn't receive explanation from admin regarding my transgression ...

lol, Carolla, you raise a good point, that the offensive method can be misused. .    I am curious how you asked admin, via a wondermail, or ???  I don't know the methodoloy, unsure if it has ever been explained.

Alex, you can always fix that by posting on a few threads and burying it again.  Only takes 10 more  posts...

 I have just flag two recent posts as hateful, one to the mentally ill and another to "atheists"

It put one back on top of the list of recently active, while it did not do so for the other.

I wonder what will happen, how long it will take to get a response and what it is.

Alex -- hateful doesn't mean it is offensive per the "hate law".  In other words, I could say something, my mother would say "pinga..that is a hateful thing to say", but it doesn't mean it fits the "hate law"

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

• communicate statements,
• in a public place,
• incite hatred against an identifiable group,
• in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

• an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
• an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

• are established to be true
• were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
• were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
• were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada

then again, this site has said that it will not tolerate those that  inflict hatred or violence against others -- including racist, sexist and homophobic attacks .

is that the same as 319? or something more?

I wondermailed admin pinga.  I just figured they were busy, busy & reply wasn't a high priority, which I can understand.

I agree that some threads just seem to be advancing perhaps weird or skewed opinions, but I would not necessarily identify them as 'hate' as the law identifies.   My own option for those is usually to steer away, as other engage in battling the posters - to them I say 'go for it'! but do so respectfully ... which usually they do when/if I read on ...

 I have tagged two more posts as hateful this time to gays.

including the statement The Bible clearly says what it says about homosexuality as sin.

Do you think the above is hateful. It is an opinion, but it is obviously wrong. Imagine the hurt through that it causes to both GLBT people and liberal Christians.

It`s too depressing I spend 10 minutes and find 4 clearly hateful posts against groups, including GLBT.

Alex, that is where the challenge is.....we cna from extrapolation state that when someone says that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin they are expressing hate...that is because we know how much hate has streamed from that statement.

Yet, it does not contravene the Hate Law, or at least my understanding is that it does not. 

Here is why I think that some of us desire a higher bar

Note:  In our affirming church, if someone said to me they thought homosexuality was a sin, I would find it very surprising. I would be quick to state that I disagree and why.   As an individual they, though, are able to have that faith belief.  If they in any way use that faith belief to deny the rights and privileges of people of same sex or in same sex relationships, then they would be asked to cease and desist. In addition, the average person walking into our church would find about a 10  to 1 ratio of affirming folks to non-affirming. (guessing here, based on vote and historical trends

Wondercafe is a public place.

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

• communicate statements,
• in a public place,
• incite hatred against an identifiable group,
• in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

My roommates boyfriend was murdered for being gay. Homophobic hateful statements lead to murder. Just as all those ant-semetic statements and racism recently in the US lead to the murder at the holocost museum. 

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

Wondercafe is a public Place.

All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

• an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
• an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Jews, GLBT, Catholics, and the disable including the menatlly ill are identifiable groups.

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

• are established to be true
• were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true

None of these staements are for the public benefit.Nor are they true.

• were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject

Heres a loophole that churches fought for so they could continuing spreading hate and lies. If you use this then nothing said on Wondercafe can be considered illegal as it is a place for religious discussion.

But I am not a lawyer. The statements I flag as hateful lead to hate and lead to discrimination, murder, and suicides. They are also lies or use hatefiul lies as underlieing presumption.  Is that what we call an safe place. Safe for people to promote hate against groups.

But people are not just saying they believe the Bible condems homosexuality, they say that it clearly condems homosexuals, when the word homosexual did not even appear in the bible until modern times.

I agree that there are those who wish to use this website to forward their agenda of hate, although I'm sure they wouldn't call it that, regarding GBLTTQ people. However, for the record, in another thread, this morning, I reported a post as offensive (describing what about it I found offensive) and replied to it (with a small "non-offensive" part of the offensive post) in in defense of loved ones who are gay. By the time I rechecked on the thread, the posts by that poster were gone. I appreciate the prompt action on Admin's part.

I don't find that engaging with many of those who come by to post this crap is useful in any way, anymore than I think it's tolerable to have to defend those who are darker in skin colour than those of European descent, or women, or those of aboriginal descent. I'm not going to argue with them -- for me, it's about figuring out how to set those boundaries and do my part in stopping it. I don't read every thread or even every topic...so I don't see everything. There are also certain posters I try to avoid responding to, since it just leads to circular discussion and extreme frustration, leading to my violating my own code of behaviour, to no avail.

I'm trying to figure out how to be in this community, which is different than in our face to face communities. This allows for interesting and thoughtful discussions but can also lead to people "safely" saying things that they wouldn't dare say to someone's face.

Alex, hence my point.

The hate law allows for squirming in the religious line.

By raising the bar, to above the hate law, then, posts which you consider hateful but aren't by the formal definiton, would be deemed abusive.

Pinga -- sounds like the "Hate Law" is limited in scope and still doesn't address the hurtful, hateful comments.  What if instead, there was a forum policy about using the bible to slam being queer (or disabled, or a woman etc), keeping in mind the parallels between other groups and offensive speech.  If, for example someone were to give biblical witness to how a certain other culture is despised, it would be met with prompt action.

This is what StevieG and the rest of us are trying to get across.  Read the post, replacing the words to whom the offensive comment is directed, and ask yourself if this is acceptable.

Please.

I posted at the same time as Pinga.

 My point is that by providing a space for open discusion and by not having training for people who run it on hate, theology, etc, makes it difficult for those who run it to decide when the legal bar has been crossed. We are creating an opportunity for capital K Christians.

Also people who post broad negative statements against groups like Roman Catholics are certainly not contributing to the public peace in Ottawa.

This just goes to my point that the administration and  a team working with the admin should have approbiate training. You have to mix principles like free speech, common good, public peace, plus the goals of Wondercafe,  etc. I do not have this training. Do you?

Wonderfully expressed MO5.    Looks like we posted close together as well.  Good to know we're on the same page.

 Take a look at the topic heading. Why do R C fear debate more then others.

Now replace R C with Jews. Why do Jews fear debate nore then others.

IS one acceptable and the other is not?

NinjaFaery & others, trust me, I get the point, as I am sure do many others.

Thanks MO5 for pointing out a report that was actioned.  I think you will likely find reports mon-fri during business hours are responded faster to then those on the weekend. 

So, the question is...is the languguage sufficient.  Mo5's example would go to say that the current rulings allow for such removals.  Alex's & NF's example would indicate there may be more areas that people feel the need to tighten or have clarified.

One example, if I understnad it, is when the bible is used against a group of people in a negative way.   My sense is that some of this is done out of sheer laziness in postings, others in terms of one's opinions and experience. (Alex: I seem to remember some pretty strong posts of yours against the united church)

Some are against people in power, some are against peoples who are routinely marginalized and abused, and hence, put in a protective space.

In addition, dialogue is desirable......

so....what language would you step up...give me a concrete change in wording.

Another title, for example is "why are atheists fools".

To my knowledge, no one expressed either as hate.  Are they nice, no.  Are they hate? I don't know.  One would have to read the thread, and then decide if it was put out there for dialogue.

That is why, Alex, I think your tolerance is much less than mine.  I am willing to allow for such statements...including why are all women chatty, or why do women cry so much...as it allows me to enter dialogue with the individual who posted.  They aren't expressing hate, just ignorance.

 Also do you know the harm stigma causes the mentally ill. Michael Kirby said in his report that stigma causes more harm then the actual mental illness.

I would suggest that questioning whether those who suffer or have suffered mental illness should be in ministry, when the problem is one of honesty is like saying.  Can you trust the mentally ill.  Replace that with Can you trust the Jews, or Can you trust Women, or can you trust the hearing impaired is hate. 

However for the mentally ill, according to Michael, staements like that leads to suicide and discrimination that leads to suicides. 

Thanks, ninjafaery.

Alex, what I'm hearing is that you would like to see either more moderation or perhaps more evidence of moderation. I'm not sure how much active moderation goes on in this board because I suspect that much of it happens without most of us even being aware. I noticed the change in the thread I mentioned above because I was looking for it but most people would probably just think "oh, that doesn't make sense there" because, without the missing posts, the thread doesn't make a huge amount of sense at that point.

One board in which I have participated since 2001 has a very strong equality position and tolerates very little in the way of anti-women, anti-GBLTTQ, anti-aboriginal or racist comments. However, when the moderators (plural!) delete a post or set a boundary (they block posters after one warning), they state it in the thread. That approach might not be one that WCafe would consider as appropriate given that the mandate is for open dialogue and inclusiveness, which isn't necessarily the case "over there". However, the visible presence of the moderators gives reassurance to the other participants that: (1) the moderators are there and aware of the issue; (2) the rules/guidelines are being enforced and; (3) the principals of the discussion board are being upheld.

Here, it would be my guess that moderation is done in a much more subtle way, in order to reduce the risk of shaming and exclusion. Also, I don't know if there is more than one moderator -- if there isn't, he has his hands more than full and can't be everywhere. I imagine that he (or them?) does have training but again, can only be so many places...it's up to us to help him (or them).

Yes I see more hate then you do, thus I am more intolerant. But spend as much time with dieing  marginlised groups as I have and you would too. 

"why are atheists fools". and the post that followed, could just as well be Why are Jews Fools. Why do they not accept Christ, they refuse him so they should be killed.

Or Why are addicts fools? is followed by, they are too stupid to stop, we must refuse health care to them, let them die

Quoting biblical passages that are twisted to witness hurtfulness, and the term "sodomy" used in such a way.  I get that there is a process, and you're right -- could get complicated trying to be open to learning and at the same time, making it clear how we stand.

Maybe a system of graduated consequence to allow for learning.  First a reminder that assumes learning needs to take place, but still removing the post if it meets the criterea mentioned.  Second a firmer message stating that further comments like that  will result in being removed from this forum, and finally removal of the poster if it occurs again.

I agree, thats why we need to hire people who are trained to do so, or train volunteers to to do so. This can not be done through programming. It`s about knowing how to deal with people.  Is that not what ministers and others recieve training in.

Again my point is that we need people, staff or volunteers with those abilities. 

Alex, if you block everything where anyone says anything which could be considered negative about a bunch of folks, then there will be no learning, no opportunity for dialogue.  For me, that isn't helpful.

I would rather have people be more aware of stuff, and also have clear lines that we won't go over.  note: i recognize you have been through items that I have not been; however, also recognize that I have been through stuff you have not, and others have been through other areas. I am sure Mo5 and NF have their own hot buttons, as do I. We need to respect each others stories.

You can see how difficult this item is.

What you are asking for is something that I would not begin to consider.  There is no way that I would expect new people to the site to have the comprehension that individual posters have who are immersed in the issues.  If the first thing that occurred to them is say "your post wsa removed as it broke our hate rule".

Alex, yes, it could have said "why are jews fools", and that would not have made it a hate speech.  They may be ignorant.  They may be unkind or inappropriate. You may state they lead to actions, which in turn lead to hate, which in turn lead to damage; however, they in themselves are not "hate" . I am sure there are posts similair to that all over the israel-palestine threads...and there are passionate folks there.  There were likely posts in the pride festival threads which spoke in a broad stroke purely out of ignorance. I know htere have been such posts re abortions, aboriginals, addicts, homeless, etc. 

Alex, I am fairly sure that if the rules you are asking for were followed, I wouldn't be here.  I can't imagine a site that controlled or limiting to the degree you are asking.

I wonder if there is a difference between commenting on a belief vs a intrinsic or biological trait? 

In the example you give, atheism is a belief (ya, I know that's debatable, but for the purpose of this example, let's say it is).  Challenging a belief such as veganism, nudism or liking metal music is different than treating an intrinsic characteristic with disrespect. 

Just throwing that out.  Feel free to poke holes in it.

That is a misunderstanding, I am not asking for more rules or control or perfection.  I want more of a movement towards more good or beauty, and less hate or ugliness. 

I do not know how that would be done, I am just pointing out and naming patterns that do not affirm life. It would be impossible to make it perfect, because as you suggest extreme control would kill the comminity.

As pointed out earlier the administration has censored stuff that I would not, while ignoring a lot of stuff that is ugly and hateful

I am just suggesting that the UCC or (Wondercafe members through online fundraising) hire staff that are qualified in the humanities, ministers are the most obvious choice for me, but anyone with training or experience  in community developement, or a related field.

 Can you imagine asking bricklayers who build houses to be able to also run the household inside when there are problems. Would you not want a social worker, minister, or rabbi for helping make a home a better place.

 I say this also as a reason why I do not use the Flag as Offensive button often. I am just a bricklayer, and before that I was a labourer. I depend on others for help and knowledge on what is the right thing to do, unless I want to build a fireplace or lay stones. 

Alex:  You are making presumptions regarding the staff at wondercafe, which I will suggest are incorrect regarding skills and backgrounds.

I doubt this site can afford to pay staff to sit and read each & every post, and be expert in each area. In fact, there would be a point of overload., i'm not sure it would be healthy. Unless someone flags, then they won't see.

Finally  your comment re bricklayer seems out of place, especially given your comments earlier regarding your connectiions. Clearly you have knowledge in areas that I do not, through life experience.  You can speak to how posts feel.

Alex wrote: "I am just suggesting that the UCC or (Wondercafe members through online fundraising) hire staff that are qualified in the humanities, ministers are the most obvious choice for me, but anyone with training or experience  in community developement, or a related field."

EZ Answer: I feel for Aaron, whether he is reading these comments about him or not.  I've known ministers harmed by parishioners publicly calling their competence and education into question.  We don't know what training Aaron has.  I've known ministers harmed by parishioners publicly critical of the minister not being omnipresent.  I've known staff associate ministers subjected to parishioner comments like, "If only we had a real minister."

I feel for Aaron.  No doubt, he will graciously state that he understands the concern and shares the desire for this to be a safe place. I respect his ability to take it all in context.

Actually, from my experiences of Aaron's and others who are in these posts, I would suggest that we are quite blessed by those who have continued to go above & beyond in making this site what it is today. 

I want to say that  Aaron and others ( who aren't as visable) have done a superb job on the site. This is a new endeavor and I know for certain that Aaron has shown grace and patience. What more could we ask for.