Slashdot Mirror
Author Faces Canadian Tribunal For Hate Speech
An anonymous reader writes "A Seattle Times editorial notes that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will put author Mark Steyn on trial for his book 'America Alone,' which has angered Muslims in Canada. Steyn is a columnist for the Canadian magazine Maclean's. According to the editorial, British Columbia bans all words and images 'likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.' Steyn is unapologetic, and is advertising his book as a 'Canadian Hate Crime' and daring the tribunal to 'pronounce him bad.'" The Canadian tabloid the National Post has coverage of what it calls "a media storm."
So it was hate speech? Slashdot has decided. Thanks for telling me what to think!
How long before we see this crap in the States?
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
The National Post is one of the national dailies up here, it's not a bloody tabloid.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
The Post, Canada's other national newspaper, is a broadsheet, not a tabloid.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
I'm sure glad the state of civil liberties is so much better in the U.S. We just have torture, secret prisons where people can be held forever without trial, and an executive branch that claims habeas corpus doesn't exist. It's also no big deal that we have one of the world's highest incarceration rates, which is as high as it is mainly because of the victimless crime of selling drugs. Nope, no problem here. Those Canadians sure are bad, though.
Find free books.
This whole thing is about the right to not be offended. Most important is the fact that any individual can file a complaint and legally go after (paid by the government) anyone they think has slighted or defamed them or said nasty words against them. Of course, the defendant has to foot all his/her own legal expenses.
It's actually a free speech issue and I'll leave out my own prejudices and let readers decide for themselves.
To silence others who say things that may make you uncomfortable is not a human right.
To be able to say things that may make people uncomfortable is.
I would ask the BC HRT: Is your mandate to preserve human rights? Or is it to restrict them?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
"Follow into foolishness" "Media gong show". I know people love echo chambers, but try looking for actual news articles rather than op-ed pieces that show their biases in the first bite-sized paragraph next time.
It is a rampant form of censorship. Good thing I'm here in the good old USA, which still restricts free speech far too often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Canada
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm
While those provisions might sound semi-reasonable on the outset, they are VERY broadly interpreted to disallow any speech questioning or condemning one of these protected groups. So, it's a thinly veiled anti-free-speech measure.
As an example, if somebody insinuates over the air that something might be amiss with some religious group, jokes about age, or questions somebody's sexual preference, there can be large fines or jail time.
May it never happen here.
As a Canuck, I can tell you that the human rights tribunal stuff is very scary...because they operate under the effective assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent, they do not conform to the crimina code of Canada, and there is no jury of peers.
Essentially it's a kangaroo court that is allowed to issue 'sentences' that are themselves not in keeping with the criminal code, but are legally binding in the sense that you can be charged with contempt of the court.
It's the dark side of over-liberalization, and the belief that you have the right to NOT be offended.
Tolerance does not mean you have to like someone...just put up with them.
Last I checked you had to actually action the hate.
... odd that.
Like I can write "I hate all jews," but I can't say "I hate all jews, lets set fire to their homes."
Talking negatively about a person, or a group, is not a "hate crime" because it's not a compelling enough reason for a reasonable person to be driven to some sort of criminal activity.
Like if I say, "most muslims don't respect women like we do in the West" (which in and of itself is up for debate) doesn't mean I think we should then chase after Muslims, show them contempt, etc.
Likely this will fail a Supreme court test. The REAL problem is how easy to file a complaint is, and how costly it is to defend against. Since these are not criminal proceedings you're not specifically provided with council. So you have to pay for that yourself.
Meanwhile, the person doing the complaining gets the government to pay for their legal council.
The original article at FrontPage magazine explains a lot.
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).
Full post at: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4DE15EF9-A76C-4DD4-81E2-75683AEED74D
1. In Canada restrictions on charter rights ARE justified and this is well established in in jurisprudence. "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." (Charter 1.1)
2. Free speech is important, nobody is debating that. But there have to be limits on free speech when they can demonstrably justified. I cannot say ANYTHING I want about Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Gays in ANY forum at ANY time, especially when I target one group and I could impact THEIR right to live a happy and free life.
3. Mark Steyn's thesis is that muslims are taking over the west, "breeding like mosquitoes," and that they plan to replace our western legal system with Sharia law. And he is pretty offensive in the way he argues it. But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.
It's the same game the atheist left and jews have been playing on the conservatives and the christians for years. Now that the muslims are playing it on them... well, pot, meet kettle!
BTW, the National Post is left-wing trash. Notice in TFA, the usual buzzwords, "white supremacist", "right-wing bloggers", "simplistic". And Warren Kinsella, the "former Liberal spin doctor", was once their oft-quoted darling who could do not wrong when he WAS a Liberal spin doctor.
Anyone who wants to look up hate monging in the newspaper archives would do well to look up the coverage Preston Manning and the Reform Party got. The late Mordecai Richler was particularly odious, as was the Globe and Trash, The National Liberal, and the Toronto Liberal. The Ottawa Shitizen can be referenced too.
why is this on slashdot? i don't see anything nerdy or tech about this news.
Am I the only Canadian here who didn't hear about this until today? I've read the news every day this week, and I never noticed this in a headline. The National Post sure uses an odd definition of "media storm".
This leaves me with uneasy feeling.
The desirable course of events would be that Muslims in Canada unite around their religion in response to that attack, but I am afraid that decision of authorities will create false impression on some borderline Muslims that people who reject Allah and His Messenger, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, actually are "protecting" Muslims.
I view the concept of "speech" as a speech for which a man bares full responsibility, speech as an act for which the man is responsible before the Creator and before other people.
For example, if you offend somebody's mother, you should expect that you might get a beating at the hand of the son.
As for the content of the book, as far as I understood, it's about predictions what will happen. The author of this book is right, the rulers, the powers, the scumbags that rule your countries, that brainwash you with shopping channels and atheism, should be afraid of Muslims, should be afraid of Islam, because Islam is about enjoining Good and forbidding Evil, and those governments are pretty much on the evil side.
In the times of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, leaders of polytheist tribes were trembling upon hearing his name even at the distance of a month travel.
Ordinary people should not be afraid of Islam, because only good for then will come out of future Islamic domination.
Yes, every bad habit that destroys your life will be quite hard to follow: no liquor sores, no pornography, no public lewdness means that the things you have been addicted to will be hard to find. And that is good for you because more people will be free from that bad stuff that ruins their lives.
There will be much less street crime because most of the street crime is alcohol or drug fueled or gang-related and all those things will be gone during Islamic rule.
Most of you don't understand now that the rights you think you have now are illusion, they do not lead anywhere. If you think about it the rights that you have now are mostly used for bad things and government is ok with it. As soon as you apply this right to the stuff that matters, one of the following things happen: the powers either ignore you or suppress you.
Example: vast majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq, yet the government who was elected by the pressure and money of lobbyists is not listening to it.
So please think about the weight behind your right of free speech: is it just to make you feel good about yourself or does it have some effect on society?
As for real important freedoms, you will retain them: right to economic endeavors, right to practice religions, e.g. Christianity or Judaism.
Islam is good for you. Embrace it.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
While I agree that this "hate speech tribunal" sounds pretty ridiculous -- past experience tell me this thread will turn into a Muslim-bashing thread.
So, let's hear those bashers give equal time to little gem, also comes from Canada: (Prime Minister Harper, in fact:)
Criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic
...when one can make a spoof of "Life of Brian" but with Islamic connotations, without fearing for his/her life. For those that don't know, "Life of Brian" makes fun of both Christians and Jews, in a massive way. It's by far not the only movie that does that - in fact, both Christianity and Judaism (and Christians and Jews) have been on the receiving end of satire and comedy in all forms of artistic expression (plays, books, movies, figurative arts). And by "receiving" I don't mean it necessarily in a negative way.
I don't know how Islam got so protected and the Muslims so protective. It would almost seem like lack of self-confidence.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
while in the EU you go to jail for holocaust denial ... and the U.S government tramples on every human right there is ... some ppl on /. point finger up north.
maybe its time to invade canada ?
People have the right to engage in offensive speech. It's an absolute right, though not one recognized by the Canadian Constitution. You have NO right to to not be offended by someone's speech. Don't like it, don't read it.
If you are not just trolling and really believe the crap you just spewed then I am highly offended by your attitude and plan on taking you to court. You obviously hate people who believe in Free Speech and you should be duly prosecuted under the laws you seem to think are a good idea.
I'm not really surprised that a Maclean's authour is on trial for this sort of behaviour. I don't really consider myself to be a left wing guy, but Maclean's is xenophobic, right-wing sucking pile of trash. I say this with no exaggeration.
Whenever I've read a Maclean's article in the past, it only made me angry. This sort of thing should have happened long ago.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
Free speech is free, until you place restrictions on it. Yes, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a safety issue.
Yelling kike in a crowd is an issue of ignorance and maturity, both on the part of the person yelling it and the people taking offense. If you can't handle getting called a kike, fag, or a nigger, go home, grow the fuck up a bit, and try entering society once you've learned to consider the source and take things in stride.
I say let the biggots be biggots, and the rest of us can be adults.
www.isoHunt.com
Its being done by the government
Once you ban one type of speech, none is free.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
im turkish. what he says is not what he conceives, or he expects or etc.
what he is saying about muslims taking over europe and putting women in burka and banning alcohol and bringing a medieval middle eastern culture all over europe is NOT what he imagines, its what MUSLIM GROUPS that hold great leverage and followers, say. they are OPENLY declaring that this is their intention. all around europe. in uk, netherlands, france and germany, these are going around in underhand jihad and propaganda cd distributions, in meetings or in obscure, far from sight mosques. but in turkey, now, there is a firm islamist government in control thanks to the votes from the islamists who SAID they were going to multiply and turn turkey to an islamist state back 20 years ago. and thanks to that islamist government, many sheiks, groups, 'charities' that were doing the same thing thats happening europe underhand, now are OPENLY and clearly declaring their intentions in public. no - not extreme, radical, eccentric people these are. these are major leaders of the islamist segments of the society. they are openly saying that democracy is no good, the only 'salvation' can be found under islamist republic with a theology, everyone HAS to live under the rules of islam. and when the constitutional court here tries to prosecute them for anti democratical and secular behaviour, guess what happens - they run to european union, and in an APPALLING move, european union supports, and tries to protect these people from being prosecuted inside turkey's borders according to turkey's own laws. i dont know which is more appalling though, the intervention in another country's LEGAL system, or the fact that eu, which is an organization that purports to be founded on ideals of humanism, democracy, modern values, actually protects people who say they WILL abolish democracy, and all of those modern values. no. dont do err here - its not 'opinion' or 'freedom of speech' or anything, they ARE actually taking measures and taking action to that extent - setting up 'charities' that fund 'boarding schools' in which youngsters aged 6 to 22 are brainwashed against EVERY of modern ideals we hold dear today, including freedom of speech, and non discrimination. and yes, indeed discrimination and hatred against western values are brainwashed into those kids, they are taught that west is rotten morally, anything good has to pertain to islam, jews, europe and us are satan, and they should fight against them. from whence do i know ? i HAVE been in those places. and i have many acquaintances and even relatives, who actually are lost to that brainwashing. it is sad. in turkey, since the last 6 years under this islamist party, enmity towards modernism and west has reached a peak.
what is more appalling for me is the stance of the 'mild' muslims, who supposedly constitute the majority of muslims in the world. what they dont realize that, under islam, there can be no mild muslim, and any idea to the contrary is make believe, and self delusion. in islam, there are very solid orders in koran that openly, plainly orders that muslims have to fight jews and christians, and either forcibly convert them, or subdue and take tribute from them (maida surah, 9/29) and similar. one would try to argue that, it was valid at that time, in 600 AD, but it has to be commented, interpreted in some other way, but you cant. when you try to do this, you hit a solid wall ; according to islam, koran is the unchanged word of god. noone's word, including mohammad's word can be held over koran. it is god's will. AND koran states multiple times (around 7 separate places actually) that it is a very clear, understandable book that does not require any interpretation, intermediary (cleric, priest or anything), or reference from other places. when you combine these 3 facts, you CANT argue anything against someone says that muslims should fight against jews and christians.
thats why all the modernist, reformist ideas that some people are trying to spread around in middle east are hitting
Read radical news here
I find it ironic that in the thread about free speech people mention trolling - which is exactly what is your concept of free speech about - right to express unpopular opinions.
Not that I care much about your definitions.
PS. If you are gay, do not try to popularize the idea of enjoying putting a sexual organ in the places tighter than the place it belongs naturally and thus getting more kick out of it. Be in your closet and your punishment will be postponed till the Judgment Day. Fair enough?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is really frightening to see how much freedom in the civilized countries has eroded over the last few decades. But this erosion was of course rather selective. So a pastor got jailed in Sweden for preaching that homosexuality is a sin and is bad (which it is according to his book), now this guy will be jailed for saying Islam is bad. Why the outcry is not equal in both cases? Both cases is free speech being eliminated because someone might be offended. Idiocy is reaching our legal system (well, Canadian system...).
I read the summary, kicked over to the article to find a few more details, but I'm having trouble comprehending the logical leap that's being made here. To start off with, the definition of 'Hate Speech' that I'm commonly familiar with.
To me, that would include such things as cursing out a group of people for being [whatever criteria from above] or as is done with such groups as the KKK, inciting violence based on the aforementioned criteria. Such hate speech doesn't make the victim angry per sae (though it has the possibility to), but would seem to be used to restrict or remove the rights of a particular covered entity and force them to endure intimidation, threats, or have to live in fear.
With that understanding in mind, how does one make the rational leap that speech-that-makes-the-victim-angry is on the same level as speech-meant-to-intimidate? Does that mean that were I to lean over to a friend and say something that made my friend angry, that even if it was as simple as "I don't like your hairstyle today" or "You stink!", that is hate speech?
Frankly, I agree with some other posters here that protections for hate speech should not be applied to groups that get offended by what someone else says, if what was said was not intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence. You do not have the right not to be offended by what others say. Only when they say something that would effectively remove your rights from you should you be able to seek protection.
It's things like this that make me proud to be an American. With all of crap that the current Administration has pulled sometimes I feel like there isn't much to be proud of but the Bill of Rights is certainly something that all Americans should be proud of (and the Bush Administrations constant attempts to piss on the 4th Amendment is something we should all universally condemn). Let people say whatever they want and trust the public to identify "hate speach" and counter it with reasoned arguments against it instead of trying to silence the speaker.
1) The National Post is NOT a tabloid. Sure, it might be fairly right-wing. But, a tabloid it is not.
/article/ and The Seattle Times OPINION piece will note that The National Post's article has actual information in it (including some background) and The Seattle Times opinion piece has little to no journalistic value. Not that this is an uncommon situation when comparing Canadian journalism and US "journalism."
2) I'll prefix this with I'm a Canadian who disagrees with such "hate crime" laws. But, they are well intended. They were made to rid easy spread of things like the KKK ideology. Unfortunately, they were implemented not in a way that would keep free speech but "outlaw" spread of "terrorist" ideals. That is, if that's even possible, which IMO, it isn't.
3) Anyone here that read both The National Post's
4) The Seattle Times doesn't even allude to the fact that there is extreme opposition to these laws; MP's are quite outspoken about them ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE (not to mention the police investigation into the Commission's tactics). All this yet there is worse things going on within the US over the past couple years. But, I guess because this isn't in the name of terrorism it's "bad" whereas the prejudice against "foreigners" in the US is "good" because it helps prevent "terrorism." Sorry, but you don't get to criticise how other countries deal with issues (especially when attempts to fix the situation are going on) when your country is doing the same, in different ways, and worse.
I would suggest checking out the blog of Ezra Levant, mentioned in the National Post story. Levant was brought up before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Danish cartoons and follows the "human rights" commissions closely.
Here is a short video from his interrogation and a quote from his blog: "And after I made [my point], [Human Rights] Officer [Shirlene] McGovern said 'you're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure.' Well, actually, I'm not, am I? That's the reason I was sitting there. I don't have the right to my opinions, unless she says I do."
And here is another video from the interrogation in which Levant expresses his disgust at being directed to answer to the government and characterizes the human rights officer as a thug.
From the article We do not envy the Canadians. They have entrusted to their government a power Americans never would, and they follow it into foolishness.
"These [Free Speech] zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct... Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'"
You can't take the sky from me...
The point that Steyn didn't make the comment is VERY VERY important.
Steyn is on trail (or there about) for QUOTING an Imam.
So, direct quotation is now criminal.
'likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation
What if you make a factual statement that could expose someone to hatred or contempt? For example, the proportion of crime committed per capita by race, the number of suicide bombings per religion, the driving safety record of various age groups?
Wow, that never happens. It's all those other well-defined groups who riot when someone says whatever random thing they don't like. Oh wait, no it isn't.
we will end no whine before its time
but you dont know the real irony.
the real irony is, the heavy handed laws that supposedly stifle that freedom of speech, and the army are the only defenses left against encroaching islamism here. all other bureaucratic and governmental offices and ministries, down to the municipal level, are as of now staffed with islamists, and we are seeing the results of it first hand.
the kind of laws that you condemn here, are ironically the laws that remain to defend us from total abolishment of any kind of freedom of speech. but, unfortunately as of now they are not being let to work, and again, ironically, by the hand of Eu. islamist government has just prepared a new legislation to totally change how constitutional court members are appointed. they are going to choose them, rather than legal system choosing the members according to merits among themselves, with democratic voting. the only places where islamists couldnt fill in their people were constitutional court and the army. now goes the judiciary, thanks to the new legislation that is pushed by Eu. army will be a tougher place to fill with islamists though.
my advice to you is, without knowing the actual conditions in a culture/society, dont make sarcastic or sneery remarks, or dont think that what passes as valid in sweden or canada, can pass in any culture/country in the world. because, it does not.
Read radical news here
The various major divinities are ranked in the following order. ... ...
Invisible Pink Unicorn / Flying Spaghetti Monster
Jewish God
Buddah
Christian God
Mormon God
Aliens invented by L Ron Hubbard
Lost Aboriginal Cannibal Tribes
Muslim God
Now it's not the most scientific approach to determining which God is bigger. Indeed, that list should be normalized by population too. Sorry Muslims. Your God is truly pathetic. There's obviously only one way to deal with this kind of frank criticism. Machetes and fire.
kthxbai.
those laws ban only wearing of headscarves in universities, high schools, elementary schools. they do not ban anyone from receiving any education.
but, those who want to wear headscarves dont go to higher education if they are banned from wearing headscarves within the confines of university.
had it been in u.k., or had it been in france or germany, this would be an awkward thing, because in those countries that particular headscarf is not a symbolical flag that radical islamists gather around. the headscarf they wear, the 'turban' is not the traditional headscarf of turkish women. NOone in turkey objects anyone wearing traditional headscarf, and even the heavy handed secular, anti islamist representatives in the assembly even suggested such a solution - we can allow headscarves in universities, if you put a note that it has to be in the form of traditional headscarf.
ENTIRE islamists segment in turkey have created a big fuss about it. turban wearing women said they would never wear it.
the reason is simple. even if it is the traditional headwear of turkish women for centuries, a normal headscarf is not an islamic symbol that radicals hold as a rallying cause for the radicalism. if they are made wear the traditional one, they will not be able to use it as an agitating symbol, because noone objects to traditional headscarf.
they have to push turban. for the last 20 years they have been using it as a symbol to gather support, they cant just let go of it. one of the major lines this current islamist party used to gain support was the turban cause.
unfortunately turkey is not a european country. the situation here is not something that can be solved through laws that would work in netherlands, switzerland or sweden. we are under heavy influx of radicalism, that is funded by middle eastern radical groups. turkey never will be a modern european country if this islamism thing spreads around. it was almost on the right track 20 years ago, until eu started intervening in turkey and ironically made islamists' task much more easier here..
Read radical news here
Man, you are crazy!
Just how much longer until political correctness takes away all of our freedoms and liberties? Soon, we'll be having to:
1) File an "Environmental Impact Report" every time we use the bathroom.
2) Hire a lawyer every time we say something.
3) Consult the ACLU whenever we say something.
4) Consult an environmental group every time we want to burn wood in our fireplaces (it's illegal to use you fireplace if it creates smoke where i live in California).
5) Register all teacups (or anything that can be used to harm someone) with the State and Federal Governments.
6) Give your house to a criminal who you hurt while he tried to rob you after breaking into your house.
7) Consult the ACLU and rights groups whenever you learn something.
8) Hire a lawyer to accomany you wherever you go.
9) Consult "Fair Trade" groups whenever you shop.
10 Consult Unions whenever you shop.
11) Consult PETA whenever you shop.
12) Consult a nutritionist whenever you cook dinner.
13) Consult the EPA whenever you mow your lawn.
14) Use Union Labor to do household chores for you.
15) Consult an environmental group whenever you fish or hunt.
16) Pay for medical care, food, housing, education, and clothing for illegal immigrants who don't care about the law enogh to enter legally and think they have a right to my hard earned money.
17) Consult an environmental group whenever you go for a walk or hike.
18) Consult a Patent Attorney every time you have an idea or share one.
19) Recite a disclaimer before you say anything.
20) Everything offensive becomes a "Hate Crime".
21) Insults become "Hate Crimes" (already in the U.K.)(Declared as torture by the U.N.)
Every time some delusional, bleeding heart, left-wing nutjob tell me how intolerant I am of other people, I just say, "You do realize that tolerance means tolerating intolerance, don't you?".
That always shuts them up pretty fast.
By the way: Wheather you like it or not, hate speech is free speech. And legal.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Man, those whitey, god forsaken, senile, retarded, pussy, shackled Canadians are so gay.
"Muslim gang-rapists".
FYI, "Muslim gang-rapists" has nothing to do with Islam. Show me one single Hafiz of Qur'an "gang-raper", show me one single Muslim "gang-raper" who prays 5 times a day.
It is not "Islam is coming" that makes it a hate speech book, it is "Muslim gang-rapists" that make it a libel, false, lie.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
No one wants people yelling fire in crowded theaters. No one wants that kind of dangerous sociopathic bullshit, and this example is always brought up whenever someone attempts to rationalize some kind of restriction on speech or expression. Sometimes the example (which I believe comes from a Supreme Court case, so it apples mainly to the United States though I've seen it brought up generally regarding free speech anywhere) is vaguely relevant to what is being discussed, but usually it is not.
I have to seriously wonder whether it would simply be far better - safer, for freedom, in the long run, to forbid all restrictions on freedom of speech.
In other words, decriminalize yelling fire. If it meant that we wouldn't have to put up with politically correct horseshit like this, the censorhip of pornography because some people have an infantile fear of sex, the squashing of anti-government rhetoric under the guise of anti-incitement or anti-sedition efforts, and bookburnings, I think the price is worth it.
If I stipulate to the concept that yelling fire in a crowded theater, or, in fact, inciting to riot is a bad thing, my question is whether or not this would be a worthwhile price to pay for a permanent end to all forms of censorship, and the proverbial tyranny over the mind of man. The danger, of course, isn't that yelling fire would cause a stampede. It would, the first few times some asshat did this. But in the long run, much like like car alarms, people would ignore legitimate warnings.
Would that be a price worth paying if it wiped out any possibility of censorship - if by so doing, you established a precedent that freedom of speech is absolute? (I don't know that it would do that, but I'm speaking hypothetically as a mental exercise.)
To summarize: Is complete freedom of speech worth having, even if it is sometimes dangerous? Even if it might cause a riot or stampede, or create a racist out of thin air?
I think it is. I am beginning to think that, I really do nor recognize nor accept (to the extent that I am willing to bear the consequences) any form of censorship or suppression of ideas. Banning so-called "hate speech" is predicated upon the elitist notion that people cannot think for themselves, and that the government ought to do that thinking for them (by purging speech that could lead to "antisocial thoughts").
Even if this happens in smiling, hockey playing, maple-leaves-and-Bob-and-Doug-happy-go-lucky Canada, make no mistake - this is a form of tyranny. It may not affect you personally because you're not a racist or see no value in racist speech, but it is a personal attack on your right to decide for yourself what you think nonetheless.
Opposing racism is well intentioned. Restricting racist speech - the very act of controlling what people say and therefore what people think, is no way "well intentioned" or "misguided." It is based on the belief that the government is somehow superior and above the individual, and may do thinking for the individual, deciding what is appropriate and what is not.
I don't care what country it happens in. It is wrong in Myanmar. It is wrong in Britain. It is wrong in the United States, where I live, and it is wrong in Canada.
Fuck censorship, and fuck any government that does it.
All of these threads turn into this irritating tit for tat about, "Well, the American is critical, therefore let me show him how his government censors," and so on, which *COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT*. This ought to be like Amnesty International. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and as a species we all ought to stand against it together.
Or else you can let the government do your thinking for you - let it decide what might upset, frighten, or incite you to violence.
"we are being repressed ! our rights !!!" yell the islamists, to eu, international institutions and press, whenever they find the chance. they are always the victim.
yet, the same victims who speak about rights to eu, start violating others' rights in wherever and whenever they find themselves in the majority. you cant go into the districts and walk around merrily, in the districts of the cities that are majorly islamist here. they are like a different country, even a different world. whichever school (elementary or above, until middle school everyone is a kid, noone represses noone) they get a considerable majority, problems arise. people who dont fast in ramadan gets beaten, and government (islamist) dismisses the issue as "some radicals, an individual event" (yet those individual events just keep happening and increasing), turban wearing girls start to oust non turban wearing girls from their groups as their numbers increase, whereas they were just being metropolitan and mixing in with the non scarf wearing girls before getting the majority, and so on.
this, was as such even around 1988, when i was in high school, and the secular system was strong in place, and laws were much more heavy handed. the occurences of being asked 'why are you not wearing a headscarf' to girls not wearing one was very common even by then.
now we have the naive eu dismantling entire mechanisms that prevent turkey from becoming a repressive islamist society. and on the grounds of human rights too. unfortunately the same eu will not be able to protect anyone's rights here, when islamists finally get high judiciary and army bagged, just as they are not able to protect anyone's rights in iran islam republic.
Read radical news here
I hate Smurfing!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
If I tell 20 people who actually listen to me to go kill the President of the United States, then I'm not guilty of anything. After all, I have freedom of speech, right? I can say anything I want, right? Hate Crimes in Canada are not in place to prevent people from saying hateful things. They are in place to prevent people from hiding behind freedom of speech when they are actually attempting to incite violence against a particular group of people (particularly minorities).
It's censorship aimed at silencing any speech or thought critical of Islam or Muslim culture whatsoever. Which is fine, really, I'm not Canadian, I don't live there and when it comes to the US I'll just have to emigrate.
...a Canadian citizen filed a formal charge against the members of one of the Human Rights Commissions alleging that they are violating his human rights by limiting his ability to read material he would like to read? No, seriously, I'm not joking. It sounds like anyone may bring charges against anyone else, so what would happen if someone actually did this? Would it have to enter the court system? Who would hear such a case?
This whole article doesn't even belong on Slashdot. What the fuck does this have to do as News for Nerds?
None of this would have happened if we'd voted McGovern in '72. It's all that Nixon's fault.
But the speech has nothing to do with this site. This is just an attempt of American "libertarian" anarchocapitalist cryptofascists to hijack the conversations of /. and bring up their psychopathic ideology.
The act is way too broad.
It's section 13.1 that says something like "any published materials that are likely to expose a person or group to hatred or contempt".
I read a book a few years back "IBM and the Holocaust". Wouldn't that book expose IBM employees to "hatred and contempt".
"Likely to expose" is big enough to land a 747 in. And the truth or probable belief in the truth is not a defense.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Spoofs and thoughtful criticism of Islam are one thing. Steyn's shrill book however is just old fashioned hate mongering
His books and articles with their hysterical fear mongering owe a spiritual debt to works like the 1911 anti-Asian screed "The Yellow Peril" and even a little bit to the classic "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
Make blissfully contemptuous generalizations about currently fashionable minorities like Jews or homosexuals and you are an instant pariah. A finished career and a round of condemnation from sound-bite worthy people are what you'll be getting. But do the same with Muslims and you are a champion of free speech and democracy.
Free speech has never been an absolute. And restrictions around hate speech in Canada were never a problem until they started interfering with anti-Islamic smears.
Everyone arguing for Steyn's right to earn a living as a Professional Muslim Hater owes a letter of support to Holocaust deniers like David Irving and Ernst Zundel who have been prosecuted under hate speech laws.
The challenge of Islamic terrorism has tested the commitment of the West to it's stated principles.
And from habeus corpus to hate speech, to limits on executive privilege, to privacy it has found that commitment wanting
P.S kdawson is a troll
... then you also believe in the freedom of people to say distasteful things. Can't say I like Steyn much myself, or what he says, but the way to combat things like hate speech - if that's what it is - is by having more speech, not less of it.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
I hope (because it will raise awareness) and fear (because I might be next) that it is only a matter of time until the goose is killed. Of course, then "they" just move on to the next goose.
"first they came for the $MINORITY, but I didn't care because I was not a $MINORITY..." We know how it works.
sig sig sig siggy sig
back when i was 12 years old. and did that 5 times a day thing too. im not a muslim anymore. as i said, i recanted it long ago.
Read radical news here
Lol. I especially like this quote from the article:
"They have entrusted to their government a power Americans never would, and they follow it into foolishness."
Er. White House. Hello? Bush? Pot. Kettle. Black.
Debate on this on Canadian TV here (6 parts). Here's Part 1 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOgcGCaN29A
As a Canadian, I'm completely disgusted by the Human Rights [sic] Tribunals. They were originally designed to stop people from being discriminated against by employers or landlords. Unfortunately, like most government systems, they've expanded and now want to control what we can say (and ideally, what we think.)
Canada's "hate speech" laws need to be scrapped. Unfortunately, there's no political will for that. And politician who dares to make Canada more like the US will be pilloried, even though in this particular case the US has got it right with its emphasis on freedom of expression.
I love Canada, but some aspects of its politics drive me crazy.
Speaking as a liberal, I've always been against this kind of hate speech law, where the "crime" is in uttering a thought.
And I hate Mark Steyn, who is just playing the martyr.
His column was evil and hateful in intent, but it shouldn't be illegal.
I think the law we have in the States, however, where if you commit a crime like assault, and part of your motivation can be shown to be the furtherance of prejudice against a group, is just fine. It's called a "sentence enhancement," and we have lots of things like that in the law. If you kill someone by accident, there's no charge to be made as long as you weren't reckless. If you planned to kill someone, and you went out and did it, and you "laid in wait," as they say in Cali, then you can get the Death Penalty. So, everything from no charge to death by lethal injection: the differences in sentencing are differences mainly in intent.
It's not illegal to say, "God hates fags." Disgusting, but not illegal. It's already illegal to beat someone up. A gay-bashing is worse than simple assault, because it's the lowest form of political thuggery, and that's what makes it more dangerous for society.
In the years leading up to the Nazi takeover, there were hundreds of political killings in the streets. THAT'S the state of affairs that Hate Crimes legislation is equipped to stop. It should only be charged when there's evidence.
Your post leaves me with an uneasy feeling.
The desirable course of events would be that Muslims in Canada unite around their religion in response to that attack, but I am afraid that decision of authorities will create false impression on some borderline Muslims that people who reject Allah and His Messenger, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, actually are "protecting" Muslims.
Given the way muslims in most other places have 'united around their religion' in responses to perceived attacks, that would not end well - do we really want people forced into hiding, embassies and churches burned, etc, just for expressing an opinion? Whether you could call what this guy's done an 'attack' is highly debatable, but when you start setting things on fire, you become the attackers. I hope that's not what you're endorsing?
I view the concept of "speech" as a speech for which a man bares full responsibility, speech as an act for which the man is responsible before the Creator and before other people.
For example, if you offend somebody's mother, you should expect that you might get a beating at the hand of the son.
Not in a civilised country I shouldn't. If we all went around hitting everyone who ever said anything we disagreed with, everywhere would be absolute chaos. Of course, if we're just limiting it to religious texts, your book calls for me to be beheaded or forcefully converted - can I beat you for holding that belief? Of course not. Assaulting people for words is just childish and unnecessary, and laws against it are one of the best things about society.
As for the content of the book, as far as I understood, it's about predictions what will happen. The author of this book is right, the rulers, the powers, the scumbags that rule your countries, that brainwash you with shopping channels and atheism, should be afraid of Muslims, should be afraid of Islam, because Islam is about enjoining Good and forbidding Evil, and those governments are pretty much on the evil side.
Interesting, as in the previous couple of paragraphs you just said it was alright for people to go around beating people up for thinking differently to you. I'd say that's pretty evil, wouldn't you?
Ordinary people should not be afraid of Islam, because only good for then will come out of future Islamic domination.
Unless I happen to believe in something you don't.
Yes, every bad habit that destroys your life will be quite hard to follow: no liquor sores, no pornography, no public lewdness means that the things you have been addicted to will be hard to find. And that is good for you because more people will be free from that bad stuff that ruins their lives.
I avoid those things too, but it's a personal choice - who are you to dictate what other people can and cannot do, if what they're doing isn't directly hurting you? If people around you want to have a drink, crack one off at the wrist or engage in 'public lewdness' and you can't handle it, move. That's not racism, that's not xenophobia, that's simple logic. If my next door neighbours started playing heavy metal through the wall at 4am every weekday, I'd move somewhere where the neighbours didn't play heavy metal at 4am through the wall, because it's easier to do that than sit and bitch about not liking what other people get up to on their own time.
There will be much less street crime because most of the street crime is alcohol or drug fueled or gang-related and all those things will be gone during Islamic rule.
Could somebody please tell that to the Islamic gangs that have 'no whites' areas in Bradford, Leeds and Halifax, and will happily assault white people for going into their 'areas'? Maybe they aren't following the cause of Islam, and if they aren't, you should speak out against them, because as it is, I'm seeing a lot of gang-r
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
That's such a tired old trope. "You can't talk about injustice X because injustice Y is so much more important." Why can't we talk about both? And why can't we talk about injustice X in the thread about injustice X? Those of us complaining about Canada's actions are also complaining about the EU and US. We just don't feel a need to talk about it in every context.
Specifically, with regards to the U.S. government: yes, elements of it are attempting, with mixed success, to deny their obligation to a specific set of human rights. But a huge number of Americans are up in arms about that. Congress and the courts have attempted to intervene. Executive branch officials have resigned in protest. The media has covered the hell out of it. And bloggers on all sides of the political spectrum have condemned it.
If the U.S. were doing the same thing as Canada and people complained about Canada, but not the U.S., that would be hypocritical, but I guarantee you that much more ink has been spilled in America about our own government's actions than about Canada's.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Pastafarians are evil?
Dude, you're about to get your soul sucked out by somebody's noodly appendage.
Steyn is an idiot and so is this law. They belong together.
Sure I believe in free speech, but you can't let that guy say those things.
We had this guy come to our website and begin spouting a bunch of nonsense about curtailing free speech so as not to offend anyone. We tried to rationally explain why this was a bad idea. It turns out that he was a Canadian who was a huge supporter of these HRCs. The lengthy and bizarre discussion that is here is a good view into the mind of people who believe what I consider to be utter rubbish.
what this shows is the left wing's hypocrisy.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"The Canadian tabloid the National Post..." Tabloid? Financial newspaper != tabloid.
I spent some time with google but couldn't find a clear answer. What is the extent of the Human Rights Tribunal's power? Punitive damages? Fines? Community service? Prison sentences? Execution? A stern talking to?
some Canadian Justice against hate speech. But then a majority of people would be judged for hate speech. So how exactly do you define hate speech and at what point is it protected by the so called "freedom of speech" even when it harms people?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
What is says - nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How it's applied - nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or enough of us get together and feel that an economic development zone for our friends outweighs your right to your property; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protect of the laws, except of course if you are a member of the wrong group, whereby you qualify for extra justice. If such a case arises, the white straight fellow will by statute be eligible to receive a longer sentence if, perhaps, we think he may have thought the wrong thing while committing this crime. No protected group shall be eligible for this extra justice and even suggesting such a thing is considered a hate crime.
I refer the dear reader to the famous south park episode that dealt with the flag of south park called Chef Goes Nanners
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
As a bit of background, the original problem with Maclean's was not because they publish hate articles about Muslims, it's because that they refused to publish a response by the Muslim community to those articles.
From an article that was published in thestar.com:
You can't hide forever Anonymous Coward. Nazis are soon coming to get you.
...is because of Canadian Bloggers. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have taken up the charge of exposing the HRC's for the kangaroo courts they are. And a gaggle of bloggers have rallied around them (only to find themselves at the business end of a lawsuit).
The Mainstream media (HIGHLY liberal-slanted in Canada) have largely ignored this story up till now. The HRCs are the precious children of previous liberal governments - liberals tend to believe that there should be all kinds of limits of free speech - so they've avoided reporting about them as long as they possibly could have. Unfortunately for them the story is growing at the grassroots level AND in American media so it's getting harder and harder to ignore.
Once their tactics are exposed I suspect Canadians will be outraged. And expect the liberals to scurry. Nothing scatters cockroaches faster than a spotlight.
So, can the National Post be litigated because they reported on the litigation and divulged some of the dialogue?
OMG!~ Can *I* be litigated because I asked the previous question?
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation
Ah, so religions have carved out this nice little niche, where they can pass judgment on everybody else, but if anybody dares criticize them, they hide behind anti-discrimination laws.
I find Catholic and Muslim doctrines immoral and contemptible. Not only do I think I have a right to criticize them, I think I have a moral duty.
I don't think this article is a troll. I'm not even sure how I feel about what the OP is saying, but I do know that he/she is simply stating their opinions on the discussion at hand.
Can we please focus on modding _up_ instead of down? I don't think I've ever modded anyone down. There is no need for that. I've been seeing a lot of posts labeled Troll of Flamebait that are just personal responses by regular people. The negative mods should be reserved for gratuitous violations of slashdot's discussion policies.
Sorry if I sound angry- I'm not- but I like balanced and fair discussions, at least as much as I can reasonably expect them.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
How often do you think Satanists get attacked? Muslims are in a weird limbo between power, in which they can be attacked (see also, Christianity, Judaism), and bearing no power (such as Satanists).
Where was the "media storm" (or for that matter, the slashdot outrage) when David Ahenakew was successfully prosecuted for hate speech against Jews?
This sounds like just another anti-arab double standard. That is, it's perfectly fine to promote hatred and intolerance towards arabs, but criticizing Israel makes you a Nazi.
c6gunner appears to be spouting a lot of right-wing propaganda about this case, so I'll throw in some left wing stuff.
From reading on this topic a few months ago, I came to the conclusion that the "100% conviction rate" is based on complaints made before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by a human rights lawyer (alas, I can't recall his name) who chooses his battles carefully. The actual number of complaints he has filed to date is small; less than ten, IIRC. But he has won all of them.
The political left in Canada is very much in favour of human rights commissions and tribunals. They are one way for less advantaged (and monied) people to make complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, creed, gender, and sexual orientation. But even on the left there's considerable debate over the merits of this case. Anyone interested in seeing a part of this debate can visit this thread on Rabble.ca (which politically is probably further left than the Slashdot majority.)
I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on a CD-R somewhere
Hi -
Starting with the "cartoons" incident a while ago, I am getting sick of Muslim extremists. Why should we go out of our way to be tolerant of them, when so many Muslims are intolerant of others?
(I will probably be put on some kind of death list for posting this!)
- TWR
i really would like to learn what stunt islamists tried to pull in japan, if you have the time to tell about it please.
Read radical news here
The key word there is virulent. Hate spreads. Now, I don't think this legislation is effective or even right-headed, but advocating violence based on prejudice (however subtly) is more than just simple expression, it's an act that can really screw things up for a lot of people. I don't have any answers about how to deal with it, short of educating children for rational judgments (being able to differentiate between assholes and those who are just culturally different, for instance).
I find censorship highly distasteful. I don't have a problem with preventing mass violence. Hate speech is a huge grey area in between. One edge of the area is about morality, and should be left alone; the other edge is about social stability, and should be attended to.
It's a cautionary tale: Steyn may be a prick, but I don't think he's telling people to build concentration camps. The law, in this case, is an ass, and I think laws like this are doomed unless VERY specific, sticking to the genocide side of the grey area.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Given, I'm not a Muslim, but I don't see it as being offensive. I don't agree with Steyn's opinions, but it's obvious to me that he's no racist, and it's even more obvious that the book is... his opinion.
I dunno, I live in the US. Maybe having an opinion and sharing it is illegal in Canada.
Comment of the year
Uh, "breeding like mosquitos" was a direct quote from an Imam, Mullah Krekar in Oslo. It wasn't Steyn's words. Steyn is going before a tribunal because he accurately quoted an Imam talking about his own religion. And you seriously think there's nothing wrong with this?
I know, I did this strange and unusual thing called "reading the book." In fact I'm holding it in my hand; it's right here between page 39 and 40. (Of the hardcover, ISBN 0-89526-078-6.) People who call for censorship never seem to actually do that, do they?
Comment of the year
So if I understand this right, if the RIAA criticizes views of file sharing in Canada, and spreads its hate speech against persons who believe in the sharing of music, they're committing hate crimes which will be prosecuted? Or does Canada's leftist government suck up to corporate interests like all political parties do, administering uneven justice?
If you think of anything nice to say about some group or other then the government should throw your ass in prison to be gang-raped until you are nice.
Seastead this.
How can one publish editorials about Muslim extremists without being told you're inciting hate against all Muslims? This is even more difficult if you are publishing editorial cartoons.
We are in the midst of an ideological war with extremist Muslims, yet mainstream Muslims seem to be uncomfortably silent in that fight. The only time one hears a Muslim group getting involved is when one of those extremists goes on air to express support for said terrorist groups. This has happened numerous times in the US and Canada with various groups expressing support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
If they can openly express support for groups who incite violence against us why is it not fair to incite violence against those extremists?
There is also an act of bigotry when we separate people into groups that can be victimised. Still, I'd agree that motivation should play a substantial role in sentencing a crime. Yet look at this case here, no crime has been committed apart from the act of 'hate speech' itself, there would be no charges in the first place if it wasn't for these inane laws that punish what is literally a thought crime. In receiving these charges, is he not a victim of persecution himself, therefore a victim of hate crime? These guys sure hate what he wrote.
>>The Canadian tabloid the National Post has coverage of...
The Canadian "TABLOID"?? LOL!
O, how the mighty have fallen!
Poor Conrad will be turning over in his cell, whilst chuckling, if he ever gets a chance to read the above description!
I'm sure Steyn will be, if he sees this!
.
- aqk
F U
It's about time someone started cracking down on the neocon hate mongers. I always hated this guys columns in the Times because they basically read like the views of your average school bully. Hopefully it's a capital crime.
The Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the B'nai Brith claim in paragraph 4 of their joint brief, they're "representatives of the Canadian Jewish community" and that Canadian Jews "rely heavily on anti hate-speech legislation, such as section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, for their physical and psychological security."
See: http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/hows-your-psychological-securi.html
The only group you can hate in Canada is the white, rich, christian male.
Christianity isn't a race, if you didn't already know. When I go to church, I see caucasians, blacks, hispanics, asians, Indians, and more. To not believe in other religions isn't racism, it's just believing in your own.
By your logic, a Communist preaching that they will conquer and rule the entire world is also racist.
Its filled with hate against others.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Religion, like culture, what your favorite color is, or what foods you like is a choice, and is therefore open to ridicule, mockery, criticism, reuse in art - anything. The "British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal" is a complete sham. Many religious beliefs and written works are anti-human rights or hate speech. Why are these religions not on trial?
Hate speech is when you say something that the establishment doesn't like.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Under Canadian law you are permitted to hate anyone you want or say you hate anyone you want. Under Canadian law, the criminal code, sec.318 indicates: "Everyone who advocates or promotes GENOCIDE is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
Genocide under this section means committing any of the following acts with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group; namely killing memebers of the group, deliberately inflicting conditions of life on a group calculated to bring about its physical destruction."
So you can hate anybody and say so but you can't wish them harm of or distruction in such as way it would bring about their physical destruction.
So free speech in Canada is alive, well and democratic.
~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~
~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~
It's worth pointing out that Ezra Levant has been hauled up before these nasty little thugs. Fascinatingly, he managed to film one of these kangaroo courts in action. Well worth a view.
In an exchange during a case against a Canadian racist/antisemite named Marc Lemire, Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) investigator Dean Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" Dean responded: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=405744
Holy shite! Is this guy for real?
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
As Ezra Levant points out, even if you win these tribunals, you lose. The state has huge resources, lawyers, money, time, bureaucrats. You just have yourself. Being taken through the process is punishment itself, costly and time consuming. The net effect is oppression and fear - most people know that if it comes to the crunch the genuine courts will throw these cases out, but they don't want to go through the rigmarole of getting there. This really is tyranny; the executive and the legislative becoming the judiciary, the courts being used as a weapon in political and ideological battles. The Left have no morals, no scruples and no self-restraint in the depths to which they will stoop to enforce their world view.
this is one of the things that are brainwashed into kids here since early 1950s through state sponsored education history books, in schools. at those times the islamism was in a milder form, manifesting in the DP (demokrat party) at that time. those people rewrite history books here.
ottomans had a tendency to record everything. every single kind of thing. because empire clergy and government didnt have anything to be afraid from anyone. to the extent that they didnt see any issues with recording how many young male boys a particular sultan had in his harem. (icoglani). it was a normal thing for them.
same historical accuracy goes for the atrocities they did. they very well recorded how Kuyucu mustafa pasa had got his nickname "Kuyucu". (meaning Well user). this minister had been instrumental in suppressing the Celali revolt in central anatolia, by killing people in atrocious manner. ottoman records show 30.000 people were killed by being thrown into water wells. this is why he got this nickname. and he is only one of the ottoman ministers in that fashion too. same did for what they did when they conquered any new land. the SOLE reason for conquering new lands was because of the booty. it was why the ottoman army went revolting if some sultan didnt go on an attack somewhere every 5 years. it was the foundation of ottoman state - its called Ghazi culture. you go attack in the name of the religion, you occupy, plunder. the rule is that if a city is taken by force, 3 days of free booting is offered, in which the army can take anything it wants. most of the time this manifested in taking slaves. in 1453, when mehmed ii decided to continue the patriarchate after occupying constantinople, they couldnt find the successor that was supposed to be appointed in place of the old patriarch. you know why ? because during occupation a sipahi squad leader (a low level beg) had appropriated that man during the plunder, as a slave among his many. sultan had to send his men to take the new patriarch from the slavery he was under in provincial rumeli (SE balkans) so that the new patriarch could be appointed. these information had taken AGES for me to gather and learn. everything in regard to historical facts here is edited by state ministries, and nothing allowing real history is allowed, if they do not fit well with the 'tolerant and great ottoman empire' myth. and they do not open ottoman archives even to turkish people - mind that. it is supposedly our heritage, but we cant go in and read anything from there, save a 10% they opened. you can guess that this 10% was the only amount that was not in conflict with the myth they are trying to create here.
no ottoman tolerance is bollocks. only jews were tolerated to that extent, and there is a very solid reason for that - when mehmed ii conquered istanbul at 1453, he wanted to rebuild the city. but being founded on a Ghazi culture, ie - conquer and plunder and get tribute kind of state - ottoman empire had lacked the craftsman to do anything in istanbul. therefore he sent orders to gather up all the craftsman that could be found anywhere near empire, most of them minorities. and when spain persecuted jews around 1490s, ottoman empire accepted them, because they needed craftsmen. thats the reason of the 'tolerance'. same 'tolerance' was not conferred upon the NORMAL citizens of the empire, as you can see from how did they treat people in central anatolia. ah, i also forgot to add the 40.000 people Sultan Selim had slaughtered in just one week in northern iraq around 1510, but thats another and long matter.
the same myth creating goes around in the internet too. turkish zealots (most of our compatriots are unfortunately zealots, they have an over exaggerated sense of egoist nationalism) edit wikipedia articles and such to change negative publicity about ottoman period. unfortunately, historical accuracy doesnt matter a shit. any historical fact that they cant refuse are dismissed by labeling them 'western propaganda, they wrote the history themselves'.
Read radical news here
The PC crowd decided that certain 'curse words' were bad too.
Don't forget, you like to think 'PC' is a recent construct...not so. It has been alive and well in every society.
I believe religion was the source of the first 'PC' rules...thous shalt not take the name of your lord god in vain.
But it's a recent 'liberal' idea...yeah...
This is utter BS and I can't believe that noone has actually called you on this. Political incorrectness cuts both ways
The "conviction rate" is less than 50% and here is a link
http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/annual_reports/Annual_Report_2006-2007.pdf/
Most frivolous cases are dismissed way before hearing and damages other than things like lost wages are minimal.
The BC Humnan rights tribunal handles a lot of every day cases that don't make it to the news - like people being fired because of race or perceived disability.
The tribunal essentially provides a small claims type of court to pursue such cases, and the majority of them are wrongful dismissal type of cases. We are involved in one right now and are thankful for this process since we are fighting a billion dollar corporation and will likely win without a spending megabucks on a lawyer.
I'm too lazy to look Mark Steyn up, is he a "Jack Thompson"?
e.g. some nut doing outlandish stuff, and causing things to be polarized beyond reasonable debate.
"Nice shop you have here. Shame if it burned down."
"How is your little girl? I see her walk to school every day. Now, about your testimony.."
"If you come near my daughter again, I'll take this bat here and beat you to death".
And see how much the free speech helps you.
If you're at a presidential rally, and happen to get near enough, call your president a cocksucking teabagger and see how free speech helps.
Go to a woman and say "Great tits but your minge smells awful".
Or, if you want to die, go through Florida back-country with "Man love is excellent!".
This crap is going to become more and more prevalent in Canada, the US, Britain, etc., and I'm not sure exactly how it can be stopped.
:(
:)
The problem is that a large portion of the population cannot be reasoned with (to put it lightly). To many people an unassailable argument (i.e., one that sounds good) in support of these star chambers would be this:
"Free speech is an important right, but it's no more important than the right of minorities to not be exposed to hate speech."
It's just a soundbyte, but even dissecting this requires quite a bit of thought (way more than the typical couch potato is used to). For instance, the underlying meaning expressed within that sentence might could be conceptualized something like this (and even this is a HUGE simplification):
"Free speech is an important right..."
free_speech -> right [CATEGORY]
"...the right of minorities to not be exposed to hatred..."
not be exposed to hatred -> right[CATEGORY], [CLASS] = minorities
"...no more important than the right of minorities to not be exposed to hate speech."
free_speech (right, all/undefined) >= not_exposed_to_hate (right, minorities)
From here you could derive further things implied by the original statement that someone accepting it would also have to accept (e.g., free speech must not be the most important right, or not all groups of people possess the same rights), and challenge ambiguities (what is hate speech? Who are minorities?), then based on those responses further refine your conceptual model of the person is saying, derive implications, and repeat... (In a perfect world it would be possible to repeat this until either one realized his beliefs were based on flawed logic, or that either side's beliefs were both logically sound and reached different conclusions only because they had a different opinion on some fundamental principle).
But it's never going to happen like that. There's surely flaws in my logic, things I've overlooked, or left ambigious. However, at least it's a framework for how two smart people could go about resolving an issue. Unfortunatley, I believe that most people's brains would operate more like this (I wish I could say this was a simplification):
"Free speech is an important right..."
Yeah! Good! Freedom!!!
"...right of minorities..."
Minorities -> victims, need help *sympathy* ->help them with rights!!
"..hate speech."
HATE?!!! omg! Nazis!!! KKK!!!
***thinking***
helping minorities = good
free speech = good + hate speech
hate speech = bad
Solution:
free speech - hate speech + helping minorities
= (good + bad) - bad + good
= good + bad - bad + good
= SUPER GOOD!!!!!!!111oneoneone
Add to this that those possessing the subjective, emotion responsive brains are going to be disproportionatley represented in fields like political science (which are the feeders for the intelligencia class - media academia, law, politics, etc.) and bullshit like Human "Rights" Commissions should surprise no one. The shrieking fanatic calling everything that moves a racist tends to drown out at any appeal to reason.
:)
It's okay to say Creator. I'm sure he parents won't mind you calling them that. :)
I only give one option.
Kneel Before Zod!!!!
Wow, I heard about this over a month ago and now the MSM is finally covering it because they had to acknowledge it? Funny, you can download music with no penalty, but say the wrong word and yer in jail.....
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
Exactly. Critics of Islam truly have to fear for their lives, but the government and media are far more concerned about those mythical "Islamophobes" who are forever on the verge of leaping out of the shadows to fire up the ovens and gas chambers.
As a Canadian, the criminalization of "hate speech" has always been disconcerting for reasons that are expertly articulated by Christopher Hitchens in this speech, delivered at the University of Toronto (see also part 2).
This insistence that "big government is bad government" is largely an American fixation, but it's misguided. The simple fact of the matter is that there are things governments do better than the private sector, with the canonical example being healthcare (the US offers care that study after study says is at best equal to European care, but it does so for 50% more money and to only 80% of its population).
Government is not - in most places - the enemy of its people, and it's foolish and inefficient to treat it as such. The problem isn't power; the problem is what's done with that power.
I have no problem with government spending money to address social ills, to help people find jobs, to ensure every child gets a good education, to ensure everyone has access to quality medical care - these are things that benefit society. What I do have a problem with is the government doing things that harm society, and censorship is one of those things.
Power can be used in good or bad ways, and it's up to the citizens of a country to make sure their government doesn't abuse the power they give it. Stopping abuses by not giving the government any power also means stopping the beneficial things the government does, and is an incredibly knee-jerk reaction that just throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Hate speech laws aren't to protect the "weakminded" from being influenced by "obvious bullshit", they're to protect innocent third parties from those "weakminded" people who would have been influenced.
It's just like how it's illegal to (in bad faith) shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre - the harm to society of the law against it (restriction on free speech) is deemed to be much less than the harm to society of no such law (high probability of serious physical injuries to innocent people), so the law is deemed a net benefit to society. In just the same way, the harm to society of a law against hate speech (restriction on free speech) is deemed to be less than the harm to society of no such law (high probability of serious physical injuries to innocent people, due to "weakminded" folk being influenced to do so), and so the law is deemed a net benefit to society.
Deemed by who? Are they right? Have they fully accounted for the harm restricting free speech does? All good questions, and ones that should be vigorously debated. But the fundamental idea - that very occasionally some speech is outright dangerous, and should be restricted for the good of society - is identical between the two types of laws, and is pretty reasonable. Most people are pretty happy with the theatre law, and the principle behind the two is identical; all that's different is the tradeoffs.
Everything - everything - involves tradeoffs, and making our society the best it can be involves realizing that and fully evaluating what those tradeoffs are and what our priorities are. Childish all-or-nothing thinking is very appealing, but that kind of simplification almost never leads to the optimal result.
Most of the complaints I've read about the guy's Harpers article centred on "breeding like mosquitoes"-type snippets which were - as you say - verbatim quotes from an outspoken Muslim in Scandanavia. The words were presented as the guy's own, though, which suggests that the complainers were either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
In my opinion, it's good that a human rights tribunal exists in BC; that such a meritless case as this can be taken before it, though, suggests that it may not be set up appropriately. I'm hopeful that this will highlight some of the deficiencies in the system for future fixing.
The bible never commands christians to kill anyone. Nor does it teach that christians are to follow the Old Testament Law.
Christians by definition are "followers of Christ", therefore should have the same values as Christ who said "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44).
MOD PARENT UP!
It is embarrassing how the American system has failed to function properly; which I attribute to the 4th branch (news) being corrupted in many ways in addition to the spoiled selfish public neglecting their duties. (I am an American, BTW.)
Bush cheated and had massive mainstream media support.
Bush was NOT elected in 2000. He was appointed in the most openly corrupt supreme court decision ever (or likely the worst.)
Bush narrowly won 2004 if you believe computer voting works and exit polls can be 10+ points off.
Remember that many of the scandals shortly AFTER the election were KNOWN and SUPPRESSED before the election. This includes the prisoner "abuse"; which for a long time is what the media called it-- "abuse" and almost never mentioned the videos of the serious "abuse" but focused upon the less objectionable (relatively) aspects.
Computer voting in ALL forms continues to get every benefit to delay resolving the problems. They put them in without delay but getting them out even if proven rigged would take YEARS...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
what strikes me so far in this discussion is the lack of distinction between bigotry and freedom of thought/speech. the problem is lumping in all the muslims together, just like it is wrong to lump in all the women together, or all the homosexuals together, or all the chinese together.
a hate crime is not a matter of protecting certain people more than others. it's a matter of defining that a crime committed because of bigotry is different than a crime committed because of other reasons. torturing someone just because he's black is morally more wrong than torturing someone because he stole from you. it's not that blacks have more protection under the law.
there is also a difference between debating ideas and condemning a group. sometimes the distinctions are subtle and difficult to express. that is what political correctness is about. it's about being able to say that you disagree with someone's ideas without saying that that person is bad or inferior. it can be difficult, and sometimes it's not done properly, just like anything else.
and then of course there's the case of inciting violence. is anyone really defending that we should have the right to incite others to commit violent crimes? what value would protect that? again it's one thing to debate ideas, and it's another to invite violence against a group of people.
when it comes to religion it's a bit more complicated. nobody chooses to be white or north korean, so it's easy to see that it's plain wrong to hate someone for that. with religion there is an element of choice. but we tend to forget that people pick and choose what they believe in their religion. sure, the koran says to kill the infidels. but how many muslims believe that? is it a surprise to anyone that most members of a religion do not literally believe every word of their sacred texts?
it might surprise some that extremist muslims are prosecuted as well. clerics who are found to incite their followers to commit acts of violence are prosecuted and sentenced.
in the end the challenge is guaranteeing the most freedoms to all. that means limiting everyone's freedoms to a certain extent. finding the right balance is in part what our systems of government are about. it's a process that sometimes makes mistakes. hopefully overall it's going in the right direction...
I think he should have his say. I think the same holds even with Holocaust deniers. Better to disprove them by presenting the facts than legitimize them as martyrs by prosecuting them.
there is no god but truth, and reality is its prophet
I am a muslim and after RTFA, I don't see it as offensive in any way. Just a bunch of crap assumptions about muslims and their ways of life.
Does he even knows any real muslim in canada? Hardly 5% of muslims women wear veils. A lot of them drink and do clubbing and are hardly religious (myself amongst them).
What else is it except a way to get cheap publicity?
I'm sure that this has been mentioned, but this story is well over a year old and it is nothing new. Steyn is a relatively well known commentator on the arts and politics, so anybody who follows political news should have heard of it by now. How it is news today, I don't really know.
Hate speech agains Muslims? Serves them right, yes it does.
Open the Koran at any page. "Allah is great, fear Allah. Kill them all non-muslims. Allah is great and Mohammed is His Prophet." All the book is in that tone. Is it not striking that "Allah uh-akbar" is the most repeated phrase in the book, Allah is Great, the well-known war cry of all the Jihadis?
If you believe Islam is a religion of peace, you're as severely deluded as the manic, megalo, raving schizo who wrote their Book.
Fuck my karma score. They're indoctrinating young and old alike. The mothers, first, because they shape their childrens' thought. The young girls next, because they'll be mothers and NOTHING ELSE in their LIVES, if they can indoctrinate them Just Right. "But I'd be happy to wear the burkha, if my husband and imam told me to" I've personnally heard that, several times, from a well-brainwashed Turkish lady living in Belgium. An other, young, went to Turkey looking nothing but a civilized, open young woman and went back with a tchador and with no ambition left other than marry and replicate. That's a BROKEN LIFE, and I shudder to think what the imams will tell her to teach her children.
Instruct them. Teach them. Give them reasons to stop the madness! Let all the humans have enough resources to live and growing, and wars will stop, and all large-scale social unrest.
But the theory behind "give all enough and wars will automagically stop" depends on Science, Real, Hard Science, and even in 2008, the governing morons still have to pay lip service to God or not be elected? We are all doomed.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.