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.
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.
Oh come on just because the U.S. has problems doesn't mean this is acceptable in any way.
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.
Oh come on just because the U.S. has problems doesn't mean this is acceptable in any way.
Of course not, but bashing the US is a great way to get a cheap karma bump around here.
why is this on slashdot? i don't see anything nerdy or tech about this news.
I am not a citizen of US and I don't understand why the US needs to fix all the bugs in its system before people are even allowed to talk about problems they might see elsewhere? Sure the recent governments have done a lot to erode freedom and privacy to a great deal, but the almost absolute support for free speech in its system remains one of the best things about US. And I don't see why US citizens can't discuss (and even mock) other countries where some fuzzy notion of hate-speech is turned into a law.
Talking about how the system in US sucks when the topic at hand is about Canada makes me feel you are just karma-whoring for +5 Insightful.
...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?
That, and the Creationists vs Evolutionists, homo vs hetero, black vs white, etc, etc, etc.
The free and open discourse that the First Amendment was supposed to protect is being blindsided by special interests here in the US. It's coming to the point that you can't say _anything_ without someone who disagrees calling for your head.
Somehow we need to get back to factual debates and not knee-jerk demagoguery.
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
Unless of course we happen to be gay. Or enjoy a drink or two. Or hell want to jerk off to the latest video. And heaven forbid you are a woman.
Or hell stand up and say "Allah is CUNT"
Although I suspect you are trolling.
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...).
Also, on the off-chance that you don't read magazines and newspapers, or don't follow news which disagrees with your politics, even Rick Mercer - a liberal comedian on a liberal TV network, covered a related case in one of his famous "rants" recently.
If you've missed all coverage of this until now, then you either don't follow politics and current events, or you get all your news exclusively from far-left sources. I've been following it for months, and most of my friends and coworkers are at least aware of it, if not exactly well informed about the facts of the case.
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.
that sounds like Iranian talk ! (racks shotgun)
I only said suspect, it was a little too well written for the run of the mill troll. But some are smart.
I have a counter proposal for you. Practice your religion however you want to. Believe whatever you want to. Just don't try to impose your own beliefs on me. That sound fair?
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.
the almost absolute support for free speech in its system remains one of the best things about US.
You're kidding, right? You get mega-fines for saying naughty words on television, you get mega-fines for showing a nipple on television, you let the Church of Scientology censor Google and Slashdot, you let the MPAA censor websites so that they can't even link to websites with DeCSS on them, you have "free speech zones"... that's just off the top of my head, the list goes on and on.
The USA censors even benign things on a daily basis. It doesn't have anywhere near "almost absolute support for free speech". Please attempt to come to terms with that instead of submitting to your creepy state indoctrination.
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...
Perhaps it's not simply a case of irrational or nationalistic bias as you seem to think it is, and more a case of sometimes criticism of America deserves +5 and sometimes defense of America does. Contrary to popular belief, we're neither a wholly moral and righteous nation, nor a wholly evil and manipulative one.
When you label any criticism of America as "oh, they're just bashing the US again", you make it so that valid criticism is ignored as though it were invalid, which thwarts any efforts to improve America, and encourages actions which worsens us.
'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?
Ordinary people should not be afraid of Islam, because only good for then will come out of future Islamic domination.
A number of us look at Islamic dominated countries and disagree.
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.
We tried outlawing Drugs and Alcohol in the U.S. almost a century ago. It ended up creating more crime. Look up Al Capone some time.
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?
The Pentagon Papers, The Color Purple, Political Speech, The Federalist Papers are all things covered under Free Speech.
As for real important freedoms, you will retain them: right to economic endeavors, right to practice religions, e.g. Christianity or Judaism.
Provided we pay a tribute to the Calif and suffer some fewer freedoms that Muslims are granted, among other things.
Islam is good for you. Embrace it.
I think I shall decline and continue under my current religion.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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
Sure, but some of us see looking at the faults in other countries as a good opportunity to reflect upon our own as well. Otherwise one begins to think that one's own country is faultless and needs no improvement.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Because hypocrisy is ugly.
If a debtor tells you someone else is bad because of their debt, or a thief complains about being robbed, a homosexual republican promotes discrimination against gays, etc., their own flaws deserve to be addressed.
As an American myself, I'd *much* rather bring to light flaws from my own country than flaws from other countries. *Not* because I hate my country, or that I want to knock it down a peg, but because I want my *own* country's flaws fixed, and that's not going to happen if we're spending all our time criticizing others, just like a debtor complaining about *others* debts is wasting his efforts on others instead of putting it to good use on himself.
Why do you rail on him for mentioning some of the many ways in which the US is worse than Canada on freedom issues, when the editorial in question is comparing the US to Canada?
And why, pray tell, is it not acceptable to make it illegal to expose a person
You can't take the sky from me...
Of course not, but he was replying to an article that said the US was the shining beacon of freedom that all should emulate, and pointing out the glaring flaws in that reasoning, and was therefore completely justified in his comment.
But that is no reason not to catapult the propaganda that any and all criticism of the US is unfounded, huh?
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
If you are straight, do not try to popularize putting an organ into a hot, wet, smelly, and sometimes bloody orifice. It's offensive to those of us who would never do such a repulsive act.
See, that's what free speech is really about. You and I can BOTH *freely* express our opinions, no matter how contrary they may be to each other or to various social conventions. We are BOTH free to believe AND SAY that the other guy is a raving loon, a queer, a stick, or whatever are the "offensive" terms of current language. We are BOTH free to troll, namecall, and generally be jerks in print.
And we are BOTH free to ignore whatever the other person says, and free FROM any requirement of apology or rebuttal if our words happen to offend each other.
So -- I applaud your post as an excellent example of Free Speech in action.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
To use the example of the witch trials:
1. People were paid to report witches.
2. Evidence was considered irrelevant when judging witches.
3. All of the "witch's" property was confiscated and used as "payment" for the judges, torturers, executioners, etc.
In light of all that, is it really any surprise that they kept finding witches?
Likewise, these "human rights commissions" exist solely to punish people accused of spreading hate. And they use a framework similar to the witch-hunts:
1. With a 100% conviction rate, they guarantee that the accuser will be paid for accusing someone - anyone.
2. "Questioning" is conducted in private, without a lawyer, and evidence is largely irrelevant.
3. The "defendant", who is always found guilty, is ordered to pay up to the accuser, while taxpayers foot the bill for the process.
So in light of that, is it any wonder that they keep prosecuting and convicting innocent people? While the very basis for these commissions is in itself flawed, the far larger problem is the way in which the commissions are set up. They are extra-judicial bodies which have no accountability, and no supervision.
Do we really need a separate judicial system which doesn't answer to anyone, just so we can stop offencive speech?
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
Ah, well that explains it.
- I don't currently have cable, so I didn't see that Mercer episode
- I don't subscribe to Macleans or other such magazines
- I generally don't thoroughly read newspapers from the front to back; I just skim the headlines from each major section
- I'm not in touch with the "bloggosphere"... there are good Canadian blogs? Feel free to link me some interesting ones
If you knew about all the fuzzy erosions of free speech that have been turned into law in the US, you'd understand why people are deriding an article that says "canadians can't do freedom the right way: The American Way, which is the best and perfect in every way".
Freedom of speech? There are still states where it is illegal to own or transport communist books. There are "free speech zones" where people are kept away from the government against which they have grievances they wish to express, the media is manipulated into giving a government-approved message on many topics (such as drugs), the 7 words you can't say on television, etc.
Those are all restrictions on free speech, and people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
You can't take the sky from me...
And even tho I personally reject your premise and agree entirely with Ironsides' reply, I support your right to hold AND express your beliefs.
Prohibiting YOUR free expression could become prohibiting MY free expression with the next change of political tide. Which is why all restrictions of free speech are dangerous.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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....
And mapkinase's post is likewise made possible by free speech.
While I agree entirely with your rebuttal, as I said to m. it would be dangerous to deny any the right to speak, since if restrictions are applied to free speech, what's allowed today could be just as easily disallowed under the next wave of political change.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
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?
Your argument is absolutely laughable. Case and point: Police, or more generally, the justice system. You've also ignored the ONGOING investigations by POLICE *against* this group. Get a fucking clue.
It is fair. I just wanted to make sure you understand my point about the difference between having beliefs and publicizing them.
Personally everybody is entitled to whatever beliefs he want, but socially... any society takes care that whatever beliefs it considers dangerous won't be propagated.
I am not arguing in this particular comment on any particular belief, I am just making a particular point about that difference.
If you have understood this, I can continue:
It is true that we will come to your country with war, whether you want it or not. That is how we did in the past: we proposed 3 choices: accept Islam, pay jizya tax and be protected or war with us. And that is the Islamic way.
But we won't come to impose our beliefs on you personally. We will come to impose the law of God on your society. Law is about acts, not beliefs. Belief is thought, internal conviction.
There is no thought crime in Islam.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Sure! I suppose your definition of "good" will depend on your politics, so I'll just point you to Blogging Torries if you're right-of-center, and the LibLogs if you're on the left. Those sites serve as sort of a centeral meeting place for the two rival groups of blogs.
As for my personal preference, I find Kate McMillan over at Small Dead Animals to generally be a good news source, even if she does seem to have an obsession with global warming. Also, the comments section can be a bit of a shit-pit, especially once the ultra-religious whacko's start swinging.
And if you're looking for stuff dealing directly with these HRC cases, you'll want to check out the blog of Ezra Levant, who is also facing the wrath of the "Human Rights Commission".
A number of us look at Islamic dominated countries and disagree.
1. What countries do you mean? Right now there is no single Islamic government that rules according to Allah's law.
2. I understand your disagreement, because your mind is cloaked with artificial man-made ideas of Western civilization. There is no point on arguing here.
t ended up creating more crime. I know about that point of history. I give you a counterexample. In 2001 Taliban almost completely eliminated opium production in Afghanistan. My point is that this is not how it is done. The elimination of alcohol was a second- or third- priority for US in 20s, first priority being whatever misconceptions you have in the book called American constitution. If it were first-priority, the problem would be solved by suspending any rights of those who are bootlegging, running underground bars, etc... In short, American government was not hard enough on this crime.
The Pentagon Papers, The Color Purple, Political Speech, The Federalist Papers are all things covered under Free Speech.
I think one of us does not understand the point of the opponent. I am assuming it's me. Care to elaborate?
Provided we pay a tribute to the Calif and suffer some fewer freedoms that Muslims are granted, among other things.
Tribute - correct (not to Khalif, but that's technical details). Fewer freedoms - only ideological freedoms. Not economic freedoms, for example. The history of Andalus and Uthmani empire is the proof of that. Christians and Jews prospered under the rule of Khalifate.
I think I shall decline and continue under my current religion.
That is ok with me. "To you - your religion, to me - mine" (Qur'an, Surah Kaafiroon). I was never going to impose it on you (and it is irrelevant to me that I do not even have leverage to do that), because that is against the order of Allah, who said: "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an, 2:256)
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This whole article doesn't even belong on Slashdot. What the fuck does this have to do as News for Nerds?
I am not sure what is your point, so let me make mine. I apologize if it is not on the subject you are expecting.
Your notion of "FREE" means that your speech is protected by government (or third party), whatever you say.
My notion of "FREE" is as in "free will". When one exercises his free will, it is strange to assume that the consequences will be the same for any action one takes. So the speech is free as long as person accepts the consequences.
For example, I am exercising my free speech talking about offensive Jihad, knowing that government can easily make a case against me, like it did against al-Tamimi or other great Islamic scholars of the West.
Your freedom of speech is measured by how much the government protects it.
My freedom of speech is measured by how little I care about what anybody else thinks or acts on this matter.
Your freedom of speech is protected by the third party
My freedom of speech is protected by two medium-size reproductive organs in my pants.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I believe I addressed this point in my other comment
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=549156&cid=23364296
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
None of this would have happened if we'd voted McGovern in '72. It's all that Nixon's fault.
Actually I would more respect a person who is ready to be killed and fight for his right to produce pornography. Please show me one.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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".
So if a Muslim man rapes someone, and I call him a "Muslim rapist", I'm committing libel and hate speech?
And people wonder why I'm opposed to these commissions!
Just out of curiosity, could you take a look out of your window and tell me what colour the sky is in your world?
Wow, how don't you get it? I see I have to spell it out for you:
1. People are NOT paid to report witches... sorry "hate crimes"
2. Conviction in a court of law requires relevant evidence (yes, here too)
3. No property was confiscated and used as "payment" for the judges, torturers, executioners, etc. nor will it be.
i.e. You got this idea in your head about commissions that doesn't apply here. Your analogy is embarrassing wrong.
AGAIN, this commission is being investigated for its practices (this didn't happen in the Inquisition), the people are against it (again, this didn't happen in the Inquisition), etc and will likely be shut-down.
I also pointed out there there is a fundamental flaw in your statement: "The problem is that as soon as you start paying a group of people to go out and prosecute others - whether they're prosecuting them on charges of heresy, witchcraft, or "hate" - you're pretty much guaranteeing that innocent people are going to be harmed."
That point being that the Police, and the larger picture, the justice system as a whole fits that your criteria for the reason why the commission shouldn't exist. Your argument is flawed at all points in all directions.
Sure, it shouldn't exist and I stated as much. It'll also, more than likely, be shut-down if only due to this fiasco. But, using flawed arguments to "forward" that claim hardly helps.
Get it now?
But we won't come to impose our beliefs on you personally. We will come to impose the law of God on your society. Law is about acts, not beliefs. Belief is thought, internal conviction.
Actually, no, you already contradict yourself. You believe there is a god, and from that you extrapolate (without actually being told by god, just someone who said he talked for god, and you trust that the people who wrote it down did so correctly through history also) a given law.
That is using that derived law to spread your belief. I don't happen to believe in any god that sends laws, so if you're not spreading belief, then any law you have is invalid, as it springs from a 'god' which I consider imaginary. About as logical as banning the colour green. Now, telling me I'm wrong to believe that there is no god, and forcing me to obey those laws is thought crime (and punishment for not obeying them is a hate crime).
Well done. I actually believe you're trolling here, and not being too subtle about it. Ah well! You have your views, I have mine. Just please, don't in any way, shape or form, try to impose your beliefs, or the 'laws' that stem from that belief on me. I may just have to report it to that Human Rights commission. And if they don't act, then I'll accuse them of violating my Human Rights to be agnostic/atheist. I'm sure the media will love that.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Um, you're obviously pretty ignorant about the whole thing. I suggest you read up on it. These commissions aren't courts, they don't rely on evidence, and they have a 100% conviction rate. In other words, if you are accused, you don't get access to a lawyer, you are tried outside of the normal legal system, your "prosecution" doesn't actually have to prove you did anything wrong, and you are ALWAYS found guilty. There has not been a single case where the defendant was found to be innocent.
Seriously, go do some research before beaking off. You're confusing HRC's with real courts, which they're not.
Oh, and by the way? Acting like an arrogant jackass when it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about makes you look pretty stupid. Try to keep the attitude to a minimum, ok?
4)...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.
Come again? Why can't someone criticize you if their government is doing something stupid? If you are doing something wrong, you're criticizable. No one said the US isn't doing anything wrong or "bad." They said these Canadian anti-speech laws are stupid. Whether or not the arguer is, in some convoluted way, a hypocrite, doesn't make the argument wrong. Next time try not to change the subject and address the position. Otherwise, it's more of an admission.
And by the way, I'm not entirely convinced that prejudging foreigners from radical and violent religions or backgrounds is fundamentally bad.
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
Sydney gang rapes are of the same nature. It has nothing to do with Islam, only with deviations.
"So if a Muslim man rapes someone, and I call him a "Muslim rapist", I'm committing libel and hate speech? " I do not know the law. I would say it is distortion of truth.
You see, when there is an adjective to the description of the criminal, the only sense it has is to identify and catch him. So if you call him "Turkish rapist" or "Arab rapist" I would understand its' usefullness. If you call him "Black rapist" I would understand. Muslims are quite different in appearance and that characterisation is not useful in that sense.
In this sense you are connecting formal (by ethnicity) religious affiliation of the person and his crime. Islam clearly prohibits such crimes and attaching religious affiliation to that crime is nonsense and pure anti-Islamic propaganda.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Larry Flynt, Publisher of Hustler. Not killed but paralyzed.
... 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
"Now, telling me I'm wrong to believe that there is no god, and forcing me to obey those laws is thought crime (and punishment for not obeying them is a hate crime)." You are mixing two things: belief that tehre is no god. That's ok
Obeying laws is a different thing. That's an act.
You can have whatever beliefs you can, but following them in act have consequences.
"I actually believe you're trolling here, and not being too subtle about it. " I am not sure I understand you. I am expressing mine genuine views, which happened to be radically different from the views of majority.
Again, an irony.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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?
No. First, do all male homosexuals practice sodomy? Do all heterosexuals refrain from it? And will there be a Judgment Day?
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
"First, do all male homosexuals practice sodomy?" As far as I know from media they also practice oral sex. My example was about the fact that people (especially young) can be seduced to wrong while being perfectly normal.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"Do all heterosexuals refrain from it? " Not all of them. That is deviation without regard to what gender is your sexual partner (for the same reason: it might become a habit that will potentially lead to a situation where a person won't be able to have normal sexual relationship).
"And will there be a Judgment Day?" With absolute certainty exceeding certainty of any existing material phenomena.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
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.
Some people - not myself - only assumed you were trolling because they have a rather skewed view on what so-called moderate Muslims truly think. As such, your words are better categorised as a "troll" since taking them seriously would explain why the author of the book we're reading about said what he said. You see, many people like to make their own virtual "Western-style Muslims" so that they can still feel righteous when they attack those that simply quote what you said.
As for me, I know you're not trolling, which is why I consider the spread of Islam in Europe - through immigration and conversion - one of the most serious dangers to Europeans and European civilisation.
Well said, except that I put a different meaning to "danger" and to whom the danger is.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
obviously not.
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.
1. What countries do you mean? Right now there is no single Islamic government that rules according to Allah's law.
Iran, Saudi Arabia how Afghanistan used to be (not to say the current system is much better) for starters. If an Islamic government can not even work in a small area of the world, I do not trust it to work in a large area. He who has been trustworthy in small matters, shall be given greater authority. Prove it will work in small areas first. If those are not examples, then has there ever been a government that rules according to Allah's law? Also, why are they not ruling according to Allah's law? They are (or were) run by Islamic governments, after all.
2. I understand your disagreement, because your mind is cloaked with artificial man-made ideas of Western civilization. There is no point on arguing here.
So then why do you try to argue if I am incapable of comprehension? As I obviously must be incapable since I do not agree with you. Or is it that you use this justification for me not agreeing with you to reassure yourself that you could not possibly be wrong?
I know about that point of history. I give you a counterexample. In 2001 Taliban almost completely eliminated opium production in Afghanistan. My point is that this is not how it is done. The elimination of alcohol was a second- or third- priority for US in 20s, first priority being whatever misconceptions you have in the book called American constitution. If it were first-priority, the problem would be solved by suspending any rights of those who are bootlegging, running underground bars, etc... In short, American government was not hard enough on this crime.
First, it is not a book, it is a set of documents. Second, Yes, because that is the foundation of our entire legal system. Without using the U.S. Constitution, we have no law as it is the foundation of it all. Would you consider suspending the entire Islamic law for anyone suspected of a crime?
I think one of us does not understand the point of the opponent. I am assuming it's me. Care to elaborate?
You asked if free speech had any effect on society. I gave instances of items that had large impacts on society.
Tribute - correct (not to Khalif, but that's technical details). Fewer freedoms - only ideological freedoms. Not economic freedoms, for example. The history of Andalus and Uthmani empire is the proof of that. Christians and Jews prospered under the rule of Khalifate.
My apologies, it has been a while since I have had to spell Khalif and I tried to spell it phonetically.
Tribute is something we would abhor as we see it as an infringement on our freedoms. If we have to pay for something, it is not a freedom, it is a privilege. Further, economic freedoms are only a small matter. (Isn't interest banned?) There are several other things as well, such as being able to associate with other people as we choose. The restrictions we read about that are placed on women would be considered abhorrent here. Further, any requirements placed on religion, would not be tolerated. For instance, I have heard that it would be required for Christians to acknowledge Mohamed as a prophet. This is not something that most Christians I know would do, or even accept as a condition. It does not matter to them that you believe Mohamed is a prophet, they would refuse to acknowledge him as one.
That is ok with me. "To you - your religion, to me - mine" (Qur'an, Surah Kaafiroon). I was never going to impose it on you (and it is irrelevant to me that I do not even have leverage to do that), because that is against the order of Allah, who said: "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an, 2:256)
See the comment above about having to acknowledge Mohamed. Further, under the government you propose, you would be able to offer people the option of following any religious rules you choose (as you suggest with alcohol and other drugs) or death, regardless of what our religions believe.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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
Show me the passage in the Bible that tells people to protest the funerals of dead American soldiers. Or show me one single member of the Westboro Baptist Church who lives by Christian virtues.
The point is that if someone is doing something bad in the name of your religion and others are following, it is your job to debate them and their faith, not to blame the people who are accurately reporting that another (more hateful) version of your religion exists.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
I'd rather do both.
Hypocrisy is ugly, just like hate and small-mindedness and stupidity and inflated self importance and all the other flaws which every human has in spades. Hypocrisy doesn't necessarily mean that the person doesn't believe what he's saying. It can simply mean that he believes it but lacks the ability to carry it out. There's nothing bad about an alcoholic telling you about the evils of alcohol, or a compulsive gambler telling you to stay out of casinos and manage your money well. On the contrary, their advice is coming from deep, painful experience which makes it all the more worthwhile.
So let's examine our own flaws and the flaws of others, so that we may both greater understand the world and improve it.
But of course this doesn't mean that you have to combine them both in the same discussion, and it especially doesn't mean that you should shut down any discussion of other countries' flaws whenever your own country shares similar flaws.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Pastafarians are evil?
Dude, you're about to get your soul sucked out by somebody's noodly appendage.
So. Your law is you acting on your belief to create a system of acts. Based on belief. But you're merely trying to dissociate the two, saying that the act (obeying the law) is nothing to do with belief.
Except without belief, the "law of god" wouldn't exist.
In other words, anyone is free to believe internally whatever they want about god. As long as they do nothing to offend this god that they don't believe in, and follow the word of this god to the letter.
That, I believe, is a tyranny.
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....
In another post he says: Note that there is no door number 4, and never has been one. When Islam is not strong enough to prevail in a war, it may offer a truce. A truce not peace, for there can be no peace for unbelievers who refuse to either accept Islam or, at the very least, its supremacy.
He is not kidding, either, these things are consistent with the history and practice of Islam, wherever it is dominant. If we think otherwise, we are kidding and trolling yourselves. If his beliefs and plans don't make you uneasy, you and/or your children are doomed to be a Muslim's slave.
One more thing: we have been put on notice, if I recall correctly, anything goes in Islam's war on us, if we refuse to submit.
Mapkinase should be modded +5 informative.
Thank you, Mapkinase. You are an honorable enemy.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Your "absolute certainty" is epistemologically unjustified.
"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:
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.
I assume that you are implying that I am accusing Christians of something. Well, whatever in my comments lead to that assumption, I apologize.
/. is one of the venues that you and I could explain people that. Too bad few people read posts moderated as "Troll".
"t is your job to debate them and their faith" We do debate them. I do not think it is reasonable for non-Muslims to expect that Muslims should report to them all their debates.
"not to blame the people who are accurately reporting that another (more hateful) version of your religion exists."
I would not mind if they are using the wording you are using. But they aren't, my brother. They just say "Islam this", "Islam that".
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
"Because that's how your plan ends, and your god will not protect you." Are you atheist or not? It seems like you have certain beliefs about the future.
Look, do not get all worked up on this. It might be our children who will fight. As far as I know future Muslim youth is working their asses off studying Qur'an and Java, while the future non-Muslim youth is... ? That is a question you should ask yourself, what is the chance of your ideology to be passed to future generation, and what is the chance of Islam to be passed to future generations.
So you nuke Makkah and Madina. Do you know how many times Kaaba was rebuilt in the history?
We are not afraid to die or to loose material symbols.
Bring it on.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"But you're merely trying to dissociate the two, saying that the act (obeying the law) is nothing to do with belief." That is misrepresentation of what I have said. Act is not equal to belief, but it is of course related, we act on beliefs all the time.
"Except without belief, the "law of god" wouldn't exist."
Law of God exists with or without belief. And there will be always believers. That's prophecy. If you are expecting some scientific proof, there is not one. In the matters of faith, it's just faith. No scientific proof.
"s long as they do nothing to offend this god that they don't believe in"
That is right.
", and follow the word of this god to the letter."
That is not correct. They do not have to follow the word of Allah to the letter, they just have to obey the laws of the society. They can enjoy freedoms in their community as long as the falsehood they are enjoying are not spreading to the whole country. That is actually more than what American democracy is offering to religious minorities.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"If his beliefs and plans don't make you uneasy, you and/or your children are doomed to be a Muslim's slave."
That is not true. Slavery is allowed only for captives in the field of war and the women and children of the country that chooses war against Allah. If somebody is choosing to pay jizya they will be protected. There is no slavery for them, there is no booty taken from them. Check out Salahutdin's capture of Jerusalem.
The history of Islamic rule proves it. Christians and Jews enjoyed full religious freedoms in their communities in Andalus and Middle East during Islamic rule. And they were not slaves.
"One more thing: we have been put on notice, if I recall correctly, anything goes in Islam's war on us, if we refuse to submit." Not to "refuse to submit", refuse tax, jizya, while retaining your freedoms that you are not going to impose on the rest of the country.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
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
Taliban is the closest on your list. And yes, I understand that you do not understand good that is coming to you. There is no point on arguing here. You made your not understanding very clear.
Then enlighten me that I may learn.
"If an Islamic government can not even work in a small area of the world" That is your opinion. Islamic government worked through very large portion of history. Since when military superiority makes the ideology right?
And yet Islamic government seems to have failed more recently. And when did I ever bring up military superiority?
"He who has been trustworthy in small matters, shall be given greater authority." Trustworthiness is a new subject. What is it that you are accusing Muslims of in the matter of trustworthiness?
You misunderstand the analogy. If you can not make an Islamic system work in a single country, how is it to work in the whole world?
The best examples would be the Islamic rule of quite substantial part of the world during Khulafa of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and 'Ali. After that all of them made some mistakes, but in general there were quite many just Khalifs who were much better than any of the rulers of Muslim countries today.
You list individuals, but not systems. Is not a system that fails completely when it has a single flaw at the top a bad system?
For example, the rule in Andalus, where Jews and Christians enjoyed life that would never be even imaginable for Jews and Muslims under Christian rule at that time.
And today?
For starters, before this totalitarian democracy madness started, religious minorities had a right to exercise their own rule on the members of their own communities. Example: Jews in Tzarist Russia in XIX century. Same goes for minority communities in Muslim countries.
And for those who wish to leave their community? How would such a system work when the two communities come into conflict?
"Would you consider suspending the entire Islamic law for anyone suspected of a crime?" This is just non sequitur.
You sugested we should have suspended our law to punish those suspected of dealing in alcohol when it was banned. I am asking why you would not suspend Islamic law to punish someone, for example a heretic.
Yes. You are paying for the privilege to be protected in an Islamic country.
Why should protection be a privlege? Should not all members of a country be protected? Why is it that only the non-Muslims need to pay for such a privlege?
I think you do not know what are you talking about. I suggest you learn about what people want.
I do know what people around me want. Perhaps you should learn too.
Islamic rule on non-Muslims is tax, nothing more.
And this is seen as unjust to those of us in the west, to treat two people differently. Tell me, what is the punishment for not paying this tax? Do Muslims pay a similar tax?
Just do not spread all that filth of your habits and falsehood of your beliefs to the rest of the society.
Most of us view much of what you believe the same way.
"For instance, I have heard that it would be required for Christians to acknowledge Mohamed as a prophet. " That is absolutely not correct. Is there evidence to that in Islamic sources?
It would appear my memmory is of Saudi Arabia requiring that.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Freedom of speech is important, and I think we should fight for it everywhere. You can try to tell me that I should shut up, but brother, this is still America.
So, fuck you. Yeah, it's ugly sometimes. FUCK. YOU.
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
Actually, I think both types of free speech are valid. Thanks for pointing out the distinction.
As you say, to what degree you're free to speak depends on whether you can deal with the consequences of what you say. And some people are bolder than othersd (or have less to lose).
Naturally, there are likely to be fewer negative consequences if the government, and the will of society as a whole, are in favour of free speech.
The more speech is restricted by society and/or government, the more dangerous it becomes to have the balls to say what you feel needs saying.
And when the average person knows they will be punished for speaking out, it tends to put a damper on free speech. Conversely, when free speech is encouraged, more people will develop the confidence to speak out, and our society as a whole becomes more free.
So... the two are not really separate; they are synergistic.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"And yet Islamic government seems to have failed more recently. And when did I ever bring up military superiority?" That is what I think you meant by failure, right? If my memory does not fail me, Taliban got ouster due to military superiority of US and Somali government of Islamic Courts, first since the death of Ziad Barre that was able to bring some semblance of stability to the country torn by warlords, was defeated by far superior militarily Ethiopean troops under full support of US.
There were other failures for which Muslims are to blame. And this was predicted by the Prophet sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam.
Islam never fails as ideology, Muslims fail because of lack of faith.
There will be times when holding up to the true religion will be as hard as holding red-hot charcoal in your hand. All predicted, all happening.
The victory of Muslims will be a miracle of Allah. There will be Mahdi uniting Muslims, there will be Jesus Christ returning back from Heaven to defeat Antichrist and there will be Judgment Day.
That's Islamic view more or less (as far as I know it) of what is going to happen.
"And for those who wish to leave their community? How would such a system work when the two communities come into conflict?" One can leave any community (to embrace Islam), except Islamic community. Apostasy is capital crime in Islamic society. I do not know what is the law when a Jew wants to become a Christian. When two communities are in conflict - seems to be minor issue. I am sure there is experience dealing with that.
"You sugested we should have suspended our law to punish those"
No, I did not suggest that. I explain why it did not work. There are situations in Islamic countries that require some suspension of some Islamic laws: ruling of Khalif Umar, for example, on Hadd on stealing during famine.
"Why should protection be a privlege? Should not all members of a country be protected? Why is it that only the non-Muslims need to pay for such a privlege?" All members are protected. Muslims are protected by definition as brother is being protected by a brother. Muslims have obligations that non-Muslims do not have: fight in the way of Allah - Jihad - offensive and defensive, pay 1/40th of their savings every year for support of poor, Muslims and non-Muslims.
"It would appear my memmory is of Saudi Arabia requiring that."
The ruling you are linking to seems to be negotiation on the point that either should not be negotiated at all or allowed without negotiation. This is not a requirement for just being under protection.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"Naturally, there are likely to be fewer negative consequences if the government, and the will of society as a whole, are in favour of free speech." I am pretty sure we (you and I in particular and people in gneral) will disagree on what is negative and what is not as well as the scope in which all the consequences should be summarized.
There is no "will of society". It's a liberal fiction.
It seems to be that you are praising free speech assuming that free speech is good.
I do the same for Islamic values, the difference is that your and I know that your "free speech" value is man-made abstraction that could be changed when people will agree to change it, and my values are constant in the scope of religious beliefs.
YOur values are variable, mine are not.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
No. No one thinks that. And there's no real need to look down on people like that. You don't have to make up faults in other people to elevate yourself.
Possibly off-topic, but since this is Slashdot... it's also impossible to criticize Linux for something that Windows is also weak at.
The only reply you'll get is, "Windows is just as bad!" With the implication that Linux developers don't need to bother fixing the problem.
It's amazing to me how many people apparently think this is an appropriate response.
Comment of the year
The reason their religions is mentioned is because it is the ideology which binds them. If 5 skinheads from the Aerican southwest were to rape a black woman, you can bet your ass that the media would report their ideological leanings. Likewise, when a bunch of Muslim immigrants rape a white woman, and then a Muslim religious leader defends their actions, these are things worth mentioning. If you don't like it because it casts your religion in a negative light, well then that's just too damn bad. Take your anger out on the individuals who are perpetrating these crimes - not on those reporting it.
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
"Tell that to the Muslim Imaam who justified their actions by comparing Australian women to "uncovered meat". " That is irrelevant because Imaam did not defend them, did not say it was ok to rape. He simply noticed the truth about scantily clad Australian women.
As for example with skinheads their ideology is relevant because it is directly about treating blacks as race inferior and there is nothing beyond hatred to people who cannot change their skin color in their ideology anyway.
Islam does not teach hatred to non-Muslims. It teaches tolerance. And it explicitly prohibits such actions. As far as I know there is nothing in skinhead books that says "do not have sexual intercourse with anyone except your wife".
"and then a Muslim religious leader defends their actions" he did not. He attacked behavior of women.
If in your case a black woman behaved promiscuously (a prostituter, for example) then I will feel perfectly alright with anyone critising women for suggestive behavior.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
- The perfect. We would be wise to listen to their instructions.
- Those with no opinion on whether one thing is better than another. By giving up all standards, they are perfect by their own judgement -- which they can't exercise because they have no standards by which to judge anything. We have nothing to learn from these people, by definition.
BTW: Your judgement of hypocrisy is a little hypocritical, given that you've been at least a little hypocritical about things at some point during your life.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
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.
Please attempt to come to terms with that instead of submitting to your creepy state indoctrination.
Not sure what you mean by "creepy state indoctrination" but you did notice that the GP said quite clearly that he was not a citizen of the U.S.? I know you were trying to America-bash, but you make yourself sound kinda stupid when you try to slam someone who isn't even an American citizen.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
You see what you are told to see. Nothing surprising. What possibly could make me happy about a man who is heading to Eternal Hellfire?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
lol
Thanks for the laughs. Usually I only get to laugh at Christian fundamentalists. It's nice to get a giggle at Islamist extremists for a change. Not that there's any real difference between you.....it's just nice to get some variety.
>>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
Wow, I have at last come across the funniest thing I've read on the internet all week. Pot, meet Kettle.
How is it that you are so certain that what a man said (and was subsequently written down by men) roughly a millennium-and-a-half ago during a time when superstition reigned, is the word of Allah? Because they said so? Because your parents said so? Because your peers or people you respect said so? Because a bunch of other people around the globe say so? Because you feel it in your heart/gut? Or did Allah himself come to you and tell you it was true?
Notice that with all of those possibilities except the last one, we're dealing with man-made ideas (it's impossible to prove them otherwise). So, speaking to Allah ourselves, are we?
So unless you have some pretty compelling evidence that Muhammad was really channeling a Creator, I'm afraid you also come across as someone whose "mind is cloaked with artificial man-made ideas."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.
If the "will of society" (which I define as the actions undertaken by the majority, or by the unthinking mob as the case may be) is that all who believe a certain way (frex, Islamic beliefs) should be prevented from speaking out, that "liberal fiction" could easily become an unpleasant fact.
And yes, free speech is a man-made value, and a good example of a beneficial social construct. The fact that what constitutes free speech varies with the aforementioned "will of society" is not necessarily a good thing, as the case being discussed here today illustrates.
But unwavering dogma is generally worse, as it fails to adapt either to social change or to factual reality, and tends to force others to believe as it dictates, rather than allowing them the freedom to follow their own minds.
This comment exchange is a good example of how two belief sets can be so nearly similar, yet impossibly far apart. Unfortunately, I think it also illustrates how Islam is neither willing nor able to understand, let alone tolerate, other belief systems.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If Islam comes to predominate by peaceful means over many generations, then I honestly don't much care; we'll all be long dead by then anyway, and you are welcome to your fantasies about your great-great-grandchildren. But you threatened war, and you threatened that 'we' would do it, not 'our descendants', not some far-distant future generation. Given the long and sordid history of pogroms going back as far as European history is written, that scenario cannot end well for the Muslims. Parties of the far right arise from time to time in Europe, normally based around areas of ethnic tension, and their rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of the 1930s - it's just that the object of their hate has changed.
I don't fear Islam. I fear what the rest of us will become in reaction, should Islam proceed to act as you threatened. I don't fear living under Islamic law because I don't think it remotely likely ever to happen; I do fear living under a racist, Fascist state.
Are you atheist or not? It seems like you have certain beliefs about the future.
Beliefs? I'd describe these as opinions, based on my rather negative view of human nature and European history. Apart from the bit about being an atheist, which you have quite right. My view of the future is that no god will ever save us. Your view appears to be the opposite, which is leading you to espouse the most appalling foolishness I've ever heard. You don't care how many are killed in your war, if it means triumph for your bloodthirsty god? You speak for your whole people when you say you are not afraid to die? Wait, of course... those who are afraid to die are apostates, and deserve to die anyway, right? You are a monster.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It was a joke, breaking every rule in Western Columbia law, but apparently not a very good one, since no one seems to have understood it. Or perhaps it was just ahead of its time. Yes, that's what I'll tell myself.
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.
So let's say I enjoy a bottle of wine now and then. What should my punishment be? Death or jail?
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?
> So, direct quotation is now criminal.
Sigh. To start with, the tribunals are not criminal. In fact, they're not even supposed to be hearing cases like this, they were set up to deal with discrimination for things like renting an apartment.
Look, there IS a point to this case. The point is that Maclean's has been publishing this ongoing series of Styne's rants without any countering view being offered. In one interpretation, that means they are party to publishing hate speech. If this was some random right-wing blog no one would care, but Maclean's is a major Canadian magazine with millions of weekly readers.
I completely disagree with this interpretation. I believe that these cases will simple clarify the real purpose of these tribunals, and lead to their scope being better defined and much more limited. I welcome this. Perhaps you might want a more cut-and-dried case of obvious censorship to test these limits, but that's not how these things work.
The bigger picture is being missed here, IMHO. The question is not what Maclean's is printing, but why. Maclean's is an old-media outlet desperately trying to find a formula that keeps their sales going. In the last century this formula was to be fairly liberal. In this century, as the US discovered much more quickly than Canadian media, the formula is to be a right-wing red-in-the-face shock jock. For whatever reason, THAT is what gets people to read/watch/listen. At least for now.
Maclean's is simply doing what it believes it needs to to survive. If history is any guide, I doubt it will work for long. Another sea-change is coming, but the problem with old-media is that they are slow-moving and often commit suicide while they figure this out.
Maury
p.s. Everyone should go and watch the Steyn episode of The Agenda on TVO. Now THAT is compelling television!
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.
"But you threatened war, " Well, was is not inevitable. There were many countries (Indonesia, for example) who accepted Islam just because the liked the religion of couple of tradesmen visiting their country. There should be enough power at the hand of Muslims to start a war. It is not unconditional.
"Opinions" do not cost a damn. People change opinions all the time.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
If you are non-Muslim, nothing. If you are Muslim and you did not know about prohibition - 80 lashes, if you are Muslim and you know about prohibition - according to some schools - same 80 lashes, according to some other schools - death.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
~ 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
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
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.
I read the Globe and Mail, which could by no means ever be considered far-left, and the first I saw of it was this discussion on Slashdot.
Wikipedia claims that this charge had first been laid in Ontario, but since the Ontario Human Rights Code specifically prohibits the Commission from "interfer[ing] with the freedom of expression of opinion", it failed ignominiously. It was then re-attempted in BC, in the hope of not being immediately thrown out of court.
Since on the face of it he's innocent, I suspect he's playing this up to the hilt to get more attention for his book.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
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. :)
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.
Don't bet on it: the BC commission is more than a little nutty. Just off the tops of my head, I remember a case where McDonalds fired an employee because she wouldn't wash her hands. The BC HRC awarded her $50,000. It seems you have a human right not to wash your hands, even if you work in the food service industry.
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).
Speaking from (online) experience, some Americans do really think that.
Don't quote me on this.
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.
Don't quote me on this.
And the alcoholic supposedly has the ability to just stop drinking. And yet, for many alcoholics this is extremely difficult and takes a very long time to accomplish, if they ever manage to do it at all. So it is with democratic countries doing the right thing.
Of course this shouldn't apply just to democratic countries. In a totalitarian country, "all" the populace has to do is rise up as one and overthrow their tyrannous rulers.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
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.
You are exactly right; as I said on another post people are downmodding him because he says the truth, and to some that's an aswful thing to do since it destroys the virtual little world made of "dialogue of civilisations" other drivel.
His post is informative and a perfect insight on what Muslims in the Western world hold as their beliefs. Which is why, as I said previously, see no other end result than the end of Europe or the end of Islam in Europe. There is no middle-ground.
I am from a region in which this is historically well-known, even if a legion of PC historians try to sell their own little version filled with flowers and smiles: it's the myth of peaceful coexistence. In any event, we've done it before, I'm ready to play my part in doing it again.
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
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.