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."
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.
Been near a college campus lately???
No, but the subject is facing a tribunal for hate speech. That doesn't mean he's guilty.
But even if he was, so what? Short of inciting violence, why shouldn't he be able to say that he hates orange people or that Pastafarians are evil? Good for Steyn for taking this and running with it. Who wants to live in a world where you're not allowed to explain why you dislike someone?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I thought we were ALREADY headed that way with crap like "free speech zones". The easiest way to control the masses is to ensure that no thoughts contradicting those in power can be heard. But that is my 02c, which ATM I am still able to post without fear of getting my door kicked in (I hope),YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
__ 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.
Ooops. The link didn't parse. http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9255.html
Res publica non dominetur
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.
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
> That doesn't mean he's guilty.
As a practical matter, yes it does. To date the conviction rate for the so called 'human rights tribunal is 100%.
And lets not just laugh at the silly Canadians and believe 'It can't happen here in America; We have the 1st Amendment!' Wake up, it's long dead and Hate Crimes is THE big new growth area for the State.
Democrat delenda est
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.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/
Great flick.
Political Correctness is about doing the wrong thing for seemingly proper reasons.
Or, it's passive aggression writ large.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
...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.
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.
We have a more efficient system in the USA: any violation of political correctness will get you fired, pilloried, and defamed mercilessly. In certain careers, your career is often destroyed. And of course whether what was said is true or not is irrelevant.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
Its being done by the government
Once you ban one type of speech, none is free.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Legal doesn't mean moral or right.
2. Free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. Show me one ounce of evidence Steyn has impacted anyone's right to a happy and free life -- other than being unhappy he's saying something bad about them. The idea that the law gives you a right to not be offended is dangerous.
3. The quote about mosquitoes is not original to Mark Steyn: he was quoting an Imam. As for offering a rebuttal, it's their magazine, their printing press. Why should they allow a rebuttal? Am I allowed to write a column in the New York Times if they print something I disagree with? No. Is Microsoft allowed to force Slashdot to post a pro-Vista rebuttal on the main page? No. Do we want that sort of stupid to be a law? No. It might seem nice and fair if you don't think about it, but when you do, you'll see a thousand ways it would be abused and used to bog down free speech to the point no one says anything someone else might not like for fear of having to let the someone else use their resources to yammer on and on about how wronged they were.
Also, considering the stink this idiot commission raised against Ezra Klein -- a rather liberal fellow who happened to publish some cartoons depicting Mohammad -- I don't trust it, especially when almost all the decisions directly financially benefit a former member of the council, Richard Warman. And these "awards" he gets aren't taxable.
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
There are some egregious examples of our (US) government overstepping their bounds, of course, but by and large, this sort of worry is not a current concern for most first-world citizens. But all you have to do is look to a country like China, where *real* political censorship and oppression occurs, and you then see how easily things can go astray.
Are people in China inherently more susceptible to authoritarian regimes, or somehow less capable of existing in a democracy than other peoples? Do they desire freedom less than we do? I suspect not, but I fear too many people simply assume that it could never happen to us. I'm not talking about some tin-foil hat government conspiracy, but a slow and gradual erosion of our rights - a slowly boiling pot to the frog, as it were.
I'm always astounded at those individuals who, while at the same time espousing fear of government censorship, are all too eager to cede so much power to the government in various guises: social programs, education, health care, financial control, and taxation. Power inevitably tends to corrupt, yet people are so easily deluded into thinking "yes, but we'll use that power to make our world better!" All the good intentions in the world won't prevent a powerful government from becoming at best bloated, inefficient, and uncaring, and at worst, tyrannical.
It's pretty easy to see with an example like this how well-meaning intentions can go so badly astray. Only foolish reactionaries talk of radical change the government. Such changes will likely never happen, and while I'm sure it feels great to take a principles stand, it affects nothing in the long run. Instead, the true battle is incremental - every new power ceded to the government must be carefully questioned... Will this really make the lives of our citizens better in the long run, or is this just another potential method for a government to oppress and control it's population?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It was not Steyn who said that Muslims are "breeding like mosquitoes," it was a Muslim -- and he said it in order to celebrate what he believes to be the inevitable demographic triumph of Islam. Steyn just quoted him. Apparently you find accurate quotation to be offensive speech? Moreover, those who claimed to be offended by Steyn's writings did not ask to "offer a rebuttal," they asked for -- or rather demanded -- near-total control over an issue of the magazine, including what would appear on the cover. These facts are easily discovered by people who don't mind having their opinions contaminated by reality.
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.
So a privately-owned business should be forced by government to give away wordspace because of some peoples' hurt feelings? Do you know much about this issue? Do you know the conviction rate of the HRCs? Are you aware of the tactics used by the HRCs?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There is a subtle difference between disliking/disagreeing/etc and hating/hate speech. But looking at the topic of the book (haven't read it)
Steyn predicts in his new book, "America Alone," that Muslims will swarm over Europe, ban alcohol and put women in veils it just seems to me it is misguided political gesture to certain groups at the cost of freedom of speech. I'm a European and I occasionally worry about it too.We have a politician in the Netherlands (Geert Wilders, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders ) who has some of the same ideas, and made a short movie about it, Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film) It caused an outrage here even before anyone knew anything about it. Even to the point the government contemplated banning the movie, without actually having seen it.
It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender. I think he's doing the best thing here by taking the fight to them instead of sitting back and letting it happen to him.
You know, what gets me about this is that some groups deserve to be hated. What about Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il? I have no problem whatsoever with exposing them to ridicule or hatred because, well, they've brought it on themselves. Even the "protected classes" from the story have members that have it coming to them, such as people whose sexual orientation is toward children or animals, or maybe the Kansas school board who wanted to teach creationism in science class because of their beliefs.
You can't be free unless you're able to hate someone and convince other people to do the same. It's not pleasant and usually not good, but it's still a necessary evil.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Muslims are planning to take over the West, just like Christians planned to take over the West, Capitalist and Communists planned to take over the west, etc.
Just because we're currently dominated by a certain ideological set doesn't mean that it's native or natural in anyway.
However, "universal" ideologies by their very nature need to spread or perish. There is a reason that Asataru and Judaism don't evangelize -- it's cause you're either one of them or you're not. period.
However, people can be "converted" to Christianity, Islam, Capitalism or Communism... and those that won't buy in, clearly just need to be gotten rid of.
> The purpose is to stop people from encouraging or enticing hate.
That's already over the line. The second you put yourself (or worse, annoint ANYONE to) the position of deciding what thoughts are proper and which improper you are a threat to liberty. And for the record, I HATE YOUR FASCIST GUTS.
There, I'm now a hater. And I'll defend my right to hate anybody I get a hankering to hate to the death.. although as a non-pacifist I'll vastly prefer the death of the other guy if it comes to violence. Of course, being a friend of Liberty I'll also defend your right to hate me right back.... just as long as it's just words in the arena of ideas. So long as the factions are just waving signs in the street it's all just a 'frank exchange of ideas.'
Remember Freedom Zero: If you don't have the Right to be Wrong (in the other guys' opinion) you can never be Free.
Democrat delenda est
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.
Look at it this way. There's a group which tends to have large families and indoctrinates people to believe in a highly illiberal ideology. Let's forget the religion and skin colour. Imagine if it was purely a political movement that threatens to kill critics even outside the group and interprets criticism in an incredibly wide way. E.g. by telling people to kill authors and cartoonists in far away secular countries even though what they wrote or drew seems innocuous to outsiders. And it targets homosexuals and any women that want to marry outside the group. Men are free to screw unbelieving women. At this point large numbers of its adherents arrive, legally and illegally, in liberal societies with low birth rates. Most of them end up poor and very much under its control. It tells them they are poor because society is too liberal. Potentially it could start to field political candidates in areas where its members are in a majority, and since it tends to deal violently dissenters and brainwash members to be obedient it could tell those members to vote for them at meetings and they probably would.
Doesn't that strike you as a threat to those liberal societies in the long run?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
100% conviction rate? They are as good as the Inquisition at that.
What happens to the victims? Torches and pitchforks?
About point #3: The Muslim growth rate IS much higher than the growth rate of developed nations as a whole, and Muslims in Western and European nations OVERWHELMINGLY favor Sharia law.
A recent poll shows that 36% of Muslims in the U.K. support the death penalty for any Muslim apostate. That's extremism, and it has far too wide of support within a certain community. If you can't confront an ideology because it is associated with a religion, or with a culture, you are bound to have that ideology spread without meaningful resistance. The prosecution of "hate speech" without an incitement to violence is a war on ideology, where one side is demanding that the other drop their weapons and run.
When a third of Muslims in civilized nations support DEATH for those who leave their religion, and half of the blacks in America either believe the government created AIDS or are unsure if they did, there is a disturbing spread of ideas that must be opposed. The removal of repudiation of ideals, simply because those ideas are associated with a religion or culture, feels nice to some, but silences others.
Also note that this is not just academic, because our (possible) next president was born to a Muslim father and left Islam for irreligiosity at a young age. Though most do not support the death penalty for prepubescent apostates, some do.
The restriction of criticism of religion or cultures, in any form, does not contribute to, and has no place in, a society that allows it's participants to choose from a marketplace of ideas.
The marketplace of ideas should not be a single podium, but a bazaar.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
"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."
So I guess you feel that you should be on trial too?
Hypocritial moron.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I would suggest checking out the blog of Ezra Levant, mentioned in the National Post story. Levant was brought up before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Danish cartoons and follows the "human rights" commissions closely.
Here is a short video from his interrogation and a quote from his blog: "And after I made [my point], [Human Rights] Officer [Shirlene] McGovern said 'you're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure.' Well, actually, I'm not, am I? That's the reason I was sitting there. I don't have the right to my opinions, unless she says I do."
And here is another video from the interrogation in which Levant expresses his disgust at being directed to answer to the government and characterizes the human rights officer as a thug.
From the article We do not envy the Canadians. They have entrusted to their government a power Americans never would, and they follow it into foolishness.
"These [Free Speech] zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct... Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'"
You can't take the sky from me...
You're only allowed to say you hate white people, especially white men, anything else and you're a racist hate monger.
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.
1976-77, c. 33, s. 1.
PURPOSE OF ACT
Purpose
2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
You can't take the sky from me...
It's already happening and has been happing for well over a hundred years. Ever read the 10th Amendment. Particularly the following:
Congress, the President and the courts have been ignoring the 10th Amendment for ages.
[goes off, reads excerpt]
He isn't just ranting about the evils of expanding Islam. In fact, that the particular focus is Islamic isn't even relevant; it's merely the chance of what is the most rapidly-expanding culture in the world today. He could be discussing any similar dichotomy throughout history.
The most relevant quotes are these:
========
You might formulate it like this:
Age + Welfare = Disaster for you;
Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way.
By "will," I mean the metaphorical spine of a culture.
========
According to all of history, he's right. Frex, if you substitute "Late Rome" for any of the western countries he cites, and "Goths and Vandals" for Islam, or as another example "Imperial China" and "Mongol hordes", suddenly what he's talking about jumps into focus.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
And weren't many of those 100% conviction complaints pushed through by complaints from Jewish Groups such as this one from the B'Nai Brith?
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=33030
When Mark Steyn writes for the Jewish World Review (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0802/steyn1.asp) the B'Nai Brith doesn't seem to complain though.
You see, I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws, but when you fight for hate crime laws you can expect others to use those as well. I'd prefer to see less censorship, but people have been jailed in Canada for saying there was no Genocide.
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.
>That's already over the line. The second you put yourself (or worse, annoint ANYONE to) the position of deciding what thoughts are proper and which improper you are a threat to liberty.
The purpose of the law has never been to govern thought.. but expression. You're welcome to sit in the privacy of your home, or your local cafe and think about how much you hate group X or how you'd like it if other people hate group Y.
At issue is encouraging others to do so.
paul reinheimer
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
I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender.
Actually, if you are an author, I think quite the opposite is true. Nothing will make people want to read your book more than being told by the government that they aren't allowed to. I'm sure the publicity resulting from all this nonsense has done wonders for the sale of his book in Canada.
But on to the larger point. I think it is perfectly legitimate for public opinion to have an influence on sales. In a free society, I don't think government should be deciding what books you are allowed to read, but the public does have a right to an opinion, and consumers have the right to decide whether to follow it or not. That's as it should be.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
That muslims are planning to take over the West.
It's happened in lebanon.
Pre-civil war (so 1943-1970s) Lebanon was Switzerland of the Middle-East. Stable, beautiful history, big banking industry, the easy way to reach the ME. Large population that speaks French so easy for Europeans to deal with, and the population was something like 80% christian, 15% Sunni, 3% Druze.
Fast forward to today, Christians represent a quarter of the population, Sunnis are even rarer, the rest are all Shia muslims, mostly emmigrated from Syria and Iran, with military backing from those countries. They were the cause of the 2006 conflict that forced Israel to destroy much of southern Lebanon and the southern neighbourhoods of Beirut.
No, Lebanon is not a western country. Yes, I'm probably going to be modded troll and I guess I deserve it.
But the example is still there. What happens when Europe is flooded with muslims who want sharia law? What about those muslims who don't want it?
Yes, but at least that's a restriction you voluntarily placed upon yourself.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So what if it wasn't his quote? If you hide behind a Jewish Nazi's quote to deny the Holocaust, you're still a Holocaust-denier in my book.
I find all this debate asinine. Canada is a democracy, and the Canadians voted for a government to legislate and enforce the laws of the land. This fake outrage around the decision of a Canadian tribunal to prosecute a man, is tantamount to a Dutch citizen getting all riled up because he read in the news that an American was jailed for possession of weed. Or, an American bashing the Elysée because a Frenchman was arrested for possession of firearms.
Each country's got its own laws, and what it does within its borders shouldn't be anybody else's business.
Res publica non dominetur
It takes a pretty god damned insecure individual to feel threatened merely because someone does not like him/her. "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling" is NOT a threat. I'm really tired of how fragile and candy-assed and otherwise cowardly people are becoming. It is a trend that does not bode well.
Now that hypothetical example would constitute an actual threat. That example goes far, far beyond merely disliking or hating someone.
The Nazis are an instance where the size and power of the state spiraled out of control. The persecution of the Jews and the Reichstag fire and the climate of fear and distrust were means to that end -- if they were unsuccessful, different means would have been used. Having a "tribunal" of people who can decide whether you have committed a thoughtcrime or not (face it, this is what "anti-hate" laws are) is another means to increase state power. The Nazis would have approved.
How about we instead expose the unstated assumptions that are behind all of this? All of it assumes that just because you hear an opinion, you have zero choice but to believe it and to act on it. All of it assumes that just because you dislike or even hate someone or something, that you have no choice but to act on those feelings without regard to the harm that it might cause. In other words, you're all mindless idiots with no hope of deciding anything for yourselves.
Or, from the politician's point of view: "some of you seem to think you should be able to think for yourselves; well that might interfere with the expansion of state authority and the uniform, homogenous society it demands, so we have set up a tribunal to tell you what thoughts you may express and which thoughts are thoughtcrimes and have given it the power to persecute anyone who says something too controversial. That way, we can get you to think in terms of emotional outrage and whether or not you are 'offended' which suits us far better than if you were to think in terms of facts and reasoning. Rest assured that this is all for your own good and that our motives are entirely pure and that this power will never ever be abused." Will we ever wake up and get tired of this?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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).
So does North Korea, but that doesn't mean I can't condemn them.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
... Hate Crimes is THE big new growth area for the State.
I've never been fond of the notion of "hate crimes". Acts, are either legal or they are not.
Why should the victim of a crime (take your pick) be considered more protected than another in an otherwise similar circumstance because of the vague notion of a "hate crime"? (Some people are more protected than others?)
Why should the perpetrator be considered more "vile" than another in an otherwise similar circumstance because of the vague notion of a "hate crime"? (Some people are less protected than others?)
There is either equality under the law or there is not.
With the introduction of "hate crimes" equality under the law goes out the window because we've replaced "facts" with "feelings" (for the uninformed "hate" is an extreme feeling).
It's just a matter of time before "hate" is replaced with "thought". And now that "speech" equals "hate" that day gets ever closer.
For shame Canada. For shame.
...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?
Hate crime is when an act was done in order to create hatred, violence or fear towards a group. When a white guy beats a black guy up because the black guy took his wallet that's normal assault, when a white guy beats a black guy up because he's black that's a hatecrime as it depends on an arbitrary trait of the victim that is shared with a crapload of people. Hatecrimes are worse than regular crimes because the perpetrator will likely do it again when encountering another member of the target group or may be attempting to get others to do the same.
Inciting a riot is against the law even if it is just attempted, the same goes for inciting hatred to cause violence.
If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of the attacker has a big influence on the sentence.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
No, the problem is people who are unable to think for themselves sufficiently to ignore obvious bullshit. Heck, if you're so weakminded that you can be induced to commit a crime because you read a book, well, you probably need psychiatric care. Furthermore, the author of that book is not responsible for your actions: you are. I perceive any attempt by government to deem any particular creative work as inappropriate to be insincere, paternalistic and insulting.
... just deal with it.
This attempt to suppress certain forms of speech because they "incite" people is just as wrongheaded as rationalizing video cameras on every street corner in order to stop terrorism. Neither "solution" gets to the root of either problem, and have been about as effective as trying to cure diarrhea by tinkering with the plumbing in your house. Put it this way: hate usually spreads among the ignorant, among those with no sense or knowledge of history or other peoples. If you want to prevent hate crimes, eliminating one of the basic causes for hatred (ignorance) is a better solution than legislating civil liberties away. It just takes education.
The other big problem in the world today is that people have become spineless weaklings, unable to stand up to those who say, "I find your speech offensive and I will try to intimidate you until you stop." So far as I'm concerned, the Muslims (at least, the vocal ones) are living in a glass house: if they don't want to hear anything offensive to their religion and/or way-of-life then stop saying bad things about everyone else's. Odds are I'll keep my trap shut if you keep yours under control. Otherwise
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The purpose of the law has never been to govern thought.. but expression.
Oh, well, that's such a relief! There's no law against thinking what I want to think, just against saying it? I guess it's not a problem them.
At issue is encouraging others to do so.
I'm going to encourage anyone who will listen to hate fascist thought-crime enforcers like you.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
> If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays
> a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of
> the attacker has a big influence on the sentence.
And it should. If some Klansman or Rev. Wright follower kills somebody of their preferred hated group the odds are very high that they would do it again. That's why it is proper to take mental state into account at that point. You got that part right.
But arresting Rev. Wright for 'hating on whitey' BEFORE he kills anyone or incites a riot (as opposed to Rev. Sharpton who does have blood on his hands yet walks free) is just wrong. I think Rev. Wright is an asshat and Obama is a fellow traveller in hatred that disqualifies him from high office. I do have the right to use their hatred in judging them as regards things like public office. I assert that I also have the right to refuse them service, a belief the government will imprision me for acting upon. In the they MUST have the right to be wrong, idiots, wicked, whatever disparaging term we the sane want to heap upon them, right up to the point where they actually become violent or become a clear and present danger via inciting violence. For if we deny their liberty ours will surely be forfit.
And that is where this whole mess in Canada crosses the line. Steyn has done nothing violent, nor has he incided anyone else to commit violence. But he is on trial and while I don't think these thugs can imprision him they can, and planned to, bankrupt him. Whether they back down now that the spotlight is on them or scurry back into the shadows with the cockroaches doesn't change anything.
Democrat delenda est
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?
I see the government in the same light one would view nuclear power on some island where no other means of generating electricity were viable or had ability to provide power on a scale large enough.
Just like a nuclear reactor, government is a very powerful, in many cases life-saving, thing. But just like a nuclear reactor it is forever challenging to maintain control over. If you do not have enough safety interlocks, enough backups and well thought out procedures to keep this monster in check, it will use the slightest mistake to run amok, in the worst case scenario destroying all life on the island.
Because people are afraid of such power, and paranoid about it, some want to get rid of it altogether (call them "libertarians") and live by the light of candlesticks and torches, or propose some unworkable (on the island in question) schemes involving hats with solar cells on them. Their stance is similar to some of the "environmentalists" who are really "anti-modernists" and wish for us to return back to hey-covered shacks and caves.
They usually also bemoan the fact that people who are dependent on abundant electricity get "lazy" and would not survive should the nuclear power plant go down.
Some others, like myself, believe that such power can be successfully controlled, but it is a very difficult task which requires a lot of thought put into, to design the reactor in such a way that the odds of it going berserk are infinitesimal. One thing however which many who attempt such task forget is the fact that the reactor must be designed with saboteurs in mind, for some of these "environmentalists" are quite insane and would blow it up, killing themselves and all the people on the island just to "prove their point". And some others would try to manipulate the reactor for their own profit, as a tool of terror etc. and so on.
The task is daunting but not impossible.
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.
Just to be nit-picky, neither Robert Mugabe nor Kim Jong-Il is a group. There is no law in Canada against hating a particular person.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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?
Hate Crimes and Hate Speech are two separate issues. Hate Speech is almost universally allowed in the United States. The only major exemption I can think of is burning crosses for the purpose of intimidation. Personally I have mixed feelings on that exemption but I can appreciate why some people think it should be banned. Making hate speech illegal is basically making something a "thoughtcrime".
Hate crimes though are not "thoughtcrime". We're not banning the action based on what the person's opinion is; we're banning the action based on what the intent or purpose of the actor is. This is similar to how we treat murder for hire or premeditated murder more harshly than a crime of passion.
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
"What happens when Europe is flooded with muslims who want sharia law? What about those muslims who don't want it?"
Those Muslims won't be called Muslims. They will be called apostates and they will be severely punished at the discretion of Khalif. The standard punishment for apostasy is death. (Khalifs have a right to suspend capital punishments if situation requires it. For example, Khalif Umar suspended amputation of the right hand as a punishment for stealing when there was a famine in the land).
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You need to read more carefully. The quotation about Muslims breeding like mosquitos comes from a Norwegian imam who was bragging about how rapidly his community is growing. Steyn is not quoting another critic of Islam in order to hide behind him, he is quoting a proponent of Islam as evidence of the views and intentions of Muslims.
That will not be hapening. The number of Europeans that convert to Islam won't be large and nothing will happen in just a few years.
The issue at hand is more that many European countries have accepted a large number of immigrants in the past (and still do sometimes), thinking that it would be temporary and they would return to their original country. Except they didn't. They brought over their families instead. No real problem yet, except for two things. 1: A large portion did not integrate into/adapted to the mainstream society. 2: They have more children on average, which are not always integrating properly too. This is already causing tensions within the society and the problem is not expected to get better anytime soon.
if they're in the majority, they can work that democratic magic to pass the laws they want. That's what a democracy is all aboutBut that is the whole problem. If you procreate fast enough as a group, you can get your democratic majority. Not in a few years, but it still within a century. (especially with whole native babyboom generation dying in the next 40 years)
It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
Hate crime is when an act was done in order to create hatred, violence or fear towards a group. When a white guy beats a black guy up because the black guy took his wallet that's normal assault, when a white guy beats a black guy up because he's black that's a hatecrime as it depends on an arbitrary trait of the victim that is shared with a crapload of people. Hatecrimes are worse than regular crimes because the perpetrator will likely do it again when encountering another member of the target group or may be attempting to get others to do the same.
So teaching someone from the quran, which contains the following statement, and states that it is to be taken literally, is a hate crime ?
Judge for yourself whether or not teaching this to 5-year-olds is meant to create hate :
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)"
The vedas (hinduism) are, in this respect even worse, for they push ethnicity-based racism (the caste system).
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.
Use ridiculous hyperbole much?
Pastafarians are evil?
Dude, you're about to get your soul sucked out by somebody's noodly appendage.
From the USA PATRIOT act:
I picked the PATRIOT act because it is probably the most well-known currently, but there are literally thousands (from any country) that I could choose from. Do you really think the stated purpose of a law and its actual implementation and interpretation are the same thing?
Christianity most certainly has been involved in racism, and as a direct counter to your specific argument, texts in both the Old and New Testament refer to wiping out specific groups of people. The entire final book of the New Testament is about those that don't believe in Christ. They end up facing their judgement and eternal torture.
It is disturbing to me that in your efforts to cast Christianity as the only non-racist religion, you have simultaneously cast Hinduism and Islam as racist in their entirety.
That sounds like racism to me, or at least xenophobia, which is just a step away.
Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
Christianity is not an exception to the rule, and certainly not an utter one. Your argument is biased and offensive. It is unreasonable to cast an entire religion as racist, especially based on one line with no given context. A religion consists of its holy texts, its followers, its prophets, and its history.
... (tadaa) ... different, and think different.
Fair enough : some context.
First, let's take a look at how the meaning of the quran is built up. It is the LITERAL word of their "god", and here's what he has to say about interpretation :
"[3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing literal verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses."
So this means the quran contains 2 things : (1) stories and (2) laws, to be interpreted literally.
Now let's give some context, shall we :
"[8:55] The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe.
[8:56] You may reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous.
[8:57] Therefore, if you encounter them in war, you shall set them up as a deterrent example for those who come after them, that they may take heed.
[8:58] When you are betrayed by a group of people, you shall mobilize against them in the same manner. GOD does not love the betrayers.
[8:59] Let not those who disbelieve think that they can get away with it; they can never escape.
[8:60] You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.
[8:61] If they resort to peace (as defined in the "dhimmi" system), so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[8:62] If they want to deceive you, then GOD will suffice you. He will help you with His support, and with the believers."
These are clearly laws, to be interpreted literally, stating that consistent violence is to be used against all who disbelieve, because "they are the worst beasts on earth". This violence can temporarily be reduced to only psychological violence (ie. threats and terror), but it can never end. Here's another nice one :
"[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers (the muslims) their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, to kill and get killed."
Explain to me how you can believe this to be the literal word of god, and not commit acts of religious violence, because this is something I do not get at all.
The same argument (and worse) can trivially be made with the texts of the vedas.
It is disturbing to me that in your efforts to cast Christianity as the only non-racist religion, you have simultaneously cast Hinduism and Islam as racist in their entirety.
That *should* disturb you. Hopefully enough to honestly check for yourself whether it's true or not. To check this using actually valid references, to read about this, the history, the applicable laws, and what changed when and how.
Specifically of intrest to answer this question are the "dhimmi" system in islam (and how portions of it are applied by current governments, e.g. the death penalty for leaving islam) and the "caste" laws of pre-modern India. If you want to be truly horrified at how bad religious law can get, then check out the "honor"-laws, specifically about the resolution of murder between samurai and plebs, in the Japanese feudal period. Then compare this to, oh, say the Magna Charta, or canon law.
I hope you actually do this, and are not "horrified" because of simple facts. Nobody's horrified that the sky is blue, you should not be horrified that people of different cultures are
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.
By the way, where is your defense of christianity? All I see is you jousting at windmills and setting up strawmen about islam.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The complaint is for a comment in his book: "The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes." The sad thing is, Steyn is quoting the words of a muslim cleric from Norway, Mullah Krekar. The imam was boasting at how Islam would outbreed Europe: "We're the ones who will change you . . . Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.
Steyn is being charged with racism for accurately quoting a member of the religion he is allegedly persecuting.
It is a mark of great shame for Canada and its citizens.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law#Roman_litigation Cases were initiated by a summons which was followed by appointing a judge.
So from both secular and religious sources of our legal heritage there are traditions of courts who heard the accused as a matter of procedure which predate the inquisition.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
so what's your point? if in 100 years 99% of Europe are devout muslims, what's wrong with the majority in that country changing the laws to reflect the culture of the new society?
if the current culture that holds power wishes to retain it, they need to quit being such wimps and go out and forcefully integrate all the immigrants. it's not that hard, it's why you have public schools and forced diversity in those schools. those two things, along with attempts to diversity communities as best as possible rather than keeping minorities in isolation do wonders to integrate groups.
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.
There. Fixed that for you.
Seriously. After 10,000 years or so of recorded history and civilizations and all, you'd think everybody would've gotten the memo by now. Good or bad, ideas are a bitch to kill. Shoot/torture/maim/imprison the messenger, they become a martyr. Ban saying the words out loud, they get whispered even further.
We're upitty little animals, and scolding and yelling at us about what not to do is about as effective as telling junior not to put peas up his nose. We'll do it just to spite you.
If you're serious about banning hate speech--that is, any works that advocate or could incite the killing of other people--then throw the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, and probably a good half or more of the rest of the sum total of religious and literary texts throughout human history onto that fire.
The only way to kill a bad idea is to give it attention and discuss why it's wrong.
besides the fact that most religions have lines in them like your quote from the quran (that most modern people don't believe), your classification of the Vedas is just ignorant (I'm not saying this with spite, just as a statement).
I am sorry, but once people start claiming that "muslims don't believe in the quran", I sort-of tune out.
So why don't you tell me why just about every muslim country still has a discriminatory legal system (or worse : death penalty for leaving islam) ? In fact, there have been lots of demands of introducing a discriminatory legal system in western countries. Just to give one example :
Canada
And there have been racist killings, lots of them, based on the quran in western countries.
I won't accept arguments that state that muslims don't believe in the quran. It's offensive, to muslims, and to my intelligence. Muslims do believe the quran is the literal word of allah. That's what they all claim, that's what they scream when they blow up some random families for imagined "crimes". That's what they say while they stone women to death in Iran. That's what every mosque service starts with : you can't just wave it away like you do.
As for blaming castes on the British, that's just low. If that's true, please explain why Britain does not have a caste system based on ethnicity (a factor you conveniently left out : castes are actually directly racist, as they're based on things like skin color and physical features : you are born into a caste and can never leave it. Being part of certain castes has an influence on what things are crimes in a lot of Indian states. That makes those laws directly racist : different laws for blacks and whites (literally))
You can take the New and Old Testaments, particularly the Old and find some pretty bizarre laws. Literally accepted, a menstruating woman might have a difficult time getting medical care if she is in a car accident. Just because a particular holy text contains certain possibly objectionable phrases, doesn't create a guilt by association with every practitioner of that religion. You can probably even find a Muslim or two with the intelligence to differentiate religious teachings according to historical and modern contexts.
Democracy is an inadequate substitute for freedom. European post-Christian socialism has produced an unsustainable society. The result will be a very different Europe in 50 years.
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
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Exodus 22:18
A witch, based on most Christian teachings, is anyone who doesn't believe in Christ and practices a religion (and more specifically anyone who practices a "nature" or animist religion). Hence, Christians, if they follow the Bible, must kill everyone who is not a Christian. What was that you were saying about Christianity not commanding it's followers to hate/kill everyone else? If you need more examples of text like this, please pick up your Bible. Leviticus alone can easily make my case.
On topic, if we're to ban hate speech, then I say that your book should should be the first to go. However, I believe that we should be allowed, by the state, to hate paedophiles, rapists, murderers, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Taoist, Janists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindi, Blacks, Browns, Reds, Whites, Pinks, Hydrocephalics, or even my Great Aunt Martha. It's on your soul though if you do hate. Please don't tell people to kill these groups... that should get you arrested. (Are you thumbing through your Bible right now? Are you noticing that it does tell you to kill witches?)
Oh, and if you insist on hating others, don't bring Christ into it, He was good guy.
You're misstating the law. You have to have a clear goal of committing the crime to punish a group you hate, and there has to be evidence to convince a jury. So robbing a man, and it later turns out he was gay, doesn't count. That was a robbery, for money. (Psst, it's against the law.) The sentence already goes up or down depending on the amount you stole, and whether there was brutality or threats involved -- and whether you have a history of committing this crime.
It's self-limiting. Often, people will not be charged because there's proof of robbery but no clear evidence of another motivation. A prosecutor who decides that this case gets the book thrown at it based on the identity of the victim is a poor prosecutor. In fact, though, that's one of the problems with the rest of the criminal justice system, as the murder of a white is clearly more prone to the death sentence -- but it shouldn't be.
However, if you have some young toughs who lurk outside a gay bar and take baseball bats to a perfect stranger who comes out of a gay club, as happens very commonly, then is that just an assault like any other? Or is it intended also to spread fear in that city's gay community? The assault has to be tried and sentenced as usual. The special circumstances of the gay bashing deserve a little extra time.
If at some point, some leftist radicals start attacking people coming out of the Young Republicans HQ, I'd think similar punishment should apply.
So would a history book be in trouble for casting Nazis in a bad light?
Exactly. Within a couple of years of this law being put into place, Ernst Zundel got put on trial for Holocaust denial. The result was that a member of the lunatic fringe got a national podium to speak from. How many people know about Steyn? Well, a lot now; his book will sell like hotcakes as a result of this trial. Criticisms of his arguments had all but laid it to rest, but there will be no stopping it now.
The people mounting this attack are the most politically inept lot I have ever seen. This is an own goal in overtime. I have a good idea of what the hate speech law was trying to prevent, but it is being applied to stifle any criticism of any cultural tradition, which means that regardless of how dysfunctional imported customs are, no one can actually come out and say they're messed up. The people in these human rights tribunals don't even have any credentials to justify their authority--and they get to define what hate speech is. So the trial will generate a lot of discussion outside of Canada, but those inside Canada will have to be careful what they say, because it might be considered hate speech.
With a single stroke, civilization is stopped in its tracks.
>>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
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.
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?
A little fact checking: Ezra Klein is a ultra conservative media whore; if he were pretty he would be a "Hilton". Mark Steyn is little better. A clever friend once said "wrong isn't controversial, its just wrong", but it does get puny ideas published (and blogged).
Hate crime legislation is controversial. It directly addresses the paradox of 'tolerate all but the intolerant'; which is a tenuous balance. Some societies just prefer to dodge the problem all together; and that seems to have problems too.
The Klein and the Steyn exploit this issue rather than address it, which, considering they are self-proclaimed journalists or social critics, is mildly ironic. It is an issue which should be explored more in mass media, because mass media makes it more relevant. The ready ability to reach a wide audience with statements demands a greater clarity than ever before.
And, no, I haven't read Steyns piece of shit. Frankly that is a paradox too. In order to know exactly what is wrong with it, first hand, involves indirectly rewarding him; which I am not willing to do. If I were to risk jail for stealing a book, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be this one.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Hate speech is when you say something that the establishment doesn't like.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
~ 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
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
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
:)
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.
Look at the people pushing it. Warren Kinsella has a history of being a Liberal party hack. He had his 15 minutes of semi-fame long ago, and will do anything to try to get back into some sort of "spokesperson" role.
The law was well-intentioned. It was to provide protection to groups of people akin to the prohibition against "shouting fire in a theatre". Unfortunately, it doesn't work when people subvert it with their own agendas. As a practical matter, it may not be possible for it to work, period, and if that's the case, it should be scrapped.
Run by reasonable people, it could work. Problem is, everyone thinks they're "reasonable", and almost nobody else is as "reasonable" as them ...
If soneone's an asshole, I should be able to say so without fearing being hauled before a tribunal under the pretext of a "hate crime." Reasonable people will be able to figure out who's telling it like it is, and for the rest, why would I give a flying f*ck what they think?
You make a good argument for more STATE power...
A study could be done showing optimal ratios; but more useful would be finding a general trend in ratios. Its reasonable to assume its linear and goes down hill; however, it important enough to want to know what the graph is and aim for the better ratios.
Clearly, the system doesn't scale above certain limits (which I argue has been already surpassed.) I think 1,000 reps is not unreasonable; however, the ratio for that is still around 1:400,000 which is not good. The current system doesn't SCALE; the founders started with about 1:30,000 or so; which is on the order of an average mayor.
The US system (not being practiced) allows for modifications such as changing the operation of the house. Foolishly, the adaptation was to limit the House to 435 instead of considering many alternatives..
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news