iForgot Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...0d5&k=37472 Canadian "white nationalist" jailed for hate crimeReuters Published: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - A self-professed "white nationalist" has been convicted of using the Internet to promote hatred against non-white groups and Jews, Canadian officials said on Tuesday. Keith "Bill" Noble was found guilty of a hate crime on Monday for postings he made from early 2003 to late 2005 on a Web site that investigators say he controlled from his home in Fort St. John in northern British Columbia. Noble was sentenced to four months in prison and three years probation and ordered not to have access to the Internet, a court official said. Noble's Web site now links to another site identified as belonging to The Aryan Guard, which describes itself as "family oriented folk" who want to "secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children." "That's the problem with the Internet, they can just reroute people to other sites," said Sgt. Sean McGowen of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police hate crimes unit. Stormfront is coo-coo, but this is still absurd. Soviet Canuckistan! Edited February 6, 2008 by iForgot Quote
jbg Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...0d5&k=37472Stormfront is coo-coo, but this is still absurd. Soviet Canuckistan! Absolutely. Unless he advocated specific criminal acts, this is a serious violation of freedom. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
kuzadd Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Absolutely. Unless he advocated specific criminal acts, this is a serious violation of freedom. I gotta say this jbg, I admire you for taking the free speech stance. But I will qualify it by saying: In taking the stance of free speech you must accept that , applies, to everyone' else's right to free speech also. In taking the stance of free speech are you doing so only because by supporting it, it gives you the right to exercise your own unique brand of it, without fear of repercussion. Or are you supporting it on principal, purely principal? I do wonder, so humour me, okay? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Borg Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Absolutely. Unless he advocated specific criminal acts, this is a serious violation of freedom. Agree Borg Quote
maldon_road Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Absolutely. Unless he advocated specific criminal acts, this is a serious violation of freedom. This is why a conservative discussion forum such as Free Dominion has been sold to an outfit operating in Panama. I understand that every effort is being made to prevent Canadain authorities from having any access to info about Canadian posters. Censorship is alive and well in Canada as we see from the efforts made to silence Macleans and Ezra Levant. A private members motion has been introduced into the HofC to rescind Section 13(1) ("hate messages") from the CHRA. Quote If the men do not die well it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it.
guyser Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Ahh...but did he live on Clansmen Crescent? Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) I wish I could care but really....there's snow outside, pure white snow just like the kind that falls on the aryan nations and people are just shovelling out of the way. On the otherhand I wish i could read what this neonazi criminal was writing. The reports said that the bar has been raised and he managed to go over that....personally, i think neonazis should be profile, forensically audited and charged with any and all infractions from littering on up.... Edited February 6, 2008 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Absolutely. Unless he advocated specific criminal acts, this is a serious violation of freedom. Agreed..but his fate was sealed based on geography and politics. Alleging "hate crime" in Canada is like dangling red meat for the haters of haters. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Agreed..but his fate was sealed based on geography and politics. Alleging "hate crime" in Canada is like dangling red meat for the haters of haters.\-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elwood Blues: Illinois Nazis. Jake Blues: I hate Illinois Nazis. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jbg Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 (edited) Or are you supporting it on principal, purely principal?I'm a believer in the wording of the US First Amendment (link), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". A lot simpler than the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (link), which in relevant part provides:1. 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.Fundamental Freedoms FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; ( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; © freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. In short, I am almost an absolutist on free speech. See a thread I started on this subject. I hope I make myself clear. Edited February 7, 2008 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
scribblet Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 Absolutely. Unless he advocated specific criminal acts, this is a serious violation of freedom. Exactly - this is one of the reasons K. Martin has put forward his motion re: freedom of speech Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Brain Candy Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 (edited) I gotta say this jbg, I admire you for taking the free speech stance.But I will qualify it by saying: In taking the stance of free speech you must accept that , applies, to everyone' else's right to free speech also. In taking the stance of free speech are you doing so only because by supporting it, it gives you the right to exercise your own unique brand of it, without fear of repercussion. Or are you supporting it on principal, purely principal? I do wonder, so humour me, okay? I don't think this ultimately matters. Free speech is free speech regardless of the viewpoint, if you speak total lies then it will ultimately be exposed though we definately dont need laws were you can go to jail for saying certain things, which ultimately adds more fuel for the ones you are trying to silence. Edited February 7, 2008 by Brain Candy Quote Freedom- http://www.nihil.org/
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.