Michael Hardner

Um - they're not. Why are you even asking ?

Fine, then Jerry. Go and hand out leaflets. Put it on your show. I don't care whether you do or not, or whether you're offended or not.

jeff, He said: To say that 'Microsoft has serious global ambitions' or 'America has global ambitions' is not to say that there's a conspiracy. To say that Islam does - does that not imply a conspiracy to you ? Be honest.

What did she say ? Did she say that Americans are a death cult ? Did she say that all Americans are part of a global conspiracy ?

Wd, Rather than name calling, why not explain yourself or point out where I'm wrong.

Jeff, Go back and read my posts. As I have said numerous times, I'm not offended and it has nothing to do with me being offended.

We don't. We require an oath of allegiance to Canada don't we ?

WD, You are calling me PC because I think that Steyn's comments might warrant a legal investigation by police, that's what I see. It's got nothing to do with who the CIC complained to, or whether tribunals should exist - it's got everything to do with his comments being worthy of investigation. Because I think so, you say I'm 'PC'.

AT, Yes, if the defense uses this tactic I fully expect the volume of shrieks to increase.

Borg, If he gets jail time will you admit that you were wrong, and that your shrieking was unjustified ? Let's see...

WD I believe that they do that as a last resort. "The Canadian Human Rights Commission is empowered by the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction." I don't need to read the book. I'm not going to read the book because I don't have time and I'm not interested in reading it. Would you rather have these issues take up time with the police and courts straight off ? Again, calling somebody PC because they want to uphold the law is pretty indiscriminate. Do you support Zundel ? It not, then you are PC by your own definition.

And if a single person on a web board somewhere says this, then of course you will be right and the shrieking will be justified.

The right is falling over themselves and drowning each other in shrieking noises and hyperbole. Of course this will be investigated. Unfortunately for most of you, there will not be a mass deportation to atone for this crime.

I think this looks quite good with design integration.

Ok, WD You seem to imply that if he did agitate people to take up arms, then this would be hate speech. Do you think so ? I would draw the line at calling a certain group less than human, or implying that all people of a certain religion are guilty. And I think Steyn has done that. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that he's arguable published hate speech. If not, then I think the courts could decide that. If I was expressing a 'PC sensibility' then I would be expressing disgust and revulsion at him 'insulting' people of a certain religion, or somesuch. I'm not doing that, and you're not doing your argument any good by grouping insults with communication that is arguably close to hate speech.

WB, What's the 'service based economy' ? Call centres ? Doesn't that provide wealth ? What's the difference between making a toy or building a website ? Ok. How about doing laundry for other countries ? What's the difference between us cutting each others' lawns and us chopping down trees and selling toothpicks to each other ?

Argus, I ask honestly - why is it bad economically ? More people means more demand for goods and services. The people that come here work and create economic benefit for those who pay their salaries and those who sell them things. What am I missing ?

Argus, Can you please at least acknowledge that I'm talking about the law in Canada ?

jeff, As I said, I don't find anything here offensive myself. Describing a global conspiracy smacks of the 'protocols of the elders of Zion' though, and as such... well... you know... You seem to understand the question, but... A lot of people don't seem to be getting that Canadian law differentiates between saying 'such-and-such a group is a bunch of jerks' which is deemed to be offensive and 'such-and-such a group is a part of a global plot to take over the world' or even 'such-and-such a group is subhuman and doesn't deserve to live'. It's almost like some of you are learning about this for the first time.

So, I just read some excerpts of hers and while they're critical, they're not written in the way Steyn's pieces are - they're more of a criticism of aspects of the religion itself rather than attempts to paint it was a conspiracy. Of course, we're talking about law so there will be some grey areas. For me, the line is between Hirsi and Steyn.

CB, Are you asking me my opinion legal question, as in 'does this satisfy the legal criteria for hate speech' or my opinion as to whether a particular statement satisfies my criteria for hate speech ? Either way, post the excerpt if you care, and I'll tell you.

Moxie, It sure is something for you to talk about 'blather' when you post without acknowledging my post in the least. Certainly some excerpts would be actionable.

Can Blue, Your 'essential liberties' are always limited. If you can't believe that someone would curtail them, then I'm afraid you don't understand the law.

As a general reply to anyone on this thread, I'm not 'offended' by Steyn's comments nor am I screaming 'racism', nor do I feel that hate speech should absolutely and utterly be banned in all cases. As I have said, my opinion on this matter has changed in the past, mostly in response to dangerous and stupid rhetoric that I have read. But the fact is that hate speech IS illegal in Canada, and as such I believe that the hate-mongering in Steyn's article probably falls into that category. I'm sorry that so many of you are offended by the Canadian legal system, but you should focus your energy on the law rather than my emotions on this matter - which in the end aren't all that interesting. Argus, Read me clearly - Steyn doesn't offend me.

Will Bill, This is astute: But the title of the thread is how to get more money from 'the rich'. I took it as an assumption that global investment capital is extremely portable. This thread appears to be about personal income tax.