Michael Hardner

A, Is that not the case ? Is the quote from more than one person ? I don't care if he finds a single person or a handful of people - it's still a dirty propaganda trick designed to make people distrust all people from that religion. As for your claim that the 'Elders of Zion' was laughable, the Nazis made it required reading so somebody took it seriously. To claim that we're more sophisticated today than we were then is to say you've never read the worst posts on this web board.

A, I was responding to Bills complaint that I passed judgment through out-of-context quotes. This complaint is framed, in the first post, as a flagrant attack against freedom of the press. It seems to me that Steyns comments are possibly in contravention of the law. As such, I think its misleading to say that this complaint is an attack against freedom of the press. It would be the law that restricts freedom of the press in that case. This is a standard trick of propagandists, of course. Quote something offensive from a single member of a group that youre targeting. Kind of like if I took MikeDavids posts and quoted them everywhere as proof of Conservative thought patterns. I guess what we should be talking about is whether hate literature should be banned in Canada or not. In the mid 1990s, I changed my mind and decided that society would be better off if hate literature were allowed. After 2001, I changed my mind again after hearing commentary on American radio that I felt was incendiary.

Those quotes were not out of context. The context is obvious, and the quotes stand alone. There was no need to look hard, nor to have a bias to find examples of the offending material. I dont need to read the book to figure out why the complaint was filed.

Auguste, Thank you for reading my quotes. It's not at all clear that he's referring only to Palestinians living in Palestine. It's arguable, of course, and that's why he phrased it that way. It could also easily arguable that a 'cult' is a religion-based group and therefore he was referring to Muslims in general. I recognize that the Human Rights Commissions are a quasi-judicial and political organization, but they do provide dispute resolution services in these cases. Whether or not you agree with anti-hate legislation, his writing may be prosecutable.

Scriblett, you are bringing new information into this discussion without acknowledging the points I made to you above. This is what's so frustrating about debating with the many of the anti-immigration posters here. They stop talking to you once you bring facts into the picture.

Wild Bill: Who is talking through their hat when you haven't even acknowledged my post on this from before ? No, I didn't read his book. I read a few pages of the excerpt, and posted some pieces above. Read my post, then we'll talk.

Did you read the excerpts I posted ? How can you call these 'facts' and 'demographs' ? Implying a global conspiracy and calling someone's faith a death cult are opinions, smears really. Let's not hear any more whinging about political correctness - this type of hate mongering is something else entirely.

Excellent point, Auguste. Technology continues to make the globe into a smaller place. Some other technologies have been overlooked in some of these discussions: Large container ships. Birth control. Television. Radio.

Thanks for the link, Auguste. Yes, I do think there's a solid basis for a human rights complaint here, and not because it's a sprawling illogical mish mash of anecdotes masking as arguments. Here are some excerpts: This is hate mongering pure and simple, and a continuation of a traditional of racial propaganda literature that started with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The linked column doesn't describe what the excerpt said. It's impossible to comment on this in a meaningful way without knowing that.

fcgv, You should turn to the church on these issues, and not your Canada. Canada is a nation of immigrants, and always has been. I have never heard a commercial that says 'Happy Ramadan', and I doubt that you have either. These are things that you make up in your own mind. Your problems are not what they think you are. Your argument and the anti-immigrant arguments that are made on this board boil down to "I don't like immigrants". There's nothing reasonable behind it, just a reluctance to see Canada change. I can understand why you feel that way, but we're not going to be turning back the clock anytime soon, so you should just get used to it.

Yes. There are people on this board who hold some of the same views as MD, who do a much better job of articulating their opinions. Argus, for example post #19 in this thread: AW - yes, I believe it does, here's an article: Canada's high levels of immigration And here are some stats from Statistics Canada: Stats Canada Website

Can you give us a link ? I'm wondering how administrators could have approved risky investments like that. It seems highly unusual to say the least.

In other words feel free to insult Jews whose families have been here since the 19th century. There's nothing Canadian about wishing somebody 'Merry Christmas' versus 'Happy Holidays'. The poster feels that because his family has been here since 1900, he has the right to tell everyone what constitutes being Canadian and what doesn't. I would say that being Canadian means rejecting easy and false pleas to our emotional side. And my family has been here since the 17th century, so I win.

Argus, thank you for your honesty.

They can't agree to disagree.

Riverwind, I appreciate your opinion on this. I think that GW, as an issue, is a symptom of our inability to agree on things. It's getting hotter ! Thanks again,

Also, from MikeD's example, anybody who uses roads, listens to CBC or speaks to a customs agency is a freeloader. It's really not worth entertaining these examples of his as though they were serious issues to discuss.

River, Possibly, but so it is that special interests will gladly provide false evidence for a fee. Does an open mind mean we do nothing at all ? If not, when are we supposed to act ? When there is unanimous support for an idea ? Isn't that just more 'herd mentality' ? Your model for action seems to say that science shouldn't be used as a basis for making important decisions with huge ramifications. But you think that CO2 should be cut in case it is the cause ? I think that's what you're saying. It seems like you're against the general oafishness of the masses, as manifested in this issue. I understand the feeling. I don't know what pumping CO2 into the ground means, but educate me on that too...

Honestly, I never thought of it. I always thought of violence as attacking someone.

I surrender, my knowledge of what constitutes a fight is incorrect. Thanks for bringing the brains... as opposed to bringing the pain....

Leafless, Thanks for the news report. Now, what are YOUR feelings on this question: 'don't you think we should bring Pakistani Christians to Canada ?' Keep in mind that Pakistani Christians are the same as Pakistani Muslims, with the exception of religion. So you want them let into Canada right ?

Fine, then you want to discuss 'what constitutes violence'. I don't think holding somebody down who is attacking somebody constitutes violence, but that's just me. Not a very interesting topic, though.

WD, How could that be ? Restraint isn't violence. Anyway, your question is more about 'what constitutes pacifism' rather than 'does pacifism constitute a moral choice'.