jefferiah

Yes, and they certainly don't appear to be a call to violence to me. They appear to you this way. There is a point at which parsing words and syntax becomes less about searching for the truth, Mr. Hardner, and more about being over-analytical.

Well yeah, from what I have seen Scientologists dont seem to be causing too much trouble, so I am not sure why they would be banned.

When I spoke of semantics I was referring to the fact that you read Mr. Steyn's mind and said that he was shading words in a certain way. Or choosing statements that could possibly be taken in two ways. That is when semantics go to far Mr. Hardner. And as if that is not enough you bring up this "implied call to violence". Basically when a person in no way makes any call to violence you expect the law to intuitively divine these implied calls to violence. As far as I am concerned Mr. Steyn did not make any implied call to violence. Mr. Hardner, I am sorry, but I am resting my case. You can argue with the wall if you like. I am sure even it has the brains to disagree with you. Your unreasonable comparisons to things like "Kill all the Irish" or turning Mr. Steyn's article into some anti-Islamic version of the "Protocols of The Elder of Zion" are out of this world. I urge anyone here who agrees with what I am saying (whether you be Muslim, Jew, Christian or whatever) and does not like Mr. Hardner's and the CIC's version of free speech to sign the petition at: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free...t-the-hrcs.html

Well I dont accept hate speech. The only case would be a direct call to violence in which case there are already laws against inciting violence anyway. Steyn did not make a direct call to violence. If he says Islam has global ambitions, or radical Islam has global ambitions is immaterial. Neither are a call to violence. Your Irish example is close to a call to violence, but even this falls short. It is not a command to kill the Irish but someone expressing the opinion that they should be. And your Irish example is ridiculous. You've tried it before with something else. And I pointed this out to you. Because what you said about the Irish was definitely much harsher than anything Steyn said. You said harshness does not matter. So then according to your standard if one said all Irish people are very nice, then they would be guilty of a hate crime.

Oh please. Kuzadd's quote was far worse than saying Islam has global ambitions.

No not exactly, there are already laws against inciting violence. But what is this about an "implied" call to violence. That is something now. Are you a mind reader, Mr. Hardner? How are the courts supposed to deal with these "implied" calls to violence? How does one quantify something like that? Yikes, you could people in jail for saying "Good day, Sir" if you thought it implied something. And I think you are the only one who is implying that there is some implied call to violence within that article. No one else seems to get that idea.

Lol Mr. Hardner you keep outdoing yourself in pretzel-like contorting. You must be an ace at Twister. Steyn did not say that some Muslims or all Muslims should be killed. Come off it now. He never said anything like that. You are reusing the same pathetic tactic again. What he said was Islam has global ambitions (which is true), and the entirety of his article made it quite clear that he meant only a certain segment adhered to this principle. A certain small segment. That is the meaning the entire article conveys, and it is far cry from saying "most" Muslims are dangerous. You are something else. So I suppose if his article had consisted of one statement alone, and that statement was "Most Muslims are quite willing to kill in the name of Islam," you would consider it acceptable then.

Yes and that is ridiculous. And he did not use the word "all". Do you think "very" should be made criminal? For crying out loud man! He did not try to dehumanize an entire race. First off, Islam is not a race. Secondly, he continually makes reference to the fact that he is only talking about a certain faction of Islam. If he uses the word Islam in some cases without the word "radical" in front of it, it still does not change the meaning. Now come on do we have to start having laws where we nitpick people's opinion columns to see there choice of words or if they forget to name which subsect they are referring to in every single sentence. Puh-lease. His article does nothing to further hatred of Islam. Seriously I have read it. No one takes it that way. You seem to, by conveniently twisting it to say something it doesn't, but I dont think you even believe that. These human rights charges are doing a great deal though to further the hatred of Islam.

No but the primary reason for someone to launch a complaint is offence. But it is your job not to determine a person's reason for the charge but whether or not the act was a crime. Here Kuzadd provides you with all the elements needed to make a case according to your own standards. She refers to a group. Not only does she make a broad generalized statement which could be taken either way, but she outright says "most" Christians, and she implicates them as dangerous people. Therefore she could be charged with spreading hatred about a group according to your own standard. In Steyn's case he continually mentions that he is only referring to one specific demographic that exists in the minority within the entire demographic of Islam. And you keep arguing about this statement, or this choice of words, etc etc. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? Do you think that the future of freedom of speech should be determined with semantic debates over the shading of this word or that word? Don't you see how bloody painstaking that is, and how it is apt to result in more frivolous cases than cases where justice is services. Well because he used this word as opposed to this word in this statement and put a plural possessive noun here and a preposition over here, well then he is a criminal. Cmon, Mike.

Ah but you understand that unless one is offended (or is trying hard to be offended) it is unlikely that one will file a human rights charge. Now once someone does that it would be up to you as a Human Rights Commissioner to decide whether there are grounds for the case. You said that Steyn paints all Muslims in a bad way. You supply a few statements with the broad term "Islam". You say that there is no excuse for that generalization (which are commonplace things), even in light of the fact that throughout his writing he makes it clear that he is referring to a certain demographic within the very large demographic of Islam. Now Kuzadd's own statement refers to a broad group---Christians. And in no way can you say it was simply a broad general slip up amongst other things, because she did not clarify it elsewhere. In fact, she said "most Christians". Personally I think she should not be liable either. But according to the standard you are applying here, in your own view she most definitely should be as equally deserving of investigation as you say Mr. Steyn is.

Yes, there is no difference, because for one what he was saying was not as harsh as what you were saying. You say that does not matter. But you are being completely thick in the head. For instance if someone said Muslims are all nice people, would you have them charged with a hate crime, for making such a broad generalization? Now you keep asserting that because in a sentence here and there he says Islam and not radical Islam that this means he is asserting some global conspiracy involving every single muslim. I don't think you even believe yourself, Mr. Hardner. I know that no one here gets that idea from his article, since in other places he clearly points out the distincition between radical islam and islam. The only case where it should be illegal is if there is a direct command to violence.

In your case you used a much much harsher example than anything Mr. Steyn said. You take a sentence out the whole where he uses Islam as a general term and yet his writings do not asser the idea that all Muslims are part of a conspiracy. It's common to make general statements. People do it everyday. It should not become a criminal act simply because you are actively trying to interpret it that way. Do you think everyone who says something in a generalized way should be legally liable? Like when someone for instance talks about Quebeckers or Christians and sometimes forgets to mention that they mean a certain segment of those groups. That would be quite ridiculouse. It is nice and considerate to make sure you say those things clearly, but when you fail to I think it is far from a criminal act. And given the entirety of Steyn's article I think he makes it very clear, despite your pretzel like contortions to twist it into the new "Protocols". Now back to what Kuzadd said... She said that most christians are willing to kill to fulfill their sick fantasies. Here she goes out of her way to say its not some radical faction of Christianity. She says most. And she is basically making them out to be a criminal threat. Do you think that she should be legally liable to anyone who is offended by this? I would certainly say that this exceeds, in its harsheness, what Mr. Steyn said in his article.

She was Martha's sister. Not his wife. Perhaps a prostitute, but it is not indicated. What is indicated is that people considered her a "sinful woman".

And this might have relevance in the case of someone who actually shouts "Radical Islamist Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Once again, Mr. Hardner, you show us the the ridiculous lengths you go to in order to turn this man into a criminal. This would be relevant if Mark Steyn or someone had actually said "Muslims should be rounded up."

You are being ridiculous again. What difference does it make if he says radical Islam or all of Islam. You are going to make it a crime to make a general statement once in a while. Give me a break. Please. Look at Kuzadd's statement which I cited. People make statements like that all the time. It should not be a crime. No one sees it the way you do Mr. Hardner. No one reads this and says "every muslim is part of a conspiracy". In fact other people have already pointed out to you that Mr. Steyn has said throughout his writings that not all Muslims are radical. What he said was that if radical Islam makes up such and such a percentage of Islam as a whole, even if that percentage seems small, given the sum total of the Islamic population "globally" its certainly enough to be concerned about. I don't get the idea that Steyn was saying we ought to declare global jihad on Islam. You say why doesn't he just come out and say it. He didnt say that. You are trying to tell us what he thinks. You are twisting convenient sentences and then inserting alot of speculation. And if he did come out and say something like that (which I don't think is his intent) you would have him charged. Give me a break. He purposely chose his words so they could be shaded one way or another. That's quite an assumption. Do you think we should now have laws concerning things which could be taken one way or the other? Well then you must make it against the law as well when people make generalized statements about anything, including Christians. According to your own standard you would have to also send Kuzadd before the Kangaroo Court. She did not make it clear that she was referring to some small segment of Christians. In fact she said most of them. Steyn is not a criminal. Please sign the petition all you free people. We are still a free country, and with a few mouse clicks you can send the message that freedom of speech is something you stand for. http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=480

Now as I have already said, this is your assessment of what he is saying. Saying that Islam has global ambitions is not the same as saying its a global conspiracy, and either way I don't see why even saying something is a global conspiracy should be criminal either. That's outright ridiculous. In fact one could say that certain Muslims are part of a global conspiracy. If 5 Muslims conspire to commit a certain act and each one lives in different country, then by definition that is a global conspiracy. 9/11 was a global conspiracy. The people involved in that attack and it planning spanned the globe. I am writing this because upon reading Mr. Hardner's convenient twisting of Mark Steyn's words into a declaration of a "global conspiracy", I've decided that Hardner's own word "global" is a perfect word to describe radical Islam. It is not a nation. People who have ties to terrorism and radical Islam don't live in one little corner of the globe. They are global. Riots in France. Mindanao in the Phillipines. 9/11. Israel. To turn a blind eye to this reality would be completely idiotic. And to turn your eye toward it and acknowledge it, is not hatred as Hardner says. It does not mean you are implicating "all Muslims" as being part of some global conspiracy, it means you are being aware of a relatively large number of people who span the globe who do serve the ideals of radical Islam.

Whining about political correctness......Good job Mike, a perfect description of what the CIC is doing. Here is a link to a petition about the HRCs. Lots of signatures needed folks. Tell your ma, tell your pa. http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=480

yes yes I know you keep comparing it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The fact that you think a ridiculous comparison is valid does not make it so. If it is for a judge to say why don't we bring it into a normal courtroom. He didn't declare a conspiracy. You declared that he did. Since imperialism is preached in the Koran there is no need to conspire. If two people read about Jihad and each of them says independent of the other that I want to contribute to that, there is not a conspiracy. To say that there are a whole lot more than two Mulsims around the globe who seem to gravitate toward this mindset is not a crime. It is the truth. And it ought to be written about. The CIC right now is spreading hatred of Muslims far better than even the crudest anti-Islamists could.

No actually it doesnt. To say that imperialism is prevalent among Islamists is not the same as saying that all Muslims are involved in a conspiracy. And either way I don't think the latter should be illegal to say either. You don't have to agree with it, but there is nothing criminal about saying that. It does not imply a conspiracy to me It implies that imperialism seems to be quite prevalent among Islamic culture. And there certainly seems to be a great deal of this in Islamic culture. To make it criminal to point this out is ludicrous. I would say that Kuzadd's quote has more malice in its tone than the quote you cited.

"Most "christians" are quite willing to kill to fulfill sick prophecies,edicts etc.,"--Kuzadd This is a quote by a fellow poster here who calls herself Kuzadd. Do you think this is an actionable quote? Should she be under criminal investigation?

Did Steyn say that all Muslims are part of a Global conspiracy?

No but you did consider things Steyn said to warrant legal action, even though you were not personally offended. So then you must also consider Carolyn Parrish and posters on this board legally liable as well.

So then you must also consider Carolyn Parrish and anyone on this board who has said something about Americans as a group to be criminals. Sometimes it is not a very nice thing to do, to make generalizations, Michael Hardner, but when you give the law power over little niceties where you can punish people for saying something you consider out of line or not very nice, then you are living in very dangerous times.

That was Lot. Lot offered to send out his daughters to the crowd who wanted to sleep with his guests. And it was Lot who slept with his daughters. No one says the people in the Bible were extremely moral. The people in the Bible were extremely human. Don't you know where people like Shakespeare got all their inspiration from?