Sir Bandelot

Its sad that some people are always telling me what I "seem" to think, without any factual basis other than extrapolating my statements to the point of utter absurdity. I said if people leave each other alone there's no problem, if people seek to antagonize one another, and that includes using hurtful words against someones beliefs, there will be a problem. Legal or not, inciting someone elses anger for pointless reasons will have predictable outcomes. Ernst Zundel was imprisoned for writing hate literature against the jews. He was so despised for his neo-nazi views that his home was bombed several times. Some people tried to kill him for what he said. I have never heard of him committing violence himself, or funding it, but I admit I don't know his whole story. The charges against him relate only to holocaust denial and hate literature, so that should tell us something. Likewise I see a lot of similar writings that could be considered hate in the media, against Muslims. All it takes is a misleading headline to get the public worked up. I'm not denying there is a problem with radicals, in any society but we need to know who the real enemies are. I know many people who are Muslims and they are not threatening, but they are being threatened. I did not say we should tip-toe around bullies. I myself can't do that. What I mean to say is, pick your fights wisely. Don't expect to insult people with words or ideas and not get some retaliation. Zundels words were a threat. He got retaliation.

No, I didn't say they have the RIGHT. Murderers do not have the right. If people only obeyed the law we wouldn't need it. I'm saying, people do things, out of passion. They get offended, publicly humiliated, they attack. That should be obvious. I'm saying, you want to say and do anything you want, go ahead. But reality dictates you will face the consequences, RIGHT OR WRONG. And I do so hate repeating myself.

Incorrect. Holocaust denial is a serious crime in Canada and many other western countries in the world. On May 2, 2003, Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre and Solicitor General Wayne Easter issued a "national security certificate" against Zündel under the provisions of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, indicating that he was a threat to Canada's national security of Canadian citizens owing to his alleged links with violent neo-Nazi groups including Aryan Nations leader Richard Girnt Butler, neo-Nazi Christian Worch, and former Canadian Aryan Nations leader Terry Long, as well as Ewald Althans, convicted in a German court in 1995 of charges that included insulting the memory of the dead and insulting the state. He was then deported to Germany to face charges of Holocaust denial. .. German prosecutors charged Zündel on July 19, 2005, with fourteen counts of inciting racial hatred, which is punishable under German criminal law, Section 130, 2.(3) (Agitation (sedition) of the People) with up to 5 years in prison. The indictment says Zündel "denied the fate of destruction for the Jews planned by National Socialist powerholders and justified this by saying that the mass destruction in Auschwitz and Treblinka, among others, were an invention of the Jews and served the repression and extortion of the German people." Zundel spent two years in prison in Canada and five years in prison in Germany. His crime was his abhorrent anti-semetic views and publishing books and pamphlets on denying the holocaust was real. I was talking about comedy, not pulling fire alarms. It does not compare. These are crimes with lengthy prison terms. We don't have capital punishment in Canada. That's something only the US does, as far as western nations are concerned. Country, Number executed in 2009: China At least 1700 - 5000 Iran At least 388 Iraq At least 120 Saudi Arabia At least 69 United States 52 Yemen At least 30 Sudan At least 9 Vietnam At least 9 Syria At least 8 Japan 7 Egypt At least 5 Libya At least 4 Bangladesh 3 Thailand 2 Singapore At least 1 Botswana 1 Malaysia Unreleased North Korea Unreleased

You are free to do and say what you want. But I hope you will recognize that words have power, words matter and there can be consequences for whatever you say or write. Saying to your loved one, "I hate you" is just words, but they have obvious consequences. Most people would not easily offend someone they care about. They have learned that mere words can have power to offend and there might be consequences. When you are in a fight with someone, you must choose to either escalate the fight, or try and stop the fight. The choice is up to you. Either way, right or wrong, face the consequences. Go to a bar and insult a bunch of big tough drunken guys, and they will attack you for your words. You may not like those guys, you may think their stupid for going to bars and getting drunk. But as long as you mind your own business and they mind theirs, there is no problem. If President of the United States insulted or threatened the leader of North Korea vehemently and persistently, there would be a problem over the words. The President knows he won't do that, unless there are good reasons for it. He balances his right to free speech and criticism against the Koreans, vs. the possibility of creating violent conflict. He would enter into conflict only when its to his advantage to do so, or when there's no other choice. It's easy to insult someone from behind a computer or TV screen. I'd like to know how many would insult someone to their face, just because. It rarely happens in those circumstances. Why is that?

I think that to the west, the Islamic notion of not portraying images of Muhammad is absurd. And exposing absurdity is the basis of comedy, so the two are on a collision course in a way. I enjoy comedy when it exposes absurdity or hypocrisy, as South Park often does. From the perspective of western liberal values these comedies are bang-on. But at the same time I knew it would upset lots of people, and not all of them are Muslims. This boils down to the great social conflict between liberal and conservative values, and although in this case it is one society ridiculing another, the same conflict exists within each society. But on a large scale, we are far more liberal than they (Islamic) are. And there is a Deep disagreement and misunderstanding on both sides. This could elevate tension between two societies who are basically at war over these principles, and have been for centuries. So that part is not very funny. I believe in free speech at least in principle, but I don't think our society allows it completely either. We also have our "sacred cows". I'm sure I don't need to list them off for people. But in this country you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong things, even as a joke. So there should be a comedy, about us. About how the free speech dogmatists are in themselves hypocrites as well. Now that would be funny!

Of course you don't. You're not a Muslim. I don't understand what's wrong with it either, but I see that it upsets a great many people. So I ask myself, why should I offend these people, what do I gain besides the childish insisting on my rights to say anything I want, to whomever I want. Beyond this, if there is some actual benefit to insulting Muhammad, that matters in a positive way, I'd like to hear it. If not, then I have to say, why do you need to do it.

Yes the problem is that their religious leaders have condemned western values at their very core, stating that democracy and capitalism are evil. And they give various religious arguments for why that is, based on their beliefs about leadership being valid only when it is guided by theocracy. I think they criticize democracy in ways that are sometimes valid, but obviously to have a theocratic dictatorship would be even worse. Nevertheless the notion that they embrace westernism now means to betray Islam.

I was referring to the wider notion of "draw Muhammad" day, etc.

Thank you Waldo for taking the time to investigate this. Shady needs to challenge the credibility of his sources more. And also ask himself, why he wants to make posts such as this in the first place. If it's as he says "No surprise", why would you need to post it at all.

"Radical Islamic Group" would be accurate. Mainstream Muslims will be offended, might even complain but will just quietly move on and try to ignore it. I see no reason why certain elements of the degenerate western media insist on pouring gasoline on a fire. To what end is it useful to be the antagonist here? Because it is our legal right to do so?

9-11 was a failure of the imagination

Objective knowledge is not the same as matters of ethical or moral choice. I support the right of people to self determine what they think is right and wrong, not the school. Not true, I only doubt that such methodolgy truly exists anymore. If it ever did... How many times have we seen that science has been corrupted, by greed or ideology? Especially in areas of social science, there are many unknown factors that come into play. The data can be presented in many ways, taken to mean many things. Come on Toadbrother, I'm sorry

I said that I support teaching academic knowledge. Well ToadBrother, no need to get personal. It's not about me. I'm sorry you don't get my point. I did not mean to upset you. If you want to discuss any of this further, we can still do that.

It's not my duty to report anything, any more than it is my duty to get nailed to a cross. But I do not doubt for one second that any large organizations, government or private have such corruption going on. As for snitch lines, yes they do offer some level of protection like whistle blower laws. I have seen how they work. In the first instance you are protected by whatever authorities there are, until the investigation is done and corrective actions carried out. Then a few years later, is when they come for you. Once the attention has died down. And if you are let go under whatever pretence, good luck trying to get another job. The corporatists use their communication networks to ensure that snitches are branded as such, using anecdotal information...

Those are all valid reasons to suspect that injustice was served. There's no inconsistency. The police did the wrong things and as I have said before, they probably do that on a regular basis. I have said, to you, the police know their job damn well. They know when they are doing something that is out of line with procedure.

No no, don't try to drag this into something else, as if I believe this or that. I said I don't believe the school teachers should teach anything unless it is strictly on academic matters. Anything that enters the realm of morality or ethics is not the curriculum for mandatory education in public school. I've said that already. No need for you to now expand on what I said to include whether an appropriate sex education reduces the spread of STD's. That's just cheap tactics to try to make me look foolish. We are talking about the validity of scientific evidence, which goes beyond the specific question of sex ed for 6 year olds and so is off topic. ->The whole point of scientific methodologies is to overcome not only unconscious prejudices (which we all have), but even outright dishonesty. It would be, except for the unconscious (and sometimes not so unconscious) prejudices... Who do you believe when bombarded with contrary but often apparently valid information. If the question is about sociology, ethics, morality you have to go with what you think is right. Thats personal choices. These matters come down to what individuals believe. I object to some opinionated school teacher going beyond the mandate of academic teaching, and I object to the ministry if they say that's how it should be done. It should be my right to teach them. It comes down to the power of the state vs the individuals.

The case was quickly ended before any details of the incident were brought before the court. The prosecutor felt it would be impossible to get a conviction. The crown had something to hide, that is- exposing the practice of police abuses on anonymous persons. so it was to their advantage not to proceed, when the lights are on. I don't need anyone to agree with me. If the public were always right the world would not be screwed up.

Of course the ministry has its agenda which must include political considerations. Every organization has an agenda to keep its face. A change of leadership, a change of government and you will see the political aspects of the agenda change. I have worked for some very "reputeable" organizations, such as Cancer Care Ontario and two of the largest hospitals on University Avenue. I have seen some of the most respected people, Professors, Doctors all join in to support a lie when it is pronounced necessary by the chief executive. Anecdotal, I know. Give me the word of a single honest man, not drowned out by the din of a thousand lieing fools.

If only you knew what scientists are all about. Remember they are just human beings, competitive, arrogant, vain and seeking personal success. Your "faith" in them is misplaced.

"liberalist sex education" A form of sexual education based on liberal values.

Clearly what you have written makes sense amongst honest people, but we live in an age of disinformation overload. Today all information must be held suspect, and usually requires an act of "faith" to be believed. It is sad that with so much information available to us today we face a serious problem of credibility. We cannot know whats real, and what is being "spoofed" without knowing more about it and investigating the source. And who has time for that

No, it does not and it need not be an Ontario connection. Such connections are not "official". And MDcancer, I believe the excuse that police made some procedural errors would typically be overlooked for ordinary persons who are lower profile. The judge and crown were being very, very cooperative with Jaffery's lawyer. Had they gone to trial it would not ultimately have mattered about the procedural error, even if charges were dismissed in the end. Evidence would have been presented in court forthwith, including the police reports. That is what they avoided. But despite any of that, if it happened to someone else and procedural errors acknowledged I believe they would not have gotten off so lightly. They would at least lose their drivers licence! As for your "moronic people", I doubt there are many here since we all have interest in news, history and politics. But if you just mean, people who disagree with you well that's your problem and yours alone.

Yet the court let the criminal walk out the door on mere technicalities, despite the obvious offences committed. Not cocaine possession, not drunk driving, not even speeding. So much for the justice system as it applies to those with friends in "high" places

I have shown in the past that we are hypocrites when it comes to free speech. Example, we (the west) imprison people who dare question the holocaust. We send the Ernst Zundels to jail in Germany for writing a pamphlet. Free speech is not entirely free despite what its proponents insist on. It only means, what the state will tolerate up to a point. If you go beyond that, you will be charged with a crime even though it's only words! Because in a sense words have great power, the right words at the right time can even threaten the security of the state. Yes by law we are free to insult Islam, or other groups or people... to a point. Say anything against Israel or Judaism and you'll be branded "anti-semite". Say it enough times and you might go to jail. As George Bush once said, there's doing what's LEGAL, and there's doing what's RIGHT. And that's where the fight is, to determine the difference between the two.

And by the way I don't think anything is wrong with anecdotal information, I certainly don't trust "studies" either as we've seen, time and again that there is often a political or financial agenda behind the statistics. Statistics can be interpreted in many ways, while the study only attempts to portray the data in one way or another. I believe human beings before I believe some study backed by a large corporation