Flagrant Attack on Freedom of the Press

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

Um - since when do people in this country have the "right not to be offended"?

Where is this stated in the charter of rights and freedoms?

[Michael Hardner]

Um - since when do people in this country have the "right not to be offended"?

Where is this stated in the charter of rights and freedoms?

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

[jefferiah]

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.

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.

Edited December 11, 2007 by jefferiah

[AngusThermopyle]

'Microsoft has serious global ambitions'

How did you find out about the Microsoft conspiracy?

Actually Microcrap does want to dominate the world market in desktop GUI's. Thats why Bill tried and actually is still trying to take down the far superior Linux GUI/OS.

[Michael Hardner]

Jeff,

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.

Whether is 'should' be illegal is debatable, and as I said I have changed my mind on that. Whether it is illegal is for a judge to say.

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.

I keep harkening back to the 'Protocols' which was effectively used to brainwash people.

So, to recap:

1) Should it be illegal ? I say it's debatable but yes.

2) Does Steyn's article go to far ? Is it illegal ? Although it's close to the line I'd say he probably goes a toe over in declaring a global conspiracy.

[jefferiah]

Jeff,

Whether is 'should' be illegal is debatable, and as I said I have changed my mind on that. Whether it is illegal is for a judge to say.

I keep harkening back to the 'Protocols' which was effectively used to brainwash people.

So, to recap:

1) Should it be illegal ? I say it's debatable but yes.

2) Does Steyn's article go to far ? Is it illegal ? Although it's close to the line I'd say he probably goes a toe over in declaring a global conspiracy.

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.

Edited December 12, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Let's not hear any more whinging about political correctness - this type of hate mongering is something else entirely.

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

Edited December 12, 2007 by jefferiah

[White Doors]

Wd,

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

You said that you are not a lawyer.

You said that you were not offended by Mr. Steyn's words.

Then you say that they are worthy of 'investigation'? No prosecutor is investigating him for hate speech, quite simply because what he said is not.

The Tribunals clearly have no jurisdiction to hear these 'complaints' so tell me again why you think his comments are worthy of investigation?

Please, in detail. tell us all.

[Michael Hardner]

My opinion is that this isn't clear:

No prosecutor is investigating him for hate speech, quite simply because what he said is not.

Maybe I'm mistaken. If you're right, then what does the tribunal even have power to do on its own ? They can recommend mediation, but that's it.

[jefferiah]

Although it's close to the line I'd say he probably goes a toe over in declaring a global conspiracy.

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.

[Michael Hardner]

J,

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.

Ok, but you are restating his words, which when I do it is deemed 'twisting'. My take on Steyn saying "Islam has global ambitions" is that he's saying ALL of Islam not radical Islam.

Incidentally, Steyn isn't an idiot. He purposely chose his words so that they could be shaded one way or another. Cowardly. If he wants to declare a global jihad on them, he should have just come out and said so instead of using weasel words.

[jefferiah]

J,

Ok, but you are restating his words, which when I do it is deemed 'twisting'. My take on Steyn saying "Islam has global ambitions" is that he's saying ALL of Islam not radical Islam.

Incidentally, Steyn isn't an idiot. He purposely chose his words so that they could be shaded one way or another. Cowardly. If he wants to declare a global jihad on them, he should have just come out and said so instead of using weasel words.

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

Edited December 12, 2007 by jefferiah

[Black Dog]

If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness. America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post’s national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc.

Not a bad showing for a book Steyn claimed was banned by the major retailers....

I for one would hate to see Steyn silenced, if only because it would be a tragedy to be unable to mine such a rich vein for comic material.

[Argus]

Argus,

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

Indeed. You are talking about your support for the repression of freedom of speech which offends people.

Is that about right?

[Michael Hardner]

Jeff,

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.

Well, it does make a difference legally doesn't it ?

'Radical Muslims should be rounded up' vs 'Muslims should be rounded up'

Don't you think the meaning of those sentences is significantly different ?

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

This post has been edited by jefferiah: Today, 05:25 PM

I think you've done a good job of outlining your objections here. From memory, I'd say your points were:

1) These tribunals aren't criminal courts, and are political in nature. ( I agree. )

2) They're a waste of taxpayer money. ( I don't agree, but my opinion on this might change depending on how this turns out. )

3) Steyn's words shouldn't be illegal. ( I'm on the fence here. )

4) Steyn's words don't constitute hate speech. ( I disagree. )

5) Strong hate speech should be.... illegal ? legal ? (I think illegal, and I think you did too. My opinion on that changed between 2001-2005 )

Feel free to correct my points above. I'm interested to see what will happen next.

[Argus]

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.

The thing is the police and courts have no interest because there is no actual evidence of a crime. The CIC doesn't actually care about evidence of crimes, thus it can and does force people to jump through hoops and pay for lawyers to defend themselves against even baseless allegations.

Thus whether the speech was or wasn't hate speech the people who laid the charges get to "punish" those who dared to offend them. That's the whole point. The use of these panels to punish and intimidate people.

[Michael Hardner]

Arg,

Indeed. You are talking about your support for the repression of freedom of speech which offends people.

Is that about right?

Let's see here...

First of all, I'm posting not talking. Secondly, 'which offends people' is an ambiguous modifier. We're not sure if it's the speech, the repression, or my support which offends people.

I'm really talking about my support for the Canadian law with regards to hate speech.

If you hate the law, then please indicate clearly the bounds of your lawlessness. This would be a more accurate statement than to call me 'politically correct' because I agree with our laws.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

The thing is the police and courts have no interest because there is no actual evidence of a crime. The CIC doesn't actually care about evidence of crimes, thus it can and does force people to jump through hoops and pay for lawyers to defend themselves against even baseless allegations.

Thus whether the speech was or wasn't hate speech the people who laid the charges get to "punish" those who dared to offend them. That's the whole point. The use of these panels to punish and intimidate people.

I don't know where you and others get the idea that the purpose of the law is to prevent people from being offended. I'm certainly not offended by Steyn's flaccid arguments.

As I have said, I don't like the idea of restricting speech however I do think that it's necessary sometimes. Free speech doesn't mean you're free to yell "Radical Islamist Fire !" in a crowded theatre.

[Argus]

Arg,

Let's see here...

First of all, I'm posting not talking. Secondly, 'which offends people' is an ambiguous modifier. We're not sure if it's the speech, the repression, or my support which offends people.

I'm really talking about my support for the Canadian law with regards to hate speech.

You can phrase it any way you want but it doesn't hide the fact you do not support freedom of speech or freedom of the press. That makes people like you a lot more dangers than the Zundels of the world.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

You can phrase it any way you want but it doesn't hide the fact you do not support freedom of speech or freedom of the press. That makes people like you a lot more dangers than the Zundels of the world.

Of course I support 'Freedom of the Press' !

But I don't support:

1) Libel

2) Printing blatantly false information

3) Breaking the law

There's a lot of straw flying in here today....

[Argus]

Argus,

Of course I support 'Freedom of the Press' !

But I don't support:

1) Libel

2) Printing blatantly false information

3) Breaking the law

There's a lot of straw flying in here today....

Are you intentionally trying to be amusing? Of course you support freedom of the press! Except where that's against the law, of course, then you don't support freedom of the press.

No word yet on freedom of speech. I imagine it's "Of course I support freedom of speech! Except where the government says it's illegal."

[jefferiah]

Jeff,

Well, it does make a difference legally doesn't it ?

'Radical Muslims should be rounded up' vs 'Muslims should be rounded up'

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."

[jefferiah]

As I have said, I don't like the idea of restricting speech however I do think that it's necessary sometimes. Free speech doesn't mean you're free to yell "Radical Islamist Fire !" in a crowded theatre.

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

[Michael Hardner]

J

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."

Nevertheless, there IS a difference. It's all about words...

[Michael Hardner]

J

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

That was a joke actually...