Anti-Muslim Protesters in OC

[bloodyminded]

This Muslim-sponsored event was about raising money for women's shelters and for homelessness...so of course protests were in order.

At least the presence of small children didn't deter the courageous bigots, which is a real plus for them, don't you think?

[CANADIEN]

This Muslim-sponsored event was about raising money for women's shelters and for homelessness...so of course protests were in order.

At least the presence of small children didn't deter the courageous bigots, which is a real plus for them, don't you think?

Careful. Some people could wrongly believe that you are criticising the morons err I mean protestors. Since they have a legal right to spew hatred err I mean voice their concerns, you cannot say anything bad about them.

[bloodyminded]

Careful. Some people could wrongly believe that you are criticising the morons err I mean protestors. Since they have a legal right to spew hatred err I mean voice their concerns, you cannot say anything bad about them.

I do totally support their legal right to protest. They have every legal right to be frightened little losers, drooling idiots who don't know anything, and who believe hate is a sober political philosopy.

I also support the right of anyone who agrees with the protesters. Now, sure, anyone who agrees with them is also a monumental moron, and is infested with hate and wanton stupidity. As is their right.

[Scotty]

This Muslim-sponsored event was about raising money for women's shelters and for homelessness...so of course protests were in order.

At least the presence of small children didn't deter the courageous bigots, which is a real plus for them, don't you think?

On first glance it seems rather appalling behaviour. But also inexplicable. Why should people protest at what is merely a fund raiser for homelessness, hmm? Upon a little research it seems that this group has held meetings at the community center a number o times and never drawn any protests. So what was different this time? Apparently, it was the presence of a couple of keynote speakers, one of whom was listed as a co-conspirator in the 911 bombings by a US attorney, the other of whom was an Islamic activist who has spoken of his support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

So this wasn't simply a case of a bunch of bigots showing up because they knew Muslims would be holding a fund raiser.

[eyeball]

So this wasn't simply a case of a bunch of bigots showing up because they knew Muslims would be holding a fund raiser.

Nonetheless that's what they turned it into.

[Michael Hardner]

There may indeed be a point behind the protest.

That organized rally criticized the Muslim charity's invitations to two Islamic leaders who have supported Hamas or Hezbollah and anti-American policies in the Mideast.

A local council member indicates the tape was doctored.

[bloodyminded]

It's true that there were two highly controversial attendees; but clearly, they weren't the only "point behind the protest."

The bigotry and lunacy is self-evident.

I do take the council member's words as a reasonable point, but as I rather took it for granted that she was not speaking generally of all the attendees, her remarks were not what I found objectionable in the first place.

It was the screeching losers themselves that inspired my attention.

Edited March 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

It was the screeching losers themselves that inspired my attention.

That got my attention as well. And it's not like the main stream news filters, sanitizes, misleads and doctors facts of events to support an opposing view.

[CANADIEN]

There is quite a difference between:

a - protesting the presence of controversial figures

b - telling people to eat sand, hysterically accusing attendants of beating their wives, screaming at children and scaring them

One is entirely legitimate. the other is crazy, hateful and disgusting.

[bloodyminded]

There is quite a difference between:

a - protesting the presence of controversial figures

b - telling people to eat sand, hysterically accusing attendants of beating their wives, screaming at children and scaring them

One is entirely legitimate. the other is crazy, hateful and disgusting.

Yes, the distinction is obvious enough.

[Sir Bandelot]

I agree the behaviour of protesters towards muslims in general was over the top. But they (the muslims) did come to hear the words of the two controversial speakers, which indicates some level of support for these individuals. And ths in a way harkens back to a certain American visitor who came to Ottawa University about a year ago. The medium is the message.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[bloodyminded]

I agree the behaviour of protesters towards muslims in general was over the top. Bt they (the muslims) did come to hear the words of the two controversial speakers, which indicates some level of support for these individuals. And ths in a way harkens back to a certain American visitor who came to Ottawa University about a year ago. The medium is the message.

Yes, but this argument can stretch off infinitely, in a sort of moebius strip of justification.

If someone goes to see Bill Clinton speak, they are--objectively--paying money to listen politely to a probable war criminal. And I'm not picking on the Americans, either. Our own country has been directly and intentionally culpable in massive terrorist atrocities that make these controversial Muslims look like poseurs in comparison.

The very people screaming at the Muslims in this video are themselves incontrovertibly and certainly supporting the mass killings of civilians. As we speak; as I write this.

Personally, I think Henry Kissinger should be allowed to speak; and people should be allowed to go listen to him, without folks screaming about how they are murderers and terrorists, culpable in Kissinger's war crimes in Cambodia.

After all, if they are going to listen to him, does this not "indicate some level of support" for mass murder?

I'd support the protests. But I condemn this sort of behaviour.

Edited March 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

It's true that there were two highly controversial attendees; but clearly, they weren't the only "point behind the protest."

The bigotry and lunacy is self-evident.

I do take the council member's words as a reasonable point, but as I rather took it for granted that she was not speaking generally of all the attendees, her remarks were not what I found objectionable in the first place.

It was the screeching losers themselves that inspired my attention.

I had a recent discussion with Shady on posting videos of protester bad behavior - in his example for Wisconsin. My point is that the merits of their protest should be primarily on what their argument is. Characterizations of the protesters themselves add up to an en-masse ad hominem in most cases.

At worst, it amounts to base propaganda and has nothing to do with the arguments.

[bush_cheney2004]

...One is entirely legitimate. the other is crazy, hateful and disgusting.

Actually, all such activity is "legitimate". Don't confuse laws and free speech rights in Orange County with the many "hate" restrictions found in Canada.

[bloodyminded]

I had a recent discussion with Shady on posting videos of protester bad behavior - in his example for Wisconsin. My point is that the merits of their protest should be primarily on what their argument is. Characterizations of the protesters themselves add up to an en-masse ad hominem in most cases.

At worst, it amounts to base propaganda and has nothing to do with the arguments.

But we have only--at least so far--heard two "arguments": the words of the protesters themselves ("go home, eat sand" "go beat your wife" "Your prophet is a pedophile" "Terrorists!"); and the words of the council member eager (perhaps rightly so) to defend her own words, and what she perceives as dishonest manipulation-through-placement in the video.

I do see your point, Michael. But I'm wondering: at what point does a video tell us anything of use?

Those protesters were shouting at people who were not the alleged target of their abuse; and they were using remarks that are bigoted. And there were many of them. I think this is a far cry from an individual getting belligerant.

I'm not painting the protesters with an ad hominem; I'm specifically insulting only and precisely those protesters who acted on their obvious and proud Islamophobia.

Edited March 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

My point is that the merits of their protest should be primarily on what their argument is. Characterizations of the protesters themselves add up to an en-masse ad hominem in most cases.

At worst, it amounts to base propaganda and has nothing to do with the arguments.

And yet, do they not do likewise in the way they behave towards people at very event they've come to protest? Are we now the pot calling the kettle black?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Those protesters were shouting at people who were not the alleged target of their abuse; and they were using remarks that are bigoted.

So what? This is permitted speech in the context of this protest. Bigotry is not illegal.

[CANADIEN]

I had a recent discussion with Shady on posting videos of protester bad behavior - in his example for Wisconsin. My point is that the merits of their protest should be primarily on what their argument is. Characterizations of the protesters themselves add up to an en-masse ad hominem in most cases.

At worst, it amounts to base propaganda and has nothing to do with the arguments.

The only problem here is the protest turned up to be a lot more than just about the presence of two controversial figures, but rather degenerated into a hate-fest.

Those who did that _ and I am actually doubtful it was even close to even a significant portion of the event, did harm to what would have been a fair and legitimate protest. They are no better that anyone at union protests in Wisconsin who showed their idocy by comparing the Governor to Hitler (actually, the attitude of some of them was botherline threatening, which makes it even worse).

[Michael Hardner]

And yet, do they not do likewise in the way they behave towards people at very event they've come to protest? Are we now the pot calling the kettle black?

Yes, the bad protesters do behave that way. If you're trying to say, though, that the bad protesters are representative of the movement itself, then you have some work to do. And then the question becomes, how many bad protesters ruin a movement ?

Here's an example:

The 'On To Ottawa' Trek in the 1930s tried to March to the capital, to ask the government bring relief to men out of work due to the depression. Included in the leadership were accused embezzlers, people with arrest records and so on... The Conservative government of the day tried to use that to turn the public against them, but in the end it didn't work and they adopted some of the Trek's ideas for the next election.

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet, do they not do likewise in the way they behave towards people at very event they've come to protest? Are we now the pot calling the kettle black?

Purposely so....the antidote for hate speech is still more free speech....even if that means calling the kettle white.

[bloodyminded]

So what? This is permitted speech in the context of this protest. Bigotry is not illegal.

As I pointed out, clearly and unequivocally, earlier in this thread. So you're preaching to the choir.

[bush_cheney2004]

As I pointed out, clearly and unequivocally, earlier in this thread. So you're preaching to the choir.

Then this is a non-issue....let freedom ring from coast to coast. I have a dream....

[Michael Hardner]

Those who did that _ and I am actually doubtful it was even close to even a significant portion of the event, did harm to what would have been a fair and legitimate protest. They are no better that anyone at union protests in Wisconsin who showed their idocy by comparing the Governor to Hitler (actually, the attitude of some of them was botherline threatening, which makes it even worse).

I didn't watch the video, and of course the council person distanced herself from the protesters:

Pauly stressed that the protest rally was aimed only at the two speakers, and not at Muslims in general. As it was ending, she said, a small group of more-radical people gravitated to the fundraiser's doors and started hurling insults and chanting.

“We don't even know who these people are, they arrived as our event was ending,” Pauly told City News Service. “They are a splinter group.”

[bloodyminded]

Then this is a non-issue....let freedom ring from coast to coast. I have a dream....

So...you will stop offering your opinion on anything and everything, so long as it's legal?

Awesome.

[bush_cheney2004]

So...you will stop offering your opinion on anything and everything, so long as it's legal?

Awesome.

No...that would violate my rights. I guess we'll have to start over and explain it to you again. See...there were these rich dudes in the original 13 British colonies....