Muslims in Toronto demand end to freedom of speech and expression.

Black Dog · September 25, 2012

And the CBC and the National Post didn't cover it. Neither did the Ottawa Citizen or the Globe and Mail. I don't read French news, so I can't comment on that.

Muslim Congress blasts ‘Zionist and Islamophobic hate-mongers’ in call for Toronto protest against film

City TV covered it. So did CTV. Newstalk 1010 had a story on it. And so did CP24.

So if you don't count these outlets as well as the Star, the Sun and the Post, I guess your theory that the media totally ignored this stands. :lol:

(Not sure why the Ottawa Citizen would cover something happening in Toronto....)

bleeding heart · September 25, 2012

Oye-Vey.....

This non-response is a cocnession that you can't argue any of my points.

And as concessions are relatively rare,I apperciate it, Fletch, my man!

bleeding heart · September 25, 2012

Muslim Congress blasts ‘Zionist and Islamophobic hate-mongers’ in call for Toronto protest against film

City TV covered it. So did CTV. Newstalk 1010 had a story on it. And so did CP24.

So if you don't count these outlets as well as the Star, the Sun and the Post, I guess your theory that the media totally ignored this stands.

(Not sure why the Ottawa Citizen would cover something happening in Toronto....)

Yes, "all the medai ignored it" must be code for something else.

kraychik · September 25, 2012

Muslim Congress blasts ‘Zionist and Islamophobic hate-mongers’ in call for Toronto protest against film

City TV covered it. So did CTV. Newstalk 1010 had a story on it. And so did CP24.

So if you don't count these outlets as well as the Star, the Sun and the Post, I guess your theory that the media totally ignored this stands.

(Not sure why the Ottawa Citizen would cover something happening in Toronto....)

I said in earlier posts that the majority of the Canadian media landscape buried the story. Considering the video I linked in my initial post was from Sun News, clearly not all Canadian media buried the story. More importantly, the biggest media outlets DIDN'T cover it. Again, the CBC, the National Post, and Global TV didn't cover it. And from what I've seen, CTV didn't cover it either, contrary to what you're asserting. That's a pretty systematic burial of this story across a broad swathe of Canadian media.

kraychik · September 25, 2012

Yes, "all the medai ignored it" must be code for something else.

I never said all the media ignored it. Just most of it. Nice strawman.

kraychik · September 25, 2012

Muslim Congress blasts ‘Zionist and Islamophobic hate-mongers’ in call for Toronto protest against film

Also, that link was before the demonstrations, the Nation Post didn't actually cover the events, which is specifically what I've been addressing throughout the entire thread. I came across that article when I was initially searching the domain of the National Post to see whether or not they'd covered this story. Predictably, they buried it. And it's already Tuesday.

Edited September 25, 2012 by kraychik

kraychik · September 25, 2012

I guess it's fair to assume that leftists like Bleeding Heart and BlackDog don't consider these protests to be newsworthy, even when considering they're a part of a much broader string of protests occurring in many parts of the world, some including violence and even murder (in Benghazi, although that was a premeditated terrorist attack).

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Black Dog · September 25, 2012

I said in earlier posts that the majority of the Canadian media landscape buried the story. Considering the video I linked in my initial post was from Sun News, clearly not all Canadian media buried the story. More importantly, the biggest media outlets DIDN'T cover it. Again, the CBC, the National Post, and Global TV didn't cover it. And from what I've seen, CTV didn't cover it either, contrary to what you're asserting. That's a pretty systematic burial of this story across a broad swathe of Canadian media.

I posted a link to the Post's story. Here's a link to the CTV coverage: Protesters rally against anti-Muslim film in Toronto

Black Dog · September 25, 2012

I guess it's fair to assume that leftists like Bleeding Heart and BlackDog don't consider these protests to be newsworthy, even when considering they're a part of a much broader string of protests occurring in many parts of the world, some including violence and even murder (in Benghazi, although that was a premeditated terrorist attack).

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

I thought it was very newsworthy when I read it in the newspaper.

Black Dog · September 25, 2012

Also, that link was before the demonstrations, the Nation Post didn't actually cover the events, which is specifically what I've been addressing throughout the entire thread. I came across that article when I was initially searching the domain of the National Post to see whether or not they'd covered this story. Predictably, they buried it. And it's already Tuesday.

:lol: So it's not that they didn't cover it, it's that they didn't cover it enough to your liking. Alright then.

Rocky Road · September 25, 2012

I think fanatics of religious extremism should be frowned upon, we have much bigger problems to worry about than

"blasphemy".

kraychik · September 25, 2012

I posted a link to the Post's story. Here's a link to the CTV coverage: Protesters rally against anti-Muslim film in Toronto

The National Post story you linked was published on September 18, and the protests happened over the weekend. The National Post DID NOT cover the actual protests.

As far as the CTV coverage, was that only for local Toronto viewers? It doesn't seem as if it was covered nationally. When I search the main CTV domain, I get no results. Seems to me like a semi-burial. Either way, most of the Canadian media buried the story, as per my original assertion. CTV seems to have treated it as local news.

kraychik · September 25, 2012

So it's not that they didn't cover it, it's that they didn't cover it enough to your liking. Alright then.

No, they didn't cover the protest. If you'd read past the headline and actually looked at the date of the article, you'd have realised that. See, this is why discussion on these forums is often so terrible. People like you are more concerned with acting out vendettas and being contentious for the sake of being contentious than with actual discussion.

guyser · September 25, 2012

Seems to me like a semi-burial.

And when we prove you wrong ...again and again...it will be a quasi-burial , then after that a virtual burial.

Call us when you've used pseudo-burial

Thanks for all the laughs today.! :lol:

Black Dog · September 25, 2012

The National Post story you linked was published on September 18, and the protests happened over the weekend. The National Post DID NOT cover the actual protests.

And?

As far as the CTV coverage, was that only for local Toronto viewers? It doesn't seem as if it was covered nationally. When I search the main CTV domain, I get no results. Seems to me like a semi-burial.

I found it in .3 seconds by typing "CTV Toronto Muslims" into google.

Either way, most of the Canadian media buried the story, as per my original assertion. CTV seems to have treated it as local news.

Yes, if you ignore the media that did cover it, you would be left with the impression that the media did not cover it.

No, they didn't cover the protest. If you'd read past the headline and actually looked at the date of the article, you'd have realised that. See, this is why discussion on these forums is often so terrible. People like you are more concerned with acting out vendettas and being contentious for the sake of being contentious than with actual discussion.

Since I read the article, I was aware of the fact that it preceded the event. I have to wonder, though, why that does not constitute "coverage" in your media illiterate world.

Peter F · September 25, 2012

Bleeding Heart and the other leftists think the National Post, which used to be slightly conservative with a pro-Israel bent is the same publication its always been. It changed ownership some years ago, and this was directly connected with its shift to the left. Back when it was owned by Izzy Asper it was different.

:lol: If Asper doesnt own it it must be commie!

guyser · September 25, 2012

Why don't you just show us the link to your quote from your earlier post? Let's see what types of pornography and in what circumstances the Republicans are (according to you) trying to ban. Context matters.

You mean answer a post with links et al?

Ok, as soon as you do,we have 3 threads where Q's were posed , yet you run away like shady does! :lol:

Sucks huh?

BTW, anyone knows its the right who want to ban things.

And Nazism is still right wing on earth.

madmax · September 25, 2012

I reply to you when I feel like it. I find you boring, uninteresting, unintelligent, ignorant, and dishonest. And I think you try to hide it under a false veneer of civility. Don't be surprised when I don't reply to you.

Nice response to Mr. Hardener. A person who received the position of Facilator of these forums for all the reason you have listed above.

Free Speech allows one to sound like an idiot . Unimpeded.

Seeing as Mr. Hardener has not suppressed your thoughtful and considerate postings, I would say free speech is alive and well on MLW.

CANADIEN · September 25, 2012

A spattering of non-leftist op-eds doesn't change the fact that the National Post is a leftist newspaper. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. You must be another one of those leftists who views himself as a "centrist" or "moderate". So on the odd occasion that you read the National Post (twice a year, maybe?), you agree with it, and consider it objective reporting because it reinforces your own narratives and worldview, which you view as objective.

Actually, when I read the National Post (a few times a month, when I can get it for free - I won't waste money on it), I more often than not end up wanting to use it as toilet paper. The only way I could consider it objective is if I compared it to the Sun newspapers or Ezra Levant's "intellectual" diarrhea.

AngusThermopyle · September 25, 2012

Well I just read through the entire thread and found a great many irrelevancies being voiced by both sides of this debate. What I find interesting is that only one person mentioned a point that I find to be of a particularly germaine nature. That is the public calls for the murder of another. Is this not illegal? The reason I ask is because I'm not sure if such actions would fall under our hate laws. If they do not then I believe this is a serious short coming of the existing legislation.

Frankly I was unaware that a person or group of persons can publicly demand the murder of another and vocally as well as vehemently do so. Should not all those who participated in this activity be prosecuted?

As for this silly protest. Well let them do as they wish so long as they harm no others and do not break the law.

Michael Hardner · September 25, 2012

Seeing as Mr. Hardener has not suppressed your thoughtful and considerate postings, I would say free speech is alive and well on MLW.

Thanks, MM. I have moved on from the discussion, though, because K & I don't seem to be making progress, and it's starting to strain civility.

Michael Hardner · September 25, 2012

Well I just read through the entire thread and found a great many irrelevancies being voiced by both sides of this debate. What I find interesting is that only one person mentioned a point that I find to be of a particularly germaine nature. That is the public calls for the murder of another. Is this not illegal?

Hi Angus - I too was curious. But the poster here didn't provide a link that I saw - I googled the protest and found this:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1260901--gta-coptic-christian-activist-asks-police-for-protection

“We condemn the violence taking place elsewhere,” said Bangash, adding those gathered Saturday in Toronto were protesting the Canadian way.

and THIS:

Many held signs with peaceful messages, such as "I love Jesus because I'm a Muslim." Others, however, were captured on camera calling for the death of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - the man thought to be behind the video that has sparked outrage and often violent protests in more than 25 countries.
"If anyone called for violence, that it outrageous, and I suspect it may even be a criminal offence," Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Monday. "This is a land of freedom of expression -- we believe that is a universal value. [but] obviously we believe people should not seek to offend."

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/24/protesters-call-for-death-of-man-allegedly-connected-to-anti-muslim-film

kraychik · September 25, 2012

Well I just read through the entire thread and found a great many irrelevancies being voiced by both sides of this debate. What I find interesting is that only one person mentioned a point that I find to be of a particularly germaine nature. That is the public calls for the murder of another. Is this not illegal? The reason I ask is because I'm not sure if such actions would fall under our hate laws. If they do not then I believe this is a serious short coming of the existing legislation.

Frankly I was unaware that a person or group of persons can publicly demand the murder of another and vocally as well as vehemently do so. Should not all those who participated in this activity be prosecuted?

As for this silly protest. Well let them do as they wish so long as they harm no others and do not break the law.

What this tells us is that you don't grasp the crux of the issue and what's at stake. You're concerned over legalities, with some of these Muslims wishing to see the filmmaker murdered or executed. Granted, these are somewhat serious threats, and the filmmaker himself has apparently gone into hiding.

The primary concern from this story should be that these folks are expressing a desire to end freedom of speech and expression as we know it, and much of the left is in agreement with their agenda. This is part of a much broader series of events that we're seeing from those who wish to destroy our most crucial freedoms. We already have absurd "hate speech" laws on the books and kangaroo courts known as "Human Rights Tribunals" administered provincially. There doesn't seem to be a significant enough degree of support for broad protections of freedom of speech and expression in Canada. If this thread is any indication this lack of support around these basic values is evidenced in here, as well. I won't even address in detail the widespread campaign of intimidation that affects ordinary people when it comes to having honest discussions about related taboo subjects, for fear of being victimised by violence. This is serious.

Edited September 25, 2012 by kraychik

September 25, 2012

Out of context, this just isn't relevant to me. Let me get this straight now - a Muslim is a Muslim right ?

Some people have been brave enough in their foolishness to say that they actually want to stop immigration from this or that religion. If that's what we're talking about, then let's say that.

And then we can talk about why that's a stupid idea.

Next, we can talk about what any other purposes there could be to pointing out this, and other bad behavior of religious people.

According to Muslims you are a Muslim or you're not. There are no 'moderate' Muslims, simply Muslims that follow the Islamic faith, or they do not.

I care not the religious following of an immigrant so long as they leave their 'hate' and cultural honor,fgm and the like behind and don't expect to have irrational,unreasonable, cultural concessions.

What possible reason could there be to ignore and not point out bad behavior of any group or demonstration?

Point it out and be damned. Arrest if needed. OTOH if it's a peaceful demonstration I personally support the right if not the cause or agenda.

kraychik · September 25, 2012

Yes, if you ignore the media that did cover it, you would be left with the impression that the media did not cover it.

Except most of the Canadian media did NOT cover it.

Since I read the article, I was aware of the fact that it preceded the event. I have to wonder, though, why that does not constitute "coverage" in your media illiterate world.

Except, you didn't read the article.

By your logic, news of the upcoming Stanley Cup Finals constitutes coverage of the event if the actual game and its final score is ignored. Good for the National Post for speaking about the advance, but they buried the most important part: the actual event. And you're trying to spin this in a desperate attempt to shield most of the media with your fellow leftists as you circle the wagons and play the role of palace guards.