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

[guyser]

For standing on a side walk with a sign and not saying a word. This country is doomed, it is no longer the country I grew up in. To much political correctness and white guilt.

No.....too much not understanding how rights work.

When you learn come back and let us know.

She has never been arrested for standing on a sidewalk not saying a word. Can you figure out why she has sepnt 10 yrs behind bars?

[guyser]

You mean the moron who keeps violating court orders and getting her ass tossed in the clink? Yes poor stupid martyr.

Yup

Crazy for some to use her as some martyr to a cause. They dont get why she is in jail , or do and ignore the real reasons.

[Black Dog]

For standing on a side walk with a sign and not saying a word.

So if I go to your house uninvited and just hang out quietly, you'd better be cool with that. And don't even think about calling the cops and violating my rights.

[PIK]

So if I go to your house uninvited and just hang out quietly, you'd better be cool with that. And don't even think about calling the cops and violating my rights.

You are standing on the sidewalk in front of my house , I can't do a thing about it, but if you enter my house ,then that is illegal, so what was your point again?

[Black Dog]

You are standing on the sidewalk in front of my house , I can't do a thing about it, but if you enter my house ,then that is illegal, so what was your point again?

Why is it illegal? I'm not doing anything on your couch. You just hate freedom.

[PIK]

Why is it illegal? I'm not doing anything on your couch. You just hate freedom.

Did I give you permission to sit on my couch? And was that couch pay for by the tax payer, no and no.

Edited September 26, 2012 by PIK

[Black Dog]

Did I give you permission to sit on my couch? And was that couch pay for by the tax payer, no and no.

You're getting close! See, your abortion crusader does not have permission to do her thing where she is choosing to do it. She's breaking the law just as much as if I came and took a seat on your couch. And she's doing it deliberately.

[g_bambino]

Sorry, you have not proven any rights violated.

More to the point: he hasn't proven any link to the subject of this thread.

[PIK]

You're getting close! See, your abortion crusader does not have permission to do her thing where she is choosing to do it. She's breaking the law just as much as if I came and took a seat on your couch. And she's doing it deliberately.

Well I did not know that she can not stand on a side walk with a sign, but yet these people can stand on a sidewalk and preach hate and destrution and it's all OK. We're doomed.

[kraychik]

What I mean is clear enough - if it is not illegal, it is not enough of a reason to bar someone. Period, end of story, clear enough.

Being a Nazi isn't illegal. Being a communist isn't illegal. Being an Islamist isn't illegal. Having swastikas tattooed on one's forehead isn't illegal. I want all of those people kept OUT of Canada and not given permission to come here, let alone obtain citizenship. Your solution? Keep bringin' 'em in! You're entirely comfortable destroying Canada through irresponsible immigration and multiculturalism policies because you incorrectly believe that our hands are somehow tied. Thank you for displaying the mentality of the left.

[kraychik]

And there go the goalposts, galavanting off into the distance....

Why should the "Canadian" media cover this over nay other local event or issue?

Incomplete coverage, but coverage nonetheless. And again: your allegation was the "liberal" media ignored this story. It took me about five minutes of googling to come up with multiple sources of coverage for this event, from print (including the leftist Toronto Star) to TV to radio. Your premise is demonstrably false.

If nothing else, I do admire your steadfast and unwavering commitment to your bullshit even in the face of a enormous pile of evidence to the contrary.

Translation - You refuse to accept that the majority of Canadian media (the largest media outlets) buried this story, despite it being entirely newsworthy and part of a broader pattern of events.

There's really no point in continuing with you, you've demonstrated that you're committed to protecting the non-existent integrity of most of Canadian media landscape.

[kraychik]

The Globe said that there were 1200 protesters...or that all 1200 of them were "calling for murder"?

Because that was your claim, Fletch. Unequivocally.

I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of those attending the demonstration really wanted the man to be murdered/executed. These people are the same folks that say, "I condemn the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but..." Why do you think so many of them were so afraid to talk to Michael Coren? God forbid they actually openly state what most of them are all thinking.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[madmax]

You are standing on the sidewalk in front of my house , I can't do a thing about it, but if you enter my house ,then that is illegal, so what was your point again?

If you have an injunction, or restraining order, or judgement against a person and they must remain 300 meters away from your home, then it becomes illegal for that person to stand on the sidewalk within that distance.

The person cited is to obey the court order or face prosecution.

[kraychik]

Should know better than what ? Let's put it rationally: screening immigrants based on religion is not right, it's not politically viable, and the economic costs of reducing immigration in this way will outweigh the potential risks from immigration.

First of all, nobody has suggested screening immigrants on religion per se. What I have stated, specifically, is that values should be taken into consideration. Unsurprisingly, leftists like you and your entourage vehemently oppose this, because you have no core set of principles other than "anything goes".

As far as the costs of immigration, contemporary immigration is, on balance, an economic loser for Canada over almost the past two decades. You're just erecting the mythology that somehow immigration in recent years has been some sort of boon for Canada. It hasn't. We're bringing in hundreds of thousands of people who are net liabilities on the system, and who are not integrating into our societies thanks to a ridiculous "multiculturalism" policy. With unemployment where it is, and lax immigration and refugee policies where they are, the entire system should've been shut down years ago. Unfortunately, a large portion of Canadians subscribe to the same mythology you just parroted: that somehow Canada needs immigration for economic purposes. Yeah, we're just in such desperate demand of more Somalian families to work in cleaning services for our government buildings.

The Harper government is nothing, if they're not economically pragmatic - and what are they doing about immigration ? Not that much, and they're not proposing anything like this.

Baby steps. Jason Kenney has made some changes recently.

There were not 1200 Canadians doing that - nobody reported any such thing.

You want to misrepresent and lie in order to "win" the argument - so tell me again about how these immigrants are morally inferior to you ?

You lie all the time.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Well, some of those protesters are wanting it.

But, that just adds to the irony. As the protesters exercise their right to free speech to demand further restrictions on it for others, kraychik et all demand the protesters' (as a thinly veiled representation for all Muslims) right to free speech be curtailed, even starting right at the immigration application process. What fun!

Where have I called for a restriction on free speech? Answer: Nowhere. I much prefer people express themselves openly so that we know exactly where they're coming from. It's sad how you your mind just manufactures things that I've said, regardless of what I've actually said (let alone implied).

[g_bambino]

Where have I called for a restriction on free speech? Answer:

Here.

[kraychik]

In the most ironic way, yes. That's what makes them stupid. But, there's no law against being stupid, and, much to kraychik's and others' chagrin, I'm sure, no real way to stop people who are stupid in the same way from entering the country, assuming that the people we see in the video are actually immigrants, as kraychik has.

Actually, there are plenty of ways to keep such people out of the country. As we've already demonstrated, though, you are unwilling to accept any system that is less than perfect. So you want to burn down the entire system because the best system would still have a few exceptions fall through the cracks.

[kraychik]

Here.

Translation: You don't understand what freedom of speech and expression actually entails. This is getting really depressing.

EDIT - I want to elaborate on this to put on full display g_bambino's ignorance. He actually thinks that if Canadian immigration/citizenship officials were to screen candidates/applicants on grounds such as:

"Are you a Nazi?"

"Are you a communist?"

"Are you an Islamist?"

Or other such questions (I selected blunt and obvious questions to illustrate a point) designed to understand the set of values of these candidates/applicants in order to screen based on such criteria, that somehow we are curbing freedom of speech and expression.

In other words, g_bambino doesn't understand the concept of freedom of speech and expression.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[g_bambino]

Actually, there are plenty of ways to keep such people out of the country.

There are. But which is the one you prefer?

[ed.: c/e]

Edited September 26, 2012 by g_bambino

[bleeding heart]

I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of those attending the demonstration really wanted the man to be murdered/executed.

Your lack of surprise over your own rank speculation over a hypothetical is not the issue under discussion; the issue under discussion is of a poster lying outright in order to prove a point (a point which would not exist were it not for the lie he told).

Under your formulation, kraychik, this would be "another example of the Right exposing their own hypocrisy," in your usual tenor.

Ya get it now?

Edited September 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Your lack of surprise over your own rank speculation over a hypothetical is not the issue under discussion; the issue under discussion is of a poster lying outright in order to prove a point (a poitn which would not exist were it not for the lie he told).

Under your formulation, kraychik, this would be "another example of the Right exposing their own hypocrisy," in your usual tenor.

Ya get it now?

I speak for myself and nobody else, Fletch 27 can address his own points. It's quite telling that you're more concerned with what he's said than the actual story, which is widespread Muslim contempt for freedom and speech and expression. But you're fine with that.

[Black Dog]

Translation - You refuse to accept that the majority of Canadian media (the largest media outlets) buried this story, despite it being entirely newsworthy and part of a broader pattern of events.

Why would I accept something I have proven to be untrue?

There's really no point in continuing with you, you've demonstrated that you're committed to protecting the non-existent integrity of most of Canadian media landscape.

I couldn't give two figs about the Canadian media's integrity. But watching you flop around like a dying fish is always good for a giggle.

[bleeding heart]

I speak for myself and nobody else, Fletch 27 can address his own points.

I responded to Fletch; and you responded to that response.

So you entered the pre-existing discussion, and weighed in on it.

Now, I understand that you think you should be able to determine the precise parameters of all discussions--including thsoe between two other posters--and that we should all follow along obediently. Totalitarians always think this way.

It's quite telling that you're more concerned with what he's said than the actual story, which is widespread Muslim contempt for freedom and speech and expression. But you're fine with that.

No, when posters tell explicit and demonstrable lies to get their point across, it is more than legitimate to call them on it.

That's not an especially controversial idea.

Edited September 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[guyser]

Being a Nazi isn't illegal. Being a communist isn't illegal. Being an Islamist isn't illegal. Having swastikas tattooed on one's forehead isn't illegal. I want all of those people kept OUT of Canada and not given permission to come here, let alone obtain citizenship.

A simpleton would realize that should one present themselves to immigration as a Nazi, Islamist or swatikas tatooed on their forehead they would not be granted permission to reside in Canada.

So now thats determined is there any point to your post? (apart from a faux rant having aboslutely no nasis in reality?)

You're entirely comfortable destroying Canada through irresponsible immigration and multiculturalism policies because you incorrectly believe that our hands are somehow tied. Thank you for displaying the mentality of the left.

Why do you hate Harper and the CPC so much?

Or is this one of those funny 'but the liberals..." you are so fond of?

Edited September 26, 2012 by guyser

[bleeding heart]

A simpleton would realize that should one present themselves to immigration as a Nazi, Islamist or swatikas tatooed on their forehead they would not be granted permission to reside in Canada.

So now thats determined is there any point to your post? (apart from a faux rant having aboslutely no nasis in reality?)

Yeah, the "are you now or have you ever" bit isn't likely to garner a lot of salient information either way.