Muslims demand Google destroy its content policies.

[kraychik]

Thousands of Muslims protest outside of Google's headquarters in London, demanding that it censor content they deem offensive or defamatory of their faith/culture. This is a forecast of what we can expect in Canada if immigration policies aren't revisited. We already saw a preview of this in Toronto recently with hundreds of Muslims demanding that America destroy its first amendment. As per usual, this story will be ignored by most of the leftist media.

http://www.telegraph...-Google-HQ.html

[dre]

This is a forecast of what we can expect in Canada if immigration policies aren't revisited.

So what? They would be peacefully protesting for something they will never get.

Whats the problem?

Edited October 15, 2012 by dre

[Bonam]

So what? They would be peacefully protesting for something they will never get.

Really? All a radical Muslim group would have to do is blow up/attack/damage Google HQ or kill some Google employees and claim responsibility and you can bet neither Google nor other similar companies would be willing to take the risk of hosting such content in the future. Companies act in their own interest, and taking on physical risk for their facilities and employees is not something that they would do. Governments may try to stand in opposition to terrorists and take on risk to do so, but private companies trying to make a profit and retain talented employees will not (not usually anyway). Such an act would drastically reduce the ability of "offensive" material to be distributed and viewed, effectively achieving their goals, and all at the low cost of some jail terms for a few terrorists.

[jacee]

Why another thread?

[GostHacked]

If there is anything to complain about Google is their violations of people's privacy. The datamining off open wifi when they did when driving around for Google Maps. Countless privacy issues with G-mail and soon you will use your real name on your Youtube channel part fo your digital ID.

[kraychik]

Really? All a radical Muslim group would have to do is blow up/attack/damage Google HQ or kill some Google employees and claim responsibility and you can bet neither Google nor other similar companies would be willing to take the risk of hosting such content in the future. Companies act in their own interest, and taking on physical risk for their facilities and employees is not something that they would do. Governments may try to stand in opposition to terrorists and take on risk to do so, but private companies trying to make a profit and retain talented employees will not (not usually anyway). Such an act would drastically reduce the ability of "offensive" material to be distributed and viewed, effectively achieving their goals, and all at the low cost of some jail terms for a few terrorists.

Dre is either incapable of unwilling to acknowledge that there is a political struggle going on between those that support freedom of speech and expressions and those that wish to destroy it, so I'm not gonna waste with him.

You should remember, however, and I'm sure you do, that we have seen intimidation of not only private interests (The Comedy Network, virtually all of the Canadian and American new outlets, etc), but also from our politicians. Consider Obama's request that Google remove the "Innocence of Muslims" video, or how he had Dempsey call Terry Jones to ask him not to burn the Quran.

Even perusing this forum we can find a number of people, all of whom are leftists, who are sympathetic to the destruction of freedom of speech and wish to criminalise that which they describe as "hate speech" or ridiculously label as "incitement". The point? This eternal struggle to preserve the most essential freedoms of society is not served well by importing millions of people who hate this most basic value. Expect the so-called Human Rights Act of 1977 to be further abused via the Orwellian-named "Human Rights Tribunals".

[guyser]

The point? This eternal struggle to preserve the most essential freedoms of society is not served well by importing millions of people who hate this most basic value.

Expect the so-called Human Rights Act of 1977 to be further abused via the Orwellian-named "Human Rights Tribunals".

But before that expect facts and math to be slaughtered to try and make a point, and fail miserably.

How ridiculous it must be to be a 'fraidy cat all day and night

[Guest Peeves]

So what? They would be peacefully protesting for something they will never get.

Whats the problem?

If you don't see a problem with some radicals demanding a curtailment of a democracies/companies/newspapers/ or citizen's rights, YOU are the problem.

This is the same action that leads to violent attacks on our freedoms.

It's sick behavior to expect 'us' to become 'them'.

[Moonlight Graham]

Thousands of Muslims protest outside of Google's headquarters in London, demanding that it censor content they deem offensive or defamatory of their faith/culture. This is a forecast of what we can expect in Canada if immigration policies aren't revisited. We already saw a preview of this in Toronto recently with hundreds of Muslims demanding that America destroy its first amendment. As per usual, this story will be ignored by most of the leftist media.

I completely agree with all your points. Except the last point that this story will be ignored in the media since you linked to an article that covered plus many other news sources, yes even left-leaning ones, have covered it.

We must limit the number of muslim immigrants (and others who have profoundly different social/political beliefs) allowed into Canada in order to prevent a critical mass of these types of people with these viewpoints from gaining enough numbers of support that can fundamentally alter our liberal democratic societies. It will also avoid clashes, possibly violent, between large groups of different ideologies (as this and other protests are an example).

p.s. my agreement with you proves "leftists", as you claim I am, all don't fit into your illogical box of stereotypes you love to spout.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Fletch 27]

Why "Limit"? Im A-OK with stopping imigration from such a hatefull religious group.

I completely agree with all your points. Except the last point that this story will be ignored in the media since you linked to an article that covered plus many other news sources, yes even left-leaning ones, have covered it.

We must limit the number of muslim immigrants (and others who have profoundly different social/political beliefs) allowed into Canada in order to prevent a critical mass of these types of people with these viewpoints from gaining enough numbers of support that can fundamentally alter our liberal democratic societies. It will also avoid clashes, possibly violent, between large groups of different ideologies (as this and other protests are an example).

p.s. my agreement with you proves "leftists", as you claim I am, all don't fit into your illogical box of stereotypes you love to spout.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Fletch 27

[Bonam]

Congratulations, MG. As these occurences continue, I have no doubt that more and more of those "on the left" who once blindly supported "multiculturalism" will come to see the reality of the situation, as you have. At a certain point, issues become real enough to transcend partisan bickering and become obvious to the population.

[bud]

most of the b.s. kraychuk and bonam et al spew out have been debunked. it's not surprising that majority of the people who spew the lies about muslims are also the same people who are israeli apologists. they are the same people who try to create a negative image of muslims in the hopes of receiving support for the atrocities by zionists.

10 Myths About Muslims in the West

9. Muslims in the West cheer for terrorist violence

While it might seem chilling to learn that 8% of American Muslims feel that violence against civilian targets is “often or sometimes justified” if the cause is right, you have to compare that to the response given by non-Muslim Americans, 24% of whom said that such attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”

This is reflected in most major surveys. When a large-scale survey asked if “attacks on civilians are morally justified,” 1% of the French public, 1% of the German public and 3% of the British public answered yes; among Muslims, the responses were 2%, 0.5%, and 2%. Asked if it is “justifiable to use violence for a noble cause,” 7% of the French public agreed, along with 8% of French Muslims; 10% of the German public and fewer than 2% of German Muslims; 10% of the British public and 8% of British Muslims. This may well be because 85% of the victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.

4. Muslims will become a dominant group of cultural outsiders in the United States

Despite the hysterical rhetoric coming from Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann and their ilk, Muslims there are not only a very tiny group, but they are also one of the most integrated groups in the country - - especially if you consider that 69% of American Muslims are first-generation immigrants, and 71% of those immigrants arrived after 1990.

There are only 2.6 million Muslims in the United States today. By 2030, that number is likely to rise to 6.2 million (because Muslims are young and fertile) - - at which point Muslim will be 1.7% of the population, almost as numerous as Jews and Episcopalians.

Even though they’re new, American Muslims tend to be economically successful and highly educated. With 40% of them holding a college degree, they’re the second most educated group after Jews - - and far more educated than Americans in general, only 29% of whom have a degree.

8. Muslim immigrants are angry at the society around them

In fact, Muslim immigrants appear to be MORE satisfied with the world around them, and its secular institutions, than the general population. Muslim immigrants in the United States are more likely to say they are “satisfied with their lives” (84%) than average Americans are (75%) - - and that number rises to 90% for American-born Muslims. Even among Muslims in neighourhoods where the community mosque has been vandalized - - an increasingly frequent occurrence - - fully 76% say that their community is an “excellent” or “good” place to live.

This usually extends into pride in national institutions. For example, 83% of British Muslims say they are “proud to be a British citizen,” versus only 79% of Britons in general - - and only 31% of Muslims agree that “Britain’s best days are behind her,” versus 45% of Britons in general.

[Michael Hardner]

Wow - Bud - that is certainly some new information. It will be interesting to see the response. Thanks.

[WIP]

most of the b.s. kraychuk and bonam et al spew out have been debunked. it's not surprising that majority of the people who spew the lies about muslims are also the same people who are israeli apologists. they are the same people who try to create a negative image of muslims in the hopes of receiving support for the atrocities by zionists.

All I know is that I can't be bothered reading someone's posts if they put a lying, self-promoting chickenhawk (and someone who made lousy records in the 70's...does anyone listen to this shit today?) for an avatar! What does this tell us about rightwingers, that they hold up a guy who shit his pants before his draft board physical as a hero today?

He was no good in his best days, and had to kept churning out album after album that was the same as the last one, by acting dangerous and crazy back then. That was supposed to make him badass back when I was in high school. But when it's a 70 year old acting like a nut, it's time to take off to the home.

[WIP]

All I know is that I can't be bothered reading someone's posts if they put a lying, self-promoting chickenhawk (and someone who made lousy records in the 70's...does anyone listen to this shit today?) for an avatar! What does this tell us about rightwingers, that they hold up a guy who shit his pants before his draft board physical as a hero today?

Just a link, if anyone's missed the story

He was no good in his best days, and had to kept churning out album after album that was the same as the last one, by acting dangerous and crazy back then. That was supposed to make him badass back when I was in high school. But when it's a 70 year old acting like a nut, it's time to take off to the home.

[Bonam]

Wow - Bud - that is certainly some new information. It will be interesting to see the response. Thanks.

Hardly new information. Also, not really relevant. Stats about the majority of Muslims say nothing about what a radical element among them is doing.

[DogOnPorch]

Pretty big crowd, you have to admit. As far as I know, shooting the messenger, while time-honored, doesn't change the creepy fact that the "tiny fringe of extremism " was able to mobilize a small army right in the heart of London. It's raw intimidation just as much as a protest.

[cybercoma]

Wow - Bud - that is certainly some new information. It will be interesting to see the response. Thanks.

There won't be a response.

[Canuckistani]

these Muslims are protesting peacefully. That's allowed in democracies, and you don't have to like what they are protesting about.

The problem would come if there are sufficient Muslims in the country to push something like this thru. As we've seen, the radical element is pretty good at keeping the more moderate Muslims cowed - they don't often speak up when the radicals go on a tear. This is another reason, aside from the economics of it, that I'm against such large immigration numbers in Canada. You let in too many people of any given ethnicity/religion what have you, and they want to change the country they moved to to be more like their home country. Reducing immigration numbers would prevent this and insure better assimilation.

[DogOnPorch]

...all men, you might notice.

Seig Heil...

Geezzz...just missing the torch-light parade. Perhaps that's next...

Edited October 15, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

Wow - Bud - that is certainly some new information. It will be interesting to see the response. Thanks.

First by stating that some of the 'myths' are not myths I've ever heard of.

Second, by asking for the source of the statistics, since Doug Saunders is not a columnist I put any faith (no pun intended) in.

[dre]

Pretty big crowd, you have to admit. As far as I know, shooting the messenger, while time-honored, doesn't change the creepy fact that the "tiny fringe of extremism " was able to mobilize a small army right in the heart of London. It's raw intimidation just as much as a protest.

What were they doing that was extremist? Werent they peacefully demonstrating exactly like you are supposed to do in the west if you dont like something thats happening?

[DogOnPorch]

What were they doing that was extremist? Werent they peacefully demonstrating exactly like you are supposed to do in the west if you dont like something thats happening?

Their message is extremist. It calls for the dissolution of society as we kno...well, as I know it. I might also point out that Nazi Party rallies were generally peaceful affairs.

[dre]

Really? All a radical Muslim group would have to do is blow up/attack/damage Google HQ or kill some Google employees and claim responsibility and you can bet neither Google nor other similar companies would be willing to take the risk of hosting such content in the future. Companies act in their own interest, and taking on physical risk for their facilities and employees is not something that they would do. Governments may try to stand in opposition to terrorists and take on risk to do so, but private companies trying to make a profit and retain talented employees will not (not usually anyway). Such an act would drastically reduce the ability of "offensive" material to be distributed and viewed, effectively achieving their goals, and all at the low cost of some jail terms for a few terrorists.

Thats a nice story, but not sure what it has to do with these demonstrations. These people are wrong to want what they want, and they arent going to get it, but it seems to me they are going about it the right way.

The rest of your post is a work of fiction describing an event that hasnt happened yet. I have no idea how google would react to an attack on one of their facilities... In any case they dont normally host content, they cache it so they can index it. I dont find your prediction on what would happen all that plausible. People in the west would be outraged if google started blocking such content, and people would go to other indexes to find it. Google would lose a lot of money if they did that.

[dre]

Their message is extremist. It calls for the dissolution of society as we kno...well, as I know it. I might also point out that Nazi Party rallies were generally peaceful affairs.

I dont think its extremist, I just think they are wrong. Same goes for anti-abortion protesters... they are also rejecting how society as we know it works today, but as long as they do it peacefully and lawfully they arent extremists in my view. The ones that shoot at doctors or bomb abortion clinics would be. Same goes for these muslims.

If you are going to lable peacefull demonstration as "extremist", then you are setting the bar pretty damn low.