Muslims protest Rem. Day Ceremony T.O.

[guyser]

Of course it's comparable. The only thing that is not comparable is your attitude towards the targets of the two protests

Unless you are suggesting that those Muslim protesters should have been jailed for protesting where they protested.

I see the disconnect here.

Muslims protestors are free to do so,

Gibbons is free to protest, at least until the court put a restraining order against her for disruptive actions she is guilty of.

She was never jailed for protesting, but for violating a court order.

Really, you should know why she is where she is before trying to tie these two together since they are not in the slightest comparable and shoot holes in your argument.

[Guest]

Good for her!

Relevance to what this discussion is about please?

You could read the discussion

[guyser]

Inciting a riot is a criminal offence.

Ok....and that has what to do with the price of chicken in Kiev?

[guyser]

You could read the discussion

IOW ..........you have no idea.

Ok !

[Guest]

I see the disconnect here.

Muslims protestors are free to do so,

Gibbons is free to protest, at least until the court put a restraining order against her for disruptive actions she is guilty of.

She was never jailed for protesting, but for violating a court order.

Really, you should know why she is where she is before trying to tie these two together since they are not in the slightest comparable and shoot holes in your argument.

Would you agree then, with a court ordered restriction forcing the muslims to protest where they cannot be heard by those they are protesting against?

I would not.

Edited November 15, 2012 by bcsapper

[Guest]

IOW ..........you have no idea.

Ok !

Not at all. I just thought you might understand if you read it again, perhaps more slowly.

[guyser]

Would you agree then, with a court ordered restriction forcing the muslims to protest where they cannot be heard by those they are protesting against?

I would not.

No, that would not be good.

I trust you are then not comparing the two anymore?

[guyser]

Not at all. I just thought you might understand if you read it again, perhaps more slowly.

Oh I read it just fine, its that such a comparison is about as comparable as apples are to rubber bands.

[Guest]

No, that would not be good.

I trust you are then not comparing the two anymore?

The comparison stands. We just disagree on the injunctions.

[Guest]

Deleted. Read a post wrongly.

Edited November 15, 2012 by bcsapper

[Merlin]

Ok....and that has what to do with the price of chicken in Kiev?

Someone said that people can protest anywhere, which is legally true. Equally true the law states that inciting a riot is a crime. Meaning that if some groups protest starts a riot the protesters can be arrested.

[Guest]

Oh I read it just fine, its that such a comparison is about as comparable as apples are to rubber bands.

Could you tell me what is different about the two cases, if it is not actually your biases with regards to the goals of the protests or the protesters themselves?

[guyser]

Someone said that people can protest anywhere, which is legally true. Equally true the law states that inciting a riot is a crime. Meaning that if some groups protest starts a riot the protesters can be arrested.

No, sorry it doesnt.

'Incite' is the key word.

You are peacefully protesting the price of eggs at the local market.

Some others dotn like it and start a riot.

You will not be charged, as you did not incite anything.

[Guest]

Someone said that people can protest anywhere, which is legally true. Equally true the law states that inciting a riot is a crime. Meaning that if some groups protest starts a riot the protesters can be arrested.

It would depend on whether or not the protest actually caused the riot. Danish cartoonists, Florida Pastors and Californian Coptic Christian filmakers might take actions that result in the deaths of innocents half a world away, but it's not their fault. It's the fault of the killers.

Edited November 15, 2012 by bcsapper

[guyser]

Could you tell me what is different about the two cases, if it is not actually your biases with regards to the goals of the protests or the protesters themselves?

Linda Gibbons ignored repeated injunctions for protesting in the wrong spot. and or too close to a place of business when she was told not too.

She was never jailed for protesting .

Big difference

[Guest]

Linda Gibbons ignored repeated injunctions for protesting in the wrong spot. and or too close to a place of business when she was told not too.

She was never jailed for protesting .

Big difference

And that's why I compared the two, along with Reverend Phelps if memory serves. She should not be denied the right to protest where she wants. A protest is not a protest if it is done somewhere else, where it has no impact.

We might not be that far apart here. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the injuction telling her where she can and cannot protest?

Edited November 15, 2012 by bcsapper

[Merlin]

Inciting a riot is against the law. These Afghan women protesting at a Remembrance Day memorial service is inciting a riot and therefore an arrest-able offence. In this case the police acted appropriately and I applaud them. The Afghans and the people with them were there to cause trouble and for no other reason. They were inciting a riot and would have been arrested had they stayed.

[guyser]

. She should not be denied the right to protest where she wants. A protest is not a protest if it is done somewhere else, where it has no impact.

When a protest is demonstrably affecting a business whereby clients are prevented/scared away/threatened, then yes they are denied that right and good on 'em to do so,

We might not be that far apart here. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the injuction telling her where she can and cannot protest?

She should have listened instead of being a christian meathead. I agree with the court.

All said, have to give her props for having the courage to be so adamant. Albeit stupid

[guyser]

Inciting a riot is against the law.

No one questions that, so its time you let that canard die

These Afghan women protesting at a Remembrance Day memorial service is inciting a riot and therefore an arrest-able offence. In this case the police acted appropriately and I applaud them. The Afghans and the people with them were there to cause trouble and for no other reason. They were inciting a riot and would have been arrested had they stayed.

Sigh....read the law, you are dead wrong

[Guest]

When a protest is demonstrably affecting a business whereby clients are prevented/scared away/threatened, then yes they are denied that right and good on 'em to do so,

She should have listened instead of being a christian meathead. I agree with the court.

All said, have to give her props for having the courage to be so adamant. Albeit stupid

Then we do disagree. If a protester set up near an Apple store protesting Foxconn conditions, or near a Running Room protesting Nike third world sweatshops, should they be banned due to the same reasons you give above?

Edited November 15, 2012 by bcsapper

[guyser]

Then we do disagree. If a protester set up near an Apple store protesting Foxconn conditions, or near a Running Room protesting Nike third world sweatshops, should they be banned due to the same reasons you give above?

No one is banned from protesting.

But On the first protest no.

But on repeated protests that are impacting a legal operation, preventing the clients from accessing, harassing the clientele, yes . The owner goes before a judge, shows the impact on his business and gets a reasonable accommodation granted.

The protesters are still free to protest, however they may have to move back or across the street,

[Merlin]

No one is banned from protesting.

The protesters are still free to protest, however they may have to move back or across the street,

Precisely what happened to the Afghan women. They were inciting a riot so where told to go away or risk being arrested. Our war heroes deserve to be respected, they have earned that much.

[guyser]

Precisely what happened to the Afghan women. They were inciting a riot so where told to go away or risk being arrested. Our war heroes deserve to be respected, they have earned that much.

You can show they were about to be arrested for inciting a riot? Good, show us please.

But we both know they may have been arrested for disobeying a police orde, but that doesnt fit in your 'The world is falling and Im scared scenario"

[Guest]

No one is banned from protesting.

But On the first protest no.

But on repeated protests that are impacting a legal operation, preventing the clients from accessing, harassing the clientele, yes . The owner goes before a judge, shows the impact on his business and gets a reasonable accommodation granted.

The protesters are still free to protest, however they may have to move back or across the street,

Preventing and harassing would be illegal in any case. It would probably involve assault. I'm talking about just standing there holding a picture, say of a Foxconn suicide.

[Merlin]

You can show they were about to be arrested for inciting a riot? Good, show us please.

But we both know they may have been arrested for disobeying a police orde, but that doesnt fit in your 'The world is falling and Im scared scenario"

The only thing that stopped that scene from becoming a real riot was the brave policemen who chose to spring into action and prevent it. If they weren't there the protesters would've gotten closer to the memorial service and a huge riot would've cracked off. That scares me. It scares me when Muslims that we are at war with can come to Canada and try to protest a Remembrance Day service that is to remember our war dead, not theres.