Quebec radio host encourages caller who declared Holocaust ‘the most b

[jbg]

A Quebec radio host is apparently quite simpatico with a caller who believed that the Nazis were right. The one thing that I agree with these two beasts is that they both have the right to express their opinion. I do not believe that they should be the subject of an HRC proceeding or any civil consequences.

I'd rather debate this kind of scum in the open. Link to article, excerpts below:

Quebec radio host encourages caller who declared Holocaust ‘the most beautiful thing to happen in history’

MONTREAL – A veteran Quebec radio host nicknamed “the king of the night” is facing disciplinary action after he encouraged an anti-Semitic caller who declared the Holocaust to be “the most beautiful thing to happen in history.”

During his midnight to 5:30 a.m. broadcast on Cogeco’s 98.5 FM Thursday, Jacques Fabi, took a call from a woman identifying herself as Maria. She said she was of Arab origin and was distraught that her “brothers and sisters” were dying in Gaza.

She then invited Mr. Fabi to participate in a quiz, trying to guess what animal she was thinking of. When he guessed dog, she replied, “Exactly, it’s an Israeli” and laughed.

She then asked him whether he knew about Hitler and the Holocaust. “For me, it was the most beautiful thing to happen in history,” she said.

Instead of cutting the line or confronting her, Mr. Fabi affirmed that she had the right to say what she had said but she should be careful.

[Guest]

I do not believe that they should be the subject of an HRC proceeding or any civil consequences.

I'd rather debate this kind of scum in the open. Link to article, excerpts below:

Fully agree. What's the point of free speech if it's only the stuff you agree with?

[Sleipnir]

Fully agree. What's the point of free speech if it's only the stuff you agree with?

We do have hate laws in Canada you know.

[Guest]

Ridiculous ones, probably.

Did either of them break any of them? If yes, then they are ridiculous.

[jbg]

We do have hate laws in Canada you know.

My point is that those are bad laws. The only thing that should be forbidden is speech which incites violence.

[cybercoma]

My point is that those are bad laws. The only thing that should be forbidden is speech which incites violence.

thats exactly how they're written

[Smallc]

The problem is the provincial administrative penalties and panels that deal with human rights...they are a bit too...broad.

[Michael Hardner]

A Quebec radio host is apparently quite simpatico with a caller who believed that the Nazis were right. The one thing that I agree with these two beasts is that they both have the right to express their opinion. I do not believe that they should be the subject of an HRC proceeding or any civil consequences.

I'd rather debate this kind of scum in the open.

That's the point. You can't. They broadcast these views over the radio with no equal time, no chance to rebut - and to perhaps hundreds or thousands. Furthermore, while intelligent and reasoned listeners could make up their minds if there were a debate, there would still be others convinced by lies - it's easy to fool people.

I could see the value of an open debate if intelligent members of the public still hadn't made up their mind on this, but they all have. A debate would only prove to extend a negative message to the naive and the confused.

[Guest American Woman]

A Quebec radio host is apparently quite simpatico with a caller who believed that the Nazis were right. The one thing that I agree with these two beasts is that they both have the right to express their opinion. I do not believe that they should be the subject of an HRC proceeding or any civil consequences.

I'd rather debate this kind of scum in the open. Link to article, excerpts below:

While I agree with you, I don't see where he is going to be the subject of an HRC proceeding or any civil consequences. Am I missing something?

She ended by telling any Jewish listeners “to hell with you.”

Mr. Fabi said, “The message has been sent, madam,” and politely thanked her for her call.

However, I can see why the radio station is taking him to task.

Edited November 25, 2012 by American Woman

[jbg]

That's the point. You can't. They broadcast these views over the radio with no equal time, no chance to rebut - and to perhaps hundreds or thousands. Furthermore, while intelligent and reasoned listeners could make up their minds if there were a debate, there would still be others convinced by lies - it's easy to fool people.

I could see the value of an open debate if intelligent members of the public still hadn't made up their mind on this, but they all have. A debate would only prove to extend a negative message to the naive and the confused.

How about providing rebuttal time for people of opposing views, perhaps in part to Jewish organization. I suspect Montreal may have one or two of those.

[jbg]

While I agree with you, I don't see where he is going to be the subject of an HRC proceeding or any civil consequences. Am I missing something?

Ask Ezra Levant and McLean's Magazine, which were tortured in proceedings over far milder content. On the other hand maybe the Quebec HRC's agree with this listener.

[Michael Hardner]

How about providing rebuttal time for people of opposing views, perhaps in part to Jewish organization. I suspect Montreal may have one or two of those.

Well, the show we're talking about is done - so it's too late for that one.

And as I pointed out - there's no point in having a debate. Any reasonable person has made up their mind, and only the naive or gullible are left to be convinced.

[Sleipnir]

My point is that those are bad laws. The only thing that should be forbidden is speech which incites violence.

When you glorify an event that was hell-bent on slaughtering people based on their religious views, sexuality, race, etc then yes - it does in a way incite violence.

[Peter F]

While I agree with you, I don't see where he is going to be the subject of an HRC proceeding or any civil consequences. Am I missing something?

She ended by telling any Jewish listeners “to hell with you.”

Mr. Fabi said, “The message has been sent, madam,” and politely thanked her for her call.

However, I can see why the radio station is taking him to task.

No, you're not missing a thing. Thats exactly what has happened and nothing more cept for the media "Quebec is anit-semetic!" bandwagon

[Argus]

No, you're not missing a thing. Thats exactly what has happened and nothing more cept for the media "Quebec is anit-semetic!" bandwagon

This sort of thing does not happen outside Quebec as routinely as it happens inside.

Of course, usually the mocking, sneering comments are about Anglophones rather than Jews. But the anti-semitism has always been strong in Quebec, and growing, particularly among the media, artistic and union types. Most of them have transplanted their contempt for Israel onto Jews, just like the ignorant Muslim who called the radio station.

[jbg]

This sort of thing does not happen outside Quebec as routinely as it happens inside.

Of course, usually the mocking, sneering comments are about Anglophones rather than Jews. But the anti-semitism has always been strong in Quebec, and growing, particularly among the media, artistic and union types. Most of them have transplanted their contempt for Israel onto Jews, just like the ignorant Muslim who called the radio station.

I have always drawn a straight line from anti-Anglophone sentiment from anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is generally not, in the wake of WW II, cool. So, it is couched as being "anti-Anglophone." We all know that the attack represents envy of the successful movers and shakers that built Montreal into a modern, flourishing city prior to the 1976 debacle.

[Guest Peeves]

We do have hate laws in Canada you know.

There's subtleties and distinctions of course. Rights do not extend to the point of not being offended. I think hate laws are unnecessary since we have laws for breaking laws with libel or threats. Hate laws are often subjective as the Ahenakew case clearly showed.

Perhaps the least of his offense,,*,he said much more. Back and forth it went, as most hate charge do. There are laws on lies and that should be enough. Offending someone is your right, it extends up to the others rights Sometimes extending to fist vs nose.

* "during a Saskatoon speech at a gathering of First Nations leaders meeting to discuss aboriginal health care, Ahenakew launched into a barely comprehensible diatribe and made a number of anti-Semitic remarks. He accused Jews of starting the Second World War."

Edited November 25, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

I have always drawn a straight line from anti-Anglophone sentiment from anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is generally not, in the wake of WW II, cool. So, it is couched as being "anti-Anglophone." We all know that the attack represents envy of the successful movers and shakers that built Montreal into a modern, flourishing city prior to the 1976 debacle.

And perhaps to the Jews turning a desert into a productive country n'est ce pas?

[Guest Peeves]

Well, the show we're talking about is done - so it's too late for that one.

And as I pointed out - there's no point in having a debate. Any reasonable person has made up their mind, and only the naive or gullible are left to be convinced.

That's a rather strange position if I understand it correctly. There are those influenced by propaganda see Joseph Gobbles and the big lie. Falsehoods and accusations and lies do form others opinions and did. Not the naive and gullible solely, but those wanting answers, wanting a scape goat, and those other young minds just forming opinions.

I say you are wrong in your assessment.

[Guest Peeves]

http://www.sunnewsne...124-120440.html

I say that * Fabi by his (lack of ) actions clearly shows he is an anti-Semite, but I doubt that's against the law in Canada, certainly not in Quebec... There they (partisan extremists),seem to be quite democratic, they hate just about everyone not having a De Gaulle print in their living room.

Vive le Québec libre !

*

The call to radio station 98.5 FM lasted more than four minutes, and host Jacques Fabi did not criticize the woman for comparing Israelis to dogs and for claiming that the Holocaust was "the most beautiful thing that happened in history."

After the caller made the Holocaust comment, Fabi replied: "I wouldn't dare say something like that ... in this democratic country, you can never say anything offensive against the Israelis because it could cost you ... I find that dammed annoying."

A few minutes later, Fabi said that one must "wear white gloves when talking about this nice Jewish population of Montreal."

Nasty, but illegal? Nope

[Michael Hardner]

That's a rather strange position if I understand it correctly. There are those influenced by propaganda see Joseph Gobbles and the big lie. Falsehoods and accusations and lies do form others opinions and did. Not the naive and gullible solely, but those wanting answers, wanting a scape goat, and those other young minds just forming opinions.

I say you are wrong in your assessment.

Why do we need to debate racism as if it were a valid idea 80 years later ? New ideas need to be debated, perhaps, but not old and discredited ideas that no reasonable person believes. These ideas are marginal and pernicious and could gain traction with the stupid.

It is enough to just prohibit hate speech, IMO.

[Keepitsimple]

Well - at least this hate-filled Arab acknowledges that the Holocaust actually happened. I guess in Middle East terms, that's progress! Many Arabs, along with the wackos in power in Iran - deny that there ever WAS a Holocaust.

[Guest Peeves]

Well - at least this hate-filled Arab acknowledges that the Holocaust actually happened. I guess in Middle East terms, that's progress! Many Arabs, along with the wackos in power in Iran - deny that there ever WAS a Holocaust.

Well - at least this hate-filled Arab acknowledges that the Holocaust actually happened. I guess in Middle East terms, that's progress! Many Arabs, along with the wackos in power in Iran - deny that there ever WAS a Holocaust.

Yes, at first glance that is the pinion held by Iran and others. In my opinion though it's a subterfuge, agitprop used simply to provoke. Which begs the question(s),, Are the "Protocols" still put forth from several sources including Muslim sites and white power sites etc. believed by intelligent persons?

Do some still believe AND preach the Jews use Christian babies blood in matzot-- for Passover Seder ?

Do some still believe the Jews start wars to profit?

That Jews own most of the media,

Own Hollywood?

Control the USA government?

Are the major profiteers in money loans-banking-?

Are Jews the murderers of Christ?

Etc/ Etc/

Some like a post above suggest these are no longer issues of debate perhaps? That " no reasonable person believes."

I suggest the poster is naive. These lies are still commonly promoted and believed,I suggest by millions.

Whether they are reasonable people is of less import than that they are repeated and promote hate as they have for generations.

Certainly the lies need to be debated. Ignoring them or simply prohibiting them has never stopped the hate speech, only driven it underground in civilized democracies , and used openly in other countries by even the government.

http://en.wikipedia...._Elders_of_Zion IRAN>>>

http://www.ushmm.org...duleId=10007244

Still being published in MANY countries as factual.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Timeline

Back | Related Articles | Related Links | Comments | E-mail updates | How to cite this article

This timeline chronicles The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the most widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times.

Excerpt staring from the turn of the 20th century till today in many countries including by Henry Ford at one time.

1903

An abbreviated version of the Protocols is published in a St. Petersburg, Russia, newspaper, Znamya (The Banner).

1905

Russian mystic Sergei Nilus includes the Protocols as an appendix to his book, The Great in the Small: The Coming of the Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth. By 1917, Nilus publishes four editions of the Protocols in Russia.

1920

The first non-Russian language edition of the Protocols is issued in Germany.

1920

The Protocols is published in Poland, France, England, and the United States. These editions blame the Russian Revolution on Jewish conspirators and warn of Bolshevism spreading to the West.

1920

Lucien Wolf, a British journalist and diplomat, exposes the Protocols as a fraudulent plagiarism in The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

1920

Automaker Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent publishes The International Jew, an Americanized version of the Protocols. The International Jew is translated into more than one dozen languages.

(truncated from to for brevity.)]

The Protocols is published in India under the title International Conspiracy Against Indians.

1985

An English-language edition of Protocols, published by the Islamic Propagation Organization, is issued in Iran.

1988

Article 32 of the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) reads: “The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

1993

The Protocols is declared a fraud in a Moscow trial of Pamyat, an ultra-nationalist Russian organization that published the Protocols in 1992.

2002

Egyptian satellite television broadcasts a 41-part miniseries Horseman Without a Horse, which is based largely on the Protocols.

2002

The US Senate passes a resolution urging the government of Egypt and other Arab states not to allow government-controlled television to broadcast any program that lends legitimacy to the Protocols.

2003

A 30-part television miniseries called Al Shatat (The Diaspora) airs on Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV. The series depicts a “global Jewish government,” as described in the Protocols.

2003

An exhibition of holy books of monotheistic religions at the Alexandria Library in Egypt includes a copy of the Protocols next to the Torah. UNESCO issues a public denunciation of the Alexandria Library exhibition.

2004

The Protocols is published in Okinawa, Japan.

2005

A edition of the Protocols published in Mexico City suggests that the Holocaust was orchestrated by the Elders of Zion in exchange for the founding of the State of Israel.

2005

An edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information, claims that the Elders of Zion coordinated the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

2007

A typical Internet search for the Protocols yields several hundred thousand sites.

Sorry, these "old and discredited ideas that no reasonable person believes" are still promoted, believed and need to be discussed.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

Some like a post above suggest these are no longer issues of debate perhaps? That " no reasonable person believes."

I suggest the poster is naive. These lies are still commonly promoted and believed,I suggest by millions.

Whether they are reasonable people is of less import than that they are repeated and promote hate as they have for generations.

Not by millions in Canada. And we can simply explain to people why these ideas are incorrect without requiring a response, i.e. a `debate`.

Sorry, these "old and discredited ideas that no reasonable person believes" are still promoted, believed and need to be discussed.

Dismissed ? Yes. Responded to ? Yes. But not 'debated'. A "debate" requires two sides discussing a real item in good faith. So, depending on what we mean by discussion we may not need discussion.

[Guest Peeves]

Not by millions in Canada. And we can simply explain to people why these ideas are incorrect without requiring a response, i.e. a `debate`.

But a one sided position unrebutted,"a response", on radio is evidence that explaining does require a response.

Dismissed ? Yes. Responded to ? Yes. But not 'debated'. A "debate" requires two sides discussing a real item in good faith. So, depending on what we mean by discussion we may not need discussion.

Do you not think anyone having this type of defamation put to them should debate, not ignore. Sitting on the fence as the radio host did strongly suggest a parallel belief.

I understand your position, but any lies or hate should be countered, not ignored.