Canadian Muslims demanding end to free speech / Canada's Anti-Islamophobia Committee will begin meetings next month

[dre]

On 2/19/2017 at 9:22 AM, Argus said:

Yes, your connecting our new Somali immigration minister with the fact most of the border crossovers are Somali was interesting. I had noted that myself, but hadn't put that together with who our new immigration minister is. That news would have spread widely among the Somali communities in the US and UK, as well as back home. I think we can expect a lot more of them coming here.

Which is doubly unfortunate, because by almost any measure the Somali community as a whole is probably the most unsuccessful we've ever had.

I've previously mentioned Barbara MacDougal, Mulroney's former immigration minister who came up with the plan to triple immigration. It's no surprise to you, I'm sure, that she came from an immigrant heavy riding in Toronto. I thought at the time that immigration ministers should come from Alberta or Saskatchewan, or anywhere that their decisions as ministers wouldn't adversely affect their re-election chances.

Why on earth would people be fleeing a small government, low tax, conservative libertarian utopia like Somalia!!!???

[?Impact]

8 hours ago, dre said:

Why on earth would people be fleeing a small government, low tax, conservative libertarian utopia like Somalia!!!???

Now we get to the real crux of the situation, those refugees must be "liberals".

[Topaz]

Didn't we go through this topic with Quebec years ago or is this different?

 

[PIK]

This MP that did this , has done more damage to this country then any separatist. And then comes out with all the insults she got ,what was she expecting roses?  This is and has divided the country, did she really understand waht was going to happen or were the planning on it. 

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, PIK said:

This MP that did this , has done more damage to this country then any separatist. And then comes out with all the insults she got ,what was she expecting roses?  This is and has divided the country, did she really understand waht was going to happen or were the planning on it. 

 

So it's ok to threaten death and bodily harm to someone with whom you disagree politically?  

Please explain to me why isn't this an attempt to shut down free speech through insults and name-calling, the way it would be if it were a conservative MP being threatened by 'the left' who disagreed with them.

  

[Argus]

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

And we won't mention the hostile, angry, intolerant people from the right who left rape and death messages for Khalid, who killed a man last week because they thought he was Iranian, or shot a Sikh man over the weekend in Washington as he yelled "Go back to your country".  

We're talking about free speech in Canada. Maybe you didn't notice.

 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Now we get to the real crux of the situation, those refugees must be "liberals".

They'll certainly be voting Liberal in Canada.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Please explain to me why isn't this an attempt to shut down free speech through insults and name-calling, the way it would be if it were a conservative MP being threatened by 'the left' who disagreed with them.

You can't shut down someone's freedom of speech by sending an angry email or text or twitter message.

[PIK]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

So it's ok to threaten death and bodily harm to someone with whom you disagree politically?  

Please explain to me why isn't this an attempt to shut down free speech through insults and name-calling, the way it would be if it were a conservative MP being threatened by 'the left' who disagreed with them.

  

Come on man, look at the way they worded it and the conservatives said just change the word because it is very vague and we have a deal, she would not. They were looking for fight knowing the conservatives would not approve of what she is doing. This is just the start . Butts wanted sharia law added to the ONT family law it failed ,now he is working the federal scene now.  If she really cared she would have done so. And yet the liberals say it is a independent motion put in by her, but when asked to change it,she says only the PMO can do it. Sounds fishy to me.All about votes and keeping the liberals in power for ever.

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, PIK said:

Butts wanted sharia law added to the ONT family law it failed ,now he is working the federal scene now.

Now that is quite a twist of the truth. The Ontario Arbitrations Act of 1991 allowed the use of non-Canadian law, it allowed the parties to choose an alternative law with the proviso that an arbitral ruling which would violate Canadian law would be without force. In 2003, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice announced its intent to create an arbitration process under that act. The Ontario Liberal government (to which I presume you mean Butts) closed that loophole with an update to the legislation in 2006.

Alternative fact: Butts wanted sharia law

Real fact: Butts got rid of the possibility of sharia law

[dialamah]

41 minutes ago, PIK said:

Come on man, look at the way they worded it and the conservatives said just change the word because it is very vague and we have a deal, she would not. They were looking for fight knowing the conservatives would not approve of what she is doing. This is just the start . Butts wanted sharia law added to the ONT family law it failed ,now he is working the federal scene now.  If she really cared she would have done so. And yet the liberals say it is a independent motion put in by her, but when asked to change it,she says only the PMO can do it. Sounds fishy to me.All about votes and keeping the liberals in power for ever.

I agree, changing one word would not have hurt and would have demonstrated goodwill, imo.

But that doesn't excuse threats of rape or death.

[dialamah]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

We're talking about free speech in Canada. Maybe you didn't notice.

 

 

 

So, twice you've declined to condemn right-wing types hurling insults and death threats at liberals with whom they disagree, so I guess you appove.  Got'cha.

Edited March 7, 2017 by dialamah

[Argus]

24 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So, twice you've declined to condemn right-wing types hurling insults and death threats at liberals with whom they disagree, so I guess you appove.  Got'cha.

Yes, I DECLINE to give a damn about trolls sending nasty insults to journalists, politicians and other public personalities.

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

Yes, I DECLINE to give a damn about trolls sending nasty insults to journalists, politicians and other public personalities.

Unless they're 'leftist' trolls .... 

 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Unless they're 'leftist' trolls ....

I decline to give a damn about them either. I decline to wring my hands and burst into tears because some loser sends a nasty email to a politician from his mom's basement.

[bush_cheney2004]

What free speech ?

 

Quote

It's the Canadian way.

This is not fanciful; Canadians tend to think we enjoy a right to free speech, but we don't. It's one of our national myths, probably attributable to our wholesale gorging on literature, media and films from America, where speech enjoys near-total constitutional protection from suppression by government.

Hate speech laws

In Canada, it's a different story. There is already a remarkable plantation of federal and provincial laws defining and prohibiting offensive speech, and it's a safe bet the proponents of M-103 are eager to plant even more, even if M-103 is just a parliamentary statement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/anti-islamophobia-motion-1.3994374

 

 

[cannuck]

Anyone believing that Canada has all of these carefully protected freedoms and rights has been watching far too much American TV.

Remember, this is the party when last in power jailed a man (Andy McMechan) for the horrendous crime of selling his own barley - when it was clearly identified and agreed in court that it was not against any law in Canada.  It was our current Minister of Public Safety who masterminded this theft of his freedom.   BTW:  that was IMHO living proof that the so-called "charter of rights and freedoms" is completely pointless.   Note that there was not a single member of the legal profession in Canada with the brains and balls to stand up to such a travesty of justice.

Edited March 7, 2017 by cannuck

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Remember, this is the party when last in power jailed a man (Andy McMechan) for the horrendous crime of selling his own barley - when it was clearly identified and agreed in court that it was not against any law in Canada.

I believe Andy went to the slammer for illegally crossing an international border.

[cannuck]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I believe Andy went to the slammer for illegally crossing an international border.

Not exactly.  He had sold his 7 row barley crop for which there was no quota in Canada (thus no possible sale since the Wheat Board claimed they had exclusive rights to sell wheat, oats and barley) on the US side of the border, where he not only managed a sale, but a price far higher than the government would have paid (had the allowed a sale) thus being able to pay his government demand to Farm Credit Corp.  When he returned, his tractor and trailer were seized by customs, but he simply climbed into the cab and drove it home.

He was charged with taking his own truck for an offense (failing to obtain an export permit) that Mr. Justice Ross Whimmer clearly stated was not required.  Since sections of the Wheat Board Act for pooling and export licensing were extended by Order in Council in the early 50s to include oats and barley, and none of the morons in Ottawa thought to repeat it (expires in one year) EVERY forced sale of oats and barley by the CWB for the many decades since were completely illegal.   Said same frigging morons never did extend the sections of the act that included any penalties, so the whole business of charging, never mind arresting him was also extremely illegal.   The next concept in law is that you can't have an offense under one act that results in a charge under another - i.e. if what he did was not illegal, customs could not seize his vehicles.

Rotten Ralphie screwed him over severely, and continued to have authorities tell him that he could be released from jail as soon as he stopped communicating with the press and Farmers For Justice.  The entire Canadian legal profession sat by on their hands and let this play out (Andy's defense was conducted by Dan Creighton - not a lawyer).  It was Dan's research that found the failure of the government to either legislate or re-issue the Order-in-Council.  He destroyed the Crown's arguments, so the result was to simply continue to remove Andy's rights to freedom and rule of law and slam him in the clink under totally trumped up charges.

And now you know the nature of the man who is entrusted with our national safety.

Edited March 7, 2017 by cannuck

[bush_cheney2004]

7 hours ago, cannuck said:

Anyone believing that Canada has all of these carefully protected freedoms and rights has been watching far too much American TV.

 

I know...right ?   I have been saying as much for years and years in this forum....maybe they will believe another Canadian.

[GostHacked]

Sure don't believe some Americans with the 'name' Bush_Cheney2004,  because we all know THAT's all on the up and up, no agenda there.

 

[cannuck]

51 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Sure don't believe some Americans with the 'name' Bush_Cheney2004,  because we all know THAT's all on the up and up, no agenda there.

 

Probably just another step (North of 49) in fulfilling Manifest Destiny.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

What free speech ?

 

I don't normally agree with Neil Macdonald, but I think he gets this spot on.

Edited March 8, 2017 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I don't normally agree with Neil Macdonald, but I think he gets this spot on.

 

Neither do I, but Neil is badly missing his sexy years in the USA as a Washington D.C. bureau correspondent.

He likes to compare and mock the obvious things in Canada...too.

[BillyBeaver]

I'm still waiting for a government to repeal antiquated blasphemy laws that haven't been enforced in decades.

M-103 is just a small step down a slippery road.