Free Speech or Hate Speech?

[?Impact]

The Quran preachers are out in force today. They obviously haven't opened up other holy books:

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Yes, all religions are vile and their practitioners should be deported to the stone age where they belong.

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The Quran preachers are out in force today. They obviously haven't opened up other holy books:

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Yes, all religions are vile and their practitioners should be deported to the stone age where they belong.

Do Jews still stone idolators?

Quote

They obviously haven't opened up other holy books

The Bhagavad Gita is still my favorite. I own a really nice illuminated set.

Edited February 21, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The Quran preachers are out in force today. They obviously haven't opened up other holy books:

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Yes, all religions are vile and their practitioners should be deported to the stone age where they belong.

I don't know how one can, in all good conscience, make such a statement.

I'm not going to look it up, because I don't argue by Google, but I'm fairly certain that in the last week or so, I have heard reported the deaths of somewhere north of 100 infidels.  And by infidel, I mean slightly infidel.  They were just different Muslims. These weren't battle scenes, they were everyday places such as markets and cafes.

The idea that all religions are evil is a reasonable one.  The idea that all religions are currently equally evil is risible.

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I agree completely with your understanding of the difference.

It's nice to agree on something.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know how one can, in all good conscience, make such a statement.

I'm not going to look it up, because I don't argue by Google, but I'm fairly certain that in the last week or so, I have heard reported the deaths of somewhere north of 100 infidels.  And by infidel, I mean slightly infidel.  They were just different Muslims. These weren't battle scenes, they were everyday places such as markets and cafes.

The idea that all religions are evil is a reasonable one.  The idea that all religions are currently equally evil is risible.

It is unfashionable due to the whole free speech/hate speech thing to point out that Islam is quite different from the other religions in that it was created to be AGAINST something rather than FOR something. Against Jews in particular (who rejected Mohammad's claim to be the new Moses)...but anybody who doesn't tow the line. Islam actually has a death penalty for Apostasy...so no leaving once one joins the club, either. Islam is also very iconoclastic as they go....tolerance towards other faiths being near nil. As it has been pointed out by a few posters here, some of the Islamic opening prayers (said to the group by Imams in many mosques) are nothing short of vile. Kill the Jews one by one, etc. Plus, if you're a moderate Muslim...lol...on the Haj, you'll be hearing all those vile prayers over the loudspeaker, as mentioned.

However, I've read the Quran and would hate to see it banned in a similar PC fit of do-gooderlyness. Just as with Mein Kampf or Mao's Little Red Book, etc.

Nor should Islam be denied its free speech. But it needs to be brought to heel like a bad dog. No biting the unbelievers!

 

[eyeball]

On 2/19/2017 at 7:13 AM, dialamah said:

So, what do you think?  Should the protesters be charged with hate speech or were they well within their rights to protest in the manner they did?

Throw their unrepentant asses into jail and start a public education program aimed at teaching people why right-wing conservatism is not a Canadian value.   

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Throw their unrepentant asses into jail and start a public education program aimed at teaching people why right-wing conservatism is not a Canadian value.   

That's more like it. Jail anyone who disagrees with me and re-educate those who are not sure. 

[drummindiver]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I've already said I condemn that kind of preaching and that if Imams and Mosques need investigating and criminal charges, that should happen.   

And, since you are back -- where is the wording from M-103 that says Islamaphobia should be illegal and that valid criticism is the same as Islamaphobia?    

 

It condemns islamaphobia without distinction hence the slippery slope.

[drummindiver]

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

You mean like Rev. Franklin Graham picked by Donald Trump to be part of his inauguration? Graham is a very prolific anti-Muslim bigot.

If we are going to start bringing in what is going on In other countries the atrocities perpetuated by Muslims will win out. 

[drummindiver]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Throw their unrepentant asses into jail and start a public education program aimed at teaching people why right-wing conservatism is not a Canadian value.   

Yes, and throwing ppl in jail for excersizing their constitutional rights is. Oye vei.

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's more like it. Jail anyone who disagrees with me and re-educate those who are not sure. 

No, I said throw these people in jail for the crime they committed - hate speech.

And I clearly said start a public education program, not to round up people so we can re-educate them.

Thanks for underscoring the need to make the program as simple as possible to keep the comprehension issues to a minimum.

[eyeball]

Just now, drummindiver said:

Yes, and throwing ppl in jail for excersizing their constitutional rights is. Oye vei.

Again I say, thanks for underscoring the need to make the public education program as simple as possible to keep the comprehension issues to a minimum.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, I said throw these people in jail for the crime they committed - hate speech.

And I clearly said start a public education program, not to round up people so we can re-educate them.

Thanks for underscoring the need to make the program as simple as possible to keep the comprehension issues to a minimum.

If jail for hate speech was not an utterly ridiculous proposition, you'd be serving a life sentence for expressing your views on right wing conservatives. 

[drummindiver]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Throw their unrepentant asses into jail and start a public education program aimed at teaching people why right-wing conservatism is not a Canadian value.   

Nothing here about for the hate crime they didn't commit.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, I said throw these people in jail for the crime they committed - hate speech.

And I clearly said start a public education program, not to round up people so we can re-educate them.

Thanks for underscoring the need to make the program as simple as possible to keep the comprehension issues to a minimum.

"Throw these people in jail" was pretty clear. They committed no crime re the police.

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Again I say, thanks for underscoring the need to make the public education program as simple as possible to keep the comprehension issues to a minimum.

You back tracked and misrepresented per usual. 

 

[Boges]

And what of the Imam that led a prayer calling for the death of the Jews? Jail for him I imagine as well. 

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

And what of the Imam that led a prayer calling for the death of the Jews? Jail for him I imagine as well. 

Everyone should be held to the same standard. The only ones crying for new laws and jail are the alt-right.

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Everyone should be held to the same standard. The only ones crying for new laws and jail are the alt-right.

No I think we're seeing members of the Federal Liberals looking to expand Hate Speech Laws. 

If not then why not ask for current Hate Speech Laws to be expanded or the focus on Islamophobia? 

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

It condemns islamaphobia without distinction hence the slippery slope.

Yes, it does call for condemnation of Islamaphobia along with all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.   A motion to condemn Islamaphobia has already passed in 2016, so really, that horse has left the barn.   Still, I'd like you to notice that nobody's speech has been impeded and indeed Islamphobia remains alive and well in Canada, to the extent that non-Muslim crime against Muslims has far outstripped Muslim crime against Canadians.    I'd also like to point out that there have been several activities taken on by the government to combat anti-Semitism; strangely, nobody bothered to complain that 'anti-Semitism' wasn't well enough defined.   Why is that?   

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Boges said:

No I think we're seeing members of the Federal Liberals looking to expand Hate Speech Laws. 

If not then why not ask for current Hate Speech Laws to be expanded or the focus on Islamophobia? 

 

Where does the motion ask for an 'expansion of hate speech laws'?   Please quote the exact passage instead of pretending you know what's in the mind and hearts of all politicians and all liberals.

Why didn't you put up a fuss when the Ottawa protocol was passed, which clearly favors Jews over all other minority groups in Canada by offering special consideration and protection against anti-Semitism?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, it does call for condemnation of Islamaphobia along with all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.   A motion to condemn Islamaphobia has already passed in 2016, so really, that horse has left the barn.   Still, I'd like you to notice that nobody's speech has been impeded and indeed Islamphobia remains alive and well in Canada, to the extent that non-Muslim crime against Muslims has far outstripped Muslim crime against Canadians.    I'd also like to point out that there have been several activities taken on by the government to combat anti-Semitism; strangely, nobody bothered to complain that 'anti-Semitism' wasn't well enough defined.   Why is that?   

Probably for the same reason no-one complained about the original motion to condemn Islamophobia.  Who knew?

Both would be equally silly in any area they go beyond current laws regarding incitement, libel, etc.

Edited February 21, 2017 by bcsapper

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Where does the motion ask for an 'expansion of hate speech laws'?   Please quote the exact passage instead of pretending you know what's in the mind and hearts of all politicians and all liberals.

Well what's the point then? This motion is a first step. How can you stop "Islamophobia" if there aren't any consequences beyond what falls in line with current Hate Speech Laws?

Is the Federal Government going to sanction Internet Shaming of anyone who says things that can be deemed Islamophobic? 

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Probably for the same reason no-one complained about the original motion to condemn Islamophobia.  Who knew?

Both would be equally silly in any area they go beyond current laws regarding incitement, libel, etc.

 

I agree that more laws aren't needed, but when I read the Ottawa Protocol, I really thought that was a reasonable response and decision - it defined anti-Semitism in a way that I thought made sense and differentiated between criticizing Isreal and engaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric.   I think something similar would be perfectly appropriate for Muslims.    

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well what's the point then? This motion is a first step. How can you stop "Islamophobia" if there aren't any consequences beyond what falls in line with current Hate Speech Laws?

Is the Federal Government going to sanction Internet Shaming of anyone who says things that can be deemed Islamophobic? 

 

Exactly!  What would be the point of new laws?   If you read the Ottawa protocol, you'd see some similar things to what this motion mentions, but it's on behalf of Jews.   Perhaps the member was basing her motion on what that protocol contains, in order to achieve something similar for Muslims:   a definition of Islamaphobia and a commitment to tracking Islamaphobic crimes.  

The thing is, you guys are taking a simple motion for a study and turning it into some grave threat to free speech based on a whole bunch of assumptions and "ifs".   That's not really very rational thinking.

 

 

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well what's the point then? This motion is a first step. How can you stop "Islamophobia" if there aren't any consequences beyond what falls in line with current Hate Speech Laws?

Is the Federal Government going to sanction Internet Shaming of anyone who says things that can be deemed Islamophobic? 

 

Also, what was the point of the "Ottawa Protocol"?  It certainly hasn't stopped anti-Semitism.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I agree that more laws aren't needed, but when I read the Ottawa Protocol, I really thought that was a reasonable response and decision - it defined anti-Semitism in a way that I thought made sense and differentiated between criticizing Isreal and engaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric.   I think something similar would be perfectly appropriate for Muslims.    

But it mixes crimes with opinions.