Free Speech or Hate Speech?

[?Impact]

19 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Clearly stating this protest was a hate crime starts the process of making it a hate crime

I didn't realize that Tory called it a hate crime, can you provide me a link to that?

Edited February 22, 2017 by ?Impact

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Anyone who thinks a motion for a study about religious intolerance is akin to a law limiting free speech has a fevered imagination. 

Or more likely is familiar with Canadian politics, and how governments use government-initiated 'studies' or commissions to get the justification for laws they want to implement.

[drummindiver]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I didn't realize that Tory called it a hate crime, can you provide me a link to that?

Sorry,  my bad. He called  the protest an act of hate.

Sliding down that slope when the mayor of Canada's largest city denounces your constitutional right to protest as a hateful act.

I know you'll say it was what they are protesting,  not the act itself. Not the issue..shouldn't matter what they are protesting as long as it's done legally,  which it was.

Edited February 22, 2017 by drummindiver

[GostHacked]

7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Say what?

Jesus was a Jew.

That's if you believe Jesus actually existed.

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

That's if you believe Jesus actually existed.

The initial posts was in reference hot the Jews were perceived in the Bible. So even if the whole thing is fiction, it's applicable. 

I do think a good chunk of Anti-semitism in the past stems from the Jewish Establishment conspiring to have Jesus killed. . . in the Bible. Not so much nowadays. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Boges

[?Impact]

29 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Sliding down that slope when the mayor of Canada's largest city denounces your constitutional right to protest as a hateful act.

It is not the constitutional rights that are being denounced, it is what they are saying when they exercise those rights. Tory or anybody has the full right to criticize what they say. From the reports I heard, it was a hateful act. It should also be investigated closer to see if it was a hate crime, but it seems that would require the mosque to file an official complaint. Without clear evidence, like videos of what was said, that would end up being a he said she said case and just cost the mosque lots of money in legal fees.

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, Boges said:

stems from the Jewish Establishment conspiring to have Jesus killed. . . in the Bible. 

Yes, but the real question is what was the respective roles of the Jewish establishment compared to the Romans at the time. Pontius Pilate was the prefect of the Roman province of Judaea serving under Emperor Tiberius. Tiberius was not a Jew, although the Jewish establishment did have a hand in saying that Jesus claiming to be King of the Jews could be viewed as a threat to the roman emperor.

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, but the real question is what was the respective roles of the Jewish establishment compared to the Romans at the time. Pontius Pilate was the prefect of the Roman province of Judaea serving under Emperor Tiberius. Tiberius was not a Jew, although the Jewish establishment did have a hand in saying that Jesus claiming to be King of the Jews could be viewed as a threat to the roman emperor.

Alright well my interpretation of Christian doctrine is that Jesus came to flip the religious establishment on its head. He cut the Pharisees legs out from under him, preaching grace and a pragmatic view of morality. He was the way to God, not the Church. 

Rome didn't care about the religious squabbles, they just wanted to keep the territory peaceful. Pilate gave Jesus an out. 

The irony is that the Catholic Church that grew out of the Jesus movement was just as legalistic and conservative as the Jews that came before Jesus. 

I'm not blaming the Jews for killing Jesus, though I believe that the Jewish Establishment had a hand in his death. Regardless anyone who blames Jews today for what happened in the New Testament are idiots and incredibly immoral. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Boges

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Regardless anyone who blames Jews today for what happened in the New Testament are idiots and incredibly immoral. 

Agreed, which is the entire point about all the hate speech that is happening today in many ways.

[drummindiver]

43 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It is not the constitutional rights that are being denounced, it is what they are saying when they exercise those rights. Tory or anybody has the full right to criticize what they say. From the reports I heard, it was a hateful act. It should also be investigated closer to see if it was a hate crime, but it seems that would require the mosque to file an official complaint. Without clear evidence, like videos of what was said, that would end up being a he said she said case and just cost the mosque lots of money in legal fees.

Nothing hateful about voicing an opinion. That's where JT, yourself et al are wrong.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

Nothing hateful about voicing an opinion. That's where JT, yourself et al are wrong.

So opinions cannot be hateful? That judge who told the rape victim to close her legs didn`t make a hateful statement?

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

So opinions cannot be hateful? That judge who told the rape victim to close her legs didn`t make a hateful statement?

This is not a court of law...

[betsy]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

So opinions cannot be hateful? That judge who told the rape victim to close her legs didn`t make a hateful statement?

No.

That's not what hate speech is all about.  The judge may have said something offensive, but it has to be proven that he said it out of hate for the woman.  Hate speech is  motivated by hate.

Edited February 23, 2017 by betsy

[OftenWrong]

10 hours ago, Altai said:

Which part of Quran orders killing Jews ? If you cant show a verse or if you show a wrong verse, I will put you in ignore list.

 

I didn't say Quran. I try to be careful in my words. It was the "supplications" (means prayers) that were given. The Mosque apologized, but only after they were found out. http://www.masjidtoronto.com/masjid-toronto-condemns-all-forms-of-hate/ 

Was it only one guy doing this, or did they all know?

It's only words of course. But this topic is about free speech vs hate speech, started by a government motion to silence condemnation of certain barbaric cultural practices. Not people praying privately and minding their own business. For example people may come to Canada from a country where women are not allowed to go to school, are forced into marriage while still children. Even forced to be circumcised. Those are what I would call barbaric practices. It is a culture that should not be allowed in Canada, and has to be eliminated.

 

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

started by a government motion to silence condemnation of certain barbaric cultural practices

I must have missed the motion, could you point it out?

[OftenWrong]

Just now, ?Impact said:

I must have missed the motion, could you point it out?

I'll point out a motion for you.

[dialamah]

11 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Provide the list.

http://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/Journalist-hit-with-anti-Semitic-hate-mail-after-profile-on-Trumps-wife-452678

Quote

 In response, she was inundated with emails, threats, and horrific memes on social media from Trump supporters, including anti-Semitic Holocaust references and anti-Jewish slurs.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-october-27-2016-1.3822261/alt-right-trump-supporters-attack-journalists-online-1.3822421

 

Quote

 

Last year, David French criticized the alt-right and told The Current's Anna Maria Tremonti, "The next thing I knew my Twitter feed began to melt down."

French is an attorney and staff writer at the National Review, who is speaking out about the high price he says he's paid for opposing Donald Trump.

He says his youngest daughter who was adopted from Ethiopia was the target for alt-right Trump supporter attacks.

"I saw pictures of her seven-year-old face Photoshopped into makeshift gas chambers with Donald Trump in an SS Nazi uniform pressing the button that would kill her," says French.

 

 

 

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2381-toddler-rape-threats-other-tactics-alt-right.html

 

Quote

A few weeks and a half-dozen insane Donald Trump quotes ago, comedian Leslie Jones was flooded with harassment on Twitter. For those of you who have seen the internet, you know this isn't exactly new. Feminist writer Jessica Valenti left social media entirely when strangers threatened to rape her ... five-year-old daughter. Back in March, Nintendo employee Allison Rapp endured weeks of abuse, eventually getting fired from her job for having the nerve to be harassed. 

 

 

 

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/08/a-timeline-of-leslie-joness-horrific-online-abuse.html

Quote

 Milo Yiannopoulos, the alt-right commenter and professional troll who has spearheaded many an online harassment campaign, posted a negative review of Ghostbusters on Breitbart that dissed Jones’s “flat-as-a-pancake black stylings.” A number of his followers and other members of the alt-right community began to troll Jones with sexist and racist comments and hateful memes. The tenor and frequency of these hate-tweets ramped up when Yiannopoulos began tweeting at Jones directly as well as sharing fake tweets pretending to be from Jones.

 

 

https://qz.com/560098/conservatives-have-a-version-of-political-correctness-too/

Quote

 

Take the case of trans writer Sarah Nyberg. Over the last year, Nyberg has been using Twitter to criticize Gamergate

.....

 sending her rape and death threats. They hacked her personal server and used ten-year-old chat logs to spread baseless accusations of pedophilia.   Breitbart, a popular conservative-leaning news organization, picked up the story, publicly accusing various people who had supported Nyberg of countenancing pedophilia. “Everyone that interacted with me publicly was harassed and intimidated in the hopes they would dissociate from me,” Nyberg tells Quartz. “Many were even threatened with having their employers contacted.”

This was, in short, an organized campaign of harassment and intimidation designed to shame and silence Nyberg and anyone who supported her. She held opinions that people disliked, and so she was doxxed and virtually attacked. This is ideologically motivated online harassment. But because it was perpetuated by right-wingers, it’s rarely presented as an attack on free speech or as an overreach of political correctness

 

 

 

[Altai]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I didn't say Quran. I try to be careful in my words. It was the "supplications" (means prayers) that were given. The Mosque apologized, but only after they were found out. http://www.masjidtoronto.com/masjid-toronto-condemns-all-forms-of-hate/ 

Was it only one guy doing this, or did they all know?

It's only words of course. But this topic is about free speech vs hate speech, started by a government motion to silence condemnation of certain barbaric cultural practices. Not people praying privately and minding their own business. For example people may come to Canada from a country where women are not allowed to go to school, are forced into marriage while still children. Even forced to be circumcised. Those are what I would call barbaric practices. It is a culture that should not be allowed in Canada, and has to be eliminated.

 

Sorry maybe I got you wrong, I dont know what is happening in Canada and I dont know what people here in this topic is talking about. I just read some posts related with Islam and I just reply them. I am not interested with the rest. There are insane people everywhere and their action is not my responsiblity just because they claim of being Muslims. I have been in mosques many times and I have never heard that Imams says weird things. If they say such thing, they would probably be lynched by the crowd. There are experienced examples of it. Imams in mosques always start and end their words with "Allah orders you to do goodness and justice, he forbids evil, mischief and disgust, he just give you an advice maybe you think about it and take a lesson.".  

Edited February 23, 2017 by Altai

[DogOnPorch]

Dialamah: your examples are mere hear-say. "Trump-supporters"...how do the writers or complainants KNOW that alt-right Trump supporters are trying to shut them up?...I note they weren't shut-up.

Perhaps show or list all the times alt-right Trump supporters (confirmed as such) took folks you consider "yours" to the HRCs in Canada.

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Dialamah: your examples are mere hear-say. "Trump-supporters"...how do the writers or complainants KNOW that alt-right Trump supporters are trying to shut them up?..

 

 

Perhaps the victims of those onlne attacks knew they were alt-right Trump supporters who were trying to shut them up because the messages said "Shut up", supported Trump and repeated alt-right rhetoric.     

 

Quote

.I note they weren't shut-up.

Were Steyn and Levant 'shut-up'?    

 

Quote

Perhaps show or list all the times alt-right Trump supporters (confirmed as such) took folks you consider "yours" to the HRCs in Canada.

 

 

I have no idea what you mean by folks I consider 'mine'.   

Also, I thought we were talking about hate speech, not court cases, so I looked them up.   Steyn, who writes for a reputable magazine, was not shut-up because he didn't do anything wrong, even if a couple of people did decide to be offended.   Obviously, our courts can tell the difference between controversial articles and actual hate speech.

Levant, on the other hand, who does not write for a reputable organization, lost his case.  Again proving that the courts can tell the difference between controversial articles and actual hate speech.

Because we live in a free country people can take other people to court, as much as they want.  Mostly we don't hear about these cases, what they were about, who won and who lost.   

Perhaps instead of trying to play victim to the 'Muslim menace', people should consider what actually happens.

 

[DogOnPorch]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps the victims of those onlne attacks knew they were alt-right Trump supporters who were trying to shut them up because the messages said "Shut up", supported Trump and repeated alt-right rhetoric.     

 

Were Steyn and Levant 'shut-up'?    

 

I have no idea what you mean by folks I consider 'mine'.   

Also, I thought we were talking about hate speech, not court cases, so I looked them up.   Steyn, who writes for a reputable magazine, was not shut-up because he didn't do anything wrong, even if a couple of people did decide to be offended.   Obviously, our courts can tell the difference between controversial articles and actual hate speech.

Levant, on the other hand, who does not write for a reputable organization, lost his case.  Again proving that the courts can tell the difference between controversial articles and actual hate speech.

Because we live in a free country people can take other people to court, as much as they want.  Mostly we don't hear about these cases, what they were about, who won and who lost.   

Perhaps instead of trying to play victim to the 'Muslim menace', people should consider what actually happens.

 

 

-Your examples are hear-say.

-Steyn an Levant (just two famous examples) had to pay for their own kangaroo court trials brought against them by Canadian Muslim organizations.

-Can you dish out $10s of thousands of dollars to protect YOUR free speech? If you lose you'll be fined $10s of thousands and face who-knows-what in terms of sanctions.

-Again, you're free to show me where the reverse is true. How many people have "alt-right Trump supporters" taken anybody to the HRCs?

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

-Your examples are hear-say.

-Steyn an Levant (just two famous examples) had to pay for their own kangaroo court trials brought against them by Canadian Muslim organizations.

People are entitled to bring court cases regardless of how justified anyone else thinks they are. You calling them Kangaroo cases doesn't make it so, especially in the case of Levant, who lost.  At least in the one I found.   Are there more?

If someone loses a case it means they overstepped the bounds of free speech.  Thank goodness for that or we would no recourse against Imams who call for death of Jews, or anyone who libels another person by spreading lies against them.

That the court agreed with one of the Muslim complainants and disagreed with the other should reassure you that our legal system is protecting free speech as well as protecting people from unwarranted attacks.   Unless you think that any case brought by a Muslim should automatically lose?   Or they should be denied their right to take people to court?

 

[DogOnPorch]

HRCs are most certainly kangaroo courts.

I didn't think you had anybody.

[OftenWrong]

12 hours ago, Altai said:

Sorry maybe I got you wrong, I dont know what is happening in Canada and I dont know what people here in this topic is talking about. I just read some posts related with Islam and I just reply them. I am not interested with the rest. There are insane people everywhere and their action is not my responsiblity just because they claim of being Muslims. I have been in mosques many times and I have never heard that Imams says weird things. If they say such thing, they would probably be lynched by the crowd. There are experienced examples of it. Imams in mosques always start and end their words with "Allah orders you to do goodness and justice, he forbids evil, mischief and disgust, he just give you an advice maybe you think about it and take a lesson.".  

It's great that we have you here, because you are a muslim female living in a middle eastern country. You give a voice to normal, moderate muslims who have moved beyond the most dogmatic application of Islam. Your mission (should you choose to accept it...) is to provide perspective on how Islam can be integrated into the western world.

[drummindiver]

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps the victims of those onlne attacks knew they were alt-right Trump supporters who were trying to shut them up because the messages said "Shut up", supported Trump and repeated alt-right rhetoric.     

 

Were Steyn and Levant 'shut-up'?    

 

I have no idea what you mean by folks I consider 'mine'.   

Also, I thought we were talking about hate speech, not court cases, so I looked them up.   Steyn, who writes for a reputable magazine, was not shut-up because he didn't do anything wrong, even if a couple of people did decide to be offended.   Obviously, our courts can tell the difference between controversial articles and actual hate speech.

Levant, on the other hand, who does not write for a reputable organization, lost his case.  Again proving that the courts can tell the difference between controversial articles and actual hate speech.

 

Incredibly condescending.  Who decides what is reputable? You? I trust Rebel media more than CNN.