betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, dialamah said: My intent here is to discuss what Canadians think of this kind of behavior in Canada. Okay. Then check out my response to you about Al Quds and Muslims protest in Toronto. They're calling for Israel to be wiped out. Extermination of Jews! Is that hate speech to you, or should it fall under free speech? Edited February 19, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, dialamah said: A group calling themselves Never Again Canada held a free speech rally in response to Motion M-103. The rally was held outside Masjid Mosque in Toronto; protesters carried banners that said things like "Muslims are terrorists", "Ban Islam", "Islam is Hate". The same kind of messages were repeated through a loudspeaker, and protestors attempted to prevent people from entering the Mosque. Toronto police are considering whether this rally was hate speech or free speech. Story here and here . 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? Those messages are quite tame when you compare it with the message delivered by this Imam in Montreal! Would you call that a hate speech, or does it falls under free speech? Edited February 19, 2017 by betsy Quote
dialamah Posted February 19, 2017 Author Report Posted February 19, 2017 1 minute ago, betsy said: Okay. Then check out my response to you about Al Quds and Muslims protest in Toronto. They're calling for Israel to be wiped out. Extermination of Jews! Is that hate speech to you, or should it fall under free speech? I don't know because you haven't provided a source and I can't find one that supports what you are saying. Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, dialamah said: I don't know because you haven't provided a source and I can't find one that supports what you are saying. Quote The Anti-Semitic Al-Quds Rally Attracts Thousands of Muslims in Toronto http://www.blogwrath.com/canada-anti-semitism/the-anti-semitic-al-quds-rally-attracts-thousands-of-muslims-in-toronto/7779/ Quote
dialamah Posted February 19, 2017 Author Report Posted February 19, 2017 @betsy The Imam's prayer is definitely a problem, in my opinion. I hope the RCMP take it seriously and charge the Imam and possibly the Mosque where he was preaching. Quote
?Impact Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, betsy said: The Anti-Semitic Al-Quds Rally Attracts Thousands of Muslims in Toronto Sounds like a rally against Israel occupation. Yes, I am sure there were antisemitic participants as well, but then the counter JDL is far from innocent itself. I see that rally took place at Queens park, and not some random synagogue. From the outside there appears to be very little in common between these two events. The Montreal Imam does sound like something that needs investigation. Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, dialamah said: The topic is about an event in Canada, carried out by Canadians. They are Canadians! Muslim-Canadians! They did their protests in Toronto! Edited February 19, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Sounds like a rally against Israel occupation. Yes, I am sure there were antisemitic participants as well, but then the counter JDL is far from innocent itself. I see that rally took place at Queens park, and not some random synagogue. From the outside there appears to be very little in common between these two events. The Montreal Imam does sound like something that needs investigation. The issue is the OP. I'm asking Dialamah if she'd consider what Al Quds are saying in their protests, as hate speech or free speech. She seems reluctant to give an answer. Quote
dialamah Posted February 19, 2017 Author Report Posted February 19, 2017 @betsy. Thanks for the link. I didn't see anything in the pictures accompanying the article that was worse than what was described at the rally on Friday. I listened to some of the video and didn't hear anything particularly threatening toward Jews. I understand that much more was likely going on, but cannot say for certain, from this article, whether it crossed from free speech to hate speech. Part of the problem is that the accompanying article was so clearly biased against Muslims that I wasn't able to take it seriously. Do you have a more balanced source? Quote
dialamah Posted February 19, 2017 Author Report Posted February 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, betsy said: She seems reluctant to give an answer. Nope, just reviewing your source to see if I thought it was hate speech or free speech. Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) Why is this being allowed to happen in Canada? Quote Aedan O’Connor: Inside a hate-filled anti-Israel protest http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/aedan-oconnor-inside-a-hate-filled-anti-israel-protest Quote Another Al-Quds Day Speaker in Toronto Calls for Israelis to be Shot B’nai Brith Canada, which is on the record as warning that the 2016 al-Quds Day rally would once again descend into open support for terrorist organizations and antisemitic incitement, has called for a criminal investigation into hate speech at the event. http://www.bnaibrith.ca/al_quds Why is this being allowed to happen in Canada? Edited February 19, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) Quote They do so in the name of freedom of expression but they are not willing to accept same rights of freedom of expression for their opponents. However, it's not all about freedom of expression. There is a fine line between freedom of expression and hatred propaganda. Every year, Al Quds rally seems set on on provoking violence and hate against Jews community and Canada, directly and indirectly. "We have to give them an ultimatum. You have to leave Jerusalem. You have to leave Palestine...When somebody tries to rob a bank the police get in, they don't negotiate and we have been negotiating with them for 65 years. We say get out or you are dead. We give them two minutes and then we start shooting and that's the only way they'll understand," those were the violent provoking words uttered by Elias Hazineh, former President Palestinian House, in last Saturday's Al Quds Rally. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tahir-gora/al-quds-day_b_3716657.html If our own government can't even distinguish hate speech from free speech.....are we supposed to feel confident that they know what they really mean by Islamophobia? Edited February 19, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 Quote Toronto: Group which called gays “Satan” to join anti Israel rally one day before Pride Parade http://en.cijnews.com/?p=40697 Name-calling is nothing new. That's free speech. Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, dialamah said: A group calling themselves Never Again Canada held a free speech rally in response to Motion M-103. The rally was held outside Masjid Mosque in Toronto; protesters carried banners that said things like "Muslims are terrorists", "Ban Islam", "Islam is Hate". The same kind of messages were repeated through a loudspeaker, and protestors attempted to prevent people from entering the Mosque. Toronto police are considering whether this rally was hate speech or free speech. Story here and here . 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? They shouldn't prevent people from entering the mosque. But if that's all they're saying....it's just your run-of-the-mill name-calling that usually happens in protests! When people rally against cops, you hear them shouting "pigs!" Just listen to what they said about Trump in a protest: Free speech. Edited February 19, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 Look at those celebs vent out above. You can vent! You can express yourself. That's the beauty of our democratic system - our free speech. We've got to make sure it doesn't get taken away from us. Quote
?Impact Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 Looking into the Al Quads rally, it does seem like there were several participants like Nadia Shoufani who were clearly giving "alternative facts". While I don't consider calling for the liberation of Palestine and denouncing occupation by Israel to be antisemitic, expressing support for those who use violence to achieve those goals is not acceptable. What it really comes down to is the difference between shared goals and shared tactics. Quote
dialamah Posted February 19, 2017 Author Report Posted February 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Looking into the Al Quads rally, it does seem like there were several participants like Nadia Shoufani who were clearly giving "alternative facts". While I don't consider calling for the liberation of Palestine and denouncing occupation by Israel to be antisemitic, expressing support for those who use violence to achieve those goals is not acceptable. What it really comes down to is the difference between shared goals and shared tactics. Yup, I've read a bit more on the Al Quds thing and some of their rhetoric does seem pretty violent. Do we need some tightening up on hate speech laws so that groups like Quds have less room to incite their followers? Or online forums such as the ones which Alexandre Bissonette frequented? Or is it more important to avoid limiting free speech as much as possible, even if it means the death of a few innocent people? Quote
Guest Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, dialamah said: Yup, I've read a bit more on the Al Quds thing and some of their rhetoric does seem pretty violent. Do we need some tightening up on hate speech laws so that groups like Quds have less room to incite their followers? Or online forums such as the ones which Alexandre Bissonette frequented? Or is it more important to avoid limiting free speech as much as possible, even if it means the death of a few innocent people? That's just the pique talking, I think. One restricts speech, indeed, punishes speech, that incites to violence. One does not do anything about speech that offends. I thought that was obvious. Quote
dialamah Posted February 19, 2017 Author Report Posted February 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, bcsapper said: That's just the pique talking, I think. One restricts speech, indeed, punishes speech, that incites to violence. One does not do anything about speech that offends. I thought that was obvious. What pique are you talking about? If Bissonnette when from an ordinary kid to a killer within a few months of joining an alt-right group, don't you think that needs to be looked at a bit more closely? What are those groups saying that would cause him to decide it was his duty to kill Muslims? Did they advocate death to Muslims? Did they paint all Muslims as incipient terrorists? Barbarians? Would Bissonnette have gone on his killing spree without the rhetoric he found in these groups even if that rhetoric didn't include specific incitement to violence. I'm not advocating for more laws, by the way. I think we should have enough already. I'm just trying to discuss and debate just how far freedom of speech should be allowed to go. Quote
Guest Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 1 minute ago, dialamah said: What pique are you talking about? If Bissonnette when from an ordinary kid to a killer within a few months of joining an alt-right group, don't you think that needs to be looked at a bit more closely? What are those groups saying that would cause him to decide it was his duty to kill Muslims? Did they advocate death to Muslims? Did they paint all Muslims as incipient terrorists? Barbarians? Would Bissonnette have gone on his killing spree without the rhetoric he found in these groups even if that rhetoric didn't include specific incitement to violence. I'm not advocating for more laws, by the way. I think we should have enough already. I'm just trying to discuss and debate just how far freedom of speech should be allowed to go. If we have enough laws already, you have answered your own question. We have laws against inciting violence. If expressing hatred/contempt/dislike etc was enough to make someone kill someone else, the world would not have a population problem. Quote
?Impact Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, bcsapper said: That's just the pique talking, I think. One restricts speech, indeed, punishes speech, that incites to violence. One does not do anything about speech that offends. I thought that was obvious. I see a difference between speech that offends, and direct incitement of violence. I am sure there are a lot of Muslims who are deeply offended when I say that all religions are vile, including Islam. I think someone saying Muslims must die however is hate speech and not acceptable. The same applies to protesting Israeli occupation which is legitimate, and chanting death to Israelis which is not. Free speech should not be something we hide behind in order to practice outright hate, that does not support free speech but instead degrades it. Quote
Guest Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 Just now, ?Impact said: I see a difference between speech that offends, and direct incitement of violence. I am sure there are a lot of Muslims who are deeply offended when I say that all religions are vile, including Islam. I think someone saying Muslims must die however is hate speech and not acceptable. The same applies to protesting Israeli occupation which is legitimate, and chanting death to Israelis which is not. Free speech should not be something we hide behind in order to practice outright hate, that does not support free speech but instead degrades it. Yes, that's my point too. I take issue slightly with your last sentence, because if it is just hate, I see no reason to remove it from the protective umbrella. Quote
?Impact Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: Yes, that's my point too. I take issue slightly with your last sentence, because if it is just hate, I see no reason to remove it from the protective umbrella. While nothing is black and white, there is a difference between being offended and being fearful. Many people are abusing their freedom of speech to cause fear in others. An angry mob shouting to families going to out to pray with slogans like "Go home Paki", "Take that rag off your head", and far worse is intended to intimidate and cause fear. While they don't cross the line to physical assault, which happens often enough as well, they do go much further than legitimate protest. I have no problem with someone burning an American flag in protest, as long as it is done safely; I have a problem with burning someone in effigy. To put that in Canadian context, I would say go ahead and burn a copy of the Rebel but don't dress a doll up as Ezra Levant and burn it. It is legitimate to point out all the vile things that Ezra does, and denounce them, but don't publish his home address and encourage people to go there and interfere in his family life. Quote
GostHacked Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 1 hour ago, betsy said: The issue is the OP. I'm asking Dialamah if she'd consider what Al Quds are saying in their protests, as hate speech or free speech. She seems reluctant to give an answer. Oh the times I can count you being reluctant to give an answer to questions posed directly to you in other threads. Calling for extermination of anyone is hate speech. But actions speak louder than words. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Guest Posted February 19, 2017 Report Posted February 19, 2017 14 minutes ago, ?Impact said: While nothing is black and white, there is a difference between being offended and being fearful. Many people are abusing their freedom of speech to cause fear in others. An angry mob shouting to families going to out to pray with slogans like "Go home Paki", "Take that rag off your head", and far worse is intended to intimidate and cause fear. While they don't cross the line to physical assault, which happens often enough as well, they do go much further than legitimate protest. I have no problem with someone burning an American flag in protest, as long as it is done safely; I have a problem with burning someone in effigy. To put that in Canadian context, I would say go ahead and burn a copy of the Rebel but don't dress a doll up as Ezra Levant and burn it. It is legitimate to point out all the vile things that Ezra does, and denounce them, but don't publish his home address and encourage people to go there and interfere in his family life. Sure, and if it can be shown that the goal of the person or group was to cause fear then the law could take over. I'm sure there are laws against such things. However, imagine how restricted we would be if all the offensive stuff we hear could simply be eliminated by claiming it made us fearful. Nobody would ever critcize anyone ever again. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.