Liberals want to allow people to advocate terrorism

[Argus]

Apparently the oh-so progressive and inclusive Liberal members of the National Security Committee are concerned that people in Canada who support terrorism are having their rights to express that support in propaganda curtailed by the evil Conservative law which bans it. No, I'm not making this up. 

Currently, a judge can order the seizure of propaganda that “advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism in general.” The MPs want to limit seizures to materials that counsel or instruct the commission of a specific terrorist offence.

A section of the Criminal Code that makes it illegal to advocate or promote “terrorism in general” should also be changed by removing the words “in general,” according to the committee, chaired by Liberal MP Robert Oliphant.

So the Liberals want to make sure "Canadians" are free to engage in terrorism propaganda, as long as they don't advocate a specific terrorist action. I'm trying to figure out why this would concern anyone and the only thing I can come up with is that most Muslims voted Liberal last election, and that Hamas and Hezbollah are considered terrorist organizations. So the Liberals appear to be trying to please Muslim "Canadians" who want to engage in propaganda on behalf of such entities. If anyone can suggest an alternative reason do please state it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/national-security-committee-recommends-watering-down-laws-on-terrorism-peace-bonds-propaganda

[Boges]

I guess banning an Imam calling for the Death of the Jews is super racist. 

[DogOnPorch]

Islam itself calls for the death of all Jews. Individual Imams aside...

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, Boges said:

I guess banning an Imam calling for the Death of the Jews is super racist. 

That could also be a part of it. We've seen several examples made public of the kinds of things some of these imams say - not in English - in their mosques, and they certainly support Hezbollah, Hamas, and some/most of the other middle east based terrorist groups we ban. I note a story in the paper this morning of a "Canadian" imam banned from Denmark for preaching hatred. I doubt he'd find much hassle here.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think that people should be allowed to discuss the merits of terrorism in a free society. Short of direct incitement to violence, it should be allowed.

The best way to counter bad ideas is more speech, not censorship.

[DogOnPorch]

Islam is the enemy of all free societies.

 

[GritBusters]

4 hours ago, Boges said:

I guess banning an Imam calling for the Death of the Jews is super racist. 

That's a terrible argument.

We already have hate crime laws in place -- which Tories and right-wing Liberal opposed -- that would ensure that the offending Imam is dealt with.

[Bob Macadoo]

I think you're right.  With Hamas having to soften their positions recently they want to ensure no party supporter can be prosecuted for finding common cause with "the enemy".  I personally dislike such nuanced legal phrasing "in general".  I like my legislation to be vague and opaque so I can use it as a speech chiller if I don't agree with it.

[Argus]

55 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:

I think you're right.  With Hamas having to soften their positions recently they want to ensure no party supporter can be prosecuted for finding common cause with "the enemy".  I personally dislike such nuanced legal phrasing "in general".  I like my legislation to be vague and opaque so I can use it as a speech chiller if I don't agree with it.

Do you feel the urge to post pro-terrorism propaganda often?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I think that people should be allowed to discuss the merits of terrorism in a free society. Short of direct incitement to violence, it should be allowed.

The best way to counter bad ideas is more speech, not censorship.

Are you volunteering to be the first one killed when some Muslim loser is influenced by this promotion of terrorism and starts stabbing people at random or running them over?

You know, it's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater even though someone else can quietly say "But there's no fire". It's not a point of discussion. To promote terrorism is to promote murder. Period. It's not something that can be engaged with an intellectual argument, especially when the appeal is generally based on religion.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Are you volunteering to be the first one killed when some Muslim loser is influenced by this promotion of terrorism and starts stabbing people at random or running them over?

No, but I'll support the right of Muslim Imams to advocate for the death of Atheists and the right to pray to Allah to kill me.

 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You know, it's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater even though someone else can quietly say "But there's no fire". It's not a point of discussion.

That's an issue of fraud. Advocacy of death of other groups of people isn't fraud.

 

Look at it this way, do you think it should be protected speech to advocate for the death penalty for mass murders? But this is advocacy of death of a group of people. Why should it be okay to advocate for the death of one group of people, but not another group of people? I say, let these ideas be heard and challenged in the free marketplace of ideas.

1 hour ago, Argus said:

To promote terrorism is to promote murder. Period..

No, because not all terrorism involves murder.

[blackbird]

One of the U.S. states has a representative in the State government who voted against a law which would stop any insurance company from making a payout to relatives of someone who is killed while committing an act of terrorism or fighting for terrorists.  Apparently two people out of 50 voted against the law.  So there are people in the U.S. and even in a state government who think terrorist's family should be able to collect insurance money if a terrorist is killed.

Edited May 3, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

No, but I'll support the right of Muslim Imams to advocate for the death of Atheists and the right to pray to Allah to kill me.

I doubt if that is even legal.

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I think that people should be allowed to discuss the merits of terrorism in a free society. Short of direct incitement to violence, it should be allowed.

The best way to counter bad ideas is more speech, not censorship.

Please explain how there is any merit at all in terrorism or any merit in a discussion of the alleged merits of terrorism.  This needs to be explained.

Edited May 3, 2017 by blackbird

[dialamah]

A motion for a study on religious discrimination and Islamaphobia is met with howls of outrage by conservatives because it's too vague, will limit free expression and will cater to Muslims.

A motion to remove the phrase "in general" from an actual law is met with howls of outrage by conservatives because it removes vagueness, won't limit free expression and will cater to Muslims.

I suppose TDS means everything the government does for the next two and a half years will be about empowering Muslims, eliminating Canadian culture and implementing Sharia law.   

 

 

[Guest]

Surely advocating terrorism by anyone is against the law anyway.  These are the same Liberals who think putting the Kingdom on the job of sorting out women's rights is a good idea, so I daresay they've just been taking advantage of their pot legislation.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Islam is the enemy of all free societies.

We won the Cold War and now this...I feel like someone's just pulling strings and screwing with us all.  Defeating yucky ideologies is such hard work..

[Moonlight Graham]

Also, freedom isn't free.  It costs a buck o' five.

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said:

 I personally dislike such nuanced legal phrasing "in general".  I like my legislation to be vague and opaque so I can use it as a speech chiller if I don't agree with it.

I think you have landed on the point here.  "In general" gives a broader scope for government to decided what is or isn't allowed.  I am ok with it, though.

[Guest]

Whether or not "in general" should apply is dependent on the subject.  Murder, in general, will not be allowed, is okay.  Hate speech, in general, will not be allowed, is not okay.

Advocacy of terrorism is more like the former than the latter.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Advocacy of terrorism is more like the former than the latter.

A politician someone particularly dislikes says something particularly annoying.  Person says "Someone should do something about him,  teach his supporters a lesson"  which could be interpreted as advocating terrorism, in general, when really its just a hothead blowing off steam.  Removing 'in general' means he'd have to say something more specific like "Let's make a plan to kill this guy and show his supporters what happens to people like that."

 

[-1=e^ipi]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

Please explain how there is any merit at all in terrorism or any merit in a discussion of the alleged merits of terrorism.  This needs to be explained.

1. There doesn't need to be merit in a position to support the right of others to advocate for that position. People should be allowed to advocate for dumb positions, be it the position that the Earth is flat or whatever.

 

2. If you want to get technical, I would argue that not all terrorism is inherently bad and that in some cases terrorism can be morally justified. For example, I'd argue that 200 years ago in the USA using terrorism to free slaves from slavery could be justified.

[PIK]

19 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

No, but I'll support the right of Muslim Imams to advocate for the death of Atheists and the right to pray to Allah to kill me.

 

Until anne coulter shows up.And then she get banned. lol

[Argus]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

A politician someone particularly dislikes says something particularly annoying.  Person says "Someone should do something about him,  teach his supporters a lesson"  which could be interpreted as advocating terrorism, in general, when really its just a hothead blowing off steam. 

That's not the kind of thing normal people say. Such a statement should be investigated by the police. Even though it wasn't specifically advocating terrorism. It was inferring something. And we're not talking about someone making a one-off statement either. We're talking about propaganda, a deliberate and ongoing thing. What you want is for some crazy imam to rant about how Canada should be bathed in the fires of retribution, that it's people must be punished for our actions in the middle east, that Allah commands the faithful to make holy war against anyone who stands opposed to Islam, that the filthy Jews are behind it all and should be made an example of, with a variety of Koranic verses included to justify violence against Jews and infidels.

None of that is advocating a specific terrorist act, but it's certainly promoting and advocating terrorism. And this is what you and the Liberal party feel is fine.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

1. There doesn't need to be merit in a position to support the right of others to advocate for that position. People should be allowed to advocate for dumb positions, be it the position that the Earth is flat or whatever.

The problem with your theory is that it allows a ranting, screaming, charismatic preacher or imam to stir up the flock to violence yet go unpunished for any of that violence.