Liberals want to allow people to advocate terrorism

[-1=e^ipi]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

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.

It depends if the violence is imminent or not. I think we should follow the Millian Harm Principle as advocated by the great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill.

[-1=e^ipi]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

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.

This should absolutely be legal protected speech. People should be allowed to question morality and have different opinions on it.

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

This should absolutely be legal protected speech. People should be allowed to question morality and have different opinions on it.

This isn't questioning morality, it's advocating violence.

[-1=e^ipi]

Okay Argus, since you are the great arbiter on morality that can determine what 'hate speech' or advocacy of violence should or should not be banned, perhaps you can go through the following list and tell me which statements are acceptable and which statements should be illegal:

'Jews should be killed by the state.'

 

'Mass murders should be killed by the state.'

 

'Homosexuals that commit sodomy should be killed by the state.''

 

'Shoplifters should be killed by the state.'

 

'People that slurp their soup should be killed by the state.'

 

'People that wear brown shoes should be killed by the state; brown shoes are unfashionable.'

 

'People that wear burkas should be killed by the state.'

 

'Old people should be killed by the state.''

 

'People that want assisted suicide should be killed by the state.'

 

'People with Down's syndrome should be killed by the state.'

 

'Men are the evil oppressors of patriarchy and the world would be better off without them. We should kill off all the men, except for a few, which we should keep imprisoned in a sperm factory. #killallmen'

 

'Humans are harming the planet, man. All humans, including jews, muslims and gays, should be killed by the state to protect mother earth.'

Edited May 3, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

This isn't questioning morality, it's advocating violence.

 

Advocating for capital punishment is advocating violence.

Advocating that we fine people the speed and if they don't pay their speeding ticket we use the violence of the state to throw them in jail is advocating violence.

Advocating that rule of law should be enforced by a police force that uses violence to enforce the law is advocating violence.

[dialamah]

23 minutes ago, Argus said:

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.

Funny how when it was suggested that the kid who shot 19 Muslims was influenced by right-wing, anti-immigrant and anti-Islam groups and sites, that got absolutely no traction among the conservative population.  

[-1=e^ipi]

Ironically, advocating that we use the violence of the state to make advocacy of violence illegal is also advocacy of violence. So by Argus' standard, Argus should be imprisoned or fined for his advocacy of violence.

[Argus]

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

Okay Argus, since you are the great arbiter on morality that can determine what 'hate speech' or advocacy of violence should or should not be banned, perhaps you can go through the following list and tell me which statements are acceptable and which statements should be illegal:

Any which are likely to be taken seriously.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Advocating for capital punishment is advocating violence.

Advocating that we fine people the speed and if they don't pay their speeding ticket we use the violence of the state to throw them in jail is advocating violence.

Advocating that rule of law should be enforced by a police force that uses violence to enforce the law is advocating violence.

You are welcome to believe whatever nonsense you choose to, of course, but in even in a free and open society there are limits to what people can advocate for.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Funny how when it was suggested that the kid who shot 19 Muslims was influenced by right-wing, anti-immigrant and anti-Islam groups and sites, that got absolutely no traction among the conservative population.  

Were any of these sites advocating violence against Muslims? Because that would have been illegal.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Any which are likely to be taken seriously.

Advocacy of capital punishment for murderers is likely to be taken seriously.

Advocacy that the state use violence to make people follow the law is likely to be taken seriously.

That should be illegal?

[-1=e^ipi]

Then you have all these SJWs that are redefining violence to include 'word violence' and 'cyber violence'. For example, Anita Sarkeesian thinks that people saying 'you suck' on the internet is 'cyber violence' and that the UN needs to step in to stop this 'violence'. Some SJWs equate supporting Trump with 'violence' and 'hate speech'.
 

You want to make advocacy of violence illegal to open the door to all these authoritarian people to try to censor and imprison those that disagree with them? Really?

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Advocacy of capital punishment for murderers is likely to be taken seriously.

Advocacy that the state use violence to make people follow the law is likely to be taken seriously.

That should be illegal?

I was referring to another list. These were not ON that list.

[Argus]

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

Then you have all these SJWs that are redefining violence to include 'word violence' and 'cyber violence'. For example, Anita Sarkeesian thinks that people saying 'you suck' on the internet is 'cyber violence' and that the UN needs to step in to stop this 'violence'. Some SJWs equate supporting Trump with 'violence' and 'hate speech'.
 

You want to make advocacy of violence illegal to open the door to all these authoritarian people to try to censor and imprison those that disagree with them? Really?

I'm not sure why you are so desperate to  find a way to define this ban in some arcane and torturous fashion which you think can suggest an injustice. It won't work. I live in the real world, not in whatever theoretical construct you're inhabiting. And to repeat, we're not speaking of a simple statement here and we're referring specifically to terrorism, the definition of which everyone not on the far Left or far Right of the political spectrum understands quite well.

[-1=e^ipi]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

I live in the real world, not in whatever theoretical construct you're inhabiting.

And here I thought Anita Sarkeesian was a real person. Or that all the censorship on university campuses by SJWs was a real issue. Or that the Gregory Allen Elliot case in Canada actually happened (and that the current federal government was disappointed in its ruling and is looking for a way to combat 'cyber violence').
 

But I guess it's all a theoretical construct.

 

How about opposition to C-16 and concerns that it may make it illegal to misgender someone (and thus commit gendering violence). Is that part of the real world, or just a theoretical construct?

Edited May 3, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[Guest]

10 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.  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."

 

I disagree.  I think any general advocacy of terrorism should be regarded as incitement to violence and considered criminal.  The courts can then decide if it is someone blowing off steam.  I would suggest that if the steam being blown off was with regard to teaching Muslims a lesson you would have a different opinion.  Mine would be the same.

[dialamah]

58 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I disagree.  I think any general advocacy of terrorism should be regarded as incitement to violence and considered criminal.  The courts can then decide if it is someone blowing off steam. 

How would you define "general" advocacy?  Should not the right-wing groups and sites Bissonette frequented be facing charges of "generally" advocating terrorism, since clearly terrorism was the result?  Or should a more precise definition be employed so that such right-wing groups can say whatever they want, without concern over culpability should someone decide to take their statements to their natural conclusion?

I would suggest that if the steam being blown off was with regard to teaching Muslims a lesson you would have a different opinion.  Mine would be the same.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here.

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

How would you define "general" advocacy?  Should not the right-wing groups and sites Bissonette frequented be facing charges of "generally" advocating terrorism, since clearly terrorism was the result?  Or should a more precise definition be employed so that such right-wing groups can say whatever they want, without concern over culpability should someone decide to take their statements to their natural conclusion?

 

 

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here.

Any advocacy.  I don't care where it comes from, or to whom it is targetted.

The second quote there is fairly followable.  I would not give someone advocating terrorism a pass regardless of who it was.  I suggested that you would not be as quick to do so as your post implied were the intended victimes Islamic.  It seems to me that would fit more the definition of Islamaphobia than a lot of the things we are discussing.

[dialamah]

34 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Any advocacy.  I don't care where it comes from, or to whom it is targetted.

The second quote there is fairly followable.  I would not give someone advocating terrorism a pass regardless of who it was.  I suggested that you would not be as quick to do so as your post implied were the intended victimes Islamic.  It seems to me that would fit more the definition of Islamaphobia than a lot of the things we are discussing.

I think certain people and groups advocate violence against Muslims, Jews and gays through rhetoric about how they threaten 'us' in some way, even if they never directly say "Go kill you some ......".   

I think the Imams who were recorded preaching about the destruction of Jews should have been charged with hate speech, even though the words "Go kill you some Jews" were not part of the sermon; the request to kill Jews was made of God, not humans.

How would you differ from me in those two examples?

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think certain people and groups advocate violence against Muslims, Jews and gays through rhetoric about how they threaten 'us' in some way, even if they never directly say "Go kill you some ......".   

I think the Imams who were recorded preaching about the destruction of Jews should have been charged with hate speech, even though the words "Go kill you some Jews" were not part of the sermon; the request to kill Jews was made of God, not humans.

How would you differ from me in those two examples?

You don't say what should happen to the first group.  I would probably say nothing at all, unless you can show an attempt to incite.

I would say that anyone who asks God to kill someone is barking mad  so I would differ from you on the second example.  If they asked Humans to do it, I would say lock them up. 

There is some grey area in both though.  I don't feel any urge to hurt a Muslim because people are afraid of Sharia Law and Burkhas.  I don't know what a member of the Muslim congregation would have felt hearing the sermons.

Edited May 4, 2017 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You don't say what should happen to the first group.  I would probably say nothing at all, unless you can show an attempt to incite.

I would say that anyone who asks God to kill someone is barking mad  so I would differ from you on the second example.  If they asked Humans to do it, I would say lock them up. 

There is some grey area in both though.  I don't feel any urge to hurt a Muslim because people are afraid of Sharia Law and Burkhas.  I don't know what a member of the Muslim congregation would have felt hearing the sermons.

 

Yes, I didn't say what should happen to the first group.  I think the law as it is written now could be interpreted to support charging them with inciting to terrorism, which would be in line with my belief that these groups are dangerous to the public good and should be limited in what they can say and how they say it.  However, discussions on here have made me think that might, in fact, be too limiting in terms of allowing people the ability to express themselves.   Thus, changing te wording of the law to make it more specific rather than leaving more open to interpretation seems like a good idea.

There is already a problem with anti-Semitism in Canada; a person in a position of authority should take extra care in what he/she says to their followers.  So for me, making it clear that such expressions of violence against another group will not be tolerated is important.  Even if they are asking "God" to do the killing for them.  

I suspect that most people hearing such a sermon would have understood that it wasn't up to them to kill Jews.  Still, it doubtless creates ill-feeling for another group, exactly as do right-wing groups that target Jews, Muslims, immigrants and gays.  I find that problematical, but again, where does one draw the line between protecting free speech and protecting identifiable groups?   

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, I didn't say what should happen to the first group.  I think the law as it is written now could be interpreted to support charging them with inciting to terrorism, which would be in line with my belief that these groups are dangerous to the public good and should be limited in what they can say and how they say it.  However, discussions on here have made me think that might, in fact, be too limiting in terms of allowing people the ability to express themselves.   Thus, changing te wording of the law to make it more specific rather than leaving more open to interpretation seems like a good idea.

There is already a problem with anti-Semitism in Canada; a person in a position of authority should take extra care in what he/she says to their followers.  So for me, making it clear that such expressions of violence against another group will not be tolerated is important.  Even if they are asking "God" to do the killing for them.  

I suspect that most people hearing such a sermon would have understood that it wasn't up to them to kill Jews.  Still, it doubtless creates ill-feeling for another group, exactly as do right-wing groups that target Jews, Muslims, immigrants and gays.  I find that problematical, but again, where does one draw the line between protecting free speech and protecting identifiable groups?   

I would not allow those who would harm others to abrogate any responsibility by claiming they were talked into doing it unless incitement were clear.  It's okay to hate. It's okay to state one hates. 

Still, having reread your first paragraph, I have to say I still disagree.  The wording was general advocacy for terrorism, I believe. (I'm on an ithing currently. I can't check). Given that, I can't see any need for a tightening of the language. A general advocate for murder is still advocating murder. No need for specifics. 

Strange I should be arguing against freedom of speech, but I believe this speech falls under incitement, general though it is.  

Edited May 4, 2017 by bcsapper

[betsy]

On 5/2/2017 at 11:40 AM, Argus said:

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

 

Liberals are creating such havoc.  Canada is going downhill fast!

Too bad they still have a few years before the next election.....and who knows, they might still win again!  Their supporters think like them!

Edited May 4, 2017 by betsy

[-1=e^ipi]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Any advocacy.  I don't care where it comes from, or to whom it is targetted.

So if I advocate that terrorist tactics such as blowing up slave ships (property) or freeing slaves (property) without permission of slave owners for the political purpose of stopping slavery, then you think I should be thrown in jail?

 

How about using terrorism to stop nazis from killing jews? Is it not acceptable to advocate for that?

Edited May 4, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

Still, it doubtless creates ill-feeling for another group, exactly as do right-wing groups that target Jews, Muslims, immigrants and gays.

 

Is saying that all non-Christians should be tortured in hell for the crime of not being Christian not creating ill-feeling towards non-Christians?
Is saying that all non-Muslims deserve to be tortured for eternity by Allah for the crime of not being Muslim not creating ill-feeling towards non-Muslims?
Is saying that gay people deserve to be tortured for eternity in hellfire for the crime of being gay not creating ill-feeling towards gay people?

If we were to make it illegal to create ill-feeling towards another group, then we we would have to ban Islam and Christianity, which would mean that we wouldn't have freedom of religion as a society.