Terrorist Attack in Pittsburgh

[WestCanMan]

The fact that hate speech against Jews in Canada and the US is legal (thanks Justa Traitor) has no doubt contributed to this disgusting incident taking place.

I'm all about free speech, but it's still illegal to say "I have a bomb" when you're on an airplane. By the same token, people who are caught speaking publicly about genocide or assassinating the potus need to go to jail. There are actual laws on the books regarding sedition, and what you can do with an effigy.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4605588/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-how-it-unfolded/

[bush_cheney2004]

32 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The fact that hate speech against Jews in Canada and the US is legal (thanks Justa Traitor) has no doubt contributed to this disgusting incident taking place.

I'm all about free speech, ...

 

Could be, but nevertheless so called "hate speech" is protected expression in the United States, much more so than in Canada.

Hates crimes, threats, and actions are an entirely different matter and subject to arrest & prosecution.

The U.S (and Canada) have violent hate crimes irrespective of hate speech.    Historically, government policies and actions are probably far more responsible for systemic "incidents" than the content of individual's hate speech.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The fact that hate speech against Jews in Canada and the US is legal (thanks Justa Traitor) has no doubt contributed to this disgusting incident taking place.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most forms of free speech are accorded greater protection in the U.S. than is the case in Canada, where the delineation of acceptable speech is much more circumscribed. The Charter doesn't rescue us from this deficiency. As for hate crime laws, it's my understanding that these are more generally applicable and easily triggered in Canada than in the U.S., where in most cases an actual violent crime committed with hateful intent must apply in order to trigger a hate crime prosecution. I believe the bar for triggering hate crime charges, particularly in relation to what is perceived as hate speech, is lower in Canada. Personally, I don't believe the attack in Pittsburgh had/has anything to do with free speech. Easy access to guns, especially in the U.S., as well the hyper-sensitized and identity-focused social tribalism that increasingly characterizes Western societies appear to play bigger roles in such incidents.

Edited October 29, 2018 by turningrite

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most forms of free speech are accorded greater protection in the U.S. than is the case in Canada, where the delineation of acceptable speech is much more circumscribed. The Charter doesn't rescue us from this deficiency. As for hate crime laws, it's my understanding that these are more generally applicable and easily triggered in Canada than in the U.S., where in most cases an actual violent crime committed with hateful intent must apply in order to trigger a hate crime prosecution. I believe the bar for triggering hate crime charges, particularly in relation to what is perceived as hate speech, is lower in Canada. Personally, I don't believe the attack in Pittsburgh had/has anything to do with free speech. Easy access to guns, especially in the U.S., as well the hyper-sensitized and identity-focused social tribalism that increasingly characterizes Western societies appear to play bigger roles in such incidents.

I should have cited some links. Do you really need any links on Louis Farkhead in the States or do you know what he's all about?

 

Here are a couple of Canadian hate speech types. These aren't private comments either, they were entirely public speeches made to adoring crowds:

Quote

 

Chucklehead Shafiq Huda at a hate rally called "Al Quds Day" in Ontario: https://www.bnaibrith.ca/sheikh_calls_for_eradication_of_israelis_at_toronto_al_quds_day_rally

Elias Hezineh, Elias Hazineh*, President of the Mississauga–Erindale Federal Liberal Riding Association: https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-hate-crime-charges-for-canadian-palestinian/

 

It's worth noting that our idiot PM, who loves nothin better than a good ol' fashioned virtue-signalling session, refused to comment on the blatant hate speech made within 100 miles of our HoP.

Of course the attack wasn't covered under "free speech" laws, but the idea of committing the attack was embraced and made popular by these kinds of people.

Liberals keep trying to derail serious conversations about terrorism by turning them into "access to guns" discussions. Do you think that we will ever rid the world of guns? Even if we did we can't get rid of rental vans or knives, and you know damn well that some of the most successful islamic terrorist attacks have been committed with those things - and they can't be banned. We can't stop people from making IEDS either, like the one that was used to kill kids at an Araianna Grande concert. If you want an "access to guns" thread, start one. This isn't it. You're entirely off-topic.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Could be, but nevertheless so called "hate speech" is protected expression in the United States, much more so than in Canada.

Hates crimes, threats, and actions are an entirely different matter and subject to arrest & prosecution.

The U.S (and Canada) have violent hate crimes irrespective of hate speech.    Historically, government policies and actions are probably far more responsible for systemic "incidents" than the content of individual's hate speech.

I think the US needs to tighten up on what's allowed and what's not. I don't think anyone's idea of free speech is "let's commit genocide". And our Canadian laws are useless if they're not used.

[taxme]

34 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I think the US needs to tighten up on what's allowed and what's not. I don't think anyone's idea of free speech is "let's commit genocide". And our Canadian laws are useless if they're not used.

So what should the USA tighten up on to try and make things better?

Hate laws are ridiculous. I am pretty sure that there are many members here who hate me. So, should I have them all arrested and charged for hating me? It's sillyness. It is my right or anyone else's right to hate whomever they desire. It is not my right or others right to go out and commit gun violence on innocent people. Give tougher sentences on the ones who use guns to injure or kill others. This is where I would like to have capital punishment in Canada. It may not deter someone from wanting to kill but it would put an end to any more killing by them. 

I blame all the hatred in the world on most of the politicians of the world and that is where it all belongs. They have assisted and are responsible for the creation of hatred by their constant forcing of the many different cultures and religions and traditions that are being forced on citizens of all countries today, especially Western countries, where these leftist liberal socialists communists have been trying to promote their diversity and multicultural programs and agendas on the people of all nations who never asked for nor ever needed. In Europe hatred is everywhere now thanks to the politicians who have brought in millions of people from different cultures and religions that are not compatible and that many of them refuse to become citizen's or adapt and assimilate into the host countries culture and traditions. Hatred now runs rampant everywhere in Europe thanks to their dear leaders. Some Islamic Muslims have openly carried around signs in demonstrations in London, England where they have written on their signs that Britain will be all Muslim one day. All infidels must submit or they will be killed. Yet they are never charged for uttering threats of death to infidels. They get a free pass while people like Tommy Robinson goes to jail for just protesting against these Islamic terrorists.

Even in Toronto some Muslims have pretty much declared the same thing. A country that does not want to promote it's own culture on others who immigrate to that country and where instead that country tries to promote another culture and religion to the same status is only asking for big problems down the road. Our dear leaders apparently appear to not be all that concerned about what could happen in the future a future where our grandchildren may have to deal with this problem if there will be enough left in decades to be able to deal with it.

Just saying.   

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I think the US needs to tighten up on what's allowed and what's not. I don't think anyone's idea of free speech is "let's commit genocide". And our Canadian laws are useless if they're not used.

 

I disagree...U.S. free speech rights are one of the things that distinguishes American liberty from other nations.   The most vehement forms of expression need protections most of all precisely because there are those who would limit speech for any number of righteous agendas.    Those who would ban books/ideas with the force of government are the most dangerous of all.

Canada can do whatever the hell it wants to...the U.S. will not likely follow such limitations on constitutional rights.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I disagree...U.S. free speech rights are one of the things that distinguishes American liberty from other nations.   The most vehement forms of expression need protections most of all precisely because there are those who would limit speech for any number of righteous agendas.    Those who would ban books/ideas with the force of government are the most dangerous of all.

Canada can do whatever the hell it wants to...the U.S. will not likely follow such limitations on constitutional rights.

The USA lost their liberty shorty after 9/11 via the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act, under Bush Jr, and then expanded via NDAA under Obama.  Why does Bush Jr and Obama hate freedom? A nation that has immigration check points 100 miles inland is another indications to the loss of said liberty.  Both the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA went against that constitution you hold so dear.

But in the USA it's corporations that will ban your books and ideas (Alex Jones). 

[Rue]

8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Could be, but nevertheless so called "hate speech" is protected expression in the United States, much more so than in Canada.

Hates crimes, threats, and actions are an entirely different matter and subject to arrest & prosecution.

The U.S (and Canada) have violent hate crimes irrespective of hate speech.    Historically, government policies and actions are probably far more responsible for systemic "incidents" than the content of individual's hate speech.

Actually no. If anything the US has more agencies investigating hate crimes and therefore engaging in preventative measures. You under estimate the good work done because its kept secret. Canada does not spend the resources per capita the way the US does on counter intelligence.

In all democracies the struggle to balance free speech with containing hate crimes or incitement to cause violence is a precarious exercise. The US has more people than Canada and so a far more complex set of scenarios to deal with, however if you read the legal decisions on free speech we are not that different. Its gun control and extent of government regulation  where our laws differ. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Rue

[Rue]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

So what should the USA tighten up on to try and make things better?

Hate laws are ridiculous. I am pretty sure that there are many members here who hate me. So, should I have them all arrested and charged for hating me? It's sillyness. It is my right or anyone else's right to hate whomever they desire. It is not my right or others right to go out and commit gun violence on innocent people. Give tougher sentences on the ones who use guns to injure or kill others. This is where I would like to have capital punishment in Canada. It may not deter someone from wanting to kill but it would put an end to any more killing by them. 

I blame all the hatred in the world on most of the politicians of the world and that is where it all belongs. They have assisted and are responsible for the creation of hatred by their constant forcing of the many different cultures and religions and traditions that are being forced on citizens of all countries today, especially Western countries, where these leftist liberal socialists communists have been trying to promote their diversity and multicultural programs and agendas on the people of all nations who never asked for nor ever needed. In Europe hatred is everywhere now thanks to the politicians who have brought in millions of people from different cultures and religions that are not compatible and that many of them refuse to become citizen's or adapt and assimilate into the host countries culture and traditions. Hatred now runs rampant everywhere in Europe thanks to their dear leaders. Some Islamic Muslims have openly carried around signs in demonstrations in London, England where they have written on their signs that Britain will be all Muslim one day. All infidels must submit or they will be killed. Yet they are never charged for uttering threats of death to infidels. They get a free pass while people like Tommy Robinson goes to jail for just protesting against these Islamic terrorists.

Even in Toronto some Muslims have pretty much declared the same thing. A country that does not want to promote it's own culture on others who immigrate to that country and where instead that country tries to promote another culture and religion to the same status is only asking for big problems down the road. Our dear leaders apparently appear to not be all that concerned about what could happen in the future a future where our grandchildren may have to deal with this problem if there will be enough left in decades to be able to deal with it.

Just saying.   

To hate you would require caring about what you think. Don't delude yourself. People like me would feeling nothing having to take you out. You are just another rat in a barn. Nothing a well placed BB shot or  barn owl, cat, corn snake, mink, terrier can't handle. Stay out of my barn.Just saying. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Rue

[turningrite]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I should have cited some links. Do you really need any links on Louis Farkhead in the States or do you know what he's all about?

 

Here are a couple of Canadian hate speech types. These aren't private comments either, they were entirely public speeches made to adoring crowds:

It's worth noting that our idiot PM, who loves nothin better than a good ol' fashioned virtue-signalling session, refused to comment on the blatant hate speech made within 100 miles of our HoP.

Of course the attack wasn't covered under "free speech" laws, but the idea of committing the attack was embraced and made popular by these kinds of people.

Liberals keep trying to derail serious conversations about terrorism by turning them into "access to guns" discussions. Do you think that we will ever rid the world of guns? Even if we did we can't get rid of rental vans or knives, and you know damn well that some of the most successful islamic terrorist attacks have been committed with those things - and they can't be banned. We can't stop people from making IEDS either, like the one that was used to kill kids at an Araianna Grande concert. If you want an "access to guns" thread, start one. This isn't it. You're entirely off-topic.

 

Whoa there! Before you get carried away with yourself, let me point out that I raised access to guns as a counterpoint to the bizarre notion that free speech is at the root of atrocities like the Pittsburgh shooting. Free speech, like democracy, is a double-edged sword. Free speech in fact is the oxygen that sustains democracy. Adherents on both extremes of the ideological spectrum equally dislike the actual notion of free speech and would if their side obtained power seek to suppress it. To blame free speech for the Pittsburgh shooting is akin to blaming democracy for the acts of demagogues who are elected to power - and there have been many legitimately elected demagogues in modern history. You shouldn't throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater.

[bush_cheney2004]

33 minutes ago, Rue said:

Actually no. If anything the US has more agencies investigating hate crimes and therefore engaging in preventative measures. You under estimate the good work done because its kept secret. Canada does not spend the resources per capita the way the US does on counter intelligence.

 

Actually yes....the history of both nations has far more systematic and sanctioned hate speech/crimes on a scale that surpasses any private group.

Modern legislation and law enforcement resources today do not erase the historical record.

[Rue]

48 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Whoa there! Before you get carried away with yourself, let me point out that I raised access to guns as a counterpoint to the bizarre notion that free speech is at the root of atrocities like the Pittsburgh shooting. Free speech, like democracy, is a double-edged sword. Free speech in fact is the oxygen that sustains democracy. Adherents on both extremes of the ideological spectrum equally dislike the actual notion of free speech and would if their side obtained power seek to suppress it. To blame free speech for the Pittsburgh shooting is akin to blaming democracy for the acts of demagogues who are elected to power - and there have been many legitimately elected demagogues in modern history. You shouldn't throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater.

You both are right for different reasons. He didn't go so far as you think he did. If you read his past stuff WestCan is not against free speech. He's just questioning when that line gets crossed. He's a genuine moderate middle of the roadster on this forum.

Both of you have legit  comments. No one wants to go too far in containing what can be said...whether it's you or CW or me.

Me as a Jew yes  sure I have strong feelings about certain language being used to incite hatred against Jews couched as trendy leftist ideology including  politically correct coded words calling for terrorism against Jews or anyone else for that matter not just Jews.

If you have to live with a target on your butt for wanting to express yourself through a collective identity you feel that way, so of course not just us Jews.

Yah maybe being targeted say like Jews, gay, blacks, aboriginals, women, etc., gives us a different perspective on hateful words. Sure.. but...

Look I don't need to sit around and wait to get shot. Thanks but there are limits and no I don't think calling on people to wipe out Jews is free speech. Go figure..Wes has and I appreciate he has...

Would you understand me if I said goose-stepping is not an expression I take calmly?

You both are equally as respected by me in this debate but just don't ask me to sit on my ass when wrds heat up anymore than telling me goose-stepping is just a style of presentation.

Words  like goose-steps can be weapons. They can incite and welcome violence and death. You don't need to be a Jew to know that as Wes shows.

An even better analogy is say pornography. No I don't ask for it to be censored. However if it expresses non  consensual violence or specialization of children you bet I think it needs to be contained.

But I get you. I do.

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Rue

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Whoa there! Before you get carried away with yourself, let me point out that I raised access to guns as a counterpoint to the bizarre notion that free speech is at the root of atrocities like the Pittsburgh shooting. Free speech, like democracy, is a double-edged sword. Free speech in fact is the oxygen that sustains democracy. Adherents on both extremes of the ideological spectrum equally dislike the actual notion of free speech and would if their side obtained power seek to suppress it. To blame free speech for the Pittsburgh shooting is akin to blaming democracy for the acts of demagogues who are elected to power - and there have been many legitimately elected demagogues in modern history. You shouldn't throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater.

Let me reiterate: FREE SPEECH IS AT THE ROOT OF THESE MURDERS. You can try to make the argument that you still need free speech even though it got those people killed, but would you make the same argument if your mom was laying in a pool of blood in the place she got married, just because she frequented that place? Would you be ok with Farrakhan preaching hate against her?

FYI it wouldn’t matter how many guns there were if people weren’t inciting, normalizing, glorifying, ignoring and endorsing hatred against “Jews, Zionists, Israelis”, and fear mongering about “their nefarious Jewwie plots”, or just passing all that off as free speech. News channels like CNN etc that turn a blind eye to Farrakhan’s rotten mouth, and give people like Obama and Clinton a free pass for being chummy with that piece of slime, are as guilty as he is. Can you imagine Trump standing at Senator Byrd’s funeral beside a Grand Wizard of the KKK and his beloved Hillary Clinton? They’d be in their glory at CNN. You can bet your life that they wouldn’t turn a blind eye.

It’s friggin unbelievable that CNN is feeding their moronic viewers the line that “evil” Trump’s speech is responsible for this and ignoring Farrakhan and his buddies Bill and Barack. The only thing dumber than a CNN viewer is CNN viewers, plural.

 

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Let me reiterate: FREE SPEECH IS AT THE ROOT OF THESE MURDERS. You can try to make the argument that you still need free speech even though it got those people killed, but would you make the same argument if your mom was laying in a pool of blood in the place she got married, just because she frequented that place? Would you be ok with Farrakhan preaching hate against her?

 

Doesn't matter....U.S. courts would find that the protected free speech of non-violent citizens cannot be infringed because of violent acts by criminals.   I'm OK with that...the ACLU is OK with that...and the U.S. Supreme Court is OK with that.

Far more Americans are shot dead in Chicago each year and it has nothing to do with free speech....gun rights are still upheld as well.

 

[Don Jonas]

Playing "Happy" at a rally right after seems a little tone-deaf. Surprising there wasn't someone with a brain to suggest that's a bad idea.

 

[scribblet]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Let me reiterate: FREE SPEECH IS AT THE ROOT OF THESE MURDERS. You can try to make the argument that you still need free speech even though it got those people killed, but would you make the same argument if your mom was laying in a pool of blood in the place she got married, just because she frequented that place? Would you be ok with Farrakhan preaching hate against her?

FYI it wouldn’t matter how many guns there were if people weren’t inciting, normalizing, glorifying, ignoring and endorsing hatred against “Jews, Zionists, Israelis”, and fear mongering about “their nefarious Jewwie plots”, or just passing all that off as free speech. News channels like CNN etc that turn a blind eye to Farrakhan’s rotten mouth, and give people like Obama and Clinton a free pass for being chummy with that piece of slime, are as guilty as he is. Can you imagine Trump standing at Senator Byrd’s funeral beside a Grand Wizard of the KKK and his beloved Hillary Clinton? They’d be in their glory at CNN. You can bet your life that they wouldn’t turn a blind eye.

It’s friggin unbelievable that CNN is feeding their moronic viewers the line that “evil” Trump’s speech is responsible for this and ignoring Farrakhan and his buddies Bill and Barack. The only thing dumber than a CNN viewer is CNN viewers, plural.

 

   Well said:   Part of the problem is also of social media et al allowing hate speech from the likes of Farrakhan's racist rhetoric while deleting and blocking accounts that speak out against such speech e.g. Twittery targets pro-Israel groups and conservatives.   Even HUD filed a complaint against FB   https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/HUD_01-18-0323_Complaint.pdf 

 

[Don Jonas]

13 minutes ago, scribblet said:

   Well said:   Part of the problem is also of social media et al allowing hate speech from the likes of Farrakhan's racist rhetoric while deleting and blocking accounts that speak out against such speech e.g. Twittery targets pro-Israel groups and conservatives.   Even HUD filed a complaint against FB   https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/HUD_01-18-0323_Complaint.pdf 

 

No, they target hate speech and white supremacists. Calling the people they target "conservatives " is an insult to actual conservatives. It seems to be only intended to normalize the extremist views social media is trying to contain.

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Doesn't matter....U.S. courts would find that the protected free speech of non-violent citizens cannot be infringed because of violent acts by criminals.   I'm OK with that...the ACLU is OK with that...and the U.S. Supreme Court is OK with that.

Far more Americans are shot dead in Chicago each year and it has nothing to do with free speech....gun rights are still upheld as well.

 

No arguing that I guess. 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Let me reiterate: FREE SPEECH IS AT THE ROOT OF THESE MURDERS. You can try to make the argument that you still need free speech even though it got those people killed, but would you make the same argument if your mom was laying in a pool of blood in the place she got married, just because she frequented that place? Would you be ok with Farrakhan preaching hate against her?

Antisemitism is strong in Russia, with very little freedom of speech there. It was strong in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries in eastern Europe with NO freedom of speech. It is WEAKEST in the United States and Canada, which have pretty much the MOST freedom of speech.

[turningrite]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Let me reiterate: FREE SPEECH IS AT THE ROOT OF THESE MURDERS. You can try to make the argument that you still need free speech even though it got those people killed, but would you make the same argument if your mom was laying in a pool of blood in the place she got married, just because she frequented that place? Would you be ok with Farrakhan preaching hate against her?

 

 

I think your criticism of free speech is far too broad to be reasonable. Antisemitism and racism existed long before the modern era of mass communications. They are manifestations of often deeply ingrained cultural prejudices rather than amounting to legal, political or technological inventions. There's a valid argument to be made that mass communications have undermined rather than exacerbated these cultural prejudices. Indeed, in those societies where free speech is heavily restricted prejudicial attitudes and values are likely far more prevalent. Free speech is too fundamentally necessary to the survival of democracy to be broadly blamed for society's problems. Personally, I'd rather have the real bigots out in the open so we can know and understand what they're saying than force them to operate in secret as much of their belief structure is grounded in victim identity and ideology. If they're suppressed, won't it just validate and exacerbate their sense of victimization?

Edited October 30, 2018 by turningrite

[DogOnPorch]

It was Wilhelm Marr that gave us the current word for the hatred of Jews. But it goes back to Roman times I'd hazard...2nd Jewish-Roman War in particular. It was Rome's Viet-Nam...the fighting in Judea. Took-up a lot of the resources...caused a lot of hardship for the troops and pissed-off a lot of Roman brass. That ranting shaman fellow they put on a cross a bit earlier was just a blip to them...at the time, at least. 

Milvian Bridge and Milano Edicts were still some ways into the future...

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

I think your criticism of free speech is far too broad to be reasonable. Antisemitism and racism existed long before the modern era of mass communications. They are manifestations of often deeply ingrained cultural prejudices rather than amounting to legal, political or technological inventions. There's a valid argument to be made that mass communications have undermined rather than exacerbated these cultural prejudices. Indeed, in those societies where free speech is heavily restricted prejudicial attitudes and values are likely far more prevalent. Free speech is too fundamentally necessary to the survival of democracy to be broadly blamed for society's problems. Personally, I'd rather have the real bigots out in the open so we can know and understand what they're saying than force them to operate in secret as much of their belief structure is grounded in victim identity and ideology. If they're suppressed, won't it just validate and exacerbate their sense of victimization?

You make a good point. It’s places like Iran, where freedom of speech is more like “freedom to get killed for opening your mouth”, that are the real dumpster fires on this planet.

It’s good that people like Farrakhan, Elias Hazineh and chucklehead Huda show the world just how low their culture can get, but it’s also too bad that they don’t get properly “outed” in the msm.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Antisemitism is strong in Russia, with very little freedom of speech there. It was strong in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries in eastern Europe with NO freedom of speech. It is WEAKEST in the United States and Canada, which have pretty much the MOST freedom of speech.

Go sit down before you read this Argus. I just clicked like on one of your posts. You might want to take two Aspirin and call your doctor if you’re feeling cardiac-ish.

[WestCanMan]

I do value free speech guys and gals, but honestly, I still think that there has to be a serious response to blatantly evil haters within our society. There’s no shortage of people dumb enough to get sucked in by hatred and especially by fear mongering.