Time to take on far-right terrorists

[eyeball]

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

After 1,400 years of islam being what it is, what's going to change it overnight, wise one?

The same thing changing everything - like rust, it never sleeps.

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Realitycheck said:

Thanks. I do my best.  You on the other hand leave one with a bad taste in one's mouth plumping for a deviate, liying, woman abusing POS.

You have no proof he abuses women. You are just twisting consensual p***y grabbing into sexual assault. All politicians lie, booooring. Bill Clinton was deviant, boooring.

If this is your go to material, then you really don't have any good arguments against Trump.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Realitycheck]

13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You have no proof he abuses women. You are just twisting consensual p***y grabbing into sexual assault. All politicians lie, booooring. Bill Clinton was deviant, boooring.

If this is your go to material, then you really don't have any good arguments against Trump.

You are one sick,sad and sorry sod. Those charges sure don't sound consensual to me...but they may to you.  https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/donald-trump-women-allegations/index.html

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

He's going strongly anti-UN - see below

There are many very good reasons to criticize the UN. Doing so does not suggest you want Canada to pull out of it.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

There are many very good reasons to criticize the UN. Doing so does not suggest you want Canada to pull out of it.

I guess he hasn't said it - but his supporters eat it up when he goes after them.  He might as well propose pulling out, he's not getting elected no matter how much the Russians would love it.

[Argus]

Came across this the other day. From the Washington Post, suggesting right wing terrorism might actually be on the decline.

One of the interesting aspects of this is the theory that right wing terrorism and violence have declined in Europe just when you think they ought to be rising due to the influx of migrants. And the conclusion reached:

Today, violent skinheads have been replaced by bookish Identitarians using so-called metapolitical activism to generate societal change. While keeping a safe distance from openly racist language, identitarians do believe that some people should have precedence over others in certain territories, only because of their ethnic descent. To promote this view, their metapolitical strategy is aimed at influencing cultural, intellectual and public domains to change how people think about such contested issues. This is done through a variety of mostly nonviolent means, such as writing books, hosting seminars or arranging shocking public stunts aimed at generating massive media attention, sometimes referred to as guerrilla media tactics.

At the same time, anti-immigrant parties have increasingly gained electoral support in many Western democracies, thereby offering political opportunities to people who otherwise could have ended up in more extreme forms of activism. The relative success of these parties also negates the claim made by most violent extremists that promoting anti-immigrant views via democratic channels is futile. My research shows that in Western Europe between 1990 and 2015, there is a negative relationship between electoral support to anti-immigrant parties and right-wing terrorism and violence. 

In other words, people are less likely to become violent when they can speak their mind, and when they have political choices. Which flies in the face of the idea that if you 'deplatform' them, and ensure no political parties pay any attention to them, they'll simply go away.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/02/is-right-wing-terrorism-violence-rise/?noredirect=on&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.fac9c2fbcf1c

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You're implying that there are few facts supporting the idea that growth via immigration is a good thing, which is a stretch.  But not an argument for this thread.

Why is it a stretch? Bringing in masses of immigrants increases GDP but does it increase the wealthy or standard of living of people already here?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Yes those are some of the things.

3. I haven't seen anything to suggest the US tech market is much different than ours.  They also import thousands and thousands of foreign workers.

From what I've heard they pay 30% - 100% more on average, and that's not even taking their higher dollar into account.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/technology/article-canada-facing-brain-drain-as-young-tech-talent-leaves-for-silicon/

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If some foreigners don't like Donald Trump, that's a feature, not a bug. America's standing on the world stage is doing just fine, even though the President has many haters abroad. Like I say, if your biggest criticism of Trump, is the words the he uses, then you don't have much of a case against him, and are reaching for straws to attack him.

Where do you get that America's standing on the world stage is doing fine? 

[jacee]

7 hours ago, Realitycheck said:

Scheer's base is rednecked racists. Furthermore, he is not that bright and has all the charisma of a pile of doggy-doo.  

I think he and Justin should just duke it out. 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Conservatives don't support racism at all.

Andrew Scheer does. 

You can say that with a straight face? 

Edited April 7, 2019 by jacee

[Argus]

53 minutes ago, jacee said:

"Values" of immigrants? F*ck off. That's xenophobic code for 'no Muslims'.

MMm, no, that's code for "we want people who think more or less like us, not raging, brutal retrogrades who think anyone who violates the word of their God must die.
Are you suggesting all Muslims fall into that category?

Quote

4) The laws are fine, inciting and promoting hatred in public or online is not ok. Are you clear on that? 

5) Freedom of speech and difference of opinion is fine. Inciting hatred against people because they are Muslim is not. Are you clear on that?

The standard for 'inciting hatred' is very high, and no one on a forum like this comes anywhere remotely close.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

• (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

• (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

• (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Argus

[jacee]

Del

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by jacee

[jacee]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

MMm, no, that's code for "we want people who think more or less like us, not raging, brutal retrogrades who think anyone who violates the word of their God must die.
Are you suggesting all Muslims fall into that category?

The standard for 'inciting hatred' is very high, and no one on a forum like this comes anywhere remotely close.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

• (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

• (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

• (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

Good luck with that. 

[Argus]

Just now, jacee said:

Good luck with that. 

Don't need any. It's patently clear that the discussion here is on subjects of public interest for public benefit, and that most of what people are saying is true or people believe it to be true.

[scribblet]

55 minutes ago, jacee said:

1) It's not legally binding. (Read the link) Don't forget that some displacement of people is entirely Canada's fault - Canadian mining operations in Honduras, for example, have displaced thousands of Indigenous people, "caravans" of migrants currently knocking on Trump's door. Are we offering to take any of the people displaced by Canadian mines? We're not 'innocent victims' of migration. We cause it too. 

2) Levels of immigration, sure. Understand the reasons, and do the math on the benefits too. And disaster and refugees happen. 

"Values" of immigrants? F*ck off. That's xenophobic code for 'no Muslims'. We have freedom of religion. We don't have a values test. A lot of us couldn't pass one either. We have laws. We have law enforcement. We have a justice system. 

3) Those laws can't be brought here. And anyone coming her from there is likely escaping them. Why would you harass and incite hatred against them? 

4) The laws are fine, inciting and promoting hatred in public or online is not ok. Are you clear on that? 

5) Freedom of speech and difference of opinion is fine. Inciting hatred against people because they are Muslim is not. Are you clear on that?

F.off your self if u can't discuss without name calling.  insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent

[jacee]

1 minute ago, scribblet said:

F.off your self if u can't discuss without name calling.  insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent

We have laws.

Stick your stinking xenophobic 'values test' up yer rs. 

 

[Argus]

Just now, jacee said:

We have laws.

Stick your stinking xenophobic 'values test' up yer rs. 

 

You're just upset because you have no values yourself.

[Realitycheck]

11 minutes ago, jacee said:

 

I never said that. You are quoting the wrong poster.  Kindly correct.

[bush_cheney2004]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

From what I've heard they pay 30% - 100% more on average, and that's not even taking their higher dollar into account.

 

That's right...far more opportunities at greater pay in Trump's America.   Access to far more with a lower cost of living.  

Canadians want access to the U.S., even if Trump is president and the far right has a free voice (no stupid hate speech laws).

CBSA border crossing numbers are actually up under Trump, with far more Canadians going south than vice-versa, naturally.

Access to the United States is a "Canadian value".

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, jacee said:

Andrew Scheer does. 

You can say that with a straight face? 

What an idiotic comment. I have far better reason to call you a bigot.

Every post that you make insinuates that white privilege is everywhere, whites are racist, police are racist, conservatives are racist, Canadians have unreasonably associated islam with terrorism, etc, etc, etc.

All you do is divide, divide, divide and you rarely have a smidgeon of insight or productive/constructive dialogue.

 

 

[Realitycheck]

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What an idiotic comment. I have far better reason to call you a bigot.

Every post that you make insinuates that white privilege is everywhere, whites are racist, police are racist, conservatives are racist, Canadians have unreasonably associated islam with terrorism, etc, etc, etc.

All you do is divide, divide, divide and you rarely have a smidgeon of insight or productive/constructive dialogue.

 

 

...and all you have is denial and deflection. All white power groups here and in the US are peopled by fundamentalist xians...conservatives IOW.  

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's futile attempt to ban free expression and ideas....the international "far right" is easily accessible on the InterWebs.

 

Quote

I subscribe to an email service that provides me with the Canadian Border Service Agency’s “Quarterly List of Admissible and Prohibited Titles.” This is something the government of Canada produces every few months to inform its citizens which works of “Obscenity and Hate Propaganda” — that is, books, magazines, DVDs, CDs, and sometimes even flyers, posters, and stickers — have been denied entry into their country.

The lists are not long, and the works they declare prohibited are mostly obscure. Canada’s border censors appear far more biased against obscenity than hate, which often makes the lists more lurid than anything else, and prevents them from receiving the sort of attention one might expect for such a bluntly illiberal exertion of state authority. Yet hesitation and awkwardness also expose discomfort with the inescapably authoritarian reality of what Ottawa promised when it passed hate-speech legislation in the first place — legislation Justin Trudeau’s administration has since defended and strengthened.

...Canadians do not enjoy a universal right to freedom of speech; expressing and consuming certain ideas and opinions is regulated by law. This is rationalized by the Canadian constitution’s declaration that government has a right to restrain freedoms with “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/canada-laws-crack-down-on-hate-speech/

 

Far more interesting is the Trudeau government "Memorandum" of clarification:

 

Quote

Ottawa has therefore helped clarify matters with a guiding memo known as Memorandum D9-1-15, most recently revised by the Trudeau administration in July 2017, to assist officers of the Canada Border Services Agency in their efforts to identify and prevent “hate propaganda” from entering Canada. Section 8 of the memo reads:

Goods that incite or promote hatred against an identifiable group, by incorporating some or all of the following allegations, may be prohibited as hate propaganda:

(a) allegations that an identifiable group is to blame for serious economic or social problems;
(b) allegations that an identifiable group manipulates media, trade, finance, government or world politics to the detriment of society;
(c) allegations that an identifiable group is inferior or superior to another group; and/or
(d) allegations that an identifiable group weakens or threatens society, in whole or in part. 

 

So it seems that goods that incite hatred against Trump "supporters" in Canada are prohibited as hate propaganda.

Edited April 7, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Owly]

16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada's futile attempt to ban free expression and ideas....the international "far right" is easily accessible on the InterWebs.

 

 

Far more interesting is the Trudeau government "Memorandum" of clarification:

 

 

So it seems that goods that incite hatred against Trump "supporters" in Canada are prohibited as hate propaganda.

Calling Trump out on his endless lies, which are provable, is not hate crime.

[WestCanMan]

50 minutes ago, Realitycheck said:

...and all you have is denial and deflection. All white power groups here and in the US are peopled by fundamentalist xians...conservatives IOW.  

I don't have the burden of proof on this one RC, nice try. You guys do, and you're not coming through, as I've explained to you before.

You guys are mischaracterizing the seriousness this issue.... exaggerating the magnitude of it in comparison with threats that we all know are far more imminent. We don't have airport security because of Pediga. We don't have cement barricades at Christmas Villages because of Neo Nazis. Etc, etc, etc. Security at mosques around the world isn't as big of an issue as security at churches and synagogues has been for quite some time.

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Realitycheck said:

I never said that. You are quoting the wrong poster.  Kindly correct.

My mistake. Sorry.

Deleted.