tml12 Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Spreading Hate is not free speech. Promoting Hate cannot be sloughed off as oppinion, because it is not. It is the base upon which violence against minorities is built. Therefore you could look at Spreading Hate as the premeditation of violence towards others. That is way beyond simple free speech. I couldn't agree more...especially regarding the Canadian left who spread hate for the Americans to score cheap political points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Honest Politician Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Please post where it has been said that someone "hates" americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Please post where it has been said that someone "hates" americans. Look for any Chretien quote when dealing with the Americans, especially that 1997 one when he didn't know the microphone was on... How about Carolyn Parrish? :angry: No specific poster has had to make any comments, the Chretien Liberals provided plenty of ammo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Please post where it has been said that someone "hates" americans. Look for any Chretien quote when dealing with the Americans, especially that 1997 one when he didn't know the microphone was on... How about Carolyn Parrish? :angry: No specific poster has had to make any comments, the Chretien Liberals provided plenty of ammo... I'm more upset about the Liberals that hate Canadians. How about the "Alberta can blow me" comments from Scott Reid. I'll tell you one thing, Albertans will be telling the same to the Liberals when they give Landslide Annie the boot, the last semi-Liberal in Alberta. I'm sure the rest of the west feels equally upset about being second class citizens to the Liberal Party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Spreading Hate is not free speech. Promoting Hate cannot be sloughed off as oppinion, because it is not. It is the base upon which violence against minorities is built. Therefore you could look at Spreading Hate as the premeditation of violence towards others. That is way beyond simple free speech. As has been discussed earlier in the thread, the scope of human rights commissions extends beyond preventing the incitement of hatred. There can sometimes be a fine line between promiting undesirable stereotypes and stifling legitimate discussion of social issues. I provided some examples earlier on. One was that police in Canada do not publish information about race (except in instances where it could help identify an at-large suspect). They used to, but they were made to stop, because releasing such information could promote a negative stereotype towards some races or ethnic groups. But when the Toronto Star set out to examine the facts on police racism and racial profiling, they found extremely there was very little information to work with... because police were no longer allowed to keep that sort of information. The well-intentioned goal of preventing negative stereotypes might actually be working against the people it's supposed to protect, because since those statistics are not kept, there's really no way of telling whether the police are disproportionately unfair to some racial groups. The goal of preventing hatred is a worthy one, but giving some committee the power to arbitrarily punish people for asking what might be legitimate questions is a dangerous thing. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Did Martin make a speech full of ultra right rhetoric at the convention?Harper did. There's no record of what Martin said at the convention. Nor what Harper said, for that matter. The Bilderberg conventions have a strict "off the record" policy. Quite simply, you have no evidence of what Harper said at the Bilderberg convention. The quotes in this thread have been selected from other speeches he has made over the years. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Spreading Hate is not free speech. Promoting Hate cannot be sloughed off as oppinion, because it is not. It is the base upon which violence against minorities is built. Therefore you could look at Spreading Hate as the premeditation of violence towards others. That is way beyond simple free speech. All that is inference and rather stretched logic. And the term "hate" gets thrown around far too easily by human rights agencies and the laws they deal with. The term now encompasses anything from common insults used in emotionally charged arguments to legitimate criticism of the behaviour of particular religious or ethnic groups to Nazi proclomations on the inferiority of Jews. Legitimate commentary in France on the riots was stifled by such laws. A man was put in prison in Denmark for criticising Muslims after the statsitics came out that 3/4ths of those arrested for rape were Muslims. It is too easy for mental weaklings to abuse such a term, and human rights agencies seem to be staffed almost entirely by mental weaklings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Please post where it has been said that someone "hates" americans. Look for any Chretien quote when dealing with the Americans, especially that 1997 one when he didn't know the microphone was on... How about Carolyn Parrish? :angry: No specific poster has had to make any comments, the Chretien Liberals provided plenty of ammo... I'm more upset about the Liberals that hate Canadians. How about the "Alberta can blow me" comments from Scott Reid. I'll tell you one thing, Albertans will be telling the same to the Liberals when they give Landslide Annie the boot, the last semi-Liberal in Alberta. I'm sure the rest of the west feels equally upset about being second class citizens to the Liberal Party. True Geoffrey, I'll tell you what. My friends in Edmonton tell me that some of them vote for McLellan because they know the Liberals will win anyway and they want SOME Alberta representation in the House. With Harper maintaining a solid and consistent 3-point lead then maybe they'll vote Conservative. I really want her to lose too. The hatred coming from some of these Liberals is amazing... :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 So Argus, you are okay with the Klan protesting down the street in full white sheets saying "Death to Niggers" on their placards. You are okay with Jim Keegstra teaching your kid that the Holocaust didn't exist. But I'll bet you are against someone yelling "fire" in a theatre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 So Argus, you are okay with the Klan protesting down the street in full white sheets saying "Death to Niggers" on their placards. You are okay with Jim Keegstra teaching your kid that the Holocaust didn't exist. But I'll bet you are against someone yelling "fire" in a theatre. Keegstra had no business teaching students that the holocaust didn't exist. I don't want Bible or Quran forced on kids. I don't want Intelligent Design taught in Biology class. I don't want the Flat Earth Society to get equal time during science class. I don't want my kid to be taught that the value of Pi to be 3.2 The KKK ought to have a right to go out in public and make themselves look like jackasses. Whether the specific phrase "Death To Niggers" is legal is highly doubtful, however. I would think that incitement of violence against an identifiable group is probably well outside the bounds of protected speech. And yelling "fire" in a theatre is, of course, the classic example of justifiable limitation on freedom of speech. It was probably far more relevant before theatres had built-in sprinkler systems and flame-retardant upholstry, but the point is clear enough. I don't think Argus, or anybody else, is claiming that the right to free speech is absolute. Acknowledging that limitations on free speech are justifiable in some instances is one thing, but some of the specific cases now winding up in court go far beyond yelling "fire" in a theatre or chanting "Death to niggers." The Hugh Owens case is an example. It's easy to argue that incitement of violence or yelling fire in a theatre are justifiable limitations on free speech... it's much more debatable as to whether a newspaper ad with references to Bible verses and 2 stick figures holding hands being crossed out in the style of no-smoking signs creates social harm that justifies limitation of free speech. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 kimmy, I was responding to Argus' comments where he said: ..." In Europe, where human rights laws are far more stringent than here, where even a private individual can be arrested and go to prison for saying unkind things about minorities, those anti-racism/anti-discrimination laws have actually encouraged the expansion of anti-semitic, and racist groups... " Is he suggesting that the more stringent human rights agencies become, the more racist our society becomes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 kimmy, I was responding to Argus' comments where he said:..." In Europe, where human rights laws are far more stringent than here, where even a private individual can be arrested and go to prison for saying unkind things about minorities, those anti-racism/anti-discrimination laws have actually encouraged the expansion of anti-semitic, and racist groups... " Is he suggesting that the more stringent human rights agencies become, the more racist our society becomes? I think he's suggesting that attempting to censor these groups can have an effect opposite of what is intended. If you look at almost any of these theories, one finds that the belief that "the Man" is attempting to hide "the real truth" is a big part of the mythology. -"big oil" controls the media and is suppressing knowledge about Iraq and keeping "the 100mpg carburator" a secret. -pharmaceutical companies are trying to surpress information about the incredible healing power of ____. -the "ZOG" is attempting to supress the "truth" about the Holocaust. -secret government agencies are trying to supress the truth about Roswell and Chem-trails and invisible mind-control machines and orgones and so on. The belief that they've discovered something secret and forbidden might be a significant part of the allure of these theories among their followers. By banning discussion of an idea, the government might actually give it a kind of "outlaw appeal". ("this must be serious and powerful and dangerous if the government is afraid to let people hear it!") These ideas shouldn't be forced underground where they can fester and grow unchallenged. They should be freely discussed so that their lack of merit can be exposed to all. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 So Argus, you are okay with the Klan protesting down the street in full white sheets saying "Death to Niggers" on their placards. You are okay with Jim Keegstra teaching your kid that the Holocaust didn't exist. But I'll bet you are against someone yelling "fire" in a theatre. I'm okay with people expression their opinion, whatever that opinion is. I'm not okay with teachers teaching incorrect material, of course, and Keegstra certainly deserved to get fired for it. As to the Klan, you might examine the case of Skokie Illinois, where the Klan wanted to march through a largely Jewish neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors. They were banned by the local government, and the ACLU, led by a Jewish lawyer, fought for their right to march and speak their piece. And won. The right to free speech should be very nearly absolute. It should not be up to the government to pick and choose what kinds of opinions you should hold and what kinds of things you should be able to say. You cannot ban an idea, so keep the ideas out in the open where they can be properly addressed and debated. And if guys want to wear funny robes or hardhats, that's fine with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Spreading Hate is not free speech. Promoting Hate cannot be sloughed off as oppinion, because it is not. It is the base upon which violence against minorities is built. Therefore you could look at Spreading Hate as the premeditation of violence towards others. That is way beyond simple free speech. Just say it... You support freedom of speech UNLESS ______________________ . In which case, you're not really supporting freedom of speech, since you're putting conditions on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 So Argus, you are okay with the Klan protesting down the street in full white sheets saying "Death to Niggers" on their placards. You are okay with Jim Keegstra teaching your kid that the Holocaust didn't exist. But I'll bet you are against someone yelling "fire" in a theatre. I'm okay with people expression their opinion, whatever that opinion is. I'm not okay with teachers teaching incorrect material, of course, and Keegstra certainly deserved to get fired for it. As to the Klan, you might examine the case of Skokie Illinois, where the Klan wanted to march through a largely Jewish neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors. They were banned by the local government, and the ACLU, led by a Jewish lawyer, fought for their right to march and speak their piece. And won. The right to free speech should be very nearly absolute. It should not be up to the government to pick and choose what kinds of opinions you should hold and what kinds of things you should be able to say. You cannot ban an idea, so keep the ideas out in the open where they can be properly addressed and debated. And if guys want to wear funny robes or hardhats, that's fine with me. Someone like Keegstra should be able to say what he did, thats his opinion. However, it was his job to teach the material to education standards, and he failed, which is an issue. As well, children are not fully capable of comprehending and analysing information, which is also an issue. It wasn't his opinion thats the issue (however wrong it is, people are allowed to be wrong in democracy), it was who he was indoctrinating with it. Let the KKK march, as soon as they set one fire or send out one death threat though, then its no longer speech, in which case, we lock 'em up good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlameHead Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 I will never understand why our country and the world is not talking about this further. There are bigger things going on in this world besides what we puny humans are bickering about. The sooner people start asking questions about this sort of activity, the sooner we'll be free from the tyrannical contol we are all under. Stephen Harper is one piece in a giant chess game and we have to recognize that and stop any forward movement of the Illuminati and the New World Order. It's time to wake up folks. It really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.