"Cartoon Crysis" not over yet: Canadian Human Rights Commision persecutes publisher

[Nemesis6]

1 - Persecuting people for mindcrimes. But to be completely fair, it's not the Canadians in the full sense of the word, but rather just the CHRW... And the government. It's not a good thing when the government joins in legal harassment of citizens.

2 - By them making fools of themselves, they're less likely to persecute people for mindcrimes in the future.

3 - Another possible outcome of this situation: If the CHRW continues to exist after this, this kind of harassment might instead increase because people will know that mindcrimes are persecutable offences.

Anyway, you seem to have trouble seeing what the problem is, so I'll give you a basic lowdown which you should have gotten already from watching the videos:

Islamist doesn't like being called an Islamist, and he doesn't like cartoons of Muhammed,(And once again, just to be safe from the CHRW -- Sallalahu aleyhi wasallah), so he issues a "complaint"(see legal intimidation or harassment) to the Canadian Human Rights Commission who have absolutely no legal authority. His argument is that human rights have been broken by the cartoons being published. One problem is that not being offended is not a human right. And the real outrage/problem is this: The has NO right to force a citizen to undergo interrogation for mindcrimes, because mindcrimes are not a persecutable offence, and lastly, to wrap this summery up, they do not constitute a breach of human rights.

 

[CptStern]

1 - Persecuting people for mindcrimes. But to be completely fair, it's not the Canadians in the full sense of the word, but rather just the CHRW... And the government. It's not a good thing when the government joins in legal harassment of citizens.

2 - By them making fools of themselves, they're less likely to persecute people for mindcrimes in the future.

3 - Another possible outcome of this situation: If the CHRW continues to exist after this, this kind of harassment might instead increase because people will know that mindcrimes are persecutable offences.

Anyway, you seem to have trouble seeing what the problem is, so I'll give you a basic lowdown which you should have gotten already from watching the videos:

Islamist doesn't like being called an Islamist, and he doesn't like cartoons of Muhammed,(And once again, just to be safe from the CHRW -- Sallalahu aleyhi wasallah), so he issues a "complaint"(see legal intimidation or harassment) to the Canadian Human Rights Commission who have absolutely no legal authority. His argument is that human rights have been broken by the cartoons being published. One problem is that not being offended is not a human right. And the real outrage/problem is this: The has NO right to force a citizen to undergo interrogation for mindcrimes, because mindcrimes are not a persecutable offence, and lastly, to wrap this summery up, they do not constitute a breach of human rights.

lol you make kathaksung look positively sane :rolling:

what "mindcrimes" ..list them individually

 

[Nemesis6]

And you make Che Guevara look friendly. Come on, knock it off.

Next, good question. Mindcrimes in this case would be: That he intended to offend, that he did it to offend Muslims specifically, that he did it to undermine human rights, or that publishing these cartoons could just anger people in general, but the one in question in this case is this one: By supposedly ridiculing Muhammed, a person who might not have existed at all, or if he did, has been dead for over 1400 years, Ezra Levant has apparently hurt the feelings of some extremist in the present. That's a mindcrime; That he intended to offend this guy by doing so.

Prosecuting a person for any of this, evening summoning them to explain their actions just for publishing some stupid cartoons is just ridiculous and makes a mockery of freedom of the press. Remember Piss Christ? If the U.S government forced the "artist" of that one to be interrogated and having to explain why he did it, the only thing they could arrest him for would be mindcrimes; intentions, etc. And I'd bet you'd be up in arms if someone like that was forced through a process like this, just like any sane person would be. Question is, if that's so, why the double standard? Why is it OK to print cartoons of Jesus, but not of Muhammed(Aleyhi sal, ugh, forget it.)?

 

[CptStern]

And you make Che Guevara look friendly. Come on, knock it off.

i'm not the one who sounds like an alarmist lunatic ..you really do sound mentally unhinged when you accuse the canadian government of "mindcrimes" ..how is that even possible?

Next, good question. Mindcrimes in this case would be: That he intended to offend, that he did it to offend Muslims specifically, that he did it to undermine human rights, or that publishing these cartoons could just anger people in general, but the one in question in this case is this one: By supposedly ridiculing Muhammed, a person who might not have existed at all, or if he did, has been dead for over 1400 years, Ezra Levant has apparently hurt the feelings of some extremist in the present. That's a mindcrime; That he intended to offend this guy by doing so.

umm these are the accusations that the Iman made in his complaint:

http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf

Lt.Drebin posted it earlier

Prosecuting a person for any of this, evening summoning them to explain their actions just for publishing some stupid cartoons is just ridiculous and makes a mockery of freedom of the press.

do you blame the police when someone accuses another of a crime and they take that person in for questioning? are they enforcing mindcrimes? ..the problem is that you cannot think for yourself ..you take snippets of information and repeat them verbatim often outside of it's context ..you really have only a superficial understand of the issues most of the time

Remember Piss Christ? If the U.S government forced the "artist" of that one to be interrogated and having to explain why he did it, the only thing they could arrest him for would be mindcrimes; intentions, etc.

sigh did you miss the ****ing part where I posted that Western Stand were NOT THE ONLY NEWPAPER TO POST THE IMAGES? Le Devoir and a student newspaper posted the images? they didnt violate any laws by simply posting the images because NOTHING happened to Le Devoir

And I'd bet you'd be up in arms if someone like that was forced through a process like this, just like any sane person would be.

it is not even remotely the same situation ..the canadian government did NOT file the complaint. It is the Human Rights Commisions OBLIGATION to investigate cases brought before them ..THEY determine whether they have merit or not

Question is, if that's so, why the double standard? Why is it OK to print cartoons of Jesus, but not of Muhammed(Aleyhi sal, ugh, forget it.)?

again this is where you prove you only have a basic understanding of this particular issue ..IT IS NOT AGAINT ANY CANADIAN LAW TO REPRINT THOSE CARTOONS ..other newspaper printed them WITHOUT consequence ..really you wasted 9 pages just for it to be revealed that you dont understand what the issue is ..you still think it's for publishing the cartoon. This is why I get annoyed by you ..you read a headline and immediately jump to a conclusion ..I'm convinced you rarely read the material you post, you're incorrect in assessing the information much too often

 

[Nemesis6]

i'm not the one who sounds like an alarmist lunatic ..you really do sound mentally unhinged when you accuse the canadian government of "mindcrimes" ..how is that even possible?

No, that's what Levant is being accused of.

http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf

Yeah. That's where all the bullshit accusations came from. It's absurd that they even have "religious beliefs" on the list of what people feel have been offended, and it gets worse here because anyone can see that the wording throughout the complaint is typical Islamist bullshit: Hatemongering cartoons, the Prophet Muhammed (Peace be Upon him), all that crap should have ensured that this never got that far. If the CHRW had any decency, they'd chuckle and throw this crap out, but as Levant said: It's a cesspool for the stuff that's rejected from the real legal system, and when you look at how ridiculously insignificant the charges against him is, it makes total sense. Offending the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him), what will they think of next as a reason to legally harass people?

do you blame the police when someone accuses another of a crime and they take that person in for questioning? are they enforcing mindcrimes? ..the problem is that you cannot think for yourself ..you take snippets of information and repeat them verbatim often outside of it's context ..you really have only a superficial understand of the issues most of the time

That's another interesting question. The police have real authority that's recognized in the law. The CHRW does not, and it's not run by people who know they're doing as we found out with Ms. Andreachuk. That's why I believe you can't compare them.

sigh did you miss the ****ing part where I posted that Western Stand were NOT THE ONLY NEWPAPER TO POST THE IMAGES? Le Devoir and a student newspaper posted the images? they didnt violate any laws by simply posting the images because NOTHING happened to Le Devoir

I'm a little confused about how that's relevant, but if I understand you right, you're saying that something becomes illegal if people can be hurt? That's really not a fair point to make, because the person or people printing it cannot be held accountable for what psychos do. Plain and simple. Lots of people disagree on this issue. They'll say "it's not worth it", "we're better than that", "we'll be responsible for the consequences", but the problem is, without the right to offend, there really isn't free speech. This is one of the more sensitive issues, but I believe I'm right in saying that I or anyone else shouldn't be responsible for evil stirred up by shitheads like Soharwardy; It's just not mine or anyone else's fault than two parties: The Imams and the crazy people they incite to violence. And the teddy bears of course, damn them all to hell.

it is not even remotely the same situation ..the canadian government did NOT file the complaint. It is the Human Rights Commisions OBLIGATION to investigate cases brought before them ..THEY determine whether they have merit or not

It is exactly the same situation. If the artist of Piss Christ was persecuted because Christian dumbasses felt offended because Jesus was ridiculed, I'd once again bet that you would, quite justifiably, be up in arms about it.

again this is where you prove you only have a basic understanding of this particular issue ..IT IS NOT AGAINT ANY CANADIAN LAW TO REPRINT THOSE CARTOONS ..other newspaper printed them WITHOUT consequence ..really you wasted 9 pages just for it to be revealed that you dont understand what the issue is ..you still think it's for publishing the cartoon. This is why I get annoyed by you ..you read a headline and immediately jump to a conclusion ..I'm convinced you rarely read the material you post, you're incorrect in assessing the information much too often

I know full well that he's not being persecuted for the act of publishing the cartoons, the rest I've already answered. I think we're talking past one another.

 

[CptStern]

No, that's what Levant is being accused of.

by whom? certainly not by canada "mindcrime" is nowhere to be found in canadian law books

Yeah. That's where all the bullshit accusations came from. It's absurd that they even have "religious beliefs" on the list of what people feel have been offended, and it gets worse here because anyone can see that the wording throughout the complaint is typical Islamist bullshit: Hatemongering cartoons, the Prophet Muhammed (Peace be Upon him), all that crap should have ensured that this never got that far. If the CHRW had any decency, they'd chuckle and throw this crap out, but as Levant said: It's a cesspool for the stuff that's rejected from the real legal system, and when you look at how ridiculously insignificant the charges against him is, it makes total sense. Offending the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him), what will they think of next as a reason to legally harass people?

why are you having such a difficult time comprehending that the HRC is doing their goddam job? someone filed a complaint they are OBLIGATED to investigate. this isnt some presecution of free speech as you so wrongfully assume ..the very same thing happened to Erst Zudel, holocaust denier, I'm willing to bet you wouldnt accuse the HRC of being "indecent" when they investigated Zundel

That's another interesting question. The police have real authority that's recognized in the law. The CHRW does not, and it's not run by people who know they're doing as we found out with Ms. Andreachuk. That's why I believe you can't compare them.

you dont make sense, what?

I'm a little confused about how that's relevant, but if I understand you right, you're saying that something becomes illegal if people can be hurt?

how could you possibly have jumped to that illogical conclusion? there is NOTHING illegal about posting the cartoons, Western Standard is NOT being investigated because they published the cartoon as you;ve made it abundantly clear you think is the case; it's not

That's really not a fair point to make, because the person or people printing it cannot be held accountable for what psychos do. Plain and simple. Lots of people disagree on this issue. They'll say "it's not worth it", "we're better than that", "we'll be responsible for the consequences", but the problem is, without the right to offend, there really isn't free speech. This is one of the more sensitive issues, but I believe I'm right in saying that I or anyone else shouldn't be responsible for evil stirred up by shitheads like Soharwardy; It's just not mine or anyone else's fault than two parties: The Imams and the crazy people they incite to violence. And the teddy bears of course, damn them all to hell.

for the love of god man, you're not listening ..no one is saying "the person or people printing it can be held accountable for what psychos do." because publishing the cartoon is NOT AGAINST THE LAW

the person or people printing it cannot be held accountable for what psychos do.It is exactly the same situation. If the artist of Piss Christ was persecuted because Christian dumbasses felt offended because Jesus was ridiculed, I'd once again bet that you would, quite justifiably, be up in arms about it.

I'd certainly defend the right of the HRC investigating the issue, because THAT'S THEIR JOB ..they have an obligation to investigate all claims ..you just cant/wont understand that

I know full well that he's not being persecuted for the act of publishing the cartoons, the rest I've already answered. I think we're talking past one another.

I think you're just ignoring my points like you always do ..part of you being unreasonable I guess (quick go report my post, I called you unreasonable)

 

[Nemesis6]

We're talking past one another again, so I'll sum up: I understand your argument - that they have an obligation to do what they see as their job. My entire point is this: They shouldn't have that job because they are not qualified to handle it, and they've crossed the line when they allow themselves to be used as a censorship tool by religious fanatics. This case is bullshit, the CHRW is bullshit, the people working for it are willfully ignorant at best, and they have no legal authority as an NGO. This makes it all the more perplexing when you see the Canadian government forcing Ezra Levant to have to explain why he hurt someone's religious feelings(the basis of the complaint).

You've haven't stated your opinion and I've stated mine, while understanding your argument that they have the right to be douchebags. My problem is with them having that title. Unless you state your actual opinion, you know we're not gonna go anywhere with this.

 

[CptStern]

We're talking past one another again, so I'll sum up: I understand your argument - that they have an obligation to do what they see as their job. My entire point is this: They shouldn't have that job because they are not qualified to handle it

how do you figure? the Human rights commission isnt qualified to hear cases on human rights? what proof do you have that leads you to that conclusion? the fact that you dont like muslims?

and they've crossed the line when they allow themselves to be used as a censorship tool by religious fanatics.

or a censorship for jewish fanatics who cant handle people denying the holocaust ....right? cuz that's what they do too

This case is bullshit, the CHRW is bullshit, the people working for it are willfully ignorant at best, and they have no legal authority as an NGO.

again you have absolutely no idea as to what you're talking about ..they have every legal authority:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission administers the Canadian Human Rights Act and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Employment Equity Act. Both laws ensure that the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination are followed in all areas of federal jurisdiction.

they make sure the human rights act and employment act are followed

his makes it all the more perplexing when you see the Canadian government forcing Ezra Levant to have to explain why he hurt someone's religious feelings(the basis of the complaint).

serious question for a minute ..why are you so hopelessly irrational? why do you immediately jump to the most baseless, most ludicrous explanations possible? it's like you're looking for something that isnt there .. do you even understand how a hearing works? they need to hear from both parties, should they have just gone on the Iman's word alone and give their judgement based on that or should they have given Levant a chance to defend himself from his accusers?

T

You've haven't stated your opinion and I've stated mine, while understanding your argument that they have the right to be douchebags. My problem is with them having that title. Unless you state your actual opinion, you know we're not gonna go anywhere with this.

explain how posting my opinion would settle the matter?



btw Levant isnt a ****ing saint himself, but rather a neo conservative and extremist who supports the canadian alliance ..known for being racist, homophobic sexist ..the reform party is a ****ing joke that appeals to people like levant who blame minorities from pretty much everything that is wrong with canada

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUTFcgE1F7w

 

[Nemesis6]

I figured Pat Condell might have something to say. He does, afterall, have all the videos favourited. Damn, this'll be good. I'd lean back in my chair if it was that kind of chair.

Edit: Damn it, youtube's being a bitch.

God help me, I keep going:

how do you figure? the Human rights commission isnt qualified to hear cases on human rights? what proof do you have that leads you to that conclusion? the fact that you dont like muslims?

I'm going to start at the opposite end of the post with this one sentence: Shut up. Back to the start: Any commision that see themselves as representatives of human rights probably shouldn't have divorce-lawyers as panelists or whatever her role is. You know who I'm about here, so I won't go on.

or a censorship for jewish fanatics who cant handle people denying the holocaust ....right? cuz that's what they do too

Yes. It's the same thing - People have a right to say that the Holocaust didn't happen. It doesn't, or rather, shouldn't make them a criminal to the state.

again you have absolutely no idea as to what you're talking about ..they have every legal authority:

Quote:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission administers the Canadian Human Rights Act and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Employment Equity Act. Both laws ensure that the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination are followed in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
they make sure the human rights act and employment act are followed

Well then they've turned into quite a joke when bolstered with authority, huh? Wow, to be persecuted for offending someone's delusional(religious) feelings... that's takes a special kind of police state. But you know what? It wouldn't be the first country to do this. In Belarus, the KGB(yes, they are actually still called the KGB there) arrested a person who published the Muhammed cartoons. Do we really wanna be like Belarus? Net, or 'ne' as they would probably say.

serious question for a minute ..why are you so hopelessly irrational? why do you immediately jump to the most baseless, most ludicrous explanations possible? it's like you're looking for something that isnt there .. do you even understand how a hearing works? they need to hear from both parties, should they have just gone on the Iman's word alone and give their judgement based on that or should they have given Levant a chance to defend himself from his accusers?

To be honest, I think you're the one being irrational here. People uniformly agreed that this was a joke... all except you. By default, you'd be the one... You see where I'm going with this. Now, about the hearing: That is a sham, too, because the whole foundation of this complaint, the only reason it happened, was because someone wanted to shut him up because he insulted the Prophet of the Moon God. The fact that this guy was dragged infront of people who feel the need to ask him why he did it is also, like the CHRW, a joke, but a very not-funny and serious one, because it makes a mockery of freedom of the press, and sets an ugly standard: If you beliefs are offended, you can censor the guy who did it and hurt him financially.

explain how posting my opinion would settle the matter?

Ulterior motives for example. You see it very fit to mention that he's a Neo-con. When you do that, you move outside of the box of "I respect their right to do their job" and into the "He deserves it!" box. I believe that you actually support this harassment, because you've seen it fit to do defamation of character, and divert attention to the fact that they have a "right" to do this because they see it as their job, well I call bullshit: You support it, and you'd really like to not ever see any cartoons of Muhammed again.

btw Levant isnt a ****ing saint himself, but rather a neo conservative and extremist who supports the canadian alliance ..known for being racist, homophobic sexist ..the reform party is a ****ing joke that appeals to people like levant who blame minorities from pretty much everything that is wrong with canada

It doesn't matter who he is, what he does, and what the hell his politics are. He did nothing wrong, and persecuting him for doing nothing wrong is... wrong.

 

[CptStern]

sigh ..I've said all I can on the subject. It's obvious you have only a very superficial understanding of the issues involved ..which really isnt surprising but just makes it that much more of a collosal waste of time

 

[Nemesis6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dINRTHWkEME

The first time I met the complainant, the radical Muslim imam Syed Soharwardy, was when I debated him on CBC radio, nearly two years ago. The subject was the Danish cartoons.

As a part-time pundit, I do debates like that every week, but Soharwardy doesn't, and he wasn't used to being challenged so vigorously. I went about the rest of my day as usual; Soharwardy went to the police to ask them to arrest me.

They laughed him out of the police station, but the human rights commission welcomed him, and has chased me for two years now, using tax dollars and government bureaucrats. How much do you think that has cost Alberta taxpayers? $100,000? And we haven't even had the full hearing yet.

I discuss this sequence of events in this video clip. You can follow along in Soharwardy's absurd, chicken-scratched complaint here (my written response is here).

http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/how-the-complaint-came-about.html

Details of the complaint... quite interesting - The guy actually tried to have him arrested before this legal harassment.

 

[CptStern]

:upstare:

the human rights commission has an obligation to getting to the truth of the matter are you condemning them for doing their job? sounds to me like you're bitter that people do the job they're paid to do: investigate complaints ..do you have one of those jobs where you're not paid to do what you're supposed to do?

"I work on computers but they pay me to mop the floor"

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh lawd.

"Ban Nemisis, plz"
"Ban this guy, plz"

Of course, this is what happens to any reasonable debate these days:

"Hey! Man you disrespecting me? Take him out!"
"You've got to keep them seperated!"
"Hey! Man you talking back to me? Take him out!"
"You've got to keep them seperated!"

This might be Canadian law, but like everyone else here, I can still disagree with it.
Just like the Quran in the toilet scandal we had here and the harsh social reprisals afterward,
it's a campaign of intimidation coming from the bigoted,
ever-so-fearful, wings of militant minded theocrats.

 

[CptStern]

This might be Canadian law, but like everyone else here, I can still disagree with it.

what exactly are you disagreeing with? be as precise in your criticism as possible

 

[K e r b e r o s]

K.

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

communicate statements,
in a public place,
incite hatred against an identifiable group,
in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years;

or

an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

are established to be true
were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada

My beef in red. Suffice to say, a single complaint can put an abrupt stop to what was an innocent adventure into socio-political commentary and religious satire.
Now, the person responsible for republishing the cartoons is getting the, "talkin' to",
which I don't feel is appropriate given the fact, "comedy" not "hate" is the goal of these cartoons. It's irony. It's comedy.

Not genocide. Not hate.

---------------------------

The law seems pretty fail safe, right? They'll catch the malicious ones and free the innocent dolts, right?

Well, look at the obvious blackhole -- a complaint about a hate crime, can bring someone in to COURT. No legitimate evidence has to exist about it or even be gathered before hand. You're opinion about someone elses thoughts, for example, maybe you think they're being bigoted towards you're political, sexual, or racial dispositions, can still levy legal charges against them if you file that complaint.

A friend of mine in Canada, his name's Jacob for all intensive purposes, was arrested outside of British Columbia for getting into a defensive scuffle with some Canadian Hicks, after he called one of them a, "Shithead". One of them happened to be a little bit more tan then he was. Ridiculous? Sure. He wasn't charged for the scuffle but for his comments ... he was.

Sad, but it's actually true.

These laws can be read and accessed via: http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli.../federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

And I have to still say, this is something that I disagree with.

 

[CptStern]

K.



My beef in red. Suffice to say, someone can basically complain about you and you're already in the shit. To be specific, this case in general, where someone republished the cartoons is now getting the, "talking too."

you're wrong ..Le Devoir, a major newspaper reprinted the cartoons without a problem.

I fail to see why you people have such a hard time understanding such a basic issue ...look, if I go to the cops and say "Kerberos assaulted me, I want him put under arrest" the cops MUST file a report and bring you in for questioning to see if the charges are valid or not ..THAT'S THEIR JOB

Furthermore, it's not disturbing the peace when people can continue to live side by side with Moslems, even with a cartoon making they're prophet a diplomatic or military satire of modern day extremists.

your opinion is meaningless, you are in no position to interpret law, much less canadian law ..so taking a pedestrian view isnt good enough

However, the hole in the law is this. Just by complaining, you can say it disturbed your piece and still have any sort of art or speech, critical of a religious authority removed on you're offenses behalf.

I can completely fabricate an assault at a whim, it's the police' job to determine whether the charges have any merit ..the HRC is no different. This is fundamentally the same issue, but because the word "muslim" is thrown in there, it becomes an issue

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Le Devoir, a major newspaper reprinted the cartoons without a problem.

I heard about Le Devoir, so if they can reprint them why can't this man?

Is it also possible Le Devoir did it as a form of protest against the charges being placed against this individual?

I fail to see why you people have such a hard time understanding such a basic issue ...look, if I go to the cops and say "Kerberos assaulted me, I want him put under arrest" the cops MUST file a report and bring you in for questioning to see if the charges are valid or not ..THAT'S THEIR JOB

You caught a lot of flak from Nemisis, Raziaar, and a couple of other people. Please, don't -- I'm not you're enemy in this.

And I see you're point, trust me I do. It's the law there. But I still disagree with it. I mean, thank god I can't be arrested for calling people backwater hicks in my state.

Jesus, I'd be a 1st class felon about now!

..so taking a pedestrian view isnt good enough

It isn't? Aren't the, "pedestrians" the ones who would have the potential to choose whether or not to be offended?

Aren't the laws in place specifically for them and everyone else?

I can completely fabricate an assault at a whim, it's the police' job to determine whether the charges have any merit ..the HRC is no different. This is fundamentally the same issue, but because the word "muslim" is thrown in there, it becomes an issue

So, what I'm not getting, at least from various different sources is ... whether or not this man mentioned a personal bias or hatred against Moslems? I understand he reprinted the cartoons, so maybe you can help me in this.

... was it something he said?

 

[CptStern]

I heard about Le Devoir, so if they can reprint them why can't this man?

you know I'm tired of this ..please read the thread beginning to end and get back to me

Is it also possible Le Devoir did it as a form of protest against the charges being placed against this individual?

no ffs, you're clutching at straws

You caught a lot of flak from Nemisis, Raziaar, and a couple of other people. Please, don't -- I'm not you're enemy in this.

only because no one understood the goddam issues and were quick to point fingers when it wasnt at all justified ..I'm not making an enemy of anyone, I'm telling you how it is

And I see you're point, trust me I do. It's the law there. But I still disagree with it. I mean, thank god I can't be arrested for calling people backwater hicks in my state.

you cant be arrested for that in canada, the law is far more specific than just calling someone names

Jesus, I'd be a 1st class felon about now!

no you would not, there's a difference between calling someone a racist name and inciting hate ..read the Canadian Charter or rights pertainig to hatge crime ..it's all there

It isn't? Aren't the, "pedestrians" the ones who would have the potential to choose whether or not to be offended?

in this instance I mean this meaning of pedestrian: "common place"

So, what I'm not getting, at least from various different sources is ... whether or not this man mentioned a personal bias or hatred against Moslems? I understand he reprinted the cartoons, so maybe you can help me in this.

... was it something he said?

i dont know, read his complaint, LtDrebin posted it

 

[K e r b e r o s]

no ffs, you're clutching at straws

Humour me -- ffs?

 

[CptStern]

le devoir printed it and it had nothing to do with western standard ..they printed it because ..it was news ..no solidarity agenda no journalism brothers in arms etc ..in fact the western standard isnt well respected as a source of news, it has a neo conservative slant that's readily apparent to anyone who doesnt get their news from fox


oh and:

On February 23, 2006, Gordon Chong, Calgary's Crown Attorney decided against laying hate charges against the Western Standard. Chong felt that there was no evidence the publication intended to incite hatred against a specific group.

this entire thread is useless ..thanks Nemesis for wasting everyones time

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Humour me -- ffs?

For ****s sake

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh, thanks! Was wondering why that abbreviated was so popular, ... ffs!