UN wants to make criticism of Islam a crime
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
The General assembly of UN is basically a talking shop, nothing more. They pass all kinds of resolutions; I don’t think anybody pays much attention to them.
It is possible that Islamic countries may be successful in getting criticism of Islam banned. But I would like to see them try to ban it in Canada, all Hell will break lose, similar to what happened when Ontario tried to introduce Sharia in Ontario.
I don’t know what is happening in USA, but Christopher Hitchins is dead wrong when it comes to Canada. There isn’t a law in Canada that makes blasphemy illegal, it would go directly against the Charter of Rights.
On the contrary, the recent decision by Supreme Court exonerated the prominent Native Indian leader (his name escapes me) of being a holocaust denier and being an anti-Semite.
The hate laws we have in Canada have a very high barrier to them, which has to be crossed before hate can be proved. In fact, I am not sure if anybody has so far been convicted using the hate laws (Zundel perhaps?).
Anyway, this news feature was done by Lou Dobbs of CNN. He is a well known conservative, well known Republican, and he has put a right wing slant on the news item. Same with Christopher Hitchins. He used to belong to the left, a few years ago he morphed into a politician of the far right.
I wouldn’t take anything either of them says seriously, unless confirmed by an independent source. One, I don’t think UN has the authority to pass a binding resolution and two, even if it did, most democracies such as USA and Canada would simply tell UN to get lost.
There is no way we are going to pass a law here giving special protection to Islam. That is simply fear mongering by the right wing.
It is possible that Islamic countries may be successful in getting criticism of Islam banned. But I would like to see them try to ban it in Canada, all Hell will break lose, similar to what happened when Ontario tried to introduce Sharia in Ontario.
I don’t know what is happening in USA, but Christopher Hitchins is dead wrong when it comes to Canada. There isn’t a law in Canada that makes blasphemy illegal, it would go directly against the Charter of Rights.
On the contrary, the recent decision by Supreme Court exonerated the prominent Native Indian leader (his name escapes me) of being a holocaust denier and being an anti-Semite.
The hate laws we have in Canada have a very high barrier to them, which has to be crossed before hate can be proved. In fact, I am not sure if anybody has so far been convicted using the hate laws (Zundel perhaps?).
Anyway, this news feature was done by Lou Dobbs of CNN. He is a well known conservative, well known Republican, and he has put a right wing slant on the news item. Same with Christopher Hitchins. He used to belong to the left, a few years ago he morphed into a politician of the far right.
I wouldn’t take anything either of them says seriously, unless confirmed by an independent source. One, I don’t think UN has the authority to pass a binding resolution and two, even if it did, most democracies such as USA and Canada would simply tell UN to get lost.
There is no way we are going to pass a law here giving special protection to Islam. That is simply fear mongering by the right wing.
Last edited:
Nothing hateful in that post, all the current wars seem to be instigated by and run by the same people for the monetary gain of the very same people, the Christian West. Even the 'suicide bomber' is an act of retaliation rather than being a first-strike attack. Demonize Iran as the 'ultimate aggressor' when they haven't invaded anybody in about 200 years. America still has a red face frome being expelled after 25 years of subverting violence against the weakest members of Iran's population. The Savak was a western inspire enforcement agency
Yeah, I'm with Tracy......fear mongering, not gonna happen.......but let me also make two points:
1. The problem here is not religion in general, but the United Nations.....
2. Who gives a rat's ass what the UN thinks, or does? It is irrelevant.
1. The problem here is not religion in general, but the United Nations.....
2. Who gives a rat's ass what the UN thinks, or does? It is irrelevant.
As a side note, it brings interesting questions of when a prophet should be respected as a religion. We've in the end given than mythic status to Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and even eventually Joeseph Smith (except in Muslim states).
At what point can someone write a book, give people instructions how to lead life and attracts a few million followers and claims to be sent from god, should his views be protected?
If Marx had believed in god isntead of being Atheist, would Marx be protected as prophet and communism his religion, the manifesto a scripture?
What about Jim Jones? Hell Godwin's law has something to contribute too.
At what point can someone write a book, give people instructions how to lead life and attracts a few million followers and claims to be sent from god, should his views be protected?
If Marx had believed in god isntead of being Atheist, would Marx be protected as prophet and communism his religion, the manifesto a scripture?
What about Jim Jones? Hell Godwin's law has something to contribute too.
You mean like the Blessed Adam Smith and his prophetic Invisible Hand? I so enjoy watching his world view play out in the markets!
You are only saying that because your Thetan levels are so off.
Side note: Scientology never full claims to be a religion in many countries, because of their laws on religious freedoms (ie, anyone can make copies of holy books, aka, books by Hubbard that are still under copyright) and religious transparency.
Side note: Scientology never full claims to be a religion in many countries, because of their laws on religious freedoms (ie, anyone can make copies of holy books, aka, books by Hubbard that are still under copyright) and religious transparency.
No doubt there are people in Canada (and USA) who would like to give special protection to Islam, to make any criticism of Islam punishable by life without parole in Canada and by beheading or death by stoning in USA (well, we don’t have death penalty here in Canada).
But opposition will be almost universal to any law which protects Islam against any criticism. That is one step away from Sharia dictatorship. When Ontario was considering a report by the nutty Marian Boyd that Sharia should be introduced in Ontario, the opposition was almost universal, you couldn’t’ find anybody who supported enactment of Sharia in Ontario (except Muslims, of course).
So it ain’t happening. But conspiracy theorists like to raise bogeymen like this from time to time.
As a side note, it brings interesting questions of when a prophet should be respected as a religion. We've in the end given than mythic status to Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and even eventually Joeseph Smith (except in Muslim states).
Zzarchov, who says a religion or a prophet should be respected? As far as I am concerned, anything and everything is open to criticism, in a free society, people are free to criticize everything. Hell, here in Canada we even permit people to openly plot the breakup of Canada. In a way, that could be considered the ultimate crime, ultimate treason. If we permit that, why not criticism of any religion, or any Prophet or Messiah?
Thus I think newspapers had the perfect right to print the cartoons about Mohammed, which resulted in so many riots (and ironically, death of Muslims) in the Islamic dictatorships.
The cartoons were published in Canada, with the publisher suffering no penalty, in spite of our hate crime laws. It was correctly determined that criticizing or making fun of Mohammed in no way expressed hate towards Muslims.
So as far as I am concerned, nobody is above criticism. We have freedom of religion in Canada, but also freedom of speech, and freedom of speech is the most fundamental of rights, trumping the freedom of religion.
As an Atheist, I have criticized most religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.) in these and canada.com forums. If anybody doesn’t like it and gets offended, that is just too bad.
Zzarchov, who says a religion or a prophet should be respected? As far as I am concerned, anything and everything is open to criticism, in a free society, people are free to criticize everything. Hell, here in Canada we even permit people to openly plot the breakup of Canada. In a way, that could be considered the ultimate crime, ultimate treason. If we permit that, why not criticism of any religion, or any Prophet or Messiah?
Thus I think newspapers had the perfect right to print the cartoons about Mohammed, which resulted in so many riots (and ironically, death of Muslims) in the Islamic dictatorships.
The cartoons were published in Canada, with the publisher suffering no penalty, in spite of our hate crime laws. It was correctly determined that criticizing or making fun of Mohammed in no way expressed hate towards Muslims.
So as far as I am concerned, nobody is above criticism. We have freedom of religion in Canada, but also freedom of speech, and freedom of speech is the most fundamental of rights, trumping the freedom of religion.
As an Atheist, I have criticized most religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.) in these and canada.com forums. If anybody doesn’t like it and gets offended, that is just too bad.
This couldn't be any further from the truth. Freedom of Speech outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights is not guaranteed, but is subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." [quoted from the Canadian Charter of Rights]
Logical reasoning based on these words would dictate "blasphemous" opinions in Canada are illegal or criminal if society deems it to be. Which would explain many occurrences in Canada where people like Mark Steyn (or more specifically MacLean's magazine) are sued for "Islamaphobia". Ernst Zundel was convicted for 1 year in jail for his opinions on the holocaust. Members of Baptist churches were also condemned and exiled from Canada for their opinions on homosexuality. There are many cases as well, where citizens in Canada would have websites hosted in America and convicted for it's content. So no, Canada does not enjoy the luxury of freedom of speech as you prescribe.
At the same time anti-semitic should cease to be a word then, protection for one is a tilted playing field. Anti-jewish cartoons would not have been tolerated.
As far as breaking up Canada it wasn't properly 'joined' so there is nothing to break-up. Go find the results of the vote by the people that asked the question, "Should the Provinces join together to form a country called Canada?" Constitutional matters can only be changed by a public vote, that stipulation was stated to be unchangeable ever since it was introduced.
A4NoOb, welcome to the forum.
Which would explain many occurrences in Canada where people like Mark Steyn (or more specifically MacLean's magazine) are sued for "Islamaphobia".
Sure Mark Steyn was sued (or more accurately, I think there was a complaint lodged with the Human Rights Tribunal against him). The Islamists who launched the complaint had a perfect right to do so. Anybody can sue anybody else; anybody can make a complaint to Human Rights Tribunal.
However, Steyn (or MacLean’s) was not convicted of hate crime, or of any human rights violations, the complaint went nowhere.
Ernst Zundel was convicted for 1 year in jail for his opinions on the holocaust.
This is one instance where I agree with the hate crime provision, the holocaust denier, Zundel deserved to be convicted.
Members of Baptist churches were also condemned and exiled from Canada for their opinions on homosexuality.
I am not familiar with this case, who was exiled from Canada? Was he/she a Canadian citizen? If so, how can he be exiled? Was it a religious right member from USA stirring up trouble here in Canada? Then he deserved to be kicked out.
Could you give more details about the case, I am not familiar with it. Anyway, it is nonsense to say that they were exiled, Canadian citizens cannot be exiled form Canada.
There are many cases as well, where citizens in Canada would have websites hosted in America and convicted for it's content.
Again, I am not familiar with this case either, who was convicted? For what crime? Do you have a web link to this? Give a web page reference please.
You really haven’t made you case. As far as I can see, freedom of speech is strong and sacrosanct in Canada. Recently you may be aware that a prominent Native Indian leader was acquitted of charges of being a holocaust denier and being anti-Semitic. Courts held that his anti-Jewish utterances did not amount to hate.
Hardly anybody is ever convicted under hate crime legislation, though there may have been a few prosecutions.
Which would explain many occurrences in Canada where people like Mark Steyn (or more specifically MacLean's magazine) are sued for "Islamaphobia".
Sure Mark Steyn was sued (or more accurately, I think there was a complaint lodged with the Human Rights Tribunal against him). The Islamists who launched the complaint had a perfect right to do so. Anybody can sue anybody else; anybody can make a complaint to Human Rights Tribunal.
However, Steyn (or MacLean’s) was not convicted of hate crime, or of any human rights violations, the complaint went nowhere.
Ernst Zundel was convicted for 1 year in jail for his opinions on the holocaust.
This is one instance where I agree with the hate crime provision, the holocaust denier, Zundel deserved to be convicted.
Members of Baptist churches were also condemned and exiled from Canada for their opinions on homosexuality.
I am not familiar with this case, who was exiled from Canada? Was he/she a Canadian citizen? If so, how can he be exiled? Was it a religious right member from USA stirring up trouble here in Canada? Then he deserved to be kicked out.
Could you give more details about the case, I am not familiar with it. Anyway, it is nonsense to say that they were exiled, Canadian citizens cannot be exiled form Canada.
There are many cases as well, where citizens in Canada would have websites hosted in America and convicted for it's content.
Again, I am not familiar with this case either, who was convicted? For what crime? Do you have a web link to this? Give a web page reference please.
You really haven’t made you case. As far as I can see, freedom of speech is strong and sacrosanct in Canada. Recently you may be aware that a prominent Native Indian leader was acquitted of charges of being a holocaust denier and being anti-Semitic. Courts held that his anti-Jewish utterances did not amount to hate.
Hardly anybody is ever convicted under hate crime legislation, though there may have been a few prosecutions.
"At the same time anti-semitic should cease to be a word then, protection for one is a tilted playing field. Anti-jewish cartoons would not have been tolerated."
There is anti-everything and pro-everything. The only reason that you hear about on or the other is because of the voice of the offended group. We poke fun at each other and others poke back. Most of the time you don't hear about it because the group who is offended is secure enough with their beliefs that they do not let it get to them. But, every once in a while someone crosses the line and makes a physical attack, that is when everyone shakes their heads. Some groups are so strick with themselves that they can not live up to their own expectations, so must lash out at others to make themselves look good within their chosen group.
A lot of generalization there, but you should be able to figure it out.
There is anti-everything and pro-everything. The only reason that you hear about on or the other is because of the voice of the offended group. We poke fun at each other and others poke back. Most of the time you don't hear about it because the group who is offended is secure enough with their beliefs that they do not let it get to them. But, every once in a while someone crosses the line and makes a physical attack, that is when everyone shakes their heads. Some groups are so strick with themselves that they can not live up to their own expectations, so must lash out at others to make themselves look good within their chosen group.
A lot of generalization there, but you should be able to figure it out.
I feel I should be able to a whack at any religion at any time. I'm sick and tired of giving up rights to special interest groups founded in fantasy.
Haha thank you.
However the Human Rights Tribunal has government funding, which is completely inexcusable considering the level of harassment the Human Rights Gestapo has made against controversial people like Mark Steyn. So while the court fees for Steyn come out of his own pocket, the Human Rights Gestapo endures no financial burden (in fact, us tax payers are the ones paying for their court cases -____-). An extremity of this would be Ezra Levant who grossed a total of $100, 000 of legal fees to put off the Human Rights Tribunal.
Then you contradicted your initial statement.
I never meant to imply that these were Canadian citizens. The point is freedom of speech in Canada has a definite line; and that would be being politically incorrect. It is the principle of exiling people for their opinions which makes Canada far less free than you depict it.
Terry Tremaine and Glenn Bahr come to mind. They inconspicuously posted on American cites (stormfront) and were raided and convicted from Internet access (along with fees). At least they weren't sent to jail like Bill Noble who can enjoy four months of prison thanks to our erroneous free speech laws. To be more specific he was accounted for violating the Criminal Code section against wilful promotion of hatred.
Would you like me to go on? I would gladly give you more examples if you want.
For example Brad Love being sent to jail for letters sent to politicians and parole regiments forbidding him to write any letters to politicians for three years. Tom Winnicki was sentenced to probation to cease posting "hateful messages" on the Internet and later convicted for nine months in prison for violating his probation. Famous Paul Fromm was fired from being a high school teacher for his "hateful opinions" within his private abode. Paul was later convicted for $30, 000 in a libel case concerning scandalous Richard Warman.
The Ontario Government has spent $200, 000 in order to keep the political police active in censorship. People like Alexan Kulbashian, Jessica Beaumont, Carian Donnelly were raided by the police for "discrimination against persons or groups of persons on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, and disability, by repeatedly communicating messages through an Internet website." James Keegstra was charged for hate-speech and fired from his position of public school teaching. If you want more examples please, don't hesitate to ask.
If this is not evidence for the racism in our Liberal- Appointed Justice System, then I can say Canada is beyond help. Here we have a Native Indian Leader, a minority, who is accused of charges much worse than Ernst Zundel, and he is acquitted. To quote from the Liberal Toronto Star, he "blamed Jews for causing World War II, called them a 'disease', and suggested Hitler was justified in launching the Holocaust." How do we compare this to Ernst Zundel who merely questioned the number of Jews slaughtered? There is a clear bias in our Canadian Justice System. Not everyone is equal under the law, minorities have an exemplary status.