UN wants to make criticism of Islam a crime
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
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.
A4NoOb, that may be, but the point is, he was acquitted, the system worked. When a journalist writes an article for public consumption, he does run the risk that somebody may be offended and may do something about it. It is all part of the job. But the point is, the system worked.
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.
Now that is a separate issue, funding for human rights commission. I personally think it serves a useful purpose. There are many cases which are not really worth going to court over; such cases could be settled at the lower level, by the Human Rights Commission.
Court trials can be expensive; Human Rights Commission is relatively inexpensive. In many cases it is to the advantage of both parties to settle the issue at a lower level, rather than go to courts. And for those who are not satisfied with the decision of the Commission, there is always the resort to the court system, after the Commission has ruled.
Quote:
This is one instance where I agree with the hate crime provision, the holocaust denier, Zundel deserved to be convicted.
Then you contradicted your initial statement.
I did nothing of the sort. There are some utterances, some crimes which are truly horrible and they need to be dealt with by the courts. Zundel was one such case.
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.
Oh, so my hunch was correct. It was some religious right operative from USA which was trying to stir up trouble in Canada (when you said Baptist Church, that was the giveaway, you probably meant Southern Baptist, the far right white church). So he (or she or they) deserved to be kicked out.
Terry Tremaine and Glenn Bahr come to mind.
I really cannot comment on it without knowing the full story. Could you give a reference to web page?
For example Brad Love being sent to jail for letters sent to politicians
Same comment. Please give a web page, so I can read it myself and form an opinion.
Here we have a Native Indian Leader, a minority, who is accused of charges much worse than Ernst Zundel, and he is acquitted.
Now here we can argue as to whose crime was the worse, and probably not come to an agreement. But the point is, a person may make anti-Semitic statement and still not be convicted of hate.
A4NoOb, that may be, but the point is, he was acquitted, the system worked. When a journalist writes an article for public consumption, he does run the risk that somebody may be offended and may do something about it. It is all part of the job. But the point is, the system worked.
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.
Now that is a separate issue, funding for human rights commission. I personally think it serves a useful purpose. There are many cases which are not really worth going to court over; such cases could be settled at the lower level, by the Human Rights Commission.
Court trials can be expensive; Human Rights Commission is relatively inexpensive. In many cases it is to the advantage of both parties to settle the issue at a lower level, rather than go to courts. And for those who are not satisfied with the decision of the Commission, there is always the resort to the court system, after the Commission has ruled.
Quote:
This is one instance where I agree with the hate crime provision, the holocaust denier, Zundel deserved to be convicted.
Then you contradicted your initial statement.
I did nothing of the sort. There are some utterances, some crimes which are truly horrible and they need to be dealt with by the courts. Zundel was one such case.
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.
Oh, so my hunch was correct. It was some religious right operative from USA which was trying to stir up trouble in Canada (when you said Baptist Church, that was the giveaway, you probably meant Southern Baptist, the far right white church). So he (or she or they) deserved to be kicked out.
Terry Tremaine and Glenn Bahr come to mind.
I really cannot comment on it without knowing the full story. Could you give a reference to web page?
For example Brad Love being sent to jail for letters sent to politicians
Same comment. Please give a web page, so I can read it myself and form an opinion.
Here we have a Native Indian Leader, a minority, who is accused of charges much worse than Ernst Zundel, and he is acquitted.
Now here we can argue as to whose crime was the worse, and probably not come to an agreement. But the point is, a person may make anti-Semitic statement and still not be convicted of hate.
Did that sign on the right appear in the original broadcast? @the 1min mark
WOW a10 min broadcast and Jews were not mentioned once! No wonder in that they already have those measures in place already. Even references about the US only mentioned Christians, and they got that part wrong.
The final comment (American broadcaster) basically said the UN can go fuk themselves if they think the US will ever bend to their will. More hipprocracy in that the US was crying and screaming at the UN to allow them to go to war on several occasions.
WOW a10 min broadcast and Jews were not mentioned once! No wonder in that they already have those measures in place already. Even references about the US only mentioned Christians, and they got that part wrong.
The final comment (American broadcaster) basically said the UN can go fuk themselves if they think the US will ever bend to their will. More hipprocracy in that the US was crying and screaming at the UN to allow them to go to war on several occasions.
The key word is convicted, just lately that 'not-guilty' came after 6 years of being in court charged with a crime, the 1st time he was found guilty and fined so where does the 'freedom part' come in. Even with the courts out of the picture the Jewish community can (and has) made his life less that it was before.
Yet a broadcast can have 'fuk Islam and their bitch-ass prophet' and not a peep, that includes people on this board who watched the clip. Islam can be treated this way but not the Jews, at least it's easy to tell who is wearing the collars of submission.
The system doesn't work. I don't see why Mark Steyn should face a prosecutor who is funded with Steyn's own money. There is a difference from a person having the equality to use his/her own money in a libel suit from a person using government funds in a libel suit. I'm assuming this is a non-issue.
I can basely say that "settling to lower levels" by bureaucratic terms is shutting people up. In any libel case, it is under basic principles of equality that people use their own money to finance legalities. The fact that the government will arbitrarily fund law suits which in many cases are baseless, shows how ineffective it is. For the government to take sides (and it is very easy to say considering the victims, that the Human Rights Gestapo is a political tool) shows nothing but bias.
I would say people like Ezra Levant would heavily disagree with your statement.
Then maybe I should elaborate. When it comes to freedom of speech, being one of the most foundational freedoms entitled to citizens, there is no such thing as "free speech with limited provisions". It is a black and white issue, where people have to freedom to speak with a willing audience, or don't. In the case of Ernst Zundel, Canada determined his opinions too controversial for the standard citizen and convicted him a criminal. That's inconsistent with previously believing Canada's status on free speech is sacrosanct.
People were deserving of exiled status? People don't enter Canada to "stir up trouble" (to grossly paraphrase someone's genuine opinions).
Terry Tremaine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Brad Love Back In Jail For Writing Letters to Local Newspaper
Yes I would actually like to hear your arguments. More importantly your jurisdiction giving you the divine right to determine the severity of one's opinion over another.
Correction, an Indian may make an anti-Semetic statement and still not be convicted of hate.
In this case it was his words to the reporter that was instrumental in the not guilty outcome of the 2nd trial. "I don't want to argue with you about the Jews" The 1st one found him guilty. That is not freedom of speech, that is freedom to carry a lawyer around with you at all times so you don't get charged. Freedom means no charges at all.
He was not acquitted, they decided not to go after him at all when he tried to challenge the constitutional nature of the "system"
Human Rights Commission is brutally expensive as you have no right to an attorney and must fund your own, not that it matters since you are not afforded the legal protections in all civilized nations. You can be charged for the same "Crime" twice for instance, not that they would need to, since they have a 100% conviction rate. When you don't need rules of evidence, the ability to cross examin or any number of other fundementals its easy to get that kinda conviction rate.
No, the courts should handle all cases. If you wanted to be truly horrible, charge him under the tribunal system. 100% conviction rate, he has to pay his own defense, he can be charged multiple times for the same event...
Provided you aren't white, which is bigotry and mindless at that. White people are not the only racists in the world.
Then why not campaign for Canada to withdraw its membership from the UN? I think some members of the Libertarian Party of Canada would support that.
Bear in mind though that there is no contradiction between opposition to criminalizing criticism of religion and opposing disrespect for religious communities. Woud I support a law criminalizing rude behaviour towards my neighbour? No. Would I oppose rude behaviour towards my neighbour? Yes. Same with criticism of Islam. I can accept respectful criticism of Islam, but those cartoons were quite rude to say the least. No they shouldn't necessrily be legally banned, but that doesn't mean we should take every opportunity to disrespect people within the confines of the law.
Machjo, I am pretty much in agreement with what you say. If you want to oppose disrespect for religious communities (or indeed for anything or anybody), that is your business.
Just as a newspaper has the right to publish cartoons about Mohammed, you have the right to disagree with the newspaper, right not to buy the newspaper, even the right to organize a boycott of the newspaper. That all comes under the heading of free speech. Just as the newspaper has the right of free speech, so do you, and you are free to disagree with the newspaper.
However, a couple of things are not acceptable. One is government restricting free speech, banning the publishing of such cartoon (nobody has brought in such a ban anyway). The other is Islam’s hotheads issuing a fatwa for killing the journalist who published the cartoons.
Such fatwas are routinely issued in Islamic states. If the Mullahs or Ayatollahs don’t like something somebody in the West said about Islam, out goes a fatwa for his/her death. Then all it needs is one hothead to carry out the fatwa.
All such fatwas accomplish is they give Islam a bad name. But there have been several killings by such fatwa by Islamic hotheads (I think there was one in Sweden a few months ago).
So if you don’t like something somebody says, by all means express you disagreement, protest, perhaps even sue in the court of law, take any legitimate action you wish.
Perhaps if islam wasn't the religion of terrorism they would not be faced with this problem. It would also be a violation of our right to freedom of speech. The UN should be disbanded as it is no longer relevant and has become a colosial waste of money.
He was not acquitted, they decided not to go after him at all when he tried to challenge the constitutional nature of the "system"
Zzarchov, I am not totally familiar with the details, I will take your word for it. But I do remember, he did not suffer any penalties as a result of the complaint to the Human Rights Commission.
You can be charged for the same "Crime" twice for instance, not that they would need to, since they have a 100% conviction rate. When you don't need rules of evidence, the ability to cross examine or any number of other fundementals its easy to get that kinda conviction rate.
My understanding is that the proceedings at HRC are more informal than in a court of law, so what you say is not really surprising. It is quite possible rules of evidence may be more relaxes, I don’t know.
However, I do know that if anybody is not satisfied with the decision handed down by HRC, he has the right to challenge it in the courts. So where is the problem? HRC is one level below the courts, an attempt to see if the complaint can be settled informally and there by lighten some of the burden on the courts.
Zzarchov, I am not totally familiar with the details, I will take your word for it. But I do remember, he did not suffer any penalties as a result of the complaint to the Human Rights Commission.
You can be charged for the same "Crime" twice for instance, not that they would need to, since they have a 100% conviction rate. When you don't need rules of evidence, the ability to cross examine or any number of other fundementals its easy to get that kinda conviction rate.
My understanding is that the proceedings at HRC are more informal than in a court of law, so what you say is not really surprising. It is quite possible rules of evidence may be more relaxes, I don’t know.
However, I do know that if anybody is not satisfied with the decision handed down by HRC, he has the right to challenge it in the courts. So where is the problem? HRC is one level below the courts, an attempt to see if the complaint can be settled informally and there by lighten some of the burden on the courts.
Canada cannot disband the UN. At most, it could withdraw its membership from the UN.