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

N

Nemesis6

Newbie
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4&eurl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0B-lYfYXmM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHrtlO5Hg88

The opening statement speaks for itself, but the gist I get from it: The Canadian government has the right to subpoena you to meet with a phony commission which will check for mindcrimes... And I thought Canada was better on matters like that! :sleep:

This is like that deal in England with Channel 4 where the police took it upon themselves to persecute the makers of a documentary, except this time, the fault lies at both the Canadian government for having any part in forcing him to meet with these nutjobs, and the CHRC for... just being dumbasses I guess.
 
This is ridiculous. There is no reason to punish him.
 
Don't get it. could someone elaborate on this?

and crysis is spelled crisis. sorry, grammar Nazi.
 
Remember that whole scare with the comics of the prophet Muhhamed being printed in a Danish Newspaper? Well some Canadian papers printed them as well, and now the government is on their ass.
 
Gormanmod said:
Don't get it. could someone elaborate on this?

and crysis is spelled crisis. sorry, grammar Nazi.
Click to expand...

Sorry... I've been making that error since Crysis came out! :(

What I gathered is this: An Islamist Imam contacts an NGO and tries to get them to harass a newspaper for publishing cartoons of the Islamic prophet, Muhammed. The NGO subpoenes the editor, even though they have no legal power whatsoever to do so, and for some reason, the government forces the editor to comply with the subpoena -- Which is the initial meeting to see if there's grounds for a lawsuit.
 
So in other words, they posted pictures of anti terrorism, and now the government is terrorizing them. classic.
 
wow, nemesis having a kneejerk reaction bvordering on the retarded? nah it couldnt be

let me clue in the clueless ...canada has something called "inciting hate" which is a against the charter of human rights ..he does NOT have the right to free speech if it infringes on the rights of others ..this is clearly the case here it's just that idiots like to twist meaning to make it sound as if Canada is standing up for religion which it is not ..just like when Ernst Zundel, holocaust denier wrote anti-semetic pamphlets and books he was jailed for inciting hate


statement of the year (so far, I'msure shit for brains will top himself in a week or two)

"The Canadian government has the right to subpoena you to meet with a phony commission which will check for mindcrimes"

lol. what? :rolling:
 
If only I got it.

Canada is Canada. If they like their government then their happy. Their not in a trillion dollar war and flushing their money down the drain at least.
 
CptStern, I couldn't have said it better myself, inciting hatred is NEVER okay IMO, but the general concensus seems to have become that it's okay to mock and incite hatred towards jews because they're apparently all 'terrorists' and 'freedomhaters', I see all kinds of retarded newspapers making cartoons about Allah+Mohammad, calling Mohammad a pedophile etc.

Yet, I never once see any such newspaper making a mockery of christians, jesus, or jews for that matter.
 
Mohamed was a pedophile,you point is?


and also if you look you will find comics making fun of Jews iirc a comic was named "political comic of the year in Europe"
it showed sharon biting heads off Palestinian kids.
 
Nothing wrong was done. Nobody should be punished because of some alarmist religious idiots.
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
Nothing wrong was done. Nobody should be punished because of some alarmist religious idiots.
Click to expand...

Did you not read the whole bit Stern wrote about in Canada 'people NOT have the right to free speech if it infringes on the rights of others' because it incites hatred? Or were you too blinded by your ongoing intolerance for religion that it skipped you completely? :dozey:
 
If that comic was enough to warrant it being forbidden because it 'incites hatred'... that's pretty weak.

There's much stronger stuff all the time out there that doesn't get any airtime.

I don't feel that cartoon is worthy of prosecution at all.

Unless there's a different comic I'm not aware of that they're talking about?
 
CptStern said:
wow, nemesis having a kneejerk reaction bvordering on the retarded? nah it couldnt be

let me clue in the clueless ...canada has something called "inciting hate" which is a against the charter of human rights ..he does NOT have the right to free speech if it infringes on the rights of others ..this is clearly the case here it's just that idiots like to twist meaning to make it sound as if Canada is standing up for religion which it is not ..just like when Ernst Zundel, holocaust denier wrote anti-semetic pamphlets and books he was jailed for inciting hate


statement of the year (so far, I'msure shit for brains will top himself in a week or two)

"The Canadian government has the right to subpoena you to meet with a phony commission which will check for mindcrimes"

lol. what? :rolling:
Click to expand...

First off, stop saying "kneejerk", eh? It's getting annoying to hear that as your only argument.
Publishing cartoons is NOT inciting hatred, and this would have gone past easily if it wasn't for Islamist shitheads, just like when the catoons were initially published. And while I see what you're getting at with the jailing of Zundel, these cases are fundamentally different - And you should see the inherent problem with jailing people like Zundel and Lavant; It is, once again, fundamentally wrong. Especially when all you've is publish cartoons. Now, Stern, I wonder: If cartoons of Jesus were posted portraying him as a homosexual or a pedophile, would this very same thing happen? You know it wouldn't.

By the way - ORIGINAL POST UPDATED WITH FOURTH PART!
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Did you not read the whole bit Stern wrote about in Canada 'people NOT have the right to free speech if it infringes on the rights of others' because it incites hatred? Or were you too blinded by your ongoing intolerance for religion that it skipped you completely? :dozey:
Click to expand...

Since when does posting a picture of somebody's god or idol infringe upon their rights?

"Inciting hatred" is, quite simply, not enough. There is a virtually limitless amount of things that can be published that will piss people off. I see Democrats and Republicans boiled down into caricatures all the time. Christians get it too. As do creationists and evolution advocates. But I hardly see any member of these groups being "incited" beyond anything but mere annoyance.

The pictures in question infringed on nobody's rights, as far as I'm aware. The only reason anybody cares is because of the fear of violent Muslim reprisal - justified or not. Of course, I'm not much acquainted with Canadian media, so if this applies across the board and isn't being made a specific exception, I'll change my tune.
 
Remember that whole scare with the comics of the prophet Muhhamed being printed in a Danish Newspaper? Well some Canadian papers printed them as well, and now the government is on their ass.
Click to expand...

Man, there are Muslims who take offense at a bloody teddy bear, some will probably take offense at the change of the wind.

Why does anyone honestly give a **** about their bleating whimpering howler monkey screams as just another excuse to riot and break shit and be contemptuous hate filled dipshits?. A fundamentalist ignorant wanker is just that and deserves no special protection. Ironic how the biggest haters are given the most leverage.

Did you not read the whole bit Stern wrote about in Canada 'people NOT have the right to free speech if it infringes on the rights of others' because it incites hatred? Or were you too blinded by your ongoing intolerance for religion that it skipped you completely?
Click to expand...

Jesus, first Iran, now this, what is with some folk on these forums and their obsession with appeasement to people and ideologies that are frankly contemptuous.

People in Canada DO have the right to free speech, inciting hatred and freedom to publish cartoons are two things.

Calling for people to go kill a Muslim, thats inciting hatred, making a potentially insulting cartoon isn't. Freedom of speech also means having the freedom to potentially offend, but being offensive is hardly a criminal offense.



Theres rationality, logic, acceptance, and not just tolerance, but then theres going to far, to far like in the UK where hate preachers are allowed to stay even though they have absolutely no right to remain within the UK. Your perceived to insult Islam?, WOAH you know your going to regret it, a fundie Muslim insults the west and everything we hold dear?...carry on sir, we'll totally do jack shit.

The guy in the video is soooo completely right. Its not a stupid cartoon poking at a religious figure or religion that causes hate, if anything causes intolerance of Islam, and faith in general, it is every single act of every single ****tard fundamentalist who shows complete ignorance and contempt for other peoples and ways of life, which only in the end makes life harder for the bulk of moderate Muslims and religious adherents.

Freedom of speech in all its forms is a fundamental characteristics of western culture which sets us apart from dictatorships all over the world. To assault it on behalf of some hate filled failed attempt at human life might as well be defiling the corpses of our ancestors who have worked to give us those rights.


The only thing Muslims have a right to in western culture in regard to potentially offensive cartoons is to be allowed to take offense. Thats it. Thats all.
 
Absinthe said:
Since when does posting a picture of somebody's god or idol infringe upon their rights?

"Inciting hatred" is, quite simply, not enough. There is a virtually limitless amount of things that can be published that will piss people off. I see Democrats and Republicans boiled down into caricatures all the time. Christians get it too. As do creationists and evolution advocates. But I hardly see any member of these groups being "incited" beyond anything but mere annoyance.

The pictures in question infringed on nobody's rights, as far as I'm aware. The only reason anybody cares is because of the fear of violent Muslim reprisal - justified or not. Of course, I'm not much acquainted with Canadian media, so if this applies across the board and isn't being made a specific exception, I'll change my tune.
Click to expand...
QFT!

I guess these things infringe on people's rights too:
http://www.graphittidesigns.com/shop/files/images_backup/t_82171.jpg
http://vienna.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/09/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Brian

If you who think that this man should be persecuted, surely the Monty Python should be persecuted for making Life of Brian too, right?
 
Couldn't agree more. I'm at my maximum level of agreement here.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot I think... if they think THAT cartoon is worthy of somebody being prosecuted over but not all the other shit that gets thrown out there about other groups of people that is equally if not more offensive.

Political sensitivity gone WAY overboard.
 
Absinthe said:
Since when does posting a picture of somebody's god or idol infringe upon their rights?
Click to expand...

Well I don't make the rules on this, but I'd imagine it's when it's viewed as derogatory to their beliefs.

"Inciting hatred" is, quite simply, not enough. There is a virtually limitless amount of things that can be published that will piss people off. I see Democrats and Republicans boiled down into caricatures all the time. Christians get it too. As do creationists and evolution advocates. But I hardly see any member of these groups being "incited" beyond anything but mere annoyance.
Click to expand...

That Christian types generally don't bother about these things is probably because they are more tolerant (and used to it), but I wouldn't say this is a Muslim only thing. I recall an incident quite a few years back where some lads mag here in the UK had photo shopped a picture of one of the Hindu gods drinking beer for some travel article, and there was a national outcry from the Indian community over it. It might of seemed fairly innocuous to us, but it really enraged a people who are pretty peace loving ordinarily. If you don't have rules, then you give free reign to any form of bigotry to be published.
 
CptStern said:
wow, nemesis having a kneejerk reaction bvordering on the retarded? nah it couldnt be

let me clue in the clueless ...canada has something called "inciting hate" which is a against the charter of human rights ..he does NOT have the right to free speech if it infringes on the rights of others ..this is clearly the case here it's just that idiots like to twist meaning to make it sound as if Canada is standing up for religion which it is not ..just like when Ernst Zundel, holocaust denier wrote anti-semetic pamphlets and books he was jailed for inciting hate


statement of the year (so far, I'msure shit for brains will top himself in a week or two)

"The Canadian government has the right to subpoena you to meet with a phony commission which will check for mindcrimes"

lol. what? :rolling:
Click to expand...

How the fuck is posting the cartoons infringing on the rights of others? Were Muslims forced at gunpoint to read the paper? Were their children forced to do a presentation in school on "Mohammed the dirty pedophile"?

So the poor Muslims did not like the cartoon? Boo fucking hoo. They should get used to living in a free society where you encounter things that you don't like or that hurts you.

You should be able to say absolutely anything you want, except for a direct, non-intrepretable request for violence, as long as it as avoidable to those that do not wish to hear it. It's up to the person to decide if what he wants to say is appropriate, but it should NEVER be the government's call, EVER. That's freedom of speech. Anything less and it's just a farce.

You're insane for even defending this Stern, I thought more of you. :(
 
We're free to make derogatory cartoons against Winston Churchill, George Washington, Ghandi and the Dalai Lama and Jesus. We're even allowed to make cartoons joking about the holocaust, apparently.

What's so special about Muhammed, some guy who lived over a thousand years ago, that exempts him from being the figure of fun?
 
I remeber pictures caricaturized version of Muhammad, I don't see how this thing can violate human rights of Muslims... Just because he was a prophet of their religion 1500 years ago? That's silly.
 
Ugh, so much for bold lettering. The next parts have been added to the main post. There are now 3 new videos, I'll add them now to the original post.
 
There is a difference between a conviction and an investigation.
The people here are acting like the government of Canada has
convicted the newspaper already. If this were the case I could
understand most of the statements here, and would probably agree.

But this is not the case as far a I can see. The reason they are
doing this when it comes to Islam and not Christianity or any
other ideology is because the other ideologies know already that
nothing will come out of it, Islam apparently doesn't. If any
other group had complained they would have investigated. But they
don't bother.

Considering how much of a stir the cartoons have caused why
shouldn't there be an investigation? The government isn't saying
the Muslims are right and the newspaper is wrong. For all you
know the investigation is going to come to the same conclusion
you folks have come to.
 
PvtRyan said:
How the fuck is posting the cartoons infringing on the rights of others? Were Muslims forced at gunpoint to read the paper? Were their children forced to do a presentation in school on "Mohammed the dirty pedophile"?

So the poor Muslims did not like the cartoon? Boo fucking hoo. They should get used to living in a free society where you encounter things that you don't like or that hurts you.

You should be able to say absolutely anything you want, except for a direct, non-intrepretable request for violence, as long as it as avoidable to those that do not wish to hear it. It's up to the person to decide if what he wants to say is appropriate, but it should NEVER be the government's call, EVER. That's freedom of speech. Anything less and it's just a farce.

You're insane for even defending this Stern, I thought more of you. :(
Click to expand...



defending what? what the **** am I defending? what makes you think I'm defending anything except the fact that canadian authorities believe it infringews on the charter f freedoms ..really you ****ing people jump to every goddam concievable conclusion possible, except the correct one ..why not go ask the human rights commission why it crosses the line to inciting hate

have any of you seen the material in question? yet you all jump to a snap judgement without knowing the facts ..pathetic i you ask me
 
Gray Fox said:
There is a difference between a conviction and an investigation.
The people here are acting like the government of Canada has
convicted the newspaper already. If this were the case I could
understand most of the statements here, and would probably agree.

But this is not the case as far a I can see. The reason they are
doing this when it comes to Islam and not Christianity or any
other ideology is because the other ideologies know already that
nothing will come out of it, Islam apparently doesn't. If any
other group had complained they would have investigated. But they
don't bother.

Considering how much of a stir the cartoons have caused why
shouldn't there be an investigation? The government isn't saying
the Muslims are right and the newspaper is wrong. For all you
know the investigation is going to come to the same conclusion
you folks have come to.
Click to expand...

First of all, there should be neither. It's a disgrace to Canadian law that this has happened at all. It's not about if they've been convicted or not, it's that the government is, like the Midlands police in London, taking on people they have no legal authority or obligation to go after.

So, because things can/will happen when you insult Muhammed(I'd better say Sallalahu aleyhi wasallah just to be safe from the CHRW), THAT is a prosecutable offence? Because Muslims react more?! Positive racism! The Muslims apparently cannot fend for themselves, so the government has to. Well, actually they do, and people die, but it's the principle that's in focus here.

There shouldn't be an investigation because there's no grounds for it. It doesn't matter which way the investigation goes; you're still left with the bad taste of abuse of authority in your mouth afterwards, and no matter the outcome, you have done what you can to silence those who offend your religion. In other words, you win no matter what when you do legal harassment like this. The guy is doing the right thing by stonewalling these guys because he has no obligation to answer any questions about something that's not a crime.
 
I don't need to refer to the Human Rights Commission for education on this matter. There isn't some grave injustice I'm blind to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reprinting these cartoons, and any sordid happenings that result of it would be the fault of ignorant, censor-minded retaliation. Not any abridgment of human rights through freedom of expression.
 
Absinthe said:
I don't need to refer to the Human Rights Commission for education on this matter. There isn't some grave injustice I'm blind to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reprinting these cartoons, and any sordid happenings that result of it would be the fault of ignorant, censor-minded retaliation. Not any abridgment of human rights through freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

So what is, if this isn't?
 
Absinthe said:
I don't need to refer to the Human Rights Commission for education on this matter.
Click to expand...

you've commited it to memory then?

Absinthe said:
There isn't some grave injustice I'm blind to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reprinting these cartoons, and any sordid happenings that result of it would be the fault of ignorant, censor-minded retaliation.
Click to expand...

I thought you had commited the charter of rights to memory ...cuz if you had you'd know that this applies specifically to the charter of rights

Absinthe said:
Not any abridgment of human rights through freedom of expression.
Click to expand...


you're somehow qualified to make a judgement on the legaity of this particular issue? lease point out where in the charter of rights it says freedom iof expression allows inciting hate

your constitution is NOT our charter of freedoms ..your laws DO NOT APPLY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Channel 4 vindicated over Undercover Mosque
Replies
8
Views
1K
K e r b e r o s
K e r b e r o s
Back
Top