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

[Absinthe]

your constitution is NOT our charter of freedoms ..your laws DO NOT APPLY

I'm not saying US constitution applies, Stern. Or that your understanding of Canadian law is wrong. I'm saying that in this case, it is unfair. Canadian charter of rights or not.

It can be argued that these images do incite hatred. That does not by itself make their publishing worthy of a human rights investigation.

 

[Gormanmod]

I think we can all agree that Canada has f'd up people's rights, but is a good country in general.

 

[Raziaar]

I think we can all agree that Canada has f'd up people's rights, but is a good country in general.

I wouldn't say that.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

lol what a load of BS

 

[15357]

CptStern: Approving Censorship since 2008..... BC.






I kid.

 

[Mr Stabby]

This isn't hate speech, even if it were, censorship is still wrong.

 

[Nemesis6]

Seventh video is up now -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqD-KYRopA0

 

[[Matt]]

That opening statement was awesome... I dont have time to watch the rest right now but i certainly will later on!

 

[Raziaar]

The guy certainly is a skillful speaker.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not saying US constitution applies, Stern. Or that your understanding of Canadian law is wrong. I'm saying that in this case, it is unfair. Canadian charter of rights or not.

you contradict yourself here:

It can be argued that these images do incite hatred.

full stop ..everything else is meaningless ..the law must be applied WITHOUT prejudice ..if something incites hate against a specific group it is against the charter of rights and freedoms. It's exactly the same justification that was used against Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel because his pamphlets incite hate towards jews ..but Nemesis wouldnt even dream of protesting Zundel's appearance in front of the Human rights Commission even though it's THE EXACT SAME REASONING as this current case because Zundel incited hate towards jews ..Nemesis is a hypocrite, that much is clear but I expect the rest of you to at least have some measure of level headedness

That does not by itself make their publishing worthy of a human rights investigation.

yes it does, it is against the law, it should be investigated by the party responsible for policing the law; it falls under the Human Rights COmmisions jurisdiction ..I dont hear anyone protesting speeding tickets for those who speed over the limit ..you break the law you face the consequences ..it is in place to protect ALL canadians from hate, plain and simple



now if any one of you wants to challenge the Human Rights Commission's decision please present your case as to why the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply ...anything else including PERSONAL OPINION is meaningless ..we do not abide by America's laws, the UK's or anyone else's laws

 

[Raziaar]

Such a double edged sword here, and it reeks of hypocrisy. Those comics are no worse than the stuff you CONSTANTLY post about Christianity. The images and such.

Yet you're feeling it's perfectly fine to do what you do, yet they can't do what they do? Why? Because they're subject to Canadian laws and you're not?

I'm sorry, but that's serious hypocrisy.

All those Jesus comics, all those Muhammad comics, all those Jewish comics, and even ones that parody other religions not mentioned here are all perfectly legitimate to be published and flaunted without any sort of punishment.

That's the only logical solution in this situation, considering NONE of them are worthy of 'inciting hatred', except for the stupid kneejerk dumbasses who hate the people who make them.

yes it does, it is against the law, it should be investigated by the party responsible for policing the law; it falls under the Human Rights COmmisions jurisdiction ..I dont hear anyone protesting speeding tickets for those who speed over the limit ..you break the law you face the consequences ..it is in place to protect ALL canadians from hate, plain and simple

I don't want to hear you criticize or question another American law again.

 

[CptStern]

explain your point ..dont just throw in accusations without explaining your reasoning

 

[Mr Stabby]

the cartoons aren't as offensive as the average episode of south park, if you ban those cartoons to be truly unbiased you'd have to ban anything that anyone found offensive.

 

[CptStern]

Such a double edged sword here, and it reeks of hypocrisy. Those comics are no worse than the stuff you CONSTANTLY post about Christianity. The images and such.

are you absolutely certain which comics led to the investigation? because without the comics in question, without the newspaper article he wrote in question we're just pissing in the wind ..discussing things like christian comics or the danish comics and this specific case is worthless without the material in question

Yet you're feeling it's perfectly fine to do what you do, yet they can't do what they do?

apples and oranges, the images in question ARE not inciting hate, not under the guidelines of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ..if I show a a pic of a money grubbing shylock Jewish stwerotype and then go on to write an article about how jews are money grubbing shylocks I would be inciting hate ..this is exactly the same situation as this current case

Why? Because they're subject to Canadian laws and you're not?

explained above

I'm sorry, but that's serious hypocrisy.

then you dont understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy

All those Jesus comics, all those Muhammad comics, all those Jewish comics, and even ones that parody other religions not mentioned here are all perfectly legitimate to be published and flaunted without any sort of punishment.

says who? you? since when do you table laws in canada? the article was published in canada, it is contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms to publish ANY material that is inciting hate. Clearly the human rights commission felt they had a case ..if you want to challenge their justification, please be my guest ....but to sit there in judgement based on nothing more than your own personal convictions is painting half the picture at best ..your opinions do not apply to canadian law

That's the only logical solution in this situation, considering NONE of them are worthy of 'inciting hatred'

what authority do you have in making that judgement ..what credentials do you have to back up your opinion? what research have you presented that contradicts the Human rights commissions findings? are you a lawyer who has evidence that they overstepped their bounds? please end the suspense and presnet your evidence

except for the stupid kneejerk dumbasses who hate the people who make them.

reading an article on the internets has magically trasformed you into someone who knows enough about cnadian laws (specific to hate and the charter of rights and freedoms) to make an INFORMED opinion?

I don't want to hear you criticize or question another American law again.

bullshit ..not the sam ething ..had this happened in the US I would have said the same thing: the law MUST be applied EQUALLY or it is meaningless

 

[CptStern]

the cartoons aren't as offensive as the average episode of south park, if you ban those cartoons to be truly unbiased you'd have to ban anything that anyone found offensive.

which cartoons? which ones are SPECIFIC to this case ..please post the material in question ..without it your just blowing a lot of hot air

but it is clear you dont understand this case at all ..finding something "offensive" is not the point ..the point is defending a persons right to be free from prejudice, free from bigotry, free from being targeted due to their race, creed, religion ..this is a fundamental right you people are willing to throw away based on nothing more than a ****ing cartoon and people too stupid to recognise when they're being hypocritical


I am willing to bet not a single one of you would protest the Human Rights Commission investigating a publisher publishing articles on Holocaust denial - this is EXACTLY the same scenario but because the people in question are muslim you turn a blind eye to your own hypocrisy

 

[15357]

I don't understand why Stern is against/insults my country's system of censoring communist and other undemocratic websites and literature. They incite hate too! If you go to any website censored by KISCOM, you'll most likely see on the front page some sort of rallying cry to revolt and to kill the "oppressors" and the rich.


Revolting is against the law here, theres a thing called civil disorder crime, and the national security law, the anti communist law, etc. They were all made democratically with very good reasons, and they are laws, so why is he against those, if

yes it does, it is against the law, it should be investigated by the party responsible for policing the law; it falls under the Human Rights COmmisions jurisdiction ..I dont hear anyone protesting speeding tickets for those who speed over the limit ..you break the law you face the consequences ..it is in place to protect ALL canadians from hate, plain and simple

 

[CptStern]

I don't understand why Stern is against/insults my country's system of censoring communist and other undemocratic websites and literature. They incite hate too!

how do they incite hate BASED ON RACE, CREED, RELIGION? not the same goddam thing Numbers

you people are far too literal

 

[15357]

how do they incite hate BASED ON RACE, CREED, RELIGION? not the same goddam thing Numbers

you people are far too literal

Please, explain to me why something that incites revolution and/or riots, which will almost certainly hurt or kill many more people than racism, or be on the same level as religious hatred, should not be banned?

 

[Nemesis6]

full stop ..everything else is meaningless ..the law must be applied WITHOUT prejudice ..if something incites hate against a specific group it is against the charter of rights and freedoms. It's exactly the same justification that was used against Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel because his pamphlets incite hate towards jews ..but Nemesis wouldnt even dream of protesting Zundel's appearance in front of the Human rights Commission even though it's THE EXACT SAME REASONING as this current case because Zundel incited hate towards jews ..Nemesis is a hypocrite, that much is clear but I expect the rest of you to at least have some measure of level headedness

Would you please stop talking on my behalf? It's getting creepy. There's a difference between printing cartoons and printing nazi pamphlets, etc, but that doesn't stop me from criticizing him being punished for doing so. See what just happened there? You lied about what I would or wouldn't do, and you made a fool of yourself because of it. Lesson learned: You need to stop talking on people's behalf, because it can blow up in your face, like it did here, which leads me to something I wanna ask of you: Stop doing so. Please.

But anyway, this Levant guy has put up the best possible defence: Stonewalling any accusations of mindcrimes, because that cannot get him convicted of anything in the Western World. He answered what they wanted to hear - That he did it to offend. Aside from the obvious problems associated with legal harassment like this, he will win either way: If he's convicted, the Canadian government is literally gonna catch hell for it. If he isn't, the CHRW will lose any credibility they have, because think about it: They charge him for offending some whackjobs feelings, he admits that is his intention, and if they fail to convict him on what they said out for to begin with, well, then their authority = nil.

 

[CptStern]

Would you please stop talking on my behalf? It's getting creepy. There's a difference between printing cartoons and printing nazi pamphlets, etc, but that doesn't stop me from criticizing him being punished for doing so.

you can criticise the decision to punish him for VIOLATING the human rights charter specific to inciting hate ..but that doesnt make you right ..especially since you have absolutely NO clue as to how any of this pertains to the Charter of rights ...it is you who are making a fool of himself (which is something you excel at) because you are making a snap judgement without having all the information ..typical Nemesis brand kneejerkism

See what just happened there? You lied about what I would or wouldn't do, and you made a fool of yourself because of it. Lesson learned: You need to stop talking on people's behalf, because it can blow up in your face, like it did here, which leads me to something I wanna ask of you: Stop doing so. Please.

I lied? what the hell are you babbling about? you're too thick headed to see when you're being hypocrtical, specifically when you make this statement without even knowing a shred of the issue in question:

There's a difference between printing cartoons and printing nazi pamphlets

what is the difference SPECIFIC TO THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS? you cannot make that statement without qualntifying it ..you havent done so therefore your statement is completely meaningless

 

[CptStern]

Please, explain to me why something that incites revolution and/or riots, which will almost certainly hurt or kill many more people than racism, or be on the same level as religious hatred, should not be banned?

who the **** cares about any of this? how does that apply to the issue at hand? this is about canadian law, your laws DO NOT APPLY

 

[Nemesis6]

you can criticise the decision to punish him for VIOLATING the human rights charter specific to inciting hate ..but that doesnt make you right ..especially since you have absolutely NO clue as to how any of this pertains to the Charter of rights ...it is you who are making a fool of himself (which is something you excel at) because you are making a snap judgement without having all the information ..typical Nemesis brand kneejerkism

What the **** are you getting at? I essentially just admitted I agree with the paralells between this case and Zundel, with the variation that the CHRW has no right prosecuting anyone. I would insult you back, but I'm just gonna keep watching you while you make a fool of yourself here.

I lied? what the hell are you babbling about? you're too thick headed to see when you're being hypocrtical, specifically when you make this statement without even knowing a shred of the issue in question:

That's all nice and well, but you need to realize one thing: I don't care what you have to say. You're already on the losing end, and you're being an asshole because of it. So, as I hinted before; Sitting back, watching you dig, and dig.

what is the difference SPECIFIC TO THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS? you cannot make that statement without qualntifying it ..you havent done so therefore your statement is completely meaningless

I'm not talking legal, just personal perspective, which is that Nazi and/or racist propaganda is not the same as making fun of religious icons.

 

[Raziaar]

who the **** cares about any of this? how does that apply to the issue at hand? this is about canadian law, your laws DO NOT APPLY

It does matter. It points out the fact that you're willing to criticize the laws and actions of his country and feel you have every right to, but you won't tolerate any of us criticizing and saying the actions taken by that Canadian Human Rights board are idiotic.

 

[CptStern]

It does matter. It points out the fact that you're willing to criticize the laws and actions of his country and feel you have every right to, but you won't tolerate any of us criticizing and saying the actions taken by that Canadian Human Rights board are idiotic.

again apples and oranges. it's more akin to saying the Bill of Rights is idiotic because it allows Nazis to spew hate rhetoric because they are protected by free speech ..it's EXACTLY the same scenario: you have to take the good with the bad if you're going to apply the law EQUALLY across the board ..the law is blind to circumstance all it cares about is adherance to the law


btw I replied to your last post, you ignored it, ddont jump on my reply to someone else when you wont even reply to your own statements

 

[CptStern]

What the **** are you getting at? I essentially just admitted I agree with the paralells between this case and Zundel, with the variation that the CHRW has no right prosecuting anyone.

says who? you? who the **** are you? some random half-wit on the internet knows more about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms than the body appointed to be it's watch dog? give me a ****ing break

I would insult you back, but I'm just gonna keep watching you while you make a fool of yourself here.

:upstare: "couldnt argue his way out of a paper bag" ..you have yet to give ANY reason why your opinion means anything regarding this case

That's all nice and well, but you need to realize one thing: I don't care what you have to say. You're already on the losing end, and you're being an asshole because of it. So, as I hinted before; Sitting back, watching you dig, and dig.

I'm losing? you dont understand the laws you're complaining about and make idiotic snap judgements based on nothing more than your own personal opinion ..yet somehow I'm the idiot? riiiight

I'm not talking legal, just personal perspective

who the **** cares what your opinion is? if I said: "I dont believe murder should be punished at all ..all murderers should be set free" - how does my personal opinion MAKE IT RIGHT?

which is that Nazi and/or racist propaganda is not the same as making fun of religious icons.

why because you say so? you're an authority in Canadian Human rights law? please underline the passages in the Charter of Human Rights where it says there's a distiction between inciting hate between race and religion

the CHarter of Rigths clearly says:

* equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

it protects Canadians from people like Ernst Zundel or the case in question ..EQUALLY without discrimination

 

[Absinthe]

full stop ..everything else is meaningless ..the law must be applied WITHOUT prejudice ..if something incites hate against a specific group it is against the charter of rights and freedoms.

I'm saying that the content of these cartoons is no worse than any other satire printed in the media. Does Canada also protect politicians or political parties from being critiqued or even mocked? I'm hoping no. This isn't considered inciting hatred when it's done to others. Only when it comes to Muslims.

It's exactly the same justification that was used against Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel because his pamphlets incite hate towards jews ..but Nemesis wouldnt even dream of protesting Zundel's appearance in front of the Human rights Commission even though it's THE EXACT SAME REASONING as this current case because Zundel incited hate towards jews ..Nemesis is a hypocrite, that much is clear but I expect the rest of you to at least have some measure of level headedness

Holocaust denial - as stupid and disgusting as it is - is not a crime.

It was a complete lack of level headedness that caused eruptions over these pictures to come up in the first place. People around the world in outrage, sometimes ending up in violence, while the civilized world demanded an apology from Denmark and rested the blame on an individual and legitimate opinion of Islam.
The world kowtowed to religious intolerance and abandoned its standards for freedom of expression to appease religious demands, awash with misguided sympathy. This is no different, and it's no more level headed.

yes it does, it is against the law, it should be investigated by the party responsible for policing the law; it falls under the Human Rights COmmisions jurisdiction ..I dont hear anyone protesting speeding tickets for those who speed over the limit ..you break the law you face the consequences ..it is in place to protect ALL canadians from hate, plain and simple

That's because speeding tickets make sense. They are a sensible way of deterring unsafe driving. Their function is to keep roads safe, and therefore you safe.
Censoring potentially displeasing media does nothing but erode the ability to legitimately critique things, through artistic expression (as in this case) or otherwise. While this does come at the price of allowing idiots to spew garbage and filth, I think you'll find that most people are intelligent and sane enough to avoid buying into fringe lunacy bullshit like Zundel.

We all know of laws that are absurd and deserve not to be followed. These are laws that need change and many people do not feel obliged to live their lives around them because they are unjust. If you don't agree, then you might as well be saying Rosa Parks was in the wrong for not giving up her seat. After all, that was illegal too, if only at the time.
Saying this is justified because what he did was potentially illegal is missing the point. Independently from the law, I do not find anything morally or ethically questionable about publishing these pictures. And if the Canadian government thinks there is, then that's a real shame.

 

[Mr Stabby]

which cartoons? which ones are SPECIFIC to this case ..please post the material in question ..without it your just blowing a lot of hot air

The Danish cartoons taking the piss out of Islam

but it is clear you dont understand this case at all ..finding something "offensive" is not the point ..the point is defending a persons right to be free from prejudice, free from bigotry, free from being targeted due to their race, creed, religion ..this is a fundamental right you people are willing to throw away based on nothing more than a ****ing cartoon and people too stupid to recognise when they're being hypocritical

As in religions like Scientology and Westboro baptists shouldn't be criticized either, because that would be religious intolerance. These cartoons are not attacking anyone there attacking the religion itself not the followers.

I am willing to bet not a single one of you would protest the Human Rights Commission investigating a publisher publishing articles on Holocaust denial - this is EXACTLY the same scenario but because the people in question are muslim you turn a blind eye to your own hypocrisy

I don't agree with any form of government censorship on free speech, as much as I may disagree with someone, I believe they have the right to say it.

 

[CptStern]

The Danish cartoons taking the piss out of Islam

which one specifically? in what context? did it have any accompanying text? headline? blurb? readers comments? was it editoralised in any way? which publication, under what jurisdiction did it fall under?


context context context

As in religions like Scientology and Westboro baptists shouldn't be criticized either, because that would be religious intolerance.

america canada america canada america canada

america =/= canada

These cartoons are not attacking anyone there attacking the religion itself not the followers.

which one specifically? in what context? did it have any accompanying text? headline? blurb? readers comments? was it editoralised in any way? which publication, under what jurisdiction did it fall under?

I don't agree with any form of government censorship on free speech,

who cares? you are not canada

as much as I may disagree with someone, I believe they have the right to say it.

that's nice ..but you are still not canada

 

[Polaris]

So, Holocaust denial is same problem like cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad?
I don't think so.

 

[Raziaar]

who cares? you are not canada



that's nice ..but you are still not canada

Of course he's not Canada.

No man can be a country. Only an Island.

He doesn't have to be Canadian though to be completely right in his objection of Canadian policies and laws, just as you don't have to be American to be objectionable about everything American.

 

[CptStern]

I'm saying that the content of these cartoons is no worse than any other satire printed in the media.

says you ...you are not canada ..I agrewe however I too am not canada (try as I might)

Does Canada also protect politicians or political parties from being critiqued or even mocked? I'm hoping no.

apples and oranges ..the criticism has nothing to do race creed or religion

This isn't considered inciting hatred when it's done to others. Only when it comes to Muslims.

yes it is, if I publish a book on why blacks are subhuman along with accompanying illustrations of spear carrying, water melon eating, big lips having blackfaced negro then I would be subject to violations under the charter of rights and freedoms

Holocaust denial - as stupid and disgusting as it is - is not a crime.

denial itself isnt the issue it's disseminating hate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#The_Z.C3.BCndel_trials

It was a complete lack of level headedness that caused eruptions over these pictures to come up in the first place. People around the world in outrage, sometimes ending up in violence, while the civilized world demanded an apology from Denmark and rested the blame on an individual and legitimate opinion of Islam.
The world kowtowed to religious intolerance and abandoned its standards for freedom of expression to appease religious demands, awash with misguided sympathy. This is no different, and it's no more level headed.

this has nothing to do with it whatsoever ..it has everything to do with wether it is is inciting hate, you yourself agreed that it was therefore you cannot fault the Commission for doing it's job. That is the law

That's because speeding tickets make sense.

since when does the law care about making sense?

They are a sensible way of deterring unsafe driving. Their function is to keep roads safe, and therefore you safe.
Censoring potentially displeasing media does nothing but erode the ability to legitimately critique things, through artistic expression (as in this case) or otherwise.

this is your american centric pov, it does not apply to canada because our charter of rights are written in such a way that says freedom of expression is ok until it infringes on the rights of others

While this does come at the price of allowing idiots to spew garbage and filth, I think you'll find that most people are intelligent and sane enough to avoid buying into fringe lunacy bullshit like Zundel.

come on ..as if the anti-semetic movement needs a spokesperson ..ask Nemesis how widespread the issue is

We all know of laws that are absurd and deserve not to be followed.[/q These are laws that need change and many people do not feel obliged to live their lives around them because they are unjust. If you don't agree, then you might as well be saying Rosa Parks was in the wrong for not giving up her seat. After all, that was illegal too, if only at the time.

slippery slope ..you cant link the two and I'm surprised that you cant see the irony of what you say. If free speech allows anyone to say what they want, and if you have to take the bad with the good so that the law is uphelp WITHOUT discrimination then why can you not see that the Charter of rights MUST be upheld WITHOUT discrimination? it's the exact same justification only in application is it reversed

Saying this is justified because what he did was potentially illegal is missing the point.

I havent given my opinion either way, why are you attempting to formulate it for me?

Independently from the law, I do not find anything morally or ethically questionable about publishing these pictures. And if the Canadian government thinks there is, then that's a real shame.

under what context? was there a byline? blurb? headline? was it editoralised? was there other unforeseeable mitigating circumstances? what past actions has the publication engaged that may/can be constrused as being bigoted or bias or harmful or any number of factors that may have caused the Human Rights Commission to spends taxpayer money on an investigation? ..we do not have enough paint, you cannot paint the entire picture

 

[CptStern]

He doesn't have to be Canadian though to be completely right in his objection of Canadian policies and laws, just as you don't have to be American to be objectionable about everything American.

I never said he had to be canadian, dont put words in my mouth

what I'm saying is that he doesnt get to decide how the law or which laws will be upheld ..it has nothing to do with his nationality except in reference to having an american centric pov ..because he's american

So, Holocaust denial is same problem like cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad?
I don't think so.

point out where I say this

I will point out where I said this, which answers your statement:

denial itself isnt the issue it's disseminating hate

read the accompanying link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#The_Z.C3.BCndel_trials

 

[Absinthe]

So, Holocaust denial is same problem like cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad?
I don't think so.

They're both protected by freedom of speech. Or at least that should be the case.

Idiocy is not a crime. There is nothing that forbids somebody from thinking or expressing that the Holocaust did not happen. You may think such opinions are grotesque, but that is not reason enough for censorship.

 

[CptStern]

and it's not illegal in canada ...dissemenating hate is ..if during the course of your holocaust denial you also incite/desseminate hate then you are in violation of the charter of rights

 

[Lt. Drebin]

and it's not illegal in canada ...dissemenating hate is ..if during the course of your holocaust denial you also incite/desseminate hate then you are in violation of the charter of rights

No matter how frivolous the complaint is. This is a VERY broad reach on display.

Have you read Badiuddin's complaint? His argument is FAR more geared toward violations of Islam related to displaying the Danish cartoons than it is the commentary Western Standard ran...which was the whole point of the article. Further, the e-mails that he cited as proof of said hatred only appeared as a result of his "quest" against Western Standard. If he hadn't attempted to supress free speech, belief, thought, discussion, etc, he probobly would never have received a single e-mail. The guy didn't like what he read, and proceeded to take it to an inappropriate level.

All I see is a massive inability to accept criticism.

 

[Mr Stabby]

which one specifically? in what context? did it have any accompanying text? headline? blurb? readers comments? was it editoralised in any way? which publication, under what jurisdiction did it fall under?


context context context

The newspaper re printed the danish cartoons, you do know what the danish cartoons are, don't you?

america canada america canada america canada

america =/= canada

Scientology is international, and the point still stands, I'm sure such groups are ridiculed in Canada as every where else. It would be a blatant double standard to be preventing Islam being insulted while allowing Scientology to be ridiculed. For such law to work in an unbiased manner, then ridicule of every other religion should be illegal as well, that includes Scientologists and westboro baptists.

which one specifically? in what context? did it have any accompanying text? headline? blurb? readers comments? was it editoralised in any way? which publication, under what jurisdiction did it fall under?

It was a re-printing of the danish cartoons.

who cares? you are not canada

that's nice ..but you are still not canada

Don't be so childish, this isn't a question of if this is the law, it's whether it should be the law.

 

[CptStern]

No matter how frivolous the complaint is. This is a VERY broad reach on display.

Have you read Badiuddin's complaint? His argument is FAR more geared toward violations of Islam related to displaying the Danish cartoons than it is the commentary Western Standard ran...which was the whole point of the article. Further, the e-mails that he cited as proof of said hatred only appeared as a result of his "quest" against Western Standard. If he hadn't attempted to supress free speech, belief, thought, discussion, etc, he probobly would never have received a single e-mail. The guy didn't like what he read, and proceeded to take it to an inappropriate level.

All I see is a massive inability to accept criticism.

link please




btw Le Devoir, a newspaper from Montreal also published the danish cartoon, followed by an edmonton college newspaper ..neither of them were asked to stand before the Human Rights Commission

 

[Lt. Drebin]

this isn't a question of if this is the law, it's whether it should be the law.

You know, Stabby, I don't even think that's really the case. I think more people than not have some appreciation for incitement laws. What desperately needs to be questioned and exposed is when supposed violations are mere over-reaches. An article that offends you has not necessarily incited hatred against you.

This man was offended, but he fails to prove that hatred has been incited in his complaint. The e-mails that he presents as evidence at the end are the DIRECT result of his attempt to suppress freedom of press. None of the e-mails read "I hate you because Mohammed is a terrorist and therefore so are you". Not one. Every e-mail was geared toward his complaints to the CHRC.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

link please

Simplest place to find it: http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf

Others as well.

btw Le Devoir, a newspaper from Montreal also published the danish cartoon, followed by an edmonton college newspaper ..neither of them were asked to stand before the Human Rights Commission

Probably has more to do with Ezra Levant and the broad reach of Western Standard. I don't know...just a guess. But his dislike of Levant and prior comments should have little to do with this complaint.

 

[CptStern]

The newspaper re printed the danish cartoons, you do know what the danish cartoons are, don't you?

which one specifically? in what context? did it have any accompanying text? headline? blurb? readers comments? was it editoralised in any way? which publication, under what jurisdiction did it fall under?


context context context

Scientology is international, and the point still stands, I'm sure such groups are ridiculed in Canada as every where else. It would be a blatant double standard to be preventing Islam being insulted while allowing Scientology to be ridiculed.

says who? I've already stated other Canadian newspapers published the cartoons they were NOT investigated by the Human Rights Commission ..obviously there's more than meets the eye here ..so which cartoon was it? under what context? was there an accompanying headline? byline? blurb? ....

For such law to work in an unbiased manner, then ridicule of every other religion should be illegal as well, that includes Scientologists and westboro baptists.

ridicule =/= inciting hate

and again: canada is not america we do not have the westboro church ...[ur=http://www.godhatescanada.com/]because ...[/url] ..and because they'd be prosecuted under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

It was a re-printing of the danish cartoons.

which one specifically? in what context? did it have any accompanying text? headline? blurb? readers comments? was it editoralised in any way? which publication, under what jurisdiction did it fall under?


context context context

Don't be so childish, this isn't a question of if this is the law, it's whether it should be the law.

why because you dont agree with the law? if someone published material that was anti-semtic and incited hate is that ok too? what about blacks as true to their sambo personality? gays are evil pedophiles and sodomites who should torn from limb from limb? should we allow just anyone to incite hatred because YOU DONT AGREE WITH THE LAW?


you're making me sound like stallone in Cobra ..I AM DA LAW!!