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

[CptStern]

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

Others as well.



Probably has more to do with Ezra Levant than anything. My guess. But his dislike of Levant and prior comments should have little to do with this complaint.

thanks for the link but it's barely legible ..missing huge chuncks and gave up trying

the thing is that if a complaint was filed then the Human Rights Commision had no choice but to investigate ...so much for Nemesis idiotic/borderline retarded assessment of:

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

 

[Absinthe]

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

Then what does the criticism have to do with? Are these few select photos so disgusting, offensive, and visceral that they might actually prompt hatred and violence towards Muslims? I personally don't recall anything worse than your average webstrip about US foreign policy or Republican corruption.

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

Well, thank Bejesus religion isn't a race.

denial itself isnt the issue it's disseminating hate:

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

And the dissemination of hate is distinct from Holocaust denial itself. Again, there is nothing criminal about denying it happened. Bad taste and offensiveness should not be illegal.

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

So? I have clearly stated that I believe the law is in error here, so bringing it up repeatedly is not accomplishing anything.

I also said that even if they are inciting hate, it is only because people are making irrational, stupid overreactions in response to them. It's like you want the publisher punished because certain people, in all their backward ideologies, can't fit the concept of free speech into their intolerant and petty mindframes.

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

I'm not drawing up comparison charts between Canada and the US. I find it actually kind of demeaning to imply that I'm too boxed into some US mindset to possibly understand how Canadian law works. As somebody who is more than capable of criticizing his own country, and exercises this ability regularly, I can assure you that when I say the charter is at fault here, it has nothing to do with my identity as an American.

I understand that it is illegal to incite hatred because the charter says it infringes on human rights.
What I'm saying is that these cartoons do not fit that bill in any meaningful way. It is not enough that something be critical of others for it to be considered inciteful.

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

The Holocaust denial movement is practically squat in in comparison to the rest of the world. But no matter. So what if they get a spokesperson? If we're talking about issuing death threats or provocations of violence, then that's right out. But until it crosses that line, I there's no reason to block them out. If you find them so objectionable, then ignore them, or fight back against them. But don't just sweep it under the rug.

slippery slope ..you cant link the two and I'm surprised that you cant see the irony of what you say.

Sure I can. All your posts seem to say "It's illegal according the Canadian law, therefore you can't judge it, so on". As if that's reason enough to accept and obey it.

You keep bringing up legality. I just explained how legality is irrelevant here; pedantry at best.

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

Once again, you are repeating what I already know. I understand how you are applying the charter here. I'm not arguing about whether it's "working as intended". What I am saying is that it is nonetheless punishing innocent exercise of free speech and rewarding assholes in this situation.

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

You know, if you're going cut up my posts into twenty pieces and argue vigorously sentence-by-sentence against me on something for the sake of it without actually establishing your personal position three/four posts into it, I have to ask why. A little clarity would go a long way. What exactly is your opinion on this topic? Do you think the commission is objectively justified outside of Canadian law? Why not just be out with it instead of leaving I and others guessing what you're arguing for? This kind of "teasing", if it can be called that, is needlessly dragging.

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

More teasing. Okay, Stern. I guess I'm just too American to understand the big picture. Since there are apparently contexts and sensitivities surrounding these pictures that I am unable to understand or know about as a non-Canadian, and because you clearly know so much more about this than any of us do, why don't you just tell us what is so horrible and incriminating about their publishing that we've been ignorant of. Tell us exactly what extenuating circumstances are in play here that make Levant such a hate-spreading bigot. Any kind of explanation on your end would would be appreciated instead of rhetorical questions.

Seriously, if you have any information that could be helpful to us, it would be more productive if you linked or referenced it instead of withholding it to argue from some smug know-it-all position.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

thanks for the link but it's barely legible ..missing huge chuncks and gave up trying

Yeah...I know. It is what it is, though. From what I could gather, IMO, it's pretty frivolous.

the thing is that if a complaint was filed then the Human Rights Commision had no choice but to investigate

Absolutly, and they should. I have a respect for these laws. I really think they have good intentions behind them. But, they definitly have to be kept in check. Again, from what I could gather of his evidence, this guy received more hatred from his attempt to quiet the Western Standard than he did from the Standard's commentary on the Mohammed pics. That, IMO, is no grounds for this inciting hatred-based complaint.

 

[Raziaar]

ou know, if you're going cut up my posts into twenty pieces and argue vigorously sentence-by-sentence against me on something for the sake of it without actually establishing your personal position three/four posts into it, I have to ask why. A little clarity would go a long way. What exactly is your opinion on this topic? Do you think the commission is objectively justified outside of Canadian law? Why not just be out with it instead of leaving I and others guessing what you're arguing for? This kind of "teasing", if it can be called that, is needlessly dragging.

Agreed... What the **** is the point of even posting if you're not even going to supply your own opinion on the matter. All his other posts throughout his history on the politics boards have included his opinions whether backed by facts or not, why should this subject be any different?

 

[CptStern]

Then what does the criticism have to do with? Are these few select photos so disgusting, offensive, and visceral that they might actually prompt hatred and violence towards Muslims? I personally don't recall anything worse than your average webstrip about US foreign policy or Republican corruption.

I dont know, ask the Human Rights Commission, they seem to have all the answers

Well, thank Bejesus religion isn't a race.

or a creed, but religion is a "religion" ..specific to this part of the charter:

"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"

And the dissemination of hate is distinct from Holocaust denial itself. Again, there is nothing criminal about denying it happened. Bad taste and offensiveness should not be illegal.

I already stated that it is not illegal in canada ..inciting/disseminating hate is

So? I have clearly stated that I believe the law is in error here, so bringing it up repeatedly is not accomplishing anything.

what exactly are they error about? be absolutely specific because it's not JUST for publishing the cartoons because other canadian newspapers printed the cartoons and nothing happened

I also said that even if they are inciting hate, it is only because people are making irrational, stupid overreactions in response to them.

people are stupid and irrational, who cares? they can fuile all they want but if the case is without merit they dont investigate ..again this isnt about simply publishing the photos

It's like you want the publisher punished because certain people, in all their backward ideologies, can't fit the concept of free speech into their intolerant and petty mindframes.

putting words in my mouth, what do you know about what I want? I havent given my opinion either way

I'm not drawing up comparison charts between Canada and the US. I find it actually kind of demeaning to imply that I'm too boxed into some US mindset to possibly understand how Canadian law works.

sorry but you dont, if you did you'd agree that the Human Rights Commission is only doing their job

As somebody who is more than capable of criticizing his own country, and exercises this ability regularly, I can assure you that when I say the charter is at fault here, it has nothing to do with my identity as an American.

what assurances do you bring? in what way is it at fault?

I understand that it is illegal to incite hatred because the charter says it infringes on human rights.
What I'm saying is that these cartoons do not fit that bill in any meaningful way. It is not enough that something be critical of others for it to be considered inciteful.

you are not qualified to make that judgemnt AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS ...and again the cartoons were not in any banned

The Holocaust denial movement is practically squat in in comparison to the rest of the world. But no matter. So what if they get a spokesperson? If we're talking about issuing death threats or provocations of violence, then that's right out. But until it crosses that line,

your line is defined by american law ..our hate crimes are more clearly defined to prevent it getting to the point where violence is an inevitability

I there's no reason to block them out. If you find them so objectionable, then ignore them, or fight back against them. But don't just sweep it under the rug.

you cannot avoid the fact that it infringes on the rights of others ..if the westboro crazies picketed gays at the workplace they would be arrested for hate crimes ..if I paint a swastika on a jewish headstone at a jewish cemetary I am commiting a hate crime ..this is protected in the US by freespeech because it's been a part of the constitution/bill of rights for more than 2 centuries ..our constitution is nowhere near as old, we dont have centuries of precendent making that made the bill of rights, especially pertaining to freedom of speech inmutable

Sure I can. All your posts seem to say "It's illegal according the Canadian law, therefore you can't judge it, so on". As if that's reason enough to accept and obey it.

nope, I'm saying that the context is immaterial; the law is the same regardless of who's rights it infringes on

You keep bringing up legality. I just explained how legality is irrelevant here; pedantry at best.

legality is NOT irrelevant, it is all about the legality of it as it pertains to the charter of rights ..this is the same argument that I would use if the discrimation was againsts gays, religious groups or race

Once again, you are repeating what I already know. I understand how you are applying the charter here. I'm not arguing about whether it's "working as intended". What I am saying is that it is nonetheless punishing innocent exercise of free speech and rewarding assholes in this situation.

you take the good with the bad ..protecting nazis' right to free speech is "rewarding the assholes" and an example of the law "working as intended"

You know, if you're going cut up my posts into twenty pieces and argue vigorously sentence-by-sentence against me on something for the sake of it

cant fault me for being thorough ..besides I dont like to ignore the entirity of what someone is saying

without actually establishing your personal position three/four posts into it, I have to ask why.

I do this all the time...I rarely give my personal opinion because it's often immaterial

A little clarity would go a long way.

why? so I can satisfy those who would label terrorist sympathiser?

What exactly is your opinion on this topic?

I dont see why I have to answer this but I will indulge you everyone else who is chomping on the bit to see what my pov is

I dont really have one ...as I've stated; simply publishing the cartoons is not against the charter of rights so unless I see what the actual states evidence is I cant really comment with ANY degree of certainty pertaining to whether or not the Human rights commssion had a case

Do you think the commission is objectively justified outside of Canadian law?

how can they work outside of the law? all they do is police the law

Why not just be out with it instead of leaving I and others guessing what you're arguing for? This kind of "teasing", if it can be called that, is needlessly dragging.

what am I supposed to reveal? that I dont like danish cartoons? that I dont like people freaking out over a cartoon? why would I have to state the obvious? I'm not dragging anything out BECAUSE I dont have enough information to establish guilt or innocence

More teasing. Okay, Stern. I guess I'm just too American to understand the big picture. Since there are apparently contexts and sensitivities surrounding these pictures that I am unable to understand or know about as a non-Canadian, and because you clearly know so much more about this than any of us do, why don't you just tell us what is so horrible and incriminating about their publishing that we've been ignorant of.

for the last goddam time the cartoons themselves ARE NOT BANNED IN CANADA, that is NOT the reason he faces the Human Rigths Commision ..other newspapers published the photos without getting in trouble

Tell us exactly what extenuating circumstances are in play here that make Levant such a hate-spreading bigot. Any kind of explanation on your end would would be appreciated instead of rhetorical questions.

that's the whole point ..I dont know what he did to warrent an investigation but I know this much: It wasnt for simply publishing the cartoons

 

[CptStern]

Yeah...I know. It is what it is, though. From what I could gather, IMO, it's pretty frivolous.



Absolutly, and they should. I have a respect for these laws. I really think they have good intentions behind them. But, they definitly have to be kept in check. Again, from what I could gather of his evidence, this guy received more hatred from his attempt to quiet the Western Standard than he did from the Standard's commentary on the Mohammed pics. That, IMO, is no grounds for this inciting hatred-based complaint.

very good points, but you'll probably be ignored by the "persecute Stern" movement

 

[15357]

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

I haven't read your other posts very throughly, but are you saying that if my laws did apply, you would support the prosecution of economic collectivists and dissidents?

 

[Raziaar]

very good points, but you'll probably be ignored by the "persecute Stern" movement

Persecute Stern?

Hardly. It's "Persecute the guy who's views we currently stand in opposition to." Doesn't matter who you are. There are people here that often receive persecution for your views, and you're rarely one of them. Most people here stand by your views on most topics.

I'd say Nemesis is more deserving of the persecution status on these political forums lately, and you contribute to that. I don't agree with his views on most things, but still I don't go to the lengths you do to 'persecute' him. Heh.

This thread is simply a case of opposing views, not a "LOOK IT'S STERN, EVERYBODY **** HIM OVER!" moment.

 

[CptStern]

ummm I meant within this thread

I haven't read your other posts very throughly

therein lies your probllem

 

[Nemesis6]

And now it just gets hysterically insane, now the whiner is getting a complaint of discrimination against women from women of his own Islamist mosque:

We were discriminated as women and were treated poorly, differently, negatively and adversely by the Directors and Officers of Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, Islam Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), Muslim Against Terrorism (MAT), Al-Madinah Dar-Ul-Aloom Ltd and Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Assembly. In this meeting we were treated diferently from men in the following manner:

? Abusive language uttered towards us;

? Not permitted to ask any questions;

? Danied participation as equal members of the Muslim community;

? Physically and verbally threatened; made to sit in the back of the hall;

? Accused of disrupting and subotaging the proceedings;

? Forced to vacate the pemises;

Followed-up by obscene and threatening phone calls and letters in the mail.

And it, too, was sent to the CHRW! Here's the link: http://ezralevant.com/CHRC_Complaint_2007-4.doc

This was taken from Levant's post about Sowar's mosque, here - http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/inside-syed-soharwardys-mosque.html

 

[CptStern]

And now it just gets hysterically insane, now the whiner is getting a complaint of discrimination against women from women of his own Islamist mosque:

And it, too, was sent to the CHRW! Here's the link: http://ezralevant.com/CHRC_Complaint_2007-4.doc

This was taken from Levant's post about Sowar's mosque, here - http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/inside-syed-soharwardys-mosque.html

you're overreacting again (quelle surprise)

it's 3 women and one of them is named MRS. ROBINA BUTT (wife of Seymour Butt)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...rectors+and+Officers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

I've seen waitresses treated far worse in restaurants ..perhaps you should make a thread about them ..oh right they're not muslim

 

[Kadayi]

The ban hammer is long overdue

 

[CptStern]

also the bitchslap ...errr hammer

 

[Raziaar]

Nemesis has every right to be on these forums just as much as the two of you. He's not some new member who joined this year or late last year. It doesn't matter if his views are contrary to yours, and no matter how vehemently you disagree with him, he hasn't been doing anything that is even remotely worthy of eliciting cries of "Ban!"

 

[CptStern]

has nothing to do with whether his views are contrary to my own views or how long he has been here ..it's the constant overreactionary bullshit threads on muslims ..every single thread is the same: outrage over something he finds offensive about muslims ..if he continually spewed the same type of hate rhetoric about jews or gays or blacks or any other minority group he'd be long gone


anyways I dont care either way, he's a minor annoyance at best.

 

[Raziaar]

has nothing to do with his views or how long he has been here ..it's the constant overreactionary bullshit threads on muslims ..every single thread is the same: outrage over something he finds offensive about muslims ..if he continually spewed the same type of hate rhetoric about jews he'd be long gone

anyways I dont care either way, he's a minor annoyance at best

Dude... Stern. Give me a break. I have read most of the stuff Nemesis has posted, and it's COMPLETELY unworthy of bannage. You rag on him about his bullshit threads on Muslims, which I might add are quite mild and not ban worthy. The same could be argued about you and all your bullshit threads on christians.

You two are like polar opposites, and it's the pot calling the kettle black when you ignore the fact that you're just as rabid as he is, albeit against another party. You almost never have anything bad to say about muslims as a whole, and you focus on ragging on Christians. He almost never has anything bad to say about Christians, and he focuses on ragging on Muslims.

You call all his threads the same. The same can be said about a majority of your threads when they relate to certain topics. Again, don't be calling for the bannage of a forum member if you can't look inwardly and realize it can be seen by others that you do the exact same thing that he does.

If anybody disagrees with me on this, I'd love to hear it. Because when I read your threads on Christians, berating them and their religion in every single way imaginable, all I see is Nemesis and his rants about Islam. You two are exactly the same, albeit polar opposites as I said before.


It doesn't matter if more people agree with what you say about Christians than they do about what he says regarding Muslims. The fact of the matter is it's the same kind of speech. Don't think that just because you choose Christians to rag on about, that it makes it any less righteous when you do the rounds. They're both religions and religious groups. It's not comparing apples to oranges.

I like you Stern, but it's completely unreasonable to hear you crying out for another member being banned, especially since that member isn't doing anything worse than you do.

 

[Solaris]

No he's doing it to alot more of an extreme than Stern does.

I bet if I made a thread everytime Chavez took a shit I'd get banned within a week, two at most. But Nemesis constantly makes these reactionary and hyped up threads about some Palestinian militants getting shot, or Muslims saying something, he literally makes one of these threads every few days, always the same anti-muslim theme.

I don't like Islam either, but his threads are completely empty of any value, they are not constructive, they are just ****ing annoying.

 

[CptStern]

Dude... Stern. Give me a break. I have read most of the stuff Nemesis has posted, and it's COMPLETELY unworthy of bannage. You rag on him about his bullshit threads on Muslims, which I might add are quite mild and not ban worthy. The same could be argued about you and all your bullshit threads on christians.

You two are like polar opposites, and it's the pot calling the kettle black when you ignore the fact that you're just as rabid as he is, albeit against another party. You almost never have anything bad to say about muslims as a whole, and you focus on ragging on Christians. He almost never has anything bad to say about Christians, and he focuses on ragging on Muslims.

You call all his threads the same. The same can be said about a majority of your threads when they relate to certain topics. Again, don't be calling for the bannage of a forum member if you can't look inwardly and realize it can be seen by others that you do the exact same thing that he does.

If anybody disagrees with me on this, I'd love to hear it. Because when I read your threads on Christians, berating them and their religion in every single way imaginable, all I see is Nemesis and his rants about Islam. You two are exactly the same, albeit polar opposites as I said before.


It doesn't matter if more people agree with what you say about Christians than they do about what he says regarding Muslims. The fact of the matter is it's the same kind of speech.

why do you care? I dont ..at least enough to put up an argument

I ridicule, he's serious ..and when I'm serious I dont generalize every single christian in existence (cuz I'm catholic and that would be ironical)
I post about everything from movies to video games (hey there's a novelty: threads on video games in a video game forum)..if you look at my christian to non christian topics in comparison to Nemesis' Muslim to non-muslim topics I'm sure you;d see that mine are in the minority whereas Nemesis would be the overwhelming majoity



oh and you're overreacting yet again

t it's completely unreasonable to hear you crying out for another member being banned

point out where I said I want him banned ..especially in light of having said I dont care either way ..but of course you took that to mean I absolutely without a shadow of a doubt want him banned ...unless bitchlap can somehow be interpreted to mean "ban"



now can we move the **** on? there's a disturbing trend recently of certain people nitpicking the **** out of minor points made by other people that they completely and utterly derail the thread ..it just becomes a long winded argument on one point ..and even when it's clarified, even when the nitpicker is proven to be absolutely wrong, they still continue ..winning at any cost, even if it means spamming for the sake of sheer stubborness

anyways, your trolling should be a bannable offense

omg someone's going to nitpick my post to shreds!!!!

 

[Raziaar]

No he's doing it to alot more of an extreme than Stern does.

I bet if I made a thread everytime Chavez took a shit I'd get banned within a week, two at most. But Nemesis constantly makes these reactionary and hyped up threads about some Palestinian militants getting shot, or Muslims saying something, he literally makes one of these threads every few days, always the same anti-muslim theme.

I don't like Islam either, but his threads are completely empty of any value, they are not constructive, they are just ****ing annoying.

What... And Stern riddles the forums with any less anti Christian stuff every time he reads something about some random Christian? These are just the ones with Christian in the title!

Christian Mom tries to ban 80 books from school library due to promoting "sinning"

Pope to other Christian groups: you suck

The Winner of Christian Science Fair goes to "Creation Wins"

Crazy Christian mom: "no presents for you, that's what christmas is about!"

Christian group: Wii is a porn delivery system

Christian video game makes baby jesus cry

Congresswoman: voting for non christian politicians is a sin

Christian Left Behind video game preview

Christian video game Left Behind = spyware

Christian columnist on video games: "I told you so"

Christian right enlists 800 lawyers for christmas fight

Christian gaming comes to consoles?

christian right and Bush; cozy bed fellows

Christian right strongarms Microsoft

Shrek 2 outed by christian fundys

And these are any different how? The subject matter is different, but the intention behind them is the same. Fact of the matter is, Muslims in the news bring up more stories of violence, Christians in the news bring up more stories of idiocy. That's why Stern posts what he does, and that's why Nemesis posts what he does.

Until Nemesis starts saying things like "Muslims suck and I wish they were all murdered violently today", he's free to post what he wants, as long as it stays within the rules of the forums. Frequency of threads doesn't matter. That's something left to the moderating team, not the member base. It would be like me telling Stern to stop posting so damn much because he has 30,000 posts.

now can we move the **** on?

Yes, we can. Proceed.

 

[CptStern]

What... And Stern riddles the forums with any less anti Christian stuff every time he reads something about some random Christian? These are just the ones with Christian in the title!

Christian Mom tries to ban 80 books from school library due to promoting "sinning"

Pope to other Christian groups: you suck

The Winner of Christian Science Fair goes to "Creation Wins"

Crazy Christian mom: "no presents for you, that's what christmas is about!"

Christian group: Wii is a porn delivery system

Christian video game makes baby jesus cry

Congresswoman: voting for non christian politicians is a sin

Christian Left Behind video game preview

Christian video game Left Behind = spyware

Christian columnist on video games: "I told you so"

Christian right enlists 800 lawyers for christmas fight

Christian gaming comes to consoles?

christian right and Bush; cozy bed fellows

Christian right strongarms Microsoft

Shrek 2 outed by christian fundys

And these are any different how? The subject matter is different, the the intention behind them is the same. Fact of the matter is, Muslims in the news bring up more stories of violence, Christians in the news bring up more stories of idiocy. That's why Stern posts what he does, and that's why Nemesis posts what he does.

Until Nemesis starts saying things like "Muslims suck and I wish they were all murdered violently today", he's free to post what he wants, as long as it stays within the rules of the forums. Frequency of threads doesn't matter. That's something left to the moderating team, not the member base. It would be like me telling Stern to stop posting so damn much because he has 30,000 posts.

ok I'm going to be ass but ...stfu, Raziaar, we cant get anything ****ing done because of people like you

what time frame are all those threads? a week? a month? a year? do the same from nemesis, I'm absolutely positive you'll find just as many ina much smaller time frame ...ffs man some of the threads you posted of mine are from 2005

context context and ****ing context


but lets continue derailing this thread cuz that's what we do best ..we dont discuss issues, we discuss the issues around the issues

 

[Raziaar]

ok I'm going to be ass but ...stfu, Raziaar, we cant get anything ****ing done because of people like you

what time frame are all those threads? a week? a month? a year? do the same from nemesis, I'm absolutely positive you'll find just as many ina much smaller time frame

context context and ****ing context


but lets continue derailing this thread cuz that's what we do best ..we dont discuss issues, we discuss the issues around the issues

I'm sorry but <counts> Three... no wait, four now posts of mine, taking up only a fraction of one page is hardly derailing a thread.

I don't feel my defense of a member(and I would defend any member who I feel is being judged too harshly) is worthy of the grounds of derailing a thread, especially since I don't let it drag out on forever.

And that's my last word. Continue.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

The ban hammer is long overdue

Wow, thanks for completely derailing a reasonably decent discussion.

:cheers:


Why are we discussing banning Nemesis, anyway? He hasn't been banned thus far and certainly hasn't done anything ban worthy in this thread. If you don't like his threads....don't join the discussion. If your only comment is to ban him or "put the ban hammer down", then gtfo. Had 5-6 pages of reasonable discussion before you and Solaris chose to add your insights...

 

[Kadayi]

I don't like Islam either, but his threads are completely empty of any value, they are not constructive, they are just ****ing annoying.

Seconded. It's just disinformation, time & again, the ban is long overdue.

Wow, thanks for completely derailing a reasonably decent discussion.

My pleasure.

Why are we discussing banning Nemesis, anyway? He hasn't been banned thus far and certainly hasn't done anything ban worthy in this thread. If you don't like his threads....don't join the discussion. If your only comment is to ban him or "put the ban hammer down", then gtfo.

Come back when the adults have finished talking sonny.:dozey:

 

[Lt. Drebin]

you're overreacting again (quelle surprise)

it's 3 women and one of them is named MRS. ROBINA BUTT (wife of Seymour Butt)

With respect to the original post, there was only 1 or 2 muslims that complained about the Western Standard's article. So, I guess I fail to see how 3 women registering a complaint diminishes the point.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

My pleasure.

Wow, usually there's a bigger scene when getting trolls to admit their status. Now that that's settled....

Come back when the adults have finished talking sonny.:dozey:

Double wow, and you like to flame...shocker.

Again, if you don't like the topic, why are you posting? If you feel Nemesis should be banned why aren't you contacting a mod?

 

[CptStern]

With respect to the original post, there was only 1 or 2 muslims that complained about the Western Standard's article. So, I guess I fail to see how 3 women registering a complaint diminishes the point.

it's not the fact that 3 women registered the complaint but rather Nemesis' choice of words:

And now it just gets hysterically insane, now the whiner is getting a complaint of discrimination against women from women of his own Islamist mosque

alarmist rhetoric making it sound far more widespread, far more "hysterical" than it actually is ..he couldnt have said:

"and now the guy is being accused of abusing the rights of women at his mosque"?

 

[Kadayi]

Wow, usually there's a bigger scene when getting trolls to admit their status. Now that that's settled....



Double wow, and you like to flame...shocker.

Again, if you don't like the topic, why are you posting? If you feel Nemesis should be banned why aren't you contacting a mod?

The edit button is a wonderful thing.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

it's not the fact that 3 women registered the complaint but rather Nemesis' choice of wrods:

Then why make a point of it by bolding, italicizing, etc?

 

[Lt. Drebin]

The edit button is a wonderful thing.

So's the ignore button. Buh bye.

 

[CptStern]

Then why make a point of it by bolding, italicizing, etc?

? because I was giving examples using the specific words?

 

[Kadayi]

So's the ignore button. Buh bye.

Some people don't like it up em

Go have a wank. You'll feel better I'm sure.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

? because I was giving examples using the specific words?

Ok, fine. He may have been alarmist, but if citing the fact that only 3 women registered the complaint has nothing to do with your point, then why bother? Again, only 1 person registered the complaint against the Standard.

The whole point of the post is that the women complaining against him is discrediting. He's standing up for Muslims, yet he can't muster respect for women not only members of his religion, but of his Mosque?? Please. As if the facts in the original complaint didn't bring into question his motivations. Plenty of agendas...I'd recon this guy couldn't really give a damn about the story that was run and it's impact on Canadian Muslims. I really hope your country punishes frivolous complaints. I'm sure as a conservative activist, Ezra Levant has plenty of Canadians that simply don't like him....kinda like Ann Coulter except probably a little less psycho.

 

[Solaris]

Nemesis was not only being alarmist, he was being typically alarmist.

 

[CptStern]

Ok, fine. He may have been alarmist, but if citing the fact that only 3 women registered the complaint has nothing to do with your point, then why bother? Again, only 1 person registered the complaint against the Standard.

again it's about his choice of words that makes it seem worse than it actually is ..again couldnt he have just said:


"and now the guy is being accused of abusing the rights of women at his mosque"?

I wouldnt have had a problem with that statement because it's factual AND alarmist free

The whole point of the post is that the women complaining against him is discrediting. He's standing up for Muslims, yet he can't muster respect for women not only members of his religion, but of his Mosque?? Please.

and? who said he has to be open minded? he's complaining about a cartoon, he's waived his right to be open minded

As if the facts in the original complaint didn't bring into question his motivations. Plenty of agendas...I'd recon this guy couldn't really give a damn about the story that was run and it's impact on Canadian Muslims. I really hope your country punishes frivolous complaints.

if there's merit they'll contiune with the investigation if not they'll drop it ..the Human Rights Commission are not a policing agency, he wont be charged with making frivilous complaints ..pretty sure that's beyond their jurisdiction

 

[Lt. Drebin]

and? who said he has to be open minded? he's complaining about a cartoon, he's waived his right to be open minded

Well, now that is definitly the truth. Can't argue with that.

if there's merit they'll contiune with the investigation if not they'll drop it ..the Human Rights Commission are not a policing agency, he wont be charged with making frivilous complaints ..pretty sure that's beyond their jurisdiction

That's a shame. Not that the HRC has no policing power, but rather that frivolous complaints aren't swiftly charged in some manner or another. Seems to me to be a waste of tax dollars. But, as you mentioned earlier...all of these complaints are investigated without much questioning, so, at times...I suppose this is the inevitable outcome.

 

[CptStern]

well I'm sure it has to have some merit or they wouldnt be investigating ..but it's the word of the person making the complaint so ...

 

[dream431ca]

This is not right.

 

[15357]

therein lies your probllem

But still, enlighten me.




You people take this too seriously. Chill out.

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, these are the last two videos in the case, the last one being the closing argument. Now, I can't remember if the first one has been posted, so you might have seen it. Anyway, the second one is the newest one.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tqD-KYRopA0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o5dwUqCGJeE

So, let's see if the Canadians come to their senses and realizes how stupid they've made themselves look, at least that way, there's hope of this not happening again... But then again, if it continues to exist after this Orwellian scandal, they'll probably find ways to be shills for further legal harassment.

 

[CptStern]

So, let's see if the Canadians come to their senses and realizes how stupid they've made themselves look,

how? be as precise as possible

at least that way, there's hope of this not happening again...

what not happening again? that a body appointed to hear complaints shouldnt be doing their job?

But then again, if it continues to exist after this Orwellian scandal, they'll probably find ways to be shills for further legal harassment.

:upstare: what in gods name are you talking about? you make no sense whatsoever. Your hysterics are completely unfounded