Democracy in Canada

[LastRites]

Canadian Democracy = freedom of speech
Democracy = freedom after speech


http://www.thenownews.com/issues06/081206/news/081206nn5.html
http://www.recomnetwork.org/articles/05/04/07/0224246.shtml
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20060713/supremacist_jailed_060713/20060713?hub=TorontoHome
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/02/23/357588.html
http://www.recomnetwork.org/articles/04/09/08/1712204.shtml

These are just a few examples of what has been happening in Canada in the past 3 or so years. Now...you may not agree with these views...thats ok...not the point. The point is...is that some individuals were...
* Expressing their opinions without threats of physical violence
* Majority were on forums and websites specifically designed for likeminded folk to talk about this shit.
* All these sites are on a US server (where its legal to have such content unlike in Canda)

Like I said, you may agree or disagree about the view...but think about if this was you and you like fishing or touching your balls in your own living room and then were charged because of your feelings and your opinion and doing what you feel like without harming anyone...or saying what you want in specially designed places/web sites.
This is no different than me getting slapped with such charges simply because of what I write here on this site. I use the word fag, ******, homo...etc. Its no different....I dont advocate genocide (except emo fags) against anyone and many of the people mentioned in the links didnt either. This is Canada.....stay the fuck away from this place.

[boozed_n_bruised]

it's interesting. the first link is about people who live not far from me. but i have never heard of them let alone ever seen them at a show or any other social event. i guess they're too busy posting on stormfront.

[Acari Rotter]

Wouldn't you say that inciting hatred, which I doubt none of these people would deny doing, is implying a threat of physical violence?

[LastRites]

Wouldn't you say that inciting hatred, which I doubt none of these people would deny doing, is implying a threat of physical violence?
If that was inciting hatred, then that was what they should have been charged with. Some were charged with "promoting hatred" but how do you promote hatred if there are warnings before you enter a website or better yet...if all the people on that particular website share that particular view?

[Blue Blood]

Canadian Democracy = freedom of speech
Democracy = freedom after speech


http://www.thenownews.com/issues06/081206/news/081206nn5.html
http://www.recomnetwork.org/articles/05/04/07/0224246.shtml
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20060713/supremacist_jailed_060713/20060713?hub=TorontoHome
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/02/23/357588.html
http://www.recomnetwork.org/articles/04/09/08/1712204.shtml

These are just a few examples of what has been happening in Canada in the past 3 or so years. Now...you may not agree with these views...thats ok...not the point. The point is...is that some individuals were...
* Expressing their opinions without threats of physical violence
* Majority were on forums and websites specifically designed for likeminded folk to talk about this shit.
* All these sites are on a US server (where its legal to have such content unlike in Canda)

Like I said, you may agree or disagree about the view...but think about if this was you and you like fishing or touching your balls in your own living room and then were charged because of your feelings and your opinion and doing what you feel like without harming anyone...or saying what you want in specially designed places/web sites.
This is no different than me getting slapped with such charges simply because of what I write here on this site. I use the word fag, ******, homo...etc. Its no different....I dont advocate genocide (except emo fags) against anyone and many of the people mentioned in the links didnt either. This is Canada.....stay the fuck away from this place.

Warman's bad fucking news,eh?
I read about him helping out ARA with busing members to(P Fromm's) his condo..WTF

[Acari Rotter]

If that was inciting hatred, then that was what they should have been charged with. Some were charged with "promoting hatred" but how do you promote hatred if there are warnings before you enter a website or better yet...if all the people on that particular website share that particular view?

Is there a difference between inciting hatred and promoting hatred?

[LastRites]

Is there a difference between inciting hatred and promoting hatred?
There were no complaints made by the public, nobody filed a suit, people knew what they were about to read entering such sites... its one man, with the help of government who is paid to bring people with such opinions down at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of freedom of speech and its new future laws. And I could care less about the person taking people with such opinions to court...the fact that our own government allows and supports it, is wrong and undemocratic.

[Oz.]

Welcome to the new world order, where we impinge on personal freedoms in the name of truth, freedom and democracy. Liberalism is fine for the almighty dollar, but bad for people. People must be subjugated to allow the free flow of funds, and to facilitate corporate profiteers. Inconvenient ideologies from radical Islam to fascism are being targetted. Why? Because these people BELIEVE something, and real belief is not as easy to corrupt with short-term bullshit promises.

In essence the world is being sold a version of the American Way Of Life that omits a crucial cornerstone of this idea: personal freedom. And the world is lapping it up. It comes in Coca-Cola flavour.

I'm not down with WP, but this shit is a bit silly. I've wandered through Stormfront, and there's worse than what "mathdoktor" was on about. At least he was literate. Seems very much a case of "make an example of the educated fascist", because obviously an educated Nazi will be taken more seriously. Can't have that now can we?

It strikes me that if SF were to be targetted, perhaps the advice on how to kill people with your bare hands would be a sensible place to start. They might have a justifiable case, given the context in which it is presented. Yet this is a random invasion of privacy as far as I can see.

Whilst I advocate freedom there are limits. Paedophile networks, for example, should be hunted down like the dogs they are. Sorry LastRites, but sometimes saying "oh but they all already agree" just doesn't fucking cut it. Nonetheless, it seems proirities were seriously skewed here.

[Oz.]

Is there a difference between inciting hatred and promoting hatred?
Yeah and I think LR has outlined it. Inciting implies creating hatred where there was none. Promoting is more about like minds patting each other in the back. In my understanding anyway...

[Acari Rotter]

There were no complaints made by the public, nobody filed a suit, people knew what they were about to read entering such sites... its one man, with the help of government who is paid to bring people with such opinions down at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of freedom of speech and its new future laws. And I could care less about the person taking people with such opinions to court...the fact that our own government allows and supports it, is wrong and undemocratic.

How many of these people charged actually believe in democracy anyway?

They wanted fascism, they got it. Nothing to complain about.

[LastRites]

Yeah and I think LR has outlined it. Inciting implies creating hatred where there was none. Promoting is more about like minds patting each other in the back. In my understanding anyway...
Promoting also includes where its non existant...the only problem is, is that you cannot promote an idea where its already present and shared by all of the web sites members.

But I know where you were heading with your previous post. I only pointed out that "all think the same and agree" to underline the very basis of why these individuals got charged. In the first link I posted, two people got raided by hate squads for posting messages such as "I hate ******s" on an American website. They were not charged, only raided and their posessions taken as evidence. Posessions such as work clothes, shoes, family photo albums, etc. Not sure if they eventually got charged or not but it didnt happen on that day Im sure. You may get a better idea what this was really about if you read up on these incidents. I cant really explain as I havent even fully read them. :p

[LastRites]

How many of these people charged actually believe in democracy anyway?

They wanted fascism, they got it. Nothing to complain about.
Comon...you can do better than that. I dont know what they believed in but what does it matter anyways? They're supposed to be living in a democratic society. Thats the point.

[Oz.]

Promoting also includes where its non existant...the only problem is, is that you cannot promote an idea where its already present and shared by all of the web sites members.

But I know where you were heading with your previous post. I only pointed out that "all think the same and agree" to underline the very basis of why these individuals got charged. In the first link I posted, two people got raided by hate squads for posting messages such as "I hate ******s" on an American website. They were not charged, only raided and their posessions taken as evidence. Posessions such as work clothes, shoes, family photo albums, etc. Not sure if they eventually got charged or not but it didnt happen on that day Im sure. You may get a better idea what this was really about if you read up on these incidents. I cant really explain as I havent even fully read them. :p

Yeah we're basically on the same page. It's undemocratic to have the govt pay someone to pursue people for free speech (and let's face it the internet is still only that, crime tends to happen in the real world, all we do here is talk). Even more so to waste law enforcement resources on it.

Still the other guy has a point. You can't demand the protection of a democracy when you advocate that another group is unworthy of democratic process. I'm not saying you believe in expulsion, sterilisation and final solutions, I can't pin you down yet;) . However plenty of Stormfronters certainly do advocate these processes, and it therefore seems pathetic to then hear democracy invoked... It's like Israel claiming to be the victims of the Middle East. All a bit farcical.

[LastRites]

Yeah we're basically on the same page. It's undemocratic to have the govt pay someone to pursue people for free speech (and let's face it the internet is still only that, crime tends to happen in the real world, all we do here is talk). Even more so to waste law enforcement resources on it.

Still the other guy has a point. You can't demand the protection of a democracy when you advocate that another group is unworthy of democratic process. I'm not saying you believe in expulsion, sterilisation and final solutions, I can't pin you down yet;) . However plenty of Stormfronters certainly do advocate these processes, and it therefore seems pathetic to then hear democracy invoked... It's like Israel claiming to be the victims of the Middle East. All a bit farcical.
Hahah...lets roll. There hasnt been a good debate in a while on here.
I await the rest of the political thinkers to throw in their 2 cents.

[Acari Rotter]

Hey Last Rites, you seem to think that white supremacists should be left alone. How do you feel about these people? Do they deserve free speech?

-Muslims living in Canada who are not terrorists but support Al Qaeda
-Fred Phelps' fucktards in the US who protest soldiers' funerals with police protection because they have a right to free speech
-pedophiles who access the Internet to look at pictures of naked kids
-suicidal cults who don't hurt anyone else, but are all going to commit suicide when Halley's Comet passes by.

Basically, if the stories you posted were about any of these people, rather than white supremacists, would it still be a problem and a flaw in democracy?

[Tokyohoon]

Ok, first off, freedom of speech and a democratic society do not necessarily go hand in hand.

If the majority of the voters support limits on freedom of speech, then you can have a perfectly democratic society with limited free speech. I think we can all agree that unlimited freedom of speechwould probably not be in the best interests of society. Ted Turner would have the right to print lies! Oh, wait....

Anyway, the question, once it has been determined that the general citizenry desires reasonable limits on freedom of speech, is where the line is drawn.

In general, that line is drawn when said speech could directly cause injury or loss of life (shouting fire in a crowded theatre), where said speech could incite criminal activity (calling for riots, active sedition), or said speech would be considered obscene by the majority of society (promoting pedophilia, in Canada - promoting racist/racialist viewpoints).

The Canadian hate speech laws have been challenged before the Supreme court and upheld, because it is demonstrable that the majority of Canadians find racist/racialist ideologies to be obscene.

In Canada, these laws are both legal and constitutional.

But are they moral?

The laws, broken down to their simplest form state that it is perfectly fine to say, "I hate ******s.", but that it is NOT acceptable to say, "You should hate ******s too." It would be acceptable to say "I think Israel is a terrorist state.", but it is not acceptable to say, "The Jews run the world and we should kill them all."

I personally feel that an intellectual discussion of the finer points of, for example, the Holocaust should be welcomed. A work of propoganda using lies and deceit to naysay the Holocaust should not.

I don't necessarily believe that criminal charges are necessarily appropriate in these matters. Unfortunately, there is no way to force racist/racialist idealogues to conform to standards of academic publishing, in which their works must face challenge and rebuttal, and ultimately either be proven or discredited.

Ultimately, if someone is publishing false, extracontextual or misleading information in order to incite or promote hatred, then yes, it is just and moral to charge them criminally.

If they are simply espousing their own feelings and otherwise maintaining an honest truth, then criminal charges are not appropriate.

Pity might be.

[King of all Buffets]

Welcome to the new world order, where we impinge on personal freedoms in the name of truth, freedom and democracy. Liberalism is fine for the almighty dollar, but bad for people. People must be subjugated to allow the free flow of funds, and to facilitate corporate profiteers. Inconvenient ideologies from radical Islam to fascism are being targetted. Why? Because these people BELIEVE something, and real belief is not as easy to corrupt with short-term bullshit promises.

In essence the world is being sold a version of the American Way Of Life that omits a crucial cornerstone of this idea: personal freedom. And the world is lapping it up. It comes in Coca-Cola flavour.

I'm not down with WP, but this shit is a bit silly. I've wandered through Stormfront, and there's worse than what "mathdoktor" was on about. At least he was literate. Seems very much a case of "make an example of the educated fascist", because obviously an educated Nazi will be taken more seriously. Can't have that now can we?

It strikes me that if SF were to be targetted, perhaps the advice on how to kill people with your bare hands would be a sensible place to start. They might have a justifiable case, given the context in which it is presented. Yet this is a random invasion of privacy as far as I can see.

Whilst I advocate freedom there are limits. Paedophile networks, for example, should be hunted down like the dogs they are. Sorry LastRites, but sometimes saying "oh but they all already agree" just doesn't fucking cut it. Nonetheless, it seems proirities were seriously skewed here.

You made a point and then contradictted yourself at the last minute, i think your post does make a good point though. The fact that as intelligent adult we have the ability to respect others freedom of speech dispite their views, but we all have a line that we ideologically wont cross...Oz you would never support a pedo network and maybe for others they draw the line at anti-semetic hate speech.

The idea of thought poilice is scary and the government really want to crack down on these groups I dont know why they just dont spend their resources in attacking the source and trying to get the sites removed.

I think arressting a kid for writing stuff on a msg board is contrary to our core belief system in Canada.

[Oz.]

You made a point and then contradictted yourself at the last minute, i think your post does make a good point though. The fact that as intelligent adult we have the ability to respect others freedom of speech dispite their views, but we all have a line that we ideologically wont cross...Oz you would never support a pedo network and maybe for others they draw the line at anti-semetic hate speech.

The idea of thought poilice is scary and the government really want to crack down on these groups I dont know why they just dont spend their resources in attacking the source and trying to get the sites removed.

I think arressting a kid for writing stuff on a msg board is contrary to our core belief system in Canada.
No. I qualified the point. You're right different people draw different lines in the sand. As I said, if you read my rant, there is definitely material for serious legal concern on said site. However, and it seems we agree here, the crap I saw on the couple of links I did check out were that: crap. Not worthy of government funds and involvement.

[E4 jon]

Hey Last Rites, you seem to think that white supremacists should be left alone. How do you feel about these people? Do they deserve free speech?

-Muslims living in Canada who are not terrorists but support Al Qaeda


The point being though that radical Muslims can call for the destruction of a society and its replacement with their own punitive brand of racism, depravation of rights for women and religious hatred, without comeback or fear of prosecution. Websites adorn these extreme views and nothing is done about them or the people who create or contribute to them. Is it one law or a generic mix to suit needs.

The whole thing smacks of intolerance and a form of racism on the part of a predatory law enforcement agency, it's law making masters and a pre- judicial system.

[King of all Buffets]

The point being though that radical Muslims can call for the destruction of a society and its replacement with their own punitive brand of racism, depravation of rights for women and religious hatred, without comeback or fear of prosecution. Websites adorn these extreme views and nothing is done about them or the people who create or contribute to them. Is it one law or a generic mix to suit needs.

The whole thing smacks of intolerance and a form of racism on the part of a predatory law enforcement agency, it's law making masters and a pre- judicial system.

Thats not true, Canadian law enforcement use those sites as well as starting points to track down potential terror threats. when dealing white supremacists/radical Islam/extremists, for the most part it just give police a good excuse toget into the persons home and/or examine there life more closely in hopes of finding a real/bigger crime.

[tousunis]

Hey Last Rites, you seem to think that white supremacists should be left alone. How do you feel about these people? Do they deserve free speech?

-Muslims living in Canada who are not terrorists but support Al Qaeda
-Fred Phelps' fucktards in the US who protest soldiers' funerals with police protection because they have a right to free speech
-pedophiles who access the Internet to look at pictures of naked kids
-suicidal cults who don't hurt anyone else, but are all going to commit suicide when Halley's Comet passes by.

Basically, if the stories you posted were about any of these people, rather than white supremacists, would it still be a problem and a flaw in democracy?

Well...did the original thread mention any of the above? The question answers itself.

[LastRites]

Hey Last Rites, you seem to think that white supremacists should be left alone. How do you feel about these people? Do they deserve free speech?

-Muslims living in Canada who are not terrorists but support Al Qaeda
-Fred Phelps' fucktards in the US who protest soldiers' funerals with police protection because they have a right to free speech
-pedophiles who access the Internet to look at pictures of naked kids
-suicidal cults who don't hurt anyone else, but are all going to commit suicide when Halley's Comet passes by.

Basically, if the stories you posted were about any of these people, rather than white supremacists, would it still be a problem and a flaw in democracy?

Your answer was already written by tousunis above but I'll add to it. Here is what I think and if they deserve free speech.
- "potential threats"...huge difference between terrorist cells, or terrorist sponsors/financial supporters who carry out mass murder attacks and some 18 yr old kids who thinks blacks eat water melon all day.
- Fred can think what he wants, we're getting into a different topic here as he publicly acts upon what he thinks.
- pedophilia is immoral, criminal and illegal... the answer is no.
- providing the cult leader does not engage in brainwashing or propagading illegal acts, individuals of 18 yrs old and older have the right to be a part of such groups

I dont think white supermacists should be left alone when they are comitting a crime, I do when they are not doing anything illegal. And posting on a msg board deserves no criminal charges, it deserves no prison time while thousands of murderers walk the streets.
In Canada it seems that the crime of thought is punishable 10 times more and with more force (with governments financial support) than the crime of taking someones life, selling drugs or sexual assault. You may be anti-racist or not hold either views...thats fine, but dont block yourself from understanding this just because of the topic.

[King of all Buffets]

Your answer was already written by tousunis above but I'll add to it. Here is what I think and if they deserve free speech.
- "potential threats"...huge difference between terrorist cells, or terrorist sponsors/financial supporters who carry out mass murder attacks and some 18 yr old kids who thinks blacks eat water melon all day.
- Fred can think what he wants, we're getting into a different topic here as he publicly acts upon what he thinks.
- pedophilia is immoral, criminal and illegal... the answer is no.
- providing the cult leader does not engage in brainwashing or propagading illegal acts, individuals of 18 yrs old and older have the right to be a part of such groups

I dont think white supermacists should be left alone when they are comitting a crime, I do when they are not doing anything illegal. And posting on a msg board deserves no criminal charges, it deserves no prison time while thousands of murderers walk the streets.
In Canada it seems that the crime of thought is punishable 10 times more and with more force (with governments financial support) than the crime of taking someones life, selling drugs or sexual assault. You may be anti-racist or not hold either views...thats fine, but dont block yourself from understanding this just because of the topic.

Hate speech is illegal and alot of people certainley find it immoral....seriously if you want free speech then you have to put up with the shit you dont like....I dont like stormfront or any of that garbage but i accept its right to exsist because of the values of free speech.

[LastRites]

Hate speech is illegal and alot of people certainley find it immoral....seriously if you want free speech then you have to put up with the shit you dont like....I dont like stormfront or any of that garbage but i accept its right to exsist because of the values of free speech.
I dont want to compare pedophilia to this topic but just to make a few things clear...
Pedo's existance is based on a criminal act itself. Their party or line of thought is to advocate social acceptance of an illegal act such as sex between an adult and a child which is ILLEGAL right now. That is promoting something illegal. Without a doubt, such things should be covered under the criminal law.
That is not the case with the so called "haters".
The "haters" however, are or should be protected by legal laws to "hold an opinion" that is not based on advocating an ILLEGAL act. If a hater said that people should be able to go out and kill so and so because of so and so...thats illegal. Charge them. But holding an opinion that is completely legal and just expressing not publicly but in designated area, it should not be tried criminally. Promoting such things publicly...we can argue that but for people to sit in a circle, talk about LEGAL things which the majority of people dont agree with and charge them criminally is undemocratic. You see what Im trying to say.

[King of all Buffets]

I dont want to compare pedophilia to this topic but just to make a few things clear...
Pedo's existance is based on a criminal act itself. Their party or line of thought is to advocate social acceptance of an illegal act such as sex between an adult and a child which is ILLEGAL right now. That is promoting something illegal. Without a doubt, such things should be covered under the criminal law.
That is not the case with the so called "haters".
The "haters" however, are or should be protected by legal laws to "hold an opinion" that is not based on advocating an ILLEGAL act. If a hater said that people should be able to go out and kill so and so because of so and so...thats illegal. Charge them. But holding an opinion that is completely legal and just expressing not publicly but in designated area, it should not be tried criminally. Promoting such things publicly...we can argue that but for people to sit in a circle, talk about LEGAL things which the majority of people dont agree with and charge them criminally is undemocratic. You see what Im trying to say.

I do get what your saying, now these dudes that were charged are we certain that they were just exercising their free speech and not advocating illegal acts and crossing the line? I say this because it seems like a view people got busted in a sea of possible targets.

[LastRites]

I do get what your saying, now these dudes that were charged are we certain that they were just exercising their free speech and not advocating illegal acts and crossing the line? I say this because it seems like a view people got busted in a sea of possible targets.
Check out some of the links...it shows what they said. I better do that myself before I dig my own hole in this thread. Hehe.

[King of all Buffets]

Check out some of the links...it shows what they said. I better do that myself before I dig my own hole in this thread. Hehe.

what they will publish is probably just the tip of the iceberg.....I just think there is more to it then some kid saying "i hate blacks" then the RCMP busting down his door.

[LastRites]

what they will publish is probably just the tip of the iceberg.....I just think there is more to it then some kid saying "i hate blacks" then the RCMP busting down his door.
The website from which the quotes are taken and the inviduals being charged with, strictly forbids any threats of physical violence or promoting of such acts. I understand that the US law differs from Canadian which creates another problem here. Canadian law prosecutes people what they wrote on a US site from Canada.

[saccage]

Wouldn't you say that inciting hatred, which I doubt none of these people would deny doing, is implying a threat of physical violence?

Where is the discussion/airing of these views, in an appropriate frum of like-minded individuals, 'inciting hatred'?

Do two jews taking about Israel in a Bagel Shop on Van Horne necessarily provoke a carbombing in a Kibbutz, or a Palestinian bashing in Jerusalem?

If anything, the fact that these actions were all commited in the supposed privacy of a Web Site, with appropriate content guidelines and warnings, should have protected them from the useless and unwarranted application of Canadas heavily abused Charter of Human Rights.

Just where does it state that we are provided "Freedom of Speech; Just watch what you say."

[saccage]

Unfortunately, there is no way to force racist/racialist idealogues to conform to standards of academic publishing, in which their works must face challenge and rebuttal, and ultimately either be proven or discredited.

While there may not be a way to 'force it', I think society at large would be syrprised at how willingly such tracts and treatises would be published to face challenge and rebuttal if only Publishing Houses at large (and no there will be no necessary accusations of why they aren't) were willing to submit them to print.

However, as a whole, racist/racialist opinion is being given the same stigma that Puritanism was during George's Rule.

Society as a whole seeks to deny the existence of racism/racialism and as a direct result of its fear and loathing, perpetuate the cycle.

[King of all Buffets]

Society as a whole seeks to deny the existence of racism/racialism and as a direct result of its fear and loathing, perpetuate the cycle.

Society doesnt deny it....it refutes it, it sees it as the manifestations of smallmindedness and as a scapegoat for societal problems.

[tousunis]

Freedom of speech can only be exercised to a certain extent...if you walk up to a cop and say "hey you fucking pig" what do you think will happen? If you walk into court and tell the judge you're going to slit his/her throat what do you think will happen? Common sense...

[LastRites]

Freedom of speech can only be exercised to a certain extent...if you walk up to a cop and say "hey you fucking pig" what do you think will happen? If you walk into court and tell the judge you're going to slit his/her throat what do you think will happen? Common sense...
Cop - its a direct inslut, "verbal assault"
Judge - youre uttering threats of violence
These two wouldnt apply to the actual topic.

[saccage]

Society doesnt deny it....it refutes it, it sees it as the manifestations of smallmindedness and as a scapegoat for societal problems.

To refute it, Society would need to admit its presence and counter it with progressive debate. It doesn't, it merely buries its head in the sand with dismissive statements about such opinions being "wrong", "immoral" or "misguided".

Please don't confuse etymology with application of reason.

[saccage]

Freedom of speech can only be exercised to a certain extent...if you walk up to a cop and say "hey you fucking pig" what do you think will happen? If you walk into court and tell the judge you're going to slit his/her throat what do you think will happen? Common sense...

Maybe you should study the law some more.

It is perfectly within your rights to address an officer and tell him, "It is my considered opinion that you are little more than a pig with penis-envy." and he has zero recourse against you.

[King of all Buffets]

To refute it, Society would need to admit its presence and counter it with progressive debate. It doesn't, it merely buries its head in the sand with dismissive statements about such opinions being "wrong", "immoral" or "misguided".

Please don't confuse etymology with application of reason.

I dont see why it even needs to entertain the notion, individuals have decieded that certain things go against its base sense of morallity.....I do agree that a progressive society need to be open to dialogoue but you cant just dismiss people refusal to accept a racist ideology as "burying their heads in the sand"....that just sounds like sour grapes.

[Tokyohoon]

While there may not be a way to 'force it', I think society at large would be syrprised at how willingly such tracts and treatises would be published to face challenge and rebuttal if only Publishing Houses at large (and no there will be no necessary accusations of why they aren't) were willing to submit them to print.

Unfortunately, this is mere hypothesis that cannot be proven unless a major publishing house publishes such tracts.

Oh - wait. How about the Bell Curve? Oh, right, those two yahoos ignored the challenges and rebuttals and never DID respond or re-attempt their project with more stringent controls.

The problem with most of those tracts is that they're straight up propaganda (that SHOULD be prosecutable as slander/libel), which detracts from the very few that have any sort of legitimate point to make.

This, combined with the public's already low opinion of racist/racialist beliefs gives the publishing houses a considerably compelling reason to not take on projects of this nature.

However, as a whole, racist/racialist opinion is being given the same stigma that Puritanism was during George's Rule.

Interesting analogy - as the puritans of that time wished to subject the remainder of the population to their own moral rule, just as most racist/racialist idealogues propose to deny others their equality and liberties under law.

Society as a whole seeks to deny the existence of racism/racialism and as a direct result of its fear and loathing, perpetuate the cycle.

I don't agree - I would say that (Canadian) society seeks to deny racism/racialism a voice, and so doing deny their movements new followers.

I don't necessarily agree that the way it is being effected is correct. I would be perfectly happy with a "truth in publishing" crackdown that used existing statutes to crack down on people who use skewed data, grand embellishments or outright falsehoods in published statements. This has the added advantage of being able to lock up those twats that try to convince us the Labbatt's and Budweiser are good beer. There's little to fear from truth - it's the lies and half-truths that get you in the middle of the night.

Unfortunately, society has mandated that speech of this nature is not legally acceptable at this time, and as such, the Crown has a responsibility to the people to seek such speech and root it out.

Again, I can think of other things that should be given a slightly higher priority, like job creation programs and better schools, but I'm one voice among millions.

[Oz.]

Ok, first off, freedom of speech and a democratic society do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Very good point. However, the capitalist American way of life being embraced by the Chinese, being defended by the British and ourselves (I don't know Canada's stance on the War on Terror or much else, so I won't comment directly) is founded on the principle of Free Speech. This is the dominant model in current world politics.

"Democratisation" is now synonymous with the American model. This is reinforced by largely American control of the internet. The world is embracing American cultural values, without the protections afforded by the American constitution. It is a dangerous situation. One that will only foster more Orwellian thought police as governments struggle to work out where the fuck they are taking their countries.

It seems we all agree (to a greater or lesser extent) that some limits are necessary. In a functional democracy these limits would be set by the people. In reality they are not. Even Bush (Praise be unto him) is seriously dodgy with respect to respecting privacy and then informing his electorate of what he's up to. And yet his country is the "Home of the Free"...

That's what bothers me. If even the paragon of global democracy is dysfunctional with regard to basic rights, what about the rest of us? The growing tendency worldwide to steamroll any dissent in the name of "Democracy" seems to contradict the very nature of the concept.
If the majority of the voters support limits on freedom of speech, then you can have a perfectly democratic society with limited free speech. I think we can all agree that unlimited freedom of speechwould probably not be in the best interests of society. Ted Turner would have the right to print lies! Oh, wait....

Anyway, the question, once it has been determined that the general citizenry desires reasonable limits on freedom of speech, is where the line is drawn.

In general, that line is drawn when said speech could directly cause injury or loss of life (shouting fire in a crowded theatre), where said speech could incite criminal activity (calling for riots, active sedition), or said speech would be considered obscene by the majority of society (promoting pedophilia, in Canada - promoting racist/racialist viewpoints).

The Canadian hate speech laws have been challenged before the Supreme court and upheld, because it is demonstrable that the majority of Canadians find racist/racialist ideologies to be obscene.

In Canada, these laws are both legal and constitutional.

But are they moral?

The laws, broken down to their simplest form state that it is perfectly fine to say, "I hate ******s.", but that it is NOT acceptable to say, "You should hate ******s too." It would be acceptable to say "I think Israel is a terrorist state.", but it is not acceptable to say, "The Jews run the world and we should kill them all."

I personally feel that an intellectual discussion of the finer points of, for example, the Holocaust should be welcomed. A work of propoganda using lies and deceit to naysay the Holocaust should not.

I don't necessarily believe that criminal charges are necessarily appropriate in these matters. Unfortunately, there is no way to force racist/racialist idealogues to conform to standards of academic publishing, in which their works must face challenge and rebuttal, and ultimately either be proven or discredited.

Ultimately, if someone is publishing false, extracontextual or misleading information in order to incite or promote hatred, then yes, it is just and moral to charge them criminally.

If they are simply espousing their own feelings and otherwise maintaining an honest truth, then criminal charges are not appropriate.

Pity might be.

[saccage]

I dont see why it even needs to entertain the notion, individuals have decieded that certain things go against its base sense of morallity.....I do agree that a progressive society need to be open to dialogoue but you cant just dismiss people refusal to accept a racist ideology as "burying their heads in the sand"....that just sounds like sour grapes.

Individuals, may well have; Society, as a whole, has not otherwise it wouldn't be as prevalent an issue as it is today.

[saccage]

Unfortunately, this is mere hypothesis that cannot be proven unless a major publishing house publishes such tracts.

Oh - wait. How about the Bell Curve? Oh, right, those two yahoos ignored the challenges and rebuttals and never DID respond or re-attempt their project with more stringent controls.

The problem with most of those tracts is that they're straight up propaganda (that SHOULD be prosecutable as slander/libel), which detracts from the very few that have any sort of legitimate point to make.

This, combined with the public's already low opinion of racist/racialist beliefs gives the publishing houses a considerably compelling reason to not take on projects of this nature.



Interesting analogy - as the puritans of that time wished to subject the remainder of the population to their own moral rule, just as most racist/racialist idealogues propose to deny others their equality and liberties under law.



I don't agree - I would say that (Canadian) society seeks to deny racism/racialism a voice, and so doing deny their movements new followers.

I don't necessarily agree that the way it is being effected is correct. I would be perfectly happy with a "truth in publishing" crackdown that used existing statutes to crack down on people who use skewed data, grand embellishments or outright falsehoods in published statements. This has the added advantage of being able to lock up those twats that try to convince us the Labbatt's and Budweiser are good beer. There's little to fear from truth - it's the lies and half-truths that get you in the middle of the night.

Unfortunately, society has mandated that speech of this nature is not legally acceptable at this time, and as such, the Crown has a responsibility to the people to seek such speech and root it out.

Again, I can think of other things that should be given a slightly higher priority, like job creation programs and better schools, but I'm one voice among millions.

For the most part, I agree with what you've said.

However you are correct in that the vast majority of treatises that come to light are mere parodies consisting of little more than skewed datum and half-truths, but that does not detract from the fact that some treatises have been put forth independently that are based on mere fact and collective perceptions (thesis). The fact that, these too, become buried is, in itself, an affront to what people call "Truth" (which all too frequently is a misnomer).

After all, Darwin himself was a victim of an establishment which decried his work as heresy.

We both, however, concur on the priorities as they should be, but thanks to Harper, will be neglected as always...

[Oz.]

Where is the discussion/airing of these views, in an appropriate frum of like-minded individuals, 'inciting hatred'?

Do two jews taking about Israel in a Bagel Shop on Van Horne necessarily provoke a carbombing in a Kibbutz, or a Palestinian bashing in Jerusalem?

If anything, the fact that these actions were all commited in the supposed privacy of a Web Site, with appropriate content guidelines and warnings, should have protected them from the useless and unwarranted application of Canadas heavily abused Charter of Human Rights.

Just where does it state that we are provided "Freedom of Speech; Just watch what you say."
Was that a Jello Biafra quote?!?

[saccage]

Was that a Jello Biafra quote?!?

Even Jello made sense on some days...

[Oz.]

Even Jello made sense on some days...
Agreed. Wouldn't have expected that from you however...:cool:

[saccage]

Agreed. Wouldn't have expected that from you however...:cool:

There's a lot more behind this name than meets the eye. The minute you form an opinion on me, I'll throw it for a loop.

[tousunis]

Maybe you should study the law some more.

It is perfectly within your rights to address an officer and tell him, "It is my considered opinion that you are little more than a pig with penis-envy." and he has zero recourse against you.

OK then....go up to a cop and say "in my opinion I think you're a fucking pig and I hope someone shoots you in the head" and see what happens. Whats up with that? I've heard the "in my opinion" rant from potheads and other people who would never dare say anything even close to that statement to a cop.

[saccage]

OK then....go up to a cop and say "in my opinion I think you're a fucking pig and I hope someone shoots you in the head" and see what happens. Whats up with that? I've heard the "in my opinion" rant from potheads and other people who would never dare say anything even close to that statement to a cop.

My line of work brings me in contact with them everyday, and trust me when I say I have no restrictions or restraint when it comes to giving my opinion.

[King of all Buffets]

My line of work brings me in contact with them everyday, and trust me when I say I have no restrictions or restraint when it comes to giving my opinion.

Do you ask them if they are doing there part in securring the world for our white children?:D

[saccage]

Do you ask them if they are doing there part in securring the world for our white children?:D

The answer to that, in my city, is patently obvious seeing as they all have names like Barakat, Assad, Ghadban, etc...

[Exiled]

Maybe you should study the law some more.

It is perfectly within your rights to address an officer and tell him, "It is my considered opinion that you are little more than a pig with penis-envy." and he has zero recourse against you.

That is not neccessarily true.

If the officer is serving under the distinction of Royal (as in RNC or Royal Newfoundland Constabulary) they can and will arrest you for insulting an officer of the Queen.

[Acari Rotter]

Christ, four pages now? I'm not sure if I want to get caught up on this thread.

[Tokyohoon]

For the most part, I agree with what you've said.

However you are correct in that the vast majority of treatises that come to light are mere parodies consisting of little more than skewed datum and half-truths, but that does not detract from the fact that some treatises have been put forth independently that are based on mere fact and collective perceptions (thesis). The fact that, these too, become buried is, in itself, an affront to what people call "Truth" (which all too frequently is a misnomer).

After all, Darwin himself was a victim of an establishment which decried his work as heresy.

We both, however, concur on the priorities as they should be, but thanks to Harper, will be neglected as always...

This is why I don't believe in the censorship laws as they stand. Laws that focused on weeding out falsehoods would be much more beneficial to society as a whole, and let the light of reason shine through. Ideas that we do not agree with shouldn't be suppressed, they should be investigated, debated and finally either upheld as valid or dismissed as having no merit.

In short, Joe Average should be able to sue a publisher that has demonstrably published false information, which would provide a financial incentive for publishers to check the veracity of the information they publish.

(Always keep in mind that I've also been in favour of prison sentences for frivolous lawsuits for years)

Of course, the system I propose would have interesting ramifications for religious publishers. :D

[LastRites]

Laws that focused on weeding out falsehoods would be much more beneficial to society as a whole, and let the light of reason shine through. Ideas that we do not agree with shouldn't be suppressed, they should be investigated, debated and finally either upheld as valid or dismissed as having no merit.

I agree 1000000%.....nothing else to add.

[Acari Rotter]

Me too, racism should be dismissed as having no merit.

[LastRites]

Me too, racism should be dismissed as having no merit.
Off topic here...but why do you think so? What kind of proof do you have that you actually find it so wrong that it should be outlawed and persecuted under criminal law? What do you define as racism? How does racism affect you?

There's been enough questions thrown at me for believing in what I believe, Ive debated and argued. Now let's turn the tables and find out what you gotta say about your "anti-racism" and how its justified.

[Tokyohoon]

OK, we have three questions:

What kind of proof do you have that you actually find [racism] so wrong that it should be outlawed and persecuted under criminal law?

What do you define as racism?

How does racism affect you?

Acari, care to take a swing?

[Acari Rotter]

OK, we have three questions:
Originally Posted by LastRites http://www.skinheads.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.skinheads.net/forums/showthread.php?p=8107#post8107)
What kind of proof do you have that you actually find [racism] so wrong that it should be outlawed and persecuted under criminal law?


I said it should be dismissed as a concept without merit because it is. There are plenty of white supremacists who of course should be locked away, or persecuted, or just monitored to make sure they don't do anything bad. There are plenty of guys out there who claim membership to groups like C18 or B&H, which should be put in the same bucket with the Bloods and the Crips and outlawed. If you are a member of one of these groups, you have no right to expect protection from the state.


What do you define as racism?


Assuming that someone is from a certain culture or race means they must be a certain way.
EDIT: And acting on it.

How does racism affect you?

This is the easy one.

There's a lot of institutionalised racism in Korea. I'm not allowed to sign up on Korean websites or even send e-mail to Koreans, despite the fact that I've been in the country almost three years. Pretty often I will get bad reactions from old Korean people if I'm with my wife in public, but often enough it's because we're being a little too playful. People suspect I'm only using my wife for sex because I'm a foreigner. Not true--she's using me for sex and I'm using her for free maid service.

This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea, because (1) their country saved half of this country from communism or (2) they have giant cocks. It leads to all sorts of antisocial behaviour such as hitting on my woman, starting fights, and pulling out their cocks on the subway and waving it at all the pretty girls (they don't like that here).

Back in my hometown, white supremacist groups have been moving in. They don't bring anything positive. All they've done is cause conflict and fights. One of them brought a knife to a birthday party (and got his ass handed to him). Two of them burned down a house. The community is simply better and safer without them. Even if we have problems with Lebs or Natives or whoever, the presence of white supremacists makes it worse, not better.

[LastRites]

This is the easy one.

There's a lot of institutionalised racism in Korea. I'm not allowed to sign up on Korean websites or even send e-mail to Koreans, despite the fact that I've been in the country almost three years. Pretty often I will get bad reactions from old Korean people if I'm with my wife in public, but often enough it's because we're being a little too playful. People suspect I'm only using my wife for sex because I'm a foreigner. Not true--she's using me for sex and I'm using her for free maid service.

This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea, because (1) their country saved half of this country from communism or (2) they have giant cocks. It leads to all sorts of antisocial behaviour such as hitting on my woman, starting fights, and pulling out their cocks on the subway and waving it at all the pretty girls (they don't like that here).

Back in my hometown, white supremacist groups have been moving in. They don't bring anything positive. All they've done is cause conflict and fights. One of them brought a knife to a birthday party (and got his ass handed to him). Two of them burned down a house. The community is simply better and safer without them. Even if we have problems with Lebs or Natives or whoever, the presence of white supremacists makes it worse, not better.

I'll let the first answer slip and youre semi right on the second.
However on the third, you yourself made a racist remark. (I've put it in bold) Its typical white male stereotype against an Asian male.
Should you be jailed for such comment or do you have the right to say so in your own opinion without worrying about the law?
If you got questions, fire away.

[Tokyohoon]

I'll let the first answer slip and youre semi right on the second.
However on the third, you yourself made a racist remark. (I've put it in bold) Its typical white male stereotype against an Asian male.
Should you be jailed for such comment or do you have the right to say so in your own opinion without worrying about the law?
If you got questions, fire away.

Ummm.. no, I've seen those types here in Japan. They honestly believe that they have larger organs than the ones supposedly gracing the groins of the local population, and further believe that this somehow makes them special. This isn't a racist observation, it's a factual observation. It would have been a racist observation if the intimation had been that all whites do it, but it's limited to a particular subset of assholes. Oddly enough, I've never seen a black guy do that here. Acari, seen a black guy do that in Korea?

Anyway, I'll take a stab myself.

Racism is pretty simply defined - discrimination based on racial/ethnic origin. Examples of institutionalized racism are the Jim Crow laws of the southern US which made it illegal for a black man to own property, or electoral laws that made it illegal for non-whites to vote.

Racism affects me in my day to day life, as I am part of a racial minority living in a particularly homogenized society. I get stopped and searched by the police for no reason. Taxi drivers refuse to pick me up. Various establishments (restaurants, bars, resorts) deny me entry because of the colour of my skin. I work two jobs and make more than the national average, own my own home and have a family, yet am held be many people here to be of lower worth than the homeless swine drinking codeine based cough syrup in the park because they have a certain pigment of skin and shape of eye and nose, and I do not.

This leaves us with one question remaining.

Now, I don't believe that holding racist beliefs should be illegal. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, right or wrong.

Expressing racist beliefs... here, the water gets murky.

Should it be illegal to call someone a ******? No. It's rude, but it's nice to know who the ignorant assholes around you are.

Should it be illegal to say all blacks are lazy? Possibly. I would prefer that it be an actionable offense, subject to hearing in front of a judge, with damages awarded should the statement be proven incorrect and thus offensive. I believe a suit of this nature could already be launched in most regions as libel or slander.

Should it be illegal to say that black people should be beaten? Churches burned?

Hell yes. But we don't need hate speech laws for that. There's already perfectly good laws for those - incitement to commit a felony comes to mind.

Should it be illegal to call for a repeal of the civil rights of sections of the populace based on race?

Yes, because this is a direct assault on their liberty, and is fortunately prosecuteable as sedition.

So, in response, I would have to say that I don't find racism "so wrong that it should be outlawed and persecuted under criminal law".

I believe that there are already existing statutes under which most offensive racist/racialist publications or statements can be dealt with.

And let's face it, most of those statements or publications are offensive, both to the ethnic group being slurred and the intelligence of the reader.

[Acari Rotter]

I'll let the first answer slip and youre semi right on the second.
However on the third, you yourself made a racist remark. (I've put it in bold) Its typical white male stereotype against an Asian male.
Should you be jailed for such comment or do you have the right to say so in your own opinion without worrying about the law?
If you got questions, fire away.

It was worded awkwardly. I'll simplify it for you: " This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea because they have giant cocks." Does that sound smoother?

And yes, if some 5'0" American or a Canadian virgin comes here and starts mouthing off about being god's gift to Korean women, he's getting a kiss from my elbows.

[LastRites]

Ummm.. no, I've seen those types here in Japan. They honestly believe that they have larger organs than the ones supposedly gracing the groins of the local population, and further believe that this somehow makes them special. This isn't a racist observation, it's a factual observation. It would have been a racist observation if the intimation had been that all whites do it, but it's limited to a particular subset of assholes. Oddly enough, I've never seen a black guy do that here. Acari, seen a black guy do that in Korea?

Im not saying such people dont exist. They probably do, are cocky as hell and need a good punch in the face. But read what he actually said:
"This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea, because they have giant cocks."
This itself is a racist statement. Dont forget that racist remarks are not always negative. Racism, however you want to interpret it, in the end means denying individuality on the basis of race. Saying that blacks have larger dicks than anyone else, is not a negative statement but racist? - hell yes. It denies individuality simply because you summed them all up as having large dicks based on their skin color. Racism is often misinterpreted as negative and filled with ignorance. But in reality thats not always the case. Another example of a racist remark would be: Inuits are better adaptable to cold climates than Blacks. Racist? yes... ignorant? - not at all. Its been studied and looked at. Which brings me back to your previous post to which I replied that I agree with. In the end racism can be positive, it can be backed up with facts and studies but it can also be negative and ignorant. And people turn a blind eye to the actual meaning of racism and side themselves with the easier and more comon representation of that word....and this goes for pro and anti's.
To keep it in the topic... in reality what Acari Rotter said, was racist and the point Im trying to make here is why does one person get away with such words while other is jailed simply due to their affiliation and interpretation of the word racism?

[Tokyohoon]

I think you're misreading the statment, LR, whether purposefully or not.

But it's a statement that's rather irrelevant to the overall topic.

I think in better keeping with the topic is:

In the end racism can be positive, it can be backed up with facts and studies but it can also be negative and ignorant. And people turn a blind eye to the actual meaning of racism and side themselves with the easier and more comon representation of that word....and this goes for pro and anti's.

It may be possible to hold positive beliefs about a particular race, but policysetting based on racist beliefs is as clearly wrong as communism.

An individual is more than the colour of his skin. I know people of African descent who are perfectly comfortable in cold climes (having grown up in my home town) and people of Inuit descent who can't take anything colder than 20 degrees, having grown up in Guam. Individuals are a unique blend of their culture and environment, how both interact with their DNA and how the person is taught to perceive all of it.

Certain racial avocations, such as Inuit for colder climes, are of minor academic interest, but have little bearing on the real world. I honestly don't dismiss most racial philosophies because I believe they are completely wrong - I simply believe that they are completely irrelevant. Ethnic tendencies make up a very small part of the total creature that is a Man. Culture and environment contribute much, much more to the development of an individual.

[Acari Rotter]

Dude, you don't understand what I said.

"This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea because they have giant cocks."

Let me spell it out again.

"This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea because they have giant cocks."

They don't own Korea and they don't have giant cocks.

[LastRites]

Dude, you don't understand what I said.

"This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea because they have giant cocks."

Let me spell it out again.

"This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea because they have giant cocks."

They don't own Korea and they don't have giant cocks.

Oh, Im reading it correctly, I just think you should have used the word "thinking" twice in that sentance as I wrote below:
"This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea because they think they have giant cocks."
Now it makes more sense...but thats not what you said. Yes, I realize this was a technical jab at your post...but that's all it takes to get charged these days.

[LastRites]

I think you're misreading the statment, LR, whether purposefully or not.

But it's a statement that's rather irrelevant to the overall topic.

I think in better keeping with the topic is:



It may be possible to hold positive beliefs about a particular race, but policysetting based on racist beliefs is as clearly wrong as communism.

An individual is more than the colour of his skin. I know people of African descent who are perfectly comfortable in cold climes (having grown up in my home town) and people of Inuit descent who can't take anything colder than 20 degrees, having grown up in Guam. Individuals are a unique blend of their culture and environment, how both interact with their DNA and how the person is taught to perceive all of it.

Certain racial avocations, such as Inuit for colder climes, are of minor academic interest, but have little bearing on the real world. I honestly don't dismiss most racial philosophies because I believe they are completely wrong - I simply believe that they are completely irrelevant. Ethnic tendencies make up a very small part of the total creature that is a Man. Culture and environment contribute much, much more to the development of an individual.
Arrggh...I tried to stay away from the DNA and culture topic. I only used Inuits/cold climates, etc as an example to outline type of thinking that can/is considered racist in some books and not others.
While I agree to an extent that policysetting based on race is wrong, I do believe it based on culture in which race, in my opinion plays a role.
And of course an individual is more than skin color...I wouldnt argue that ever.

[Oz.]

I think you're misreading the statment, LR, whether purposefully or not.

But it's a statement that's rather irrelevant to the overall topic.

I think in better keeping with the topic is:



It may be possible to hold positive beliefs about a particular race, but policysetting based on racist beliefs is as clearly wrong as communism.

An individual is more than the colour of his skin. I know people of African descent who are perfectly comfortable in cold climes (having grown up in my home town) and people of Inuit descent who can't take anything colder than 20 degrees, having grown up in Guam. Individuals are a unique blend of their culture and environment, how both interact with their DNA and how the person is taught to perceive all of it.

Certain racial avocations, such as Inuit for colder climes, are of minor academic interest, but have little bearing on the real world. I honestly don't dismiss most racial philosophies because I believe they are completely wrong - I simply believe that they are completely irrelevant. Ethnic tendencies make up a very small part of the total creature that is a Man. Culture and environment contribute much, much more to the development of an individual.

Now you're using selective memory Hoon. There are real and documented differences between racial phenotypes. They are not in any way indicative of an individual's characteristics, but they do bear out accross populations. The fact that most racist/racialist groups only selectively use the data, or ignore it altogether, doesn't disprove real racial differences.

I've stated before I'm not about the WP thing. Nothing I've read that aspires to real research makes me think whites are superior. In any overall sense, anyway. White is also a very broad a non-specific term. It needs to be seriously qualified to if it is to describe a discrete race. But that doesn't mean different groups do not exhibit real differences.

The Inuit are a fantastic case in point. A traditional Inuit diet contains massive amountsofsaturated fat and cholesterol. Amounts that would rapidly induce serious adverse health effects in most humans. Yet Inuit living a traditional lifestyle do not have abnormally raised blood-serum levels of cholesterol, or the arterial blockage that would be expected. This is a real, medical, racial difference. And it could prove very useful to medicine for peoples of all races.

Just a bit of trivia for you...

[King of all Buffets]

The answer to that, in my city, is patently obvious seeing as they all have names like Barakat, Assad, Ghadban, etc...

Oh thats right....I was in Ottawa 2 weeks ago and went drinking at Brixtons on sparks street and when i left at 1-2 in the morning I couldnt beleive the huge imprompto Lebanese street party going on in one of those little fenced in cafes....they had crazy arab music pumping and mad hot scantly clad arab lebanese chicks all around..:D

[Dirt_Boy]

canadia, thats a funny place, canadia

[Martina]

Whilst I advocate freedom there are limits. Paedophile networks, for example, should be hunted down like the dogs they are. Sorry LastRites, but sometimes saying "oh but they all already agree" just doesn't fucking cut it. Nonetheless, it seems proirities were seriously skewed here.

The big difference is in those types of networks there is file sharing. Those files contain child pornograhy and that is illegal and most importanly there is an actual victim.

If these wp sites called for violence "Hey lets meet up on 08/31/06 at McDonalds and stomp the first non-white we see" then that would be a legitimate reason to shut it down.

From what I understand, these sites were shut down just because they have a pro-white agenda.

[King of all Buffets]

The big difference is in those types of networks there is file sharing. Those files contain child pornograhy and that is illegal and most importanly there is an actual victim.

If these wp sites called for violence "Hey lets meet up on 08/31/06 at McDonalds and stomp the first non-white we see" then that would be a legitimate reason to shut it down.

From what I understand, these sites were shut down just because they have a pro-white agenda.

Would you be all up in arms if it was a Canadian site that promoting hate against white people that got shut down?

[Martina]

Would you be all up in arms if it was a Canadian site that promoting hate against white people that got shut down?

I'd be SHOCKED if a site that promoted hatred againt white people got shut down.
Please show me a single instance where this has happened.

[King of all Buffets]

I'd be SHOCKED if a site that promoted hatred againt white people got shut down.
Please show me a single instance where this has happened.

Heres a WP site that got the same sorts of complaints and was back a day later

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/08/21/racistantisemite-website.html

[Martina]

You didn't anwser my question.
Please show me where a anti-white site has ever got shut down.
I've never heard of a Black Panthers (or simular) site being closed down- and if it was it would most likey be as a result of the ADL and their claims of anti-semetic remarks.


Heres a WP site that got the same sorts of complaints and was back a day later

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/08/21/racistantisemite-website.html

[King of all Buffets]

You didn't anwser my question.
Please show me where a anti-white site has ever got shut down.
I've never heard of a Black Panthers (or simular) site being closed down- and if it was it would most likey be as a result of the ADL and their claims of anti-semetic remarks.


If there are are pro Radical islam sites i garentee that the government let them exsist to use them as a tool to keep an eye on people and keep there ears to the ground...I am sure this is the cause with most sites liek that.

The difference i glean is that the Black power movements all advocate power through education, health and political activism...What I read on stormfront is not white empowerment through education and building posative bons with business and politics....Instead its scapegoat, hate speech and mindless bigotry.

http://newblackpanther.com/SITE/9lclobj.html

http://www.noicanada.org/name/

[Martina]

If there are are pro Radical islam sites i garentee that the government let them exsist to use them as a tool to keep an eye on people and keep there ears to the ground...I am sure this is the cause with most sites liek that.

The difference i glean is that the Black power movements all advocate power through education, health and political activism...What I read on stormfront is not white empowerment through education and building posative bons with business and politics....Instead its scapegoat, hate speech and mindless bigotry.

http://newblackpanther.com/SITE/9lclobj.html

http://www.noicanada.org/name/

What ever tools they use aren't the issue at hand, they clearly have a pro-black agenda. A pro-white website that called for for the same outcome using the saem methods would still come underfire.
You can't excuse black racism based on the fact that they don't have the power to exicute an anti-white plan that would have an adverse effect on whites*.

*Other than of course, affirmitive action.

[King of all Buffets]

What ever tools they use aren't the issue at hand, they clearly have a pro-black agenda. A pro-white website that called for for the same outcome using the saem methods would still come underfire.
You can't excuse black racism based on the fact that they don't have the power to exicute an anti-white plan that would have an adverse effect on whites*.

*Other than of course, affirmitive action.

The problem i think people have is that we dont see people trying to better whites through these methods....what we see is websites where angry teenage wp kids call jews rats and complain about all the mexicans in there neighbourhood. And I dont excuse black racism, The nation of Islam is a very Vocal anit white group and I have no love for them. What I am pointing out is why one group seems to come under fire while others seem to fly under the radar.

[siobahn]

How about the Bell Curve? Oh, right, those two yahoos ignored the challenges and rebuttals and never DID respond or re-attempt their project with more stringent controls.well, one of them died before the bell curve was published, and the other has written a number of short books about IQ and how it relates to income and social status. a couple of them are online if it interests you:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040311_book268text.pdf
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040302_book443.pdf
but yeah, they certainly could have been more thorough.

I would be perfectly happy with a "truth in publishing" crackdown that used existing statutes to crack down on people who use skewed data, grand embellishments or outright falsehoods in published statements.sounds like a good idea, but i don't really see how could be enforced effectively (nevermind enforced fairly). it's also not really the issue here, since we're talking about people writing things on the internet.

the way i see it, individuals should be able to say whatever they want, unless it can be construed to be strongly encouraging others to commit illegal activity. groups can say what they want, unless the sole purpose of the group's existence is to promote illegal activity (for example that pedophile party in the netherlands).

The problem i think people have is that we dont see people trying to better whites through these methods....what we see is websites where angry teenage wp kids call jews rats and complain about all the mexicans in there neighbourhood.of course, because of circumstances, hatred/resistance, whatever you want to call it, takes different forms depending on history and the group of people in question. the fact that some of the things said aren't attractive or agreeable isn't enough reason to shut it down.

[boozed_n_bruised]

racism and hypocrisy go hand in hand.

[LastRites]

racism and hypocrisy go hand in hand.
How so?

[boozed_n_bruised]

certain factions of every racial group think that they've got the right to judge people based on race, religion, sexual preference and a variety of other things while others don't.

[LastRites]

certain factions of every racial group think that they've got the right to judge people based on race, religion, sexual preference and a variety of other things while others don't.

Ya ok...but what is hypocritical about these certain factions who hold such opinions? Are thousands, possibly millions of people of every race wrong? Is this a natural? Is there a different explanation of this?
You enter such thread, have something good to say...I cant feed off of empty posts. :)

[boozed_n_bruised]

is the post empty or are you just incapable of understanding the point?
hypocritical may be the wrong word. blind seems more appropriate now given your response.

there seem to be a few things about society that you don't understand. there are more people in the middle than there are at each end. so with few people to govern many the people at the extremes are likely to have certain rights stepped on in what is believed to be the best interest of the majority. something which one should understand if one is going to adopt any sort of extreme view.

also the arguement that something like this would only happen to white people is unfounded. the "war on terrorism" that is spread across the media provides many examples of what you're complain about happening to people of other cultures

[Oz.]

is the post empty or are you just incapable of understanding the point?
hypocritical may be the wrong word. blind seems more appropriate now given your response.

there seem to be a few things about society that you don't understand. there are more people in the middle than there are at each end. so with few people to govern many the people at the extremes are likely to have certain rights stepped on in what is believed to be the best interest of the majority. something which one should understand if one is going to adopt any sort of extreme view.

also the arguement that something like this would only happen to white people is unfounded. the "war on terrorism" that is spread across the media provides many examples of what you're complain about happening to people of other cultures
See now that was a post! You can say something when you put your mind to it....

[boozed_n_bruised]

yes, well you have to lure them into debate somehow.

[saccage]

I said it should be dismissed as a concept without merit because it is. There are plenty of white supremacists who of course should be locked away, or persecuted, or just monitored to make sure they don't do anything bad. There are plenty of guys out there who claim membership to groups like C18 or B&H, which should be put in the same bucket with the Bloods and the Crips and outlawed. If you are a member of one of these groups, you have no right to expect protection from the state.



Assuming that someone is from a certain culture or race means they must be a certain way.
EDIT: And acting on it.


This is the easy one.

There's a lot of institutionalised racism in Korea. I'm not allowed to sign up on Korean websites or even send e-mail to Koreans, despite the fact that I've been in the country almost three years. Pretty often I will get bad reactions from old Korean people if I'm with my wife in public, but often enough it's because we're being a little too playful. People suspect I'm only using my wife for sex because I'm a foreigner. Not true--she's using me for sex and I'm using her for free maid service.

This country is filled with white guys who come here thinking they own Korea, because (1) their country saved half of this country from communism or (2) they have giant cocks. It leads to all sorts of antisocial behaviour such as hitting on my woman, starting fights, and pulling out their cocks on the subway and waving it at all the pretty girls (they don't like that here).

Back in my hometown, white supremacist groups have been moving in. They don't bring anything positive. All they've done is cause conflict and fights. One of them brought a knife to a birthday party (and got his ass handed to him). Two of them burned down a house. The community is simply better and safer without them. Even if we have problems with Lebs or Natives or whoever, the presence of white supremacists makes it worse, not better.

Is it just me, or does this come across as prejudicial profiling?

[saccage]

Oh thats right....I was in Ottawa 2 weeks ago and went drinking at Brixtons on sparks street and when i left at 1-2 in the morning I couldnt beleive the huge imprompto Lebanese street party going on in one of those little fenced in cafes....they had crazy arab music pumping and mad hot scantly clad arab lebanese chicks all around..:D

Should have stopped in at that cafe that features Hookahs with 'flavoured tobacco'... Makes me sick seeing how it's ok for some but denied to others...

[King of all Buffets]

Should have stopped in at that cafe that features Hookahs with 'flavoured tobacco'... Makes me sick seeing how it's ok for some but denied to others...

That was the one, they had those huge ass hookas everywhere......Are you saying that if your a paleface then they wont hook you up?

[saccage]

That was the one, they had those huge ass hookas everywhere......Are you saying that if your a paleface then they wont hook you up?

Oh they'll hook you up, with tobacco, but don't expect anything resembling courteous, or even punctual service while you're there.

And while I don't assume all lebanese are this ignorant, and it's definitely a case-specific incidence, the very fact that certain 'cultural mores' are permitted and tolerated by this, a 'canadian' culture, and that our police force is comprised, largely, of 1st generation Canadians, is highly objectionable.

How can an officer of the law serve and uphold the same when, by definition, he would not be allowed to hold civil office, and has barely outgrown the cultural influences of the civilization he's just turned his back on?

[King of all Buffets]

Oh they'll hook you up, with tobacco, but don't expect anything resembling courteous, or even punctual service while you're there.

And while I don't assume all lebanese are this ignorant, and it's definitely a case-specific incidence, the very fact that certain 'cultural mores' are permitted and tolerated by this, a 'canadian' culture, and that our police force is comprised, largely, of 1st generation Canadians, is highly objectionable.

How can an officer of the law serve and uphold the same when, by definition, he would not be allowed to hold civil office, and has barely outgrown the cultural influences of the civilization he's just turned his back on?


I see in your "Location" that your in London soon.......we have a huge Lebanese population....at least you'll be happy to know that all the cops are white.:D

[saccage]

I see in your "Location" that your in London soon.......we have a huge Lebanese population....at least you'll be happy to know that all the cops are white.:D

That's at least reassuring... Nice to know tha I can be arrested in one of the official languages of this country.

[King of all Buffets]

That's at least reassuring... Nice to know tha I can be arrested in one of the official languages of this country.

Why are you moving to the forest city?...job?....wife?

[saccage]

Why are you moving to the forest city?...job?....wife?

Change of scenery, reconciliation with an ex, various other stupid reasons like that.

[King of all Buffets]

Change of scenery, reconciliation with an ex, various other stupid reasons like that.

thats cool, I found Ottawa dead fuckin boring. Londonds cool if you can handle it being overrun by student 8 months of the year.

[saccage]

thats cool, I found Ottawa dead fuckin boring. Londonds cool if you can handle it being overrun by student 8 months of the year.
rOttawa goes beyond dead. I've been here for 7yrs and wanted to claw my eyes out every single day.

[TheBeerBaron]

From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.So, this plays into both sides. You are allowed to say and express whatever/however you want so long as it is not directed at a sole person/group with the intent of any obstruction of their guarenteed rights and freedoms. But if you read section (24) article (1) People, including but not limited to, all branches of municipal/provincial/federal goverment have the right to take action against such expressions if it is detrimental to their own or anyone elses rights and freedoms. This is where the laws get kind of vague......... You can legaly say what you want but if it pisses somebody off, they can legaly take action against you..........It's a sticky business.

Personally, it's pretty hard to take a stand one way or the other, Let's take pedophiles and racists...... as one example. I hate pedophilia and I hate all forms of racism and no, I don't think they should be allowed to create websites/newspapers/pamphlets etc... to promote their ideas because under the charter, both groups are infringing on the basic rights and freedoms of other citizens of this country. Maybe they have no effect on any group of people but the promotion of such ideologies and illegal acts (pedophillia) is in one way or another conflicting to another person's values and beliefs which, under the charter they are legally entitled to have protection against.

Now, I also advocate physical violence and promotion of hatrid against certain people, pedophiles for example. But if I were to make a website, even if there were absolutely no threats of any harm to them, I would be infringing on their personal rights and freedoms; which, under Canadian law is not tollerated. So, as much as I do hate to admit it, Racists, Terror supporters(not terrorists), Right/Left wing political extremists etc should be allowed to promote/advertise their views in any form because without these fundamental rights of free speech (even if it conflicts with the freedom of race/religion/assembly etc) This country wouldn't be a democracy. It would be a country of unprecedented PC idiocy actually quite similar to what it is today..........

[siobahn]

Should it be illegal to call for a repeal of the civil rights of sections of the populace based on race?
Yes, because this is a direct assault on their liberty, and is fortunately prosecuteable as sedition.this is not the case in canada.

there hasn't been a sedition trial here in over 50 years, and when there was, it was determined that sedition must be defined as "an intention to incite actual violence or disorder against the sovereign or the institutions of the state, for the purpose of disturbing constituted authority in some way."

sedition is covered in sections 59-61 of the criminal code:
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267062.html#rid-267079)

seditious intention concerns anyone who
a) teaches or advocates, or
b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,
the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

you might be thinking of laws on hate propaganda (s 318-320):
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267514.html)
the main thing they look for (in theory) is the promotion of genocide, or advocating "killing members of the group", or "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction."

note the defense section:

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

so, it's not sedition, and furthermore, when you look at the law, it seems that the people in question aren't even being prosecuted justly under existing hate propaganda laws.

I believe that there are already existing statutes under which most offensive racist/racialist publications or statements can be dealt with.as you can see on the criminal code site, hate propaganda is defined as such when it concerns an "identifiable group", which is "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

so what of communists (who seek to repeal civil rights based on economic status), extreme feminists or anarchists? shouldn't they be treated with the same heavy-handed approach that is being applied to those of the WN/racialist/racist camp?

[siobahn]

what i was trying to say in that last part was this:
clearly a different standard is applied to racists/people perceived to have racist views. there is special legislation for to deal with racism (canada obviously isn't the only country in which this is true). so, do people think this is:

a) justified because of the nature of your country (i.e. racism goes particularly against the grain of what it stands for - i think this applies particularly to north americans - ...and if so, why...)

b) unjustified because of the nature of your country (free speech should trump everything, these laws should be extended to everyone or scrapped, etc.)...

some people must have opinions on this.

[saccage]

what i was trying to say in that last part was this:
clearly a different standard is applied to racists/people perceived to have racist views. there is special legislation for to deal with racism (canada obviously isn't the only country in which this is true). so, do people think this is:

a) justified because of the nature of your country (i.e. racism goes particularly against the grain of what it stands for - i think this applies particularly to north americans - ...and if so, why...)

b) unjustified because of the nature of your country (free speech should trump everything, these laws should be extended to everyone or scrapped, etc.)...

some people must have opinions on this.

It comes down to the application of Freedom as hard-earned as it has been for North America as a whole.

In America, freedom of speech is guaranteed by The Constitution.

In Canada, by The Charter of Human Rights.

What neither sought to address was the fact that sooner or later views and statements guaranteed by these Doctrines would proove to be inflammatory to the rights and ways of life of sections of the population.

Then came the age old question; whose rights take primacy? The rights of the minority spoken against, or the rights of the minority speaking.

For, in truth, the racist/racialist is as much a minority as the targets of his/her "aggression". The vast majority of society is ignorant to the entire problem in discussion due to apathy/stupidity,as the case may be.

Given that the racist/racialist viewpoint tends to be outspoken, and the response of its target tends to be silence, it's often felt that abrogating the voice of the racist/racialist is the safest, if not always correct, response.

[siobahn]

so then it's a question of popularity? say something unpopular enough and freedom of speech ends? i mean, there are of course other sectors of the population who seek to limit peoples' rights (albeit in a way/using language that might seem less offensive).

[Tokyohoon]

so what of communists (who seek to repeal civil rights based on economic status), extreme feminists or anarchists? shouldn't they be treated with the same heavy-handed approach that is being applied to those of the WN/racialist/racist camp?

Oh, now you're just teasing, you sexy little minx.

You know damn well I'd like nothing better.

Mmmmmm.... lockdown on commies.... time to put the Michell Malkin posters up in the bathroom again... :biggrin:

[siobahn]

You know damn well I'd like nothing better.
yeah, i figured as much. just trying to get a discussion going on why racism should be so much of a different case.

what's a girl gotta do to get a decent argument around here goddamn it?? talk about jews, i guess...

[Tokyohoon]

I'm just a little busy - hold your horses, I'll argue race sooner or later. Right now all I have time for is poking sleeping gorillas with sticks.

And I still think you're sexy when you talk about putting commies, feminazis and the like on lockdown.

[Blue Blood]

I'm just a little busy - hold your horses, I'll argue race sooner or later. Right now all I have time for is poking sleeping gorillas with sticks.

Hahaha!
I love it!

[RuneDK]

In almost(if not) all democracies there are people who think it's their jobs to decide what the people should be allowed to believe and/or vote for. Hand in hand with the media these so called political correct people are ruling the world.

And Canada suck anyway... they're trying to steal our beloved island, Hans Ø.