Oslo, extreme NeoConism, the role of media

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture
Oslo, extreme NeoConism, the role of media

The referenced document below was written by that nutjob who murdered about 80 people in Oslo recently.

I refuse to type their name. However I think its important for everyone to be aware of what that person was thinking before and during their atrocity.

Agreed he was crazy.  But his ideology was far from unique.  It was just extreme neo-con viewpoint regarding Islam and Muslims commonly shared among cable news pundits and political leaders in Norway, Canada, and elsewhere.

This nutjob is probably best described as a Neo-Con Extremist.

Right now our media is downplaying the role neo-con extremism played in this incident, but the truth is in plain sight of anyone who believes hating people based on religion is irrational.  Only people who irrationally hate Muslims or believe hating Muslims is rational seem to have trouble seeing it.

Most people recognize anti-Semiticism as evil and most are rightly quick to criticize it. Yet when someone expresses a similar hate filled ideology regarding Muslims, far too many people are silent, or worse agree. That's a problem in my opinion.

This nutjob could have chosen any number of targets.  Instead of choosing Muslims he chose Norway's political leaders and their families.  He also could have chose another group he hated:  "Jews that support multiculturalism".

 

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

If he had been from Iran Canada and the US would already have 200,000 troops on the ground there.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

earth_as_one wrote:

Agreed he was crazy. 

This nutjob

...

This nutjob 

Your excellent points get lost in your mental health insults.  No need for this kind of language.  

By Canadian judicial standards he is legally competent to stand trial.  As competent as a Clifford Olson.  He most likely has a personality disorder and they are not the same as mental illnesses per se.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

I refuse to use the person's name.  That's part of the reason why he killed so many people.  So I used nutjob.  I didn't expect that someone would interpret that as a slur against people with mental health problems. How do you recommend I reference this monster without using their name?  Would neo-con extremist be OK?

6079_Smith_W

*sigh*

If you can't bring yourself to write Brevik perhaps you could say "the killer" since he has admitted the act, even if he has not been convicted of murder.  Or "the accused". 

The term you use is insulting; even if you had used a proper term for mental illness, there is a good chance you would be wrong. Personally I would frown on the term "monster", since it leads to the mistaken belief that Brevik is some kind of anomaly.

His act may not have been normal, but In fact there are plenty of sane people who hold similar beliefs like him, and some  of the most horrendous crimes in the world have been committed with the help of regular people who aren't that much different than you or me.

 

Plus, treating him as some super evil monster just plays into the image he has of himself as being someone special, rather than the nasty, arrogant little person he is.

NDPP

Tragedy in Oslo  - by Ghali Hassan

http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan280711.htm

"...The 32 year old Norwegian fundamentalist Christian has been described by the capitalist media as 'a lone gunman'; he was not. Breivik is a well-informed and well connected terrorist who had been planning his attacks for nearly two years.

He has links to the current Israeli fascist regime, including foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman and his fascist party Yisrael Beitenu. Breivik's links extended to pro-Israel US Zionists and Islamophobes such as Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

Breivik has warned against any Norwegian support for the besieged Palestinians. According to Israeli media, Breivik said:

'The time has come to stop the stupid support of the Palestinians...and to start supporting our cultural cousins - Israel."

 

that same message is currently being declared loudly and clearly by the JDL-EDL with which Breivik was also closely connected. Not to mention much of this country's political establishment as well. As Avi Lieberman said: 'We wish we had more friends like Canada'.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

6079_Smith_W:  ONe reason the Oslo killer committed this atrocity was so that you would write his name.  As a result I find references to his name offensive in the same way I would find aiding and abetting this killer offensive. I won't contribute to this person's attempt to be famous through the slaughter of innocents by using his name.

NDPP... you got it.

 

If you went through the Oslo killer's manifest and replaced every reference to Muslim and Islam with Jew and Judaism, I'm certain our MSM would have no problems identifying irrational hatred of Jews and Judiasm as his motivation and would not hesitate to label him as antiSemitic.  Our MSM would discuss theserious and widespread problem in our society over and over.   Since his irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam closely resembles the same ideology of many MSM pundits, the MSM can't see it and its a non-issue unrelated to the event.

This event is becoming a lost opportunity to identify irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam as a problem which is exacerbated by far too common ideology among MSM pundits and editorial slants.  The silence on this issue is deafening...

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I do understand your meaning. On the other hand, he is called Brevik. Somehow I think turning him into "He Who Must Not Be Named" gives him even more power, especially since everyone knows we are talking about Brevik.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

earth_as_one wrote:

This event is becoming a lost opportunity to identify irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam as a problem which is exacerbated by far too common ideology among MSM pundits and editorial slants.  The silence on this issue is deafening...

That is why talking about this man's mental health is not helpful.  Call him a right wing Islamophobe terrorist but not a mental health "putdown" name.

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

Tragedy in Oslo  - by Ghali Hassan

http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan280711.htm

"He has links to the current Israeli fascist regime, including foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman and his fascist party Yisrael Beitenu. Breivik's links extended to pro-Israel US Zionists and Islamophobes such as Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller."

So what does the author mean by "links"- that he's read their work? That he agrees with them?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

6079_Smith_W, in the Oslo Explosion II thread, wrote:

For that matter, does his one statement of "gruesome but necessary" constitute propaganda at all? [url=

">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/oslo-explosion-i...

[url=http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/07/immigration-multiculturalism-and-ide... Salutin[/url] thinks so:

Quote:
The most chilling phrase in the Norwegian horror was the killer's statement, through his lawyer, that it was "atrocious," or in another translation "gruesome," or even just that he was sorry -- but it was necessary. I've never seen anything that expresses the toxic potential of ideology so eloquently.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

It's precisely that idea that was repeated, uncritically and without comment, by the MSM after the killings. It was free advertising for Breivik's views.

6079_Smith_W

ikosmos wrote:

It's precisely that idea that was repeated, uncritically and without comment, by the MSM after the killings. It was free advertising for Breivik's views.

Bullshit.

You talk about  "The MSM" as if it is one guy with a typwrtier.

I asked you before, and I will do so again. Show me the news outlet which repeated that quote with no comment, and no context whatsoever. And even so, straight news is SUPPOSED to be written with a minimum of commentary.

I have problems with some of the coverage of thsi issue too, But to portray them as active purveyors of fascist propaganda because they quote Brevik is ridiculous.

For that matter, was Salutin talking about he media, or just Brevik? That, M. Spector, was the context of my comment.

(edit)

or, Ikosmos,  should we have banned coverage of his words because, as you said, people on the street aren't well-read enough to analyze it for themselves.

 

NDPP

Throw this on the ever growing toxic Islamophobic  Canadian media pile - Muslims get it coming and going here frequently masked as something acceptable like 'humanitarian' intervention or 'humour':

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/oslo_muslim_cartoon_riles_newspa...

Will the relentless persecution of the Muslim Ummah ever cease - just try and imagine the size of the pile of THEIR skulls that we have made and continue to make higher...

and the hatemonger media continue unceasingly their dirty work

 

Tim Johnston

earth_as_one wrote:

From M.Spector's post:  I've never seen anything that expresses the toxic potential of ideology so eloquently.

I've traded barbs with neocons on many websites.  When I read the Oslo Killer's manifesto, I recognized what I was reading.  I recognized the referenced web links.  Not all of them are neo-con anti-Islam websites, but I recognize about half on the list.  Does any one else recognize some of the Oslo Killer manifest referenced neo-con websites which are the source of his extreme anti-Islam ideology?

 

I'm familiar with quite a few of those links and several of the sites I visit regularly, but oddly when I read Breivik's manifesto I saw very little logic to his ideas, which seem to be a mismatched hodgepodge of various different ideologies. And when I read how he believed he was the heir to the Knights Templar, on a mission to purge Europe of "multiculturalism" I realised that while he claims many writers as "sources", in reality, he has twisted most of what they say/write into an unrecognisable mess. Referring to those sites as "the source of his extreme anti-Islam ideology" seems to be an attempt to create guilt by association - a powerful weapon for censorship to be sure. But none of those sites (as far as I have seen) advocate murder of innocent people to achieve and unachievable end, so it's fair to say that whatever "sources" Breivik claimed as his own, he didn't pay a lot of attention to them and radically subordinated them to his own nutty ideas.

As for the toxic potential of ideology? Maybe. But those how perform acts such as his are generally wired to kill irrespective of their feelings towards their targets. In fact, perhaps the only place ideology comes into it is in the selection of those targets. He could equally easily have shot up a Hindu temple., a Mosque or a Church, or his old party, the FrP, the second largest party in Norway.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Congratulations, earth_as_one. You have just managed to boost the Google ranking of all those scummy websites in a single post.

True, but I doubt people seeking this kind of rubbish on the internet will trouble finding it.  IMO, that's a contributing factor to this atrocity.

NDPP

Unanswered Questions in Norway Terror Attack  - by Susan Garth

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/norw-j28.shtml

"The Norway terror attack is the outcome of a process in which fascistic elements have been nurtured over many years and are now being brought into official political life. The massacre exposes the putrefaction of the entire political system in Europe and beyond..."

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

Tim Johnston wrote:
I'm familiar with quite a few of those links and several of the sites I visit regularly, but oddly when I read Breivik's manifesto I saw very little logic to his ideas, which seem to be a mismatched hodgepodge of various different ideologies. And when I read how he believed he was the heir to the Knights Templar, on a mission to purge Europe of "multiculturalism" I realised that while he claims many writers as "sources", in reality, he has twisted most of what they say/write into an unrecognisable mess. Referring to those sites as "the source of his extreme anti-Islam ideology" seems to be an attempt to create guilt by association - a powerful weapon for censorship to be sure. But none of those sites (as far as I have seen) advocate murder of innocent people to achieve and unachievable end, so it's fair to say that whatever "sources" Breivik claimed as his own, he didn't pay a lot of attention to them and radically subordinated them to his own nutty ideas.

As for the toxic potential of ideology? Maybe. But those how perform acts such as his are generally wired to kill irrespective of their feelings towards their targets. In fact, perhaps the only place ideology comes into it is in the selection of those targets. He could equally easily have shot up a Hindu temple., a Mosque or a Church, or his old party, the FrP, the second largest party in Norway.

A neoocon complaining about guilt by association?  Didn't you guys invent that technique?

Tell you what.  I'm going to cut and paste excerpts from the Oslo killer's manifest because I see a neocon ideology clearly as if it had bright colors, flashing lights and sirens.  I recognize the arguments, because I've heard them repeatedly.  Let me know if any of these talking points ring any bells for you or if you recognize any re-occuring themes...

 

From the Oslo Killer's Manifest:

irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing
us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is
increasing annually.

It is not only our right but also our duty to contribute to
preserve our identity, our culture and our national sovereignty by preventing the ongoing
Islamisation.

Examples of falsification and apologist rhetoric include:
· Exaggerated claims of Muslim cultural and scientific contributions.
· The Ottoman Empire was tolerant.
· The, “Jewish experience” in the Ottoman Empire “...was a calm, peaceful, and a fruitful
one..”.
· Balkan Christian boys could acquire great social advancement through “recruitment” into
the Ottoman devshirme system.
· The Armenian Genocide never happened. It was rather a struggle between two peoples for
the possession of a single homeland.
· Muslim Andalusia (Moorish Spain) is often pointed out by Muslim apologists as a kind of
multicultural wonderland, in which Jews and Christians were permitted by the Islamic
government to rise through the ranks of learning and government administration.
· Jihad means personal struggle
· Islam is a religion of peace
· Christianity and Islam are equal in terms of historic atrocities
· Maronite Christians (Lebanese Christians) falsely claim to be victims.

95% of today’s Journalists, editors, publishers are pro-
Eurabians (support European multiculturalism). The same goes for 85% of Western
European politicians and more than 90% of EU parliamentarians.

Many nominal Muslims have retained some vague generalities about morality from
the Quran, and they normally go by their own conscience and sensibility without
ever developing the doctrinally prescribed hostility towards non-Muslims. These
good people, although bad Muslims, can ignore but not change Islamic doctrine.
They cannot prevent the Quranic message of hatred from infecting at least some
of the more susceptible among their brethren and perhaps even their children or
grandchildren in the future.

Islam is certainly in a position to force unbelievers into Dhimmitude
(as is happening in dozens of Muslim countries in varying degrees), and even to wage
new jihads, this time with weapons of mass-destruction.

The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging
violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.
There are also straightforward calls for terror.

violence against non-Muslims is a central and indispensable principle to Islam

1400 years of Islamic Jihad which resulted in countless genocides
of more than 300 million people, and the enslavement and forceful conversion of more than
300 million)

Islam is
less a personal faith than a political ideology that exists in a fundamental and permanent
state of war with non-Islamic civilisations, cultures, and individuals. The Islamic holy
texts outline a social, governmental, and economic system for all mankind. Those
cultures and individuals who do not submit to Islamic governance exist in an ipso facto
state of rebellion with Allah and must be forcibly brought into submission. The
misbegotten term "Islamo-fascism" is wholly redundant: Islam itself is a kind of fascism
that achieves its full and proper form only when it assumes the powers of the state.

The spectacular acts of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are but
the most recent manifestation of a global war of conquest that Islam has been waging
since the days of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th Century AD and that continues apace
today.

even if no major terrorist attack ever occurs on
Western soil again, Islam still poses a mortal danger to the West. A halt to terrorism
would simply mean a change in Islam’s tactics -- perhaps indicating a longer-term
approach that would allow Muslim immigration and higher birth rates to bring Islam
closer to victory before the next round of violence. It cannot be overemphasised that
Muslim terrorism is a symptom of Islam that may increase or decrease in intensity while
Islam proper remains permanently hostile.

religious violence is written into Islam's DNA

violent passages in the Bible certainly do no amount to a standing order to
commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the Quran, the Bible is a huge
collection of documents written by different people at different times in different
contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Quran, on the other
hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of
Muhammad that the Quran must be understood, as the Quran itself says. His wars and
killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the Quran. Furthermore, the strict
literalism of the Quran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to
its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the "Prince of Peace," that
Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and
despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the Quran.

Who will willingly walk a saint’s path involving pain, sacrifice and martyrdom if there is no
distinction between a paedophile rapist murderer and Saint George of Lydda?

Drawing their inspiration from Muhammad and the Quran, they are invariably disposed to violence. The
unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been fourteen centuries: violent,
intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or
decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilisation.
Islam's violent nature must be accepted as given; only then will we be able to come up
with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.

It should not be surprising that a violent political ideology is proving so attractive to
much of the world. The attractive power of fascist ideas has been proven through history.
Islam combines the interior comfort provided by religious faith with the outward power of
a world-transforming political ideology.

The essence of multiculturalism is that all cultures and religions are “equal”. In this
context our Western governments launched a great “campaign of deception” against their
own people with the goal of creating a falsified version of the Islamic and European
Civilisation, in order to make them equal.

One of the common elements to all
Islamic schools of thought is jihad, understood as the obligation of the Ummah to
conquer and subdue the world in the name of Allah and rule it under Sharia law.

The very word
Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans
have already become Muslims, though they do not realise it or do not want to admit it.
Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-
Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the
rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit.
Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is
related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to
submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate
them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their
view everyone must submit.
This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of
European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them.

An ideological “war within the West” has paved the way for a physical “war against the
West” waged by Islamic Jihadists, who correctly view our acceptance of Muslim
immigration as a sign of weakness.

We are against Islam. What are we for? I would suggest that one thing we should fight
for is national sovereignty and the right to preserve our culture and pass it on to future
generations. We are fighting for the right to define our own laws and national policies,
not to be held hostage by the United Nations, unaccountable NGOs, transnational
progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth.

We should completely stop and if necessary ban Muslim immigration.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Much of
this can be done in non-discriminatory ways, by simply refusing to allow special pleading
to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths.
Boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the
community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus contributing to
breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should
not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims.

People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non-Muslims
about Islam is more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both. Groups of
dedicated individuals should engage in efforts to explain the real nature of Islam,
emphasising the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent
state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and the use of taqiyya and kitman,
religious deception.

The EU is so deeply flawed and infiltrated by pro-Islamic
thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. No, the EU isn’t the only problem we have,
but it is the worst, and we can’t fix our other problems as long as the EU is in charge.
And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged
and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel. Europe’s first line of defence starts in
Jerusalem.

Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a
threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight
together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural
Marxists/multiculturalists.

The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation
and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that
increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the
law.

Islamisation or the creation of Islamic no-go zones is under development from the first
Muslim family moves into a neighbourhood. As soon as this very first family moves in, a
progressive dhimmitude begins for all non-Muslims as they, at first, out of politeness (or
due to PC) chose to show special considerations towards the Muslims (we wouldn’t want
them to feel offended in any way do we?). Considerations/politeness develops into
uncomfortable pressure to give the Muslims an increasing number of concessions. The
process of Islamisation starts with the demands for halal-food (1%) and ends in genocide
(at 50-80%), as several hundred historical examples have shown. You cannot reason
with Islam. Islam consumes everything eventually unless it is stopped in a decisive manner. The process of Islamisation from 1% to 100% follows a classical and well known
pre-defined pattern as specified in another section of this book. Had this “first family”
been deported/chased away/killed the process of Islamisation and the creation of future
Islamic no-go zones can/could be avoided. Islamic demands lead to dhimmitude for the
non-Muslims. Dhimmitude ALWAYS lead to a point where non-Muslims surrender and
move out of the area or are systematically killed like we see with the
Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist minorities in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Bangladesh,
Indonesia and in more than 30 other countries/territories. The moral of the story is; you
cannot reason with Islam, you can only isolate it.

The new European civilisation in the making can correctly be termed a ''civilisation of
dhimmitude.'' The word dhimmitude comes from the Koranic word ''dhimmi.'' It refers to
the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating
subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death.

Time is of the essence. We have only a few decades to consolidate a sufficient level of
resistance before our major cities are completely demographically overwhelmed by
Muslims. Ensuring the successful distribution of this compendium to as many Europeans
as humanly possible will significantly contribute to our success. It may be the only way to
avoid our present and future dhimmitude (enslavement) under Islamic majority rule in
our own countries.

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald shares his worries about MESA[18]:
“As an organisation, MESA has over the past two decades slowly but surely been taken
over by apologists for Islam.” “The apologetics consists in hardly ever discussing Jihad,
dhimmitude, or indeed even introducing the students to Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira.”

Islam's persecution of non-Muslims is in no way limited to jihad, even though that is the
basic relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. After the jihad concludes in
a given area with the conquest of infidel territory, the dhimma, or treaty of protection,
may be granted to the conquered "People of the Book" -- historically, Jews, Christians,
and Zoroastrians. The dhimma provides that the life and property of the infidel are
exempted from jihad for as long as the Muslim rulers permit, which has generally meant
for as long as the subject non-Muslims -- the dhimmi -- prove economically useful to the
Islamic state.

The status of these dhimmi peoples is comparable in many ways to that of former slaves in
the post-bellum American South. Forbidden to construct houses of worship or repair
extant ones, economically crippled by the jizya, socially humiliated, legally discriminated
against, and generally kept in a permanent state of weakness and vulnerability by the
Muslim overlords, it should not be surprising that their numbers dwindled, in many places
to the point of extinction.

Should the dhimmi violate the conditions of the dhimma -- perhaps through practicing his
own religion indiscreetly or failing to show adequate deference to a Muslim -- then the
jihad resumes. At various times in Islamic history, dhimmi peoples rose above their
subjected status, and this was often the occasion for violent reprisals by Muslim
populations who believed them to have violated the terms of the dhimma.

while I was analyzing and writing about the processes of dhimmitude and the
civilisation of dhimmitude, while listening to the radio, watching television, reading the
newspapers, I had the uncomfortable feeling that the clock was being turned back.

So, is the past always prologue? Are we doomed to remain always prisoners of the same
errors? Certainly, if we do not know the past; and this past -- the long and agonising
process of Christian annihilation by the laws of Jihad and dhimmitude -- is a taboo
history, not only in Islamic lands, but above all in the West.

the Western population can in the future be transformed into half-slaves
(dhimmis) and their property (slowly) taken over by those in power – Muslims.

The European officer corps and the noncommissioned
officers have not yet been replaced. Non-Muslims will later according to
the rules of dhimmitude not be allowed to own weapons, or be part of the armed forces.

Are you still having trouble seeing a neocon bent?  Did you recognize any pattern or consistencies in his ideology?  I think he shared a neocon concern... I think it might have something to do with Muslims but after reading all of the above I can't quite figure out what he is getting at.  Do you understand his point or message?  I mean this guy is subtle and understanding his point really takes some reading between the lines.

Were you able to figure out why he is hostile?

 

NDPP

'US Equates International Terrorism With Islam (and vid)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/191308.html

Interviews, including Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter-terrorism officer

'Zionist Trail in Norway Terror Attacks' (and vid)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/191308.html

"An analyst says that there are evident Zionist footprints in the twin terror attacks in Norway's capital, Oslo, and on a nearby island which claimed the lives of 76 people..."

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

I disagree.   The Oslo Killer is the neocon's Frankenstein creation.  This event is the opposite of the Pearl Harbor like event they dreamed about before 9/11.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

The Oslo Killer is a neocon extremist.  The only people who can't see this are people who share his irrational hatred of Muslims or people who think hating Muslims is rational.  Pretty much everyone else will recognize a neocon inspired irrational hate of Muslims and Islam.  If the Oslo killer hadn't killed about 80 people, I'm sure he would have been a welcome guest on one of the regularly scheduled FoxNews Muslim hatefests, where Oslo Killer and the FoxNews neocon pundits could discuss their fears of Muslim threats, the Muslim President of the US, the inhernet violent nature of Islam and the war Muslims wage against us.

 

Many neocons probably agree with the Oslo Killer regarding the cultural genocide threat posed by Muslim infiltration of our society and the need to act quickly and decisively.

 

Given the pervasiveness of neocon inspired irrational hatred of Muslims in  Norway, Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Italy.... the likelihood of a copy cat atrocity is extremely high, even if only one in a million neocons decides to follow the Oslo Killer's call to arms.

 

 

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

M. Spector wrote:

earth_as_one wrote:

True, but I doubt people seeking this kind of rubbish on the internet will trouble finding it.  IMO, that's a contributing factor to this atrocity.

That's pretty rich, coming from the person who balked at the very idea of mentioning Breivik's name!

Do you imagine his name isn't also plastered all over the internet already where anyone can find it?

People seeking this rubbish will now have even less trouble finding it on the internet thanks to your careless linking. YOU are in fact contributing to this atrocity by your action!

You've got to be joking? Are you telling me that you were unaware of the existence irrational hatred directed at Muslims in our society?  Haven't you turned on a TV or Radio in the last 10 years?  You've never read an anti-Islam Op-ed in a newspaper?  You've never come across a website full of irrational hatred towards Muslims.

I refuse to use the Oslo killer's name, because doing so would be contributing to one of his main motivations... fame.

 

Yes I am aware that C&P's from the Oslo killer's manifest does increase awareness of its content.  That's my point.  People who don't know and would recognize where it came from, should know.   All the neocon extremists who pose a simlar potential threat as the Oslo killer already got a copy from someone who got a copy from one of the 1800 people he emailed it to, on the day he went on his killing spree.  .  The MSM is trying to keep the rest of us baffled about it.

Most MSM sources describe the Oslo killer something along the lines of a crazed gunman who believed a mismatched hodgepodge of  randomly pieced together incongruous ideologies.... at best they might mention he had some level of hostility toward Muslims.   Some pundits even try the "deny he's a Christian extremist" bait and switch.  It would be an extremely rare Op-Ed which points out the Oslo killer's extreme but unmistakable neo-con inspired ideology.  

The Oslo killer was an extreme follower of a very specific and common neocon ideology which preaches hatred towards Muslims.

Part of the problem, which I am trying to remedy is the downplaying of the link between the the Oslo killer and and mainstream neocon ideology which is described in extreme detail in the Oslo killer's manifest.  Those who push the neo-con's muslim hating ideology must see this event as a direct threat to their ability to manipulate people with Muslim demonizing propaganda in order to further their agenda.

In other words, the media, or more precisely, the neocons who control most of what we know and think through the media, don't want us to know what the Oslo killer was thinking.  I'm contributing to loss of that control by posting here on this forum.  Hopefully people reading this thread will know what the Oslo killer is all about and stop being silent when someone spews irrational neocon hatred towards Muslims or worse agrees with it.

The Oslo killer is a NEOCON EXTREMIST!  Pass it on!

 

MegB

Earth_as_one, do not publish excerpts from that manifesto on this site.  I've removed your post with the huge manifesto quote, as well as your list of neo-con links.

Tommy_Paine

I think one thing to look at is this:

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric agaisnt abortion providers, and abortion providers start getting shot.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against government, and the Murrah building in Oklahoma is bombed.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric-- to the point of putting "cross hairs" on a political oponent, and we have the Gifford's shooting.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against socialists, and socialists are hunted and murdered.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Personally I don't need to read child pornography to both know it exists and that it is vile and evil.  Similarly I don't need to read neo con manifestos to know they exist and are vile and evil.  

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

Rebecca West wrote:

Earth_as_one, do not publish excerpts from that manifesto on this site.  I've removed your post with the huge manifesto quote, as well as your list of neo-con links.

 

I understand and I won't try to circumvent it.  I disagree with that decision, because I think evil can only be defeated by looking it squarely in the eye.  I guess people will have to take my word that:

1) Anyone reading those excerpts from the Oslo killer's manifest will recognize what they are reading.  The Oslo killer used the exact same terminology to describe the exact same preceived Muslim threats as well known, popular cable news neocon pundits. 

2) Anyone who has ever had an online debate with a neocon Islam will recognize the Oslo killer's list of website references supporting his ideology.  They are the exact same websites neocons commonly reference to back up their claims about Muslim threats.

...rather than judge the excerpts and links for yourself.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

My only objection to it is that I think it's not a good idea to  link to sites with detailed information on making bombs, detonarors, chemical weapons, and armour, providing techniques on how to avoid detection by the authorities, and discussing getting ahold of biological and radioactive weapons, including addresses of where various countries keep radioactive stockpiles.

I have no problem reading the manifesto, as it does provice important information. For one thing, there has been a lot of talk about Brevik's racism, but nothing in the news or commentary about his incredible misogyny, which is very apparent from reading the document.

 

Tim Johnston

earth_as_one wrote:

The Oslo Killer is a neocon extremist.  The only people who can't see this are people who share his irrational hatred of Muslims or people who think hating Muslims is rational.  Pretty much everyone else will recognize a neocon inspired irrational hate of Muslims and Islam.  If the Oslo killer hadn't killed about 80 people, I'm sure he would have been a welcome guest on one of the regularly scheduled FoxNews Muslim hatefests, where Oslo Killer and the FoxNews neocon pundits could discuss their fears of Muslim threats, the Muslim President of the US, the inhernet violent nature of Islam and the war Muslims wage against us.

 

Many neocons probably agree with the Oslo Killer regarding the cultural genocide threat posed by Muslim infiltration of our society and the need to act quickly and decisively.

 

Given the pervasiveness of neocon inspired irrational hatred of Muslims in  Norway, Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Italy.... the likelihood of a copy cat atrocity is extremely high, even if only one in a million neocons decides to follow the Oslo Killer's call to arms.

How convenient that the atrocity merely supports an opinion you already hold, then. So he was a "neocon" extremist (which he wasn't, but let's pretend). So what? You holding others who share some of his views responsible is not only slander of the highest order but involves a logic you haven't fully thought through; what about terrorists who share some of YOUR views?

I don't know what your views are, but some examples: the Unabomber was inspired by Al Gore's apocalyptic vision of environmental catastrophe. Are Al Gore's supporters and environmentals responsible for his actions?

Sirhan Sirhan killed for Palestine. Are supporters of Palestine bad because of what he did?

Anyway, you get the picture. When a terrorist kills people in the future for a cause you support, should we come to your door looking for an apology?

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Personally I don't need to read child pornography to both know it exists and that it is vile and evil.  Similarly I don't need to read neo con manifestos to know they exist and are vile and evil.  

That's not a fair comparison.  The excerpts I posted from the Oslo killer's manifest weren't illegally obscene or secret illegal information shared amongs a small group of extremists.  We get the exact same information from mainstream neocon pundits and political leaders when we watch neocon cable new pundits on TV or listen to a neocon radio shock jock.

In order for people to judge if my claim is accurate the the Oslo killer embraced mainstream neocon ideology would be to examine what the Oslo killer wrote in his manifest.  Removing/ignoring this information in this thread only makes it easier for neocons to dispute claims the Oslo killer was their creation.

I'm not the only one who saw this obvious connection.  I only became aware of the connection after reading the Oslo killer's manifest.  If all I knew was what CBC reported about the Oslo killer's ideology I'd be completely oblivious to the connection.  Now that I am aware of the connection, I can now find find references by other news sources which made the same observation:

 

Antiwar.com

Quote:
The Return of the Neocons’ Prodigal Son

The Oslo Killer and the Axis of Hate

by , July 27, 2011

Suggestions that the “counter-jihadist” ideology spread by such websites as Frontpagemag.com, run by neocon David Horowitz, and the affiliated “Jihad Watch,” inspired – and provoked – the Norway killer XXX have been met with cries of outrage by the neoconservative Right. This is hardly surprising: confronted with the sight of someone who put their hateful and inherently violent ideology into practice, what else are they supposed to do?...

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/26/the-return-of-the-neocons-...

 

Quote:
Oslo Massacre Exposes the Nexus of Islamophobia and Right-Wing Extremism

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, July 25, 2011

 

More details have emerged on the Norwegian terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik and now we have enough details to piece together what’s behind Friday’s massacre which saw car bombings in Oslo and a mass shooting attack on the island of Utoya that caused the deaths of more than 90 people. 

Hours before his terrorist acts, Anders Behring Breivik left a 1550-page manifesto on internet. Its title is 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. Apparently, the title is rooted in a demogrpahic claim that Muslims will become a majority in Europe.

The manifesto draws on “Eurabia” and “Muslim Tide” writers such as Bruce Bawer, Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Geert Wilders, Theodore Dalrymple, and Robert Spencer, as well as many figures from the extreme right, to create an argument that Muslims, immigrants, multiculturalists, European Union backers and social democrats are part of a plot to undermine Europe’s Christian civilization. It then draws on the extreme right, the ideas of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups (which he admires) to describe and rationalize a plot which almost exactly matches his activities on July 22, 2011. 

While Breivik is relatively dismissive of the larger anti-immigration parties’ prospects for meaningful change, he lauds more fringe groups such as the Stop Islamization of America and Stop Islamization of Europe, websites including JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna, and the True Finns, some of whose members were sent the manifesto shortly before his killing spree started...

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/July/25%20o/Oslo%20...

 

But you can't judge these claims for yourself anymore on this website.  I guess you'll have to trust the word of some random person on the internet you don't know.

 

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Tommy_Paine wrote:

I think one thing to look at is this:

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric agaisnt abortion providers, and abortion providers start getting shot.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against government, and the Murrah building in Oklahoma is bombed.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric-- to the point of putting "cross hairs" on a political oponent, and we have the Gifford's shooting.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against socialists, and socialists are hunted and murdered.

Bingo.

Tim Johnston

Tommy_Paine wrote:

I think one thing to look at is this:

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric agaisnt abortion providers, and abortion providers start getting shot.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against government, and the Murrah building in Oklahoma is bombed.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric-- to the point of putting "cross hairs" on a political oponent, and we have the Gifford's shooting.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against socialists, and socialists are hunted and murdered.

 

Do you have an ounce of self-awareness at all?

How about this:

The left ratchets up the rhetoric against Capitalism: "anti-globalists" go on the rampage.

The Left ratchets up the rhetoric against Israel: Jews get attacked and, like Ilan Halimi, even killed.

The Left ratchets up the rhetoric on the environment: the Unabomber starts blowing stuff up.

The Left ratchets up the rhetoric against "Islamophobes": Kurt Westergaard gets attacked by an axe-wielding nutter.

 

It's a stupid game you're playing and, not only that, what you're effectively saying is that nobody can criticise anything ever, just in case some psychopath decided to take someone out.

Is that the position you want to advocate?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

How about you attempt to substantiate the connections you're claiming before we deign to acknowledge your nonsense?

The connections between Breivik and the extreme right are all well-documented above; please have the courtesy to tell us what you think you are talking about.

BTW, I suggest another thread would be more appropriate for your subject, so please start a new one. No need to derail things here.

Tim Johnston

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

How about you attempt to substantiate the connections you're claiming ?

There IS no causal connection. Did you ask Tommy Paine to substantiate his connections?

The point is, nobody is blaming Al Gore for the Unabomber, and nor should they.

Tim Johnston

earth_as_one wrote:

 

Thank you for taking up this debate Tim.

 

I am an agnostic non-violent pacifist who supports multiculturalism, freedom of religion and free speech.  I am oppose anyone who believes in using violence in support of their causes.   If more people shared my ideology, violence would decrease.

I claim the Oslo killer is an extreme example of where irrational hatred of Islam as promoted by well known mainstream neocons can lead.  If I understand you correctly, you believe the Oslo killer's ideology was not based mainstream ideology.

thankyou for your reply. I trimmed down the quote for brevity and not because I want to avoid anything you've raised. Yes, I agree his ideology is drawn from various Neo-Conservative and Libertarian writers as well as a few more right-wing icons such as Edmund Burke and other thinkers like Theodore Dalrymple.

It is very upsetting for one such as myself who holds many similar views to Breivik's that one could erupt in such violence, particularly because the mainstream of thinkers such as I believe in democracy and rational debate as a way to decide any and all internal issues. I tend to think, like you do, that if others shared my ideology, violence in the world would decrease.

While we have disagreement, we will, sadly, have those who descend to the level of violence. Which doesn't mean disagreement is bad. I take on board what you say about hateful rhetoric - it is bad whatever its source or its target. We can never prevent psychopaths from killing for what they believe in, because they have given up their cause as lost to begin with. How can someone who believes right is on their side commit such an atrocity? Only one who has enough paranoia to believe the deck is stacked against him, and enough narcissism to believe himself unique qualified to 'deal with it'.

My point is, you can hold almost identical beliefs to Breivik, and believe your cause can be won through democratic means, or you can believe that all is lost, and descend to the level of the terrorist. The difference is what is crucial, and it almost seems as though personality type and level of paranoia is the key difference. But, ultimately, I just don't know.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

good points Tim.  I agree with most of what you said.  It sounds like you now agree that the Oslo killer was a neocon extremist and/or that his ideologies have neocon origins.

Lets move on to responsibility.  I believe that only the Oslo killer and those who helped him are responsible for this atrocity.  I don't blame neocons in general for his actions.  I believe that popular cable news and radio shock jock neocons promote irrational fear and hatred of Muslims and have created a nurturing environment for the potential growth and proliferation of violent neocon extremism.

When antiSemites promote the same kind of irrational hatred towards Jews, we recognize it as evil and people who disagree will say something or report it.

When neocon extremists promote the same kind of irrational hatred towards Muslims, its not recognized as the same kind of evil as antiSemitism and people even people who disagree with it tend to remain silent and do nothing.  More shocking is how wide spread and commonly accept irrational hatred towards Muslims has become in our society.  The Oslo killer isn't alone in his viewpoints.  He's just an extreme example of where irrational hatred can lead.  If you read his manifest (link in the first post in this thread) you will probably recognize most of what he wrote.  I know I did, and I'm not a neocon.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

BTW, consider if only one in a million neocons is as extreme as the Oslo killer and plans to copy his actions.  I consider this a real threat and the chances are likely that more neocon extremists will heed the Oslo killer's call to arms.  That's why I think ignoring/belittling/obscuring the link between the Oslo killer and neocon ideology would be a huge mistake.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

Tim Johnston wrote:

How convenient that the atrocity merely supports an opinion you already hold, then. So he was a "neocon" extremist (which he wasn't, but let's pretend). So what? You holding others who share some of his views responsible is not only slander of the highest order but involves a logic you haven't fully thought through; what about terrorists who share some of YOUR views?

I don't know what your views are, but some examples: the Unabomber was inspired by Al Gore's apocalyptic vision of environmental catastrophe. Are Al Gore's supporters and environmentals responsible for his actions?

Sirhan Sirhan killed for Palestine. Are supporters of Palestine bad because of what he did?

Anyway, you get the picture. When a terrorist kills people in the future for a cause you support, should we come to your door looking for an apology?

Thank you for taking up this debate Tim.

 

I am an agnostic non-violent pacifist who supports multiculturalism, freedom of religion and free speech.  I am oppose anyone who believes in using violence in support of their causes.   If more people shared my ideology, violence would decrease.

I claim the Oslo killer is an extreme example of where irrational hatred of Islam as promoted by well known mainstream neocons can lead.  If I understand you correctly, you believe the Oslo killer's ideology was not based on mainstream popular neocon ideology.  I disagree.

I going to list what I believe arethe Oslo killer's core ideologies regarding Islam, Muslims and multiculturalism.  As a self proclaimed neocon, you tell me if you agree or disagree with any of the Oslo killer's core ideologies and if you believe these ideologies are common  among neocons.

1) "Moderate" Islam is a fiction

2) Muslims are inherently violent

3) "Jihad" refers to the violent struggle to destroy non-Muslim societies and bring them forcibly into the Islamic world

4) The radical left and its Islamist allies intend to erode western values and disarm western nations in a time of terror

5) The Muslim immigration invasion is a threat to Western Democracies which will lead to Sharia Law and eventually dhimmitude

6) The mainstream media is dominated by liberals and lefties

7) Banning the Burka and Niqab and other forms of overt Islam is not racist or a limit on personal freedoms. 

8) Islamic fundamentalism is the primary source of terrorism

9) Lefty and Liberal cultural self loathing is a threat to Western values

Based on these ideologies, the Oslo killer came to the conclusion that we must act quickly and decisively to defend ourselves against the cultural genocide threat posed by Muslim infiltration of our society.  I can see how that is not a core neocon ideology, but it is a logical progression of the irrational Muslim hatred that I believe is propagated by mainstream popular neocons which dominate Cable News and Shock Jock radio.

The Oslo Killer then decided that the real threat was not Muslims, who are what they are and must be isolated and banned from Western Society.  No the real threat based on the above ideolgies are Western political leaders leaders who embrace multiculturalism and are blind to the threat posed by Western Islamization.  So he became a farmer in order to legally get his hands on fertilizers which could be used to make explosives and began training for his mission.  His atrocity was the result of years of careful planning and thought.  I also am 99% certain this person did not act alone and was helped by many people who share his extreme neocon viewpoint.

BTW, I don't believe that everyone who embraces the same ideologies as the Oslo killer will resort to violence.  But I do believe that neocon inspired irrational hatred towards Muslims was his core motivation for killing Norwegian politicians and their familes.

MSM obfusaction of the Oslo killer's extreme neocon ideology is a not going to make us safer from future acts of neocon extrmist violence.

6079_Smith_W

I do blame some of those who promote the ideology insofar as they promote hatred and intolerance, and disrespect for the rule of law. 

That's not the same thing as saying I think they had their fingers on the trigger, but I do think they bear some responsibility for promoting the xeonphobia, seige mentality and climate of fear that takes intolerance one step closer to violence.

And despite the scope of Brevik's crime, it's not all that uncommon. Not everyone kills people by the score (though it's not that uncommon) but when you count in people who are injured and murdered on a daily basis, Brevik isn't all that much of an anomaly.

One in a million? Unfortunately in a world of several billion, that isn't very good odds, certainly not the rare occurrance I think you are implying:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/13/suicide-bombing-revenge-osama

NDPP

so how long do we permit formations like the JDL-EDL to run free - now successfully organizing in the Canadian 'mainstream' as the JDL instigated Galloway ban and the recent JDL-Canada organized demo at the TDSB demonstrates?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

earth_as_one wrote:

good points Tim.  I agree with most of what you said.  It sounds like you now agree that the Oslo killer was a neocon extremist and/or that his ideologies have neocon origins.

Um, yeah. He also said he "holds many similar views to Breivik's", as if we didn't know that already.

But by all means carry on with your nice little chat.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
....One in a million? Unfortunately in a world of several billion, that isn't very good odds, certainly not the rare occurrance I think you are implying:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/13/suicide-bombing-revenge-osama

 

Quite the opposite.  I believe that even with the odds of only one in a million neocons being extreme enough to attempt an Oslo Killer like atrocity, the world has hundreds of millions of neocons.  By my calculation that means hundreds of people plan to take up the Oslo killer's call to arms and the chances of a copy cat atrocity is a near certainty.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

NDPP wrote:

so how long do we permit formations like the JDL-EDL to run free - now successfully organizing in the Canadian 'mainstream' as the JDL instigated Galloway ban and the recent JDL-Canada organized demo at the TDSB demonstrates?

I do support everyone's right to free speech even the JDL's (even though they don't share my opinion regarding free speech).  As far as I am concerned, the JDL has every right to spew their irrational and paranoid nonsense.,   They only cross a line when they act violently based on their irrational paranoid nonsense.  I would also expect that if the JDL were aware that one of their members was planning to commit a violent crime, they would report that person to the authorities ASAP.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

earth_as_one wrote:

Lets move on to responsibility.  I believe that only the Oslo killer and those who helped him are responsible for this atrocity.  I don't blame neocons in general for his actions.  I believe that popular cable news and radio shock jock neocons promote irrational fear and hatred of Muslims and have created a nurturing environment for the potential growth and proliferation of violent neocon extremism. [emphasis added]

So you don't think "neocons in general" agree with "popular cable news and radio shock jock neocons"? You don't think those same media voices are enabled, supported, abetted, and protected by "neocons in general"? You don't think promotion of irrational fear and hatred of Muslims is one of the central themes of modern neoconservative ideology "in general"?

I don't believe such a distinction is reasonable. Right-wing hate media do not exist in a vacuum; they exist solely because of the patronage of people like Tim Johnston.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

earth_as_one wrote:

I would also expect that if the JDL were aware that one of their members was planning to commit a violent crime, they would report that person to the authorities ASAP.

I have a nice parcel of well-irrigated land in Florida you might be interested in purchasing.

 

6079_Smith_W

Oh come on you guys. At least Tim Johnston was honest enough to admit his position (a brave act, IMO) , and he hasn't even said WHAT he believes and supports, and you're already fitting him for horns and a pitchfork. 

I don't know why people are alarmed about missing babblers when there is an active contingent making sure nothing interferes with the nice smooth walls of the echo chamber they imagine this place to be.

 

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

M. Spector wrote:

earth_as_one wrote:

good points Tim.  I agree with most of what you said.  It sounds like you now agree that the Oslo killer was a neocon extremist and/or that his ideologies have neocon origins.

Um, yeah. He also said he "holds many similar views to Breivik's", as if we didn't know that already.

But by all means carry on with your nice little chat.

 

FYI, the people most likely to know what the Oslo killer was planning and reporting him to authorities before he committed his atrocity would have been moderate neocons within his circle of confidentes.  I suspect some of his friends and close aquaintances knew what he was planning and did nothing, or worse helped. I'm expecting more arrests in this case.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

I agree with you 6079.  Tim is being brave and honest.  Imagine a Muslim trying to defend their fundamentalist viewpoint on 9/12.

 

BTW, I have no problem with religious fundamentalists up to a point.   I support their right to express their extreme viewpoints.   I don't even mind being told I'm going straight to hell, as long as they are polite about it.  My problem is when people cross a line and put their violent hostile thoughts and ideologies into action.  I even would have supported the right of the Oslo kiler to express his extreme hatred in public, where it can be debated and diseminated.  However I do support keeping an eye on people who express an ideology which rationalizes violence.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

earth_as_one wrote:

The Return of the Neocons’ Prodigal Son

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/26/the-return-of-the-neocons-...

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/July/25%20o/Oslo%20...

But you can't judge these claims for yourself anymore on this website.  I guess you'll have to trust the word of some random person on the internet you don't know.

I read both those before you posted all those links to nasty sites.  Actually those are the kinds of sites I go to for facts and analysis.  As for whether some of the sites you listed are illegal I suspect that might be under Canadian Human Rights legislation.  Inciting hatred against a specific groups is a crime in this country. I have no intention of reading that kind of vile shit anymore than I would read a porn site to determine if they had crossed the line into illegality. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

earth_as_one wrote:

I do support everyone's right to free speech even the JDL's (even though they don't share my opinion regarding free speech).  As far as I am concerned, the JDL has every right to spew their irrational and paranoid nonsense.,   They only cross a line when they act violently based on their irrational paranoid nonsense.  I would also expect that if the JDL were aware that one of their members was planning to commit a violent crime, they would report that person to the authorities ASAP.

That is your view but it is not the law of the land in Canada.  I believe whole heartedly in freedom of expression (notice not free speech because that is an American concept) however I also agree with our Criminal Code sections that ban the spewing of hate against many groups including Moslems.

Quote:

Criminal Code of Canada

Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to:

  • advocate genocide
  • publicly incite hatred
  • wilfully promote hatred

against an "identifiable group." 

An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:

  • colour
  • race
  • religion
  • ethnic origin
  • sexual orientation

The Criminal Code provisions are intended to prohibit the public distribution of hate propaganda. Private speech is not covered by the provisions.

 

For example, "advocating genocide" includes publicly arguing that members of an identifiable group should be killed. Wilfully promoting hatred can only be committed by communicating statements other than in a private conversation. And inciting hatred is only prohibited if statements are communicated in a public place.

 

Online communications that advocate genocide or wilfully promote or incite hatred are likely to fall within the provisions because the Internet is a public network.

 

Under section 320.1 of the Criminal Code, a judge has the authority to order the removal of hate propaganda from a computer system that is available to the public. Such authority extends to all computer systems located within Canada.

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsguarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression to all Canadians. However, all Charter rights are subject to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

 

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether or not section 319(2) of the Criminal Code (the crime of wilfully promoting hatred) violates our constitutional right to freedom of expression, in the Keegstra case. James Keegstra was an Alberta high-school teacher who taught his students that the Holocaust did not occur and was part of a Jewish conspiracy. The Court held that, although section 319(2) does limit free speech, it is a reasonable limit consistent with a democratic society, and is therefore constitutional.

 

 

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/when_is_hate_a_...

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Oh come on you guys. At least Tim Johnston was honest enough to admit his position (a brave act, IMO) , and he hasn't even said WHAT he believes and supports, and you're already fitting him for horns and a pitchfork.

Oh, he's honest and brave is he? Well, that makes all the difference!

We know what he believes and thinks. Read his posts here and elsewhere. Read the racist right-wing filth that earth_as_one provided gratuitous links to, above, several of which Johnston says he visits "regularly".

This is babble, not the Globe and Mail comments section. Haven't you figured that out yet?

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

earth_as_one wrote:

BTW, I have no problem with religious fundamentalists up to a point.   I support their right to express their extreme viewpoints.   I don't even mind being told I'm going straight to hell, as long as they are polite about it.  My problem is when people cross a line and put their violent hostile thoughts and ideologies into action.  I even would have supported the right of the Oslo kiler to express his extreme hatred in public, where it can be debated and diseminated.

Do you recognize a distinction between tolerance and cowardice?

Pages

Topic locked