The Greenwald piece is right on the mark. The so-called neocons have no interest in free speech except for speech they like. For instance they support restricting the freedom of speech of college and university faculty (i.e., David Horowitz)
I agree with Chomsky on this - if you don't believe in freedom of speech for views you find repugnant then you don't believe in at all. Stalin was in favor of free speech for views he liked too.
Canadianbacon, you post is a fantastic example of "These aren't offensive using my values to judge them and since my values are the only ones that exist, nobody can be possibly be offended by these cartoons". Get over yourself
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You say that as if someone (anyone, anytime, anywhere) suggested the contrary. What might your point be?[/b]
Well, unionist said the following: "do you recall how many people were killed in the reaction to their original publication?"
I was pointing out that the deaths that resulted were not a question of people being inspired to kill Muslims as a result of the cartoons. Which is the basis of the complain in Alberta - that it exposes Muslims to violence.
quote:
With the ability to impose penalties, and without the normal legal checks and balances, these shadowy extra-judicial commissions are ripe for exploitation by those who have the power to do so, defining nebulous thought-crimes to their advantage.
Human rights bodies are "shadowy extra-judicial commission"? What is so shadowy about them I think it is fairly clear how the operate if you choose to do the research, hardly the secret police. As far as "normal checks and balances" human rights commission have procedure and the ability to appeal etc. Are Housing Rental Tribunals that determine landlord/tenant disputes "shadowy and extra-judicial? You seem to have a lot of faith in the criminal justice system in terms of "checks and balances."
As far as "thought-crimes", we are actually talking about propagating hate, there is a differnce between thinking and disseminating. If you disagree with hate speech laws fine you don't need to misrepresent them.
As far as the Greenwald piece goes kind of overwrought with suggestions of sinister intent and undue coercion, painting human rights commission as though it were the spanish inquisition.
quote:
Here are the noxious fruits of hate speech laws: a citizen being forced to appear before the Government in order to be interrogated by an agent of the State -- a banal, clerical bureaucrat -- about what opinions he expressed and why he expressed them, upon pain of being punished under the law. This is nothing short of stomach-turning:
Underlying most of these arguments lies the assumption that free-speech actually occurs in western capitalism, to a large extent this is a myth. In order to disseminate information in any significant way you need access to air waves or advertising revenue to put out a large distribution, this ensure dissemination of views is held in the hands of those with wealth and power.
Even under these conditions there are restrictions in terms of making threats and liable. To me hate speech constitues a threat and should be treated as such.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the commissions "shadowy extra judicial bodies" but I do think tehy're being abused beyond their intended purpose.
They're supposed to be about remedying discrimination in matters like housing or employment, i.e. if a company fires you because they find out you're gay or a landlord refuses to rent you an apartment because of your race or religion. They were never intended to be used because you are offended by speech. The 'right' to "not be offended" has never been understood to be a right.
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
Underlying most of these arguments lies the assumption that free-speech actually occurs in western capitalism, to a large extent this is a myth.
Of course it is. Freedom of speech, to the extent it exists, is largely a negative freedom - there's no coercive force stopping you. It isn't a positive freedom because obviously the rich and powerful have more ability to actually make use of it. But I don't see how destroying negative freedoms (as advocates of hate speech laws seem to assume) will enhance positive freedom.
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:
[b]It looks liek Syed Souhawardy, who brought the complaint forward about Ezra Levant, is now having a complaint brought against him by women in his mosque.All the details are on Mr. Shit's [url=http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/inside-syed-soharwardys-mosque.html]Websit...
[/b]
It looks liek Syed Souhardy, who brought the complaint forward about Ezra Levant, is now having a complaint brought against him by women in his mosque.
All the details are on Mr. Shit's [url=http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/inside-syed-soharwardys-mosque.html]Websit...
quote:
We were discriminated as women and were treated poorly, differently, negatively and adversely by the Directors and Officers of Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, Islam Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), Muslim Against Terrorism (MAT), Al-Madinah Dar-Ul-Aloom Ltd and Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Assembly. In this meeting we were treated diferently from men in the following manner:
· Abusive language uttered towards us;
· Not permitted to ask any questions;
· Danied participation as equal members of the Muslim community;
· Physically and verbally threatened; made to sit in the back of the hall;
· Accused of disrupting and subotaging the proceedings;
· Forced to vacate the pemises;
· Followed-up by obscene and threatening phone calls and letters in the mail.
Sorry but people think in words.
Thoughts are words and talking or writing down words are thoughts expressed.
So the term Thought Crimes is correct.
When Mel Gibson spoke the anti-semtic remarks that got him in trouble - he was expressing his thoughts, likewise the cartoons were expressions of the cartoonists thoughts.
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
[b]When Mel Gibson spoke the anti-semtic remarks that got him in trouble - he was expressing his thoughts, likewise the cartoons were expressions of the cartoonists thoughts.[/b]
You mean Smell Shitson, don't you?
Sorry, just expressing my thoughts.
ETA: By the way, Smell Shitson wasn't just "expressing his thoughts" when he insulted his betters. He was driving drunk.
[ 15 January 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
yes he was drunk, while driving
which was a crime
his drunkness helped him express his thoughts colourfully - which was not a crime
But if you work with lots of bald people and have a personal problem with bald people, it's probably best to keep yr thoughts on bald people to yourself.
his betters?
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
[b]his betters?[/b]
Yes. The Jewish people whom he smeared. They are better than he is. Ergo, "his betters".
Mel is not really an exception - although it was known around Hollywood that his father is a holocaust denier - until in vino veritas got the better of him, during a moment of anger - most of the public would never have known his thoughts on jews
this seems a bit off track but in line with our freedom to speak our thoughts and the possible reprecussions.
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
[b] most of the public would never have known his thoughts on jews
[/b]
Unless they watched "The Passion of Christ", you mean?
Even Rome has been softpedalling the "Jews murdered the Saviour" horseshit. But Smell Shitson is still hot on that bandwagon.
Having run the full gamut from Ezra Levant to Smell Shitson, I guess we can close this for length.
Feel free to start anew, or just wait until Ezra does something else pretty much stupid, which shouldn't take long.
I do admit I dream about him, through some fluke, becoming the leader of the Conservative Party, thus providing even more political comedy than his old boss Stockwell.
