Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Author Faces Canadian Tribunal For Hate Speech

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the can't-say-that-here dept.

Censorship 818

An anonymous reader writes "A Seattle Times editorial notes that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will put author Mark Steyn on trial for his book 'America Alone,' which has angered Muslims in Canada. Steyn is a columnist for the Canadian magazine Maclean's. According to the editorial, British Columbia bans all words and images 'likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.' Steyn is unapologetic, and is advertising his book as a 'Canadian Hate Crime' and daring the tribunal to 'pronounce him bad.'" The Canadian tabloid the National Post has coverage of what it calls "a media storm."

cancel ×

818 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hate Speech? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363010)

So it was hate speech? Slashdot has decided. Thanks for telling me what to think!

Re:Hate Speech? (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363058)

So it was hate speech? Slashdot has decided. Thanks for telling me what to think!

No, but the subject is facing a tribunal for hate speech. That doesn't mean he's guilty.

But even if he was, so what? Short of inciting violence, why shouldn't he be able to say that he hates orange people or that Pastafarians are evil? Good for Steyn for taking this and running with it. Who wants to live in a world where you're not allowed to explain why you dislike someone?

Iran BOMB Canada (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363128)

Teach the bastard!

Re:Hate Speech? (4, Informative)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363188)

> That doesn't mean he's guilty.

As a practical matter, yes it does. To date the conviction rate for the so called 'human rights tribunal is 100%.

And lets not just laugh at the silly Canadians and believe 'It can't happen here in America; We have the 1st Amendment!' Wake up, it's long dead and Hate Crimes is THE big new growth area for the State.

Re:Hate Speech? (5, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363414)

As a practical matter, yes it does. To date the conviction rate for the so called 'human rights tribunal is 100%.

I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender. I think he's doing the best thing here by taking the fight to them instead of sitting back and letting it happen to him.

You know, what gets me about this is that some groups deserve to be hated. What about Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il? I have no problem whatsoever with exposing them to ridicule or hatred because, well, they've brought it on themselves. Even the "protected classes" from the story have members that have it coming to them, such as people whose sexual orientation is toward children or animals, or maybe the Kansas school board who wanted to teach creationism in science class because of their beliefs.

You can't be free unless you're able to hate someone and convince other people to do the same. It's not pleasant and usually not good, but it's still a necessary evil.

Re:Hate Speech? (3, Funny)

Calinous (985536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363532)

100% conviction rate? They are as good as the Inquisition at that.
      What happens to the victims? Torches and pitchforks?

Re:Hate Speech? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363288)

It's a fine line that probably hasn't been tested. The purpose is to stop people from encouraging or enticing hate. Just like the Human Rights Commissions, it's being abused by anyone who takes the slightest offence to something.

When I read the charter, it seemed to have exceptions built in it so you could talk about this sort of stuff as long as you didn't encourage hate towards those you were talking about. But then Provinces/Territories can 'enhance' legislation with their own so this is probably harsher than the Charter.

Re:Hate Speech? (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363476)

> The purpose is to stop people from encouraging or enticing hate.

That's already over the line. The second you put yourself (or worse, annoint ANYONE to) the position of deciding what thoughts are proper and which improper you are a threat to liberty. And for the record, I HATE YOUR FASCIST GUTS.

There, I'm now a hater. And I'll defend my right to hate anybody I get a hankering to hate to the death.. although as a non-pacifist I'll vastly prefer the death of the other guy if it comes to violence. Of course, being a friend of Liberty I'll also defend your right to hate me right back.... just as long as it's just words in the arena of ideas. So long as the factions are just waving signs in the street it's all just a 'frank exchange of ideas.'

Remember Freedom Zero: If you don't have the Right to be Wrong (in the other guys' opinion) you can never be Free.

Re:Hate Speech? (0)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363402)

Although it's somewhat murky distinction (and possibly a slippery slope) hate speech is most typically defined as such that advocates violence toward a certain group of individuals, usually defined on a stereotypical/prejudicial basis.

If you adequately explain why you dislike someone, it would be a specific and explicit threat, rather than hate speech. This may or may not be illegal, although, for instance, threatening to kill or assassinate somebody does carry penalties under most jurisdictions.

As much as I'm for freedom of speech, there seem to be a few clear-cut cases where it's not a terrible idea. The Nazis come to mind pretty quickly as an instance where hate speech spiraled out of control, and many were killed for crimes that their race was perceived to have committed.

Re:Hate Speech? (5, Informative)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363412)

There is a subtle difference between disliking/disagreeing/etc and hating/hate speech. But looking at the topic of the book (haven't read it)

Steyn predicts in his new book, "America Alone," that Muslims will swarm over Europe, ban alcohol and put women in veils
it just seems to me it is misguided political gesture to certain groups at the cost of freedom of speech. I'm a European and I occasionally worry about it too.

We have a politician in the Netherlands (Geert Wilders, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders [wikipedia.org] ) who has some of the same ideas, and made a short movie about it, Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film) [wikipedia.org] It caused an outrage here even before anyone knew anything about it. Even to the point the government contemplated banning the movie, without actually having seen it.

And so it begins... (1)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363014)

How long before we see this crap in the States?

Re:And so it begins... (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363056)

Been near a college campus lately???

Re:And so it begins... (1)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363076)

Oh... yeah. Right you are....

Re:And so it begins... (3, Interesting)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363258)

http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/ [indoctrinate-u.com]
Great flick.
Political Correctness is about doing the wrong thing for seemingly proper reasons.
Or, it's passive aggression writ large.

Re:And so it begins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363542)

This story doesn't really seem like a Technology related Slashdot article. As much as I like free speech, it seems out of place here.

Re:And so it begins... (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363064)

I thought we were ALREADY headed that way with crap like "free speech zones". The easiest way to control the masses is to ensure that no thoughts contradicting those in power can be heard. But that is my 02c, which ATM I am still able to post without fear of getting my door kicked in (I hope),YMMV

Re:And so it begins... (5, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363364)

which ATM I am still able to post without fear of getting my door kicked in (I hope),YMMV
Not unless you live in a Texas compound with a wacky religious leader, at least.

There are some egregious examples of our (US) government overstepping their bounds, of course, but by and large, this sort of worry is not a current concern for most first-world citizens. But all you have to do is look to a country like China, where *real* political censorship and oppression occurs, and you then see how easily things can go astray.

Are people in China inherently more susceptible to authoritarian regimes, or somehow less capable of existing in a democracy than other peoples? Do they desire freedom less than we do? I suspect not, but I fear too many people simply assume that it could never happen to us. I'm not talking about some tin-foil hat government conspiracy, but a slow and gradual erosion of our rights - a slowly boiling pot to the frog, as it were.

I'm always astounded at those individuals who, while at the same time espousing fear of government censorship, are all too eager to cede so much power to the government in various guises: social programs, education, health care, financial control, and taxation. Power inevitably tends to corrupt, yet people are so easily deluded into thinking "yes, but we'll use that power to make our world better!" All the good intentions in the world won't prevent a powerful government from becoming at best bloated, inefficient, and uncaring, and at worst, tyrannical.

It's pretty easy to see with an example like this how well-meaning intentions can go so badly astray. Only foolish reactionaries talk of radical change the government. Such changes will likely never happen, and while I'm sure it feels great to take a principles stand, it affects nothing in the long run. Instead, the true battle is incremental - every new power ceded to the government must be carefully questioned... Will this really make the lives of our citizens better in the long run, or is this just another potential method for a government to oppress and control it's population?

Re:And so it begins... (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363134)

There's this guy who was presumed guilty of racial harassment by mere ownership of a book.

Re:And so it begins... (1)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363146)

Isn't an indictment for a hate crime : 'likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt'? Which states don't have this yet, you mean Russian states?

Re:And so it begins... (2, Informative)

lixee (863589) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363162)

Ooops. The link didn't parse. http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9255.html

Re:And so it begins... (3, Insightful)

sasdrtx (914842) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363294)

We have a more efficient system in the USA: any violation of political correctness will get you fired, pilloried, and defamed mercilessly. In certain careers, your career is often destroyed. And of course whether what was said is true or not is irrelevant.

Re:And so it begins... (3, Interesting)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363368)

We have a more efficient system in the USA: any violation of political correctness will get you fired, pilloried, and defamed mercilessly. In certain careers, your career is often destroyed. And of course whether what was said is true or not is irrelevant.
You're exaggerating, but you do bring up a valid complaint. However, we Canadians are WAY ahead of you, since we face the same perils in the workplace, AND we have "Human Rights Commissions" (Orwellian speak for "thought-crimes inquisitions"). We're way more progressive!

National Post is not a tabloid... (4, Informative)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363022)

The National Post is one of the national dailies up here, it's not a bloody tabloid.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363054)

You must forgive them. After all, with Fox as the main 'news' station their perspectives on all media have to be somewhat skewed.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363248)

With that sort of generalization, you must be a viewer.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (4, Informative)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363512)

You must forgive them. After all, with Fox as the main 'news' station their perspectives on all media have to be somewhat skewed.
[citation-needed]

In my own, totally unscientific observations, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN have considerably more market-penetration of televised news among the general population.

Also, consider the irony of issuing blanket statements in a post condemning intolerance and ignorance.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (2, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363088)

" The National Post is one of the national dailies up here, it's not a bloody tabloid."

Matter of opinion. Conrad Blacks little rag is just a tabloid with bigger words IMO.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363192)

That's a fine opinion to share with the world from within the soapbox of your little comment, but not one fit to publish on the front page of this site. See the difference?

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363504)

Matter of opinion. Conrad Blacks little rag is just a tabloid with bigger words IMO.

Hey, idiot, Conrad Black sold the National Post years ago. Try to pay attention.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (2, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363118)

In the newspaper world, tabloid is type of layout/format. It has nothing to do with the contents inside.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (4, Informative)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363160)

Except the National Post is a broadsheet, not a tabloid, even by that definition. Try again.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (2, Informative)

aamcf (651492) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363464)

That's an example of etymological fallacy [wikipedia.org] : words can change in meaning after they are first used.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363452)

The National Post is produced by Canwest Global.

If you are in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, then you already know anything printed by Canwest isn't even worth wiping your ass with.

National Post (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363052)

The Post, Canada's other national newspaper, is a broadsheet [wikipedia.org] , not a tabloid [wikipedia.org] .

This law goes overboard, but yet... (5, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363082)

... does absolutely nothing to stop the scourge that is Celine Dion for acts, "likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt."

compared to the U.S. (0, Troll)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363096)

I'm sure glad the state of civil liberties is so much better in the U.S. We just have torture, secret prisons where people can be held forever without trial, and an executive branch that claims habeas corpus doesn't exist. It's also no big deal that we have one of the world's highest incarceration rates, which is as high as it is mainly because of the victimless crime of selling drugs. Nope, no problem here. Those Canadians sure are bad, though.

Re:compared to the U.S. (3, Informative)

Unending (1164935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363164)

Oh come on just because the U.S. has problems doesn't mean this is acceptable in any way.

Re:compared to the U.S. (2, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363196)

Oh come on just because the U.S. has problems doesn't mean this is acceptable in any way.

Of course not, but bashing the US is a great way to get a cheap karma bump around here.

Re:compared to the U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363426)

not to mention it's also a great way to skirt problems at home by non-us'ians. kind of like drinking; if you can forget your problems they somehow don't exist for real.

Re:compared to the U.S. (0, Troll)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363508)

And pointing out that someone is bashing the US, no matter how appropriate, is another way to get cheap karma points.

Re:compared to the U.S. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363550)

that sounds like Iranian talk ! (racks shotgun)

Re:compared to the U.S. (5, Insightful)

hansraj (458504) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363226)

I am not a citizen of US and I don't understand why the US needs to fix all the bugs in its system before people are even allowed to talk about problems they might see elsewhere? Sure the recent governments have done a lot to erode freedom and privacy to a great deal, but the almost absolute support for free speech in its system remains one of the best things about US. And I don't see why US citizens can't discuss (and even mock) other countries where some fuzzy notion of hate-speech is turned into a law.

Talking about how the system in US sucks when the topic at hand is about Canada makes me feel you are just karma-whoring for +5 Insightful.

Rights and Demands (5, Informative)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363098)

This whole thing is about the right to not be offended. Most important is the fact that any individual can file a complaint and legally go after (paid by the government) anyone they think has slighted or defamed them or said nasty words against them. Of course, the defendant has to foot all his/her own legal expenses.

It's actually a free speech issue and I'll leave out my own prejudices and let readers decide for themselves.

Re:Rights and Demands (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363540)

So all you need to do is get 10,000 people to file suit simultaneously in some frivolous suit and have the government pay for it. Flood the system in lawsuits and bring it to a standstill. If they refuse to prosecute under the law, sue the Canadian DA equivalent for not doing his/her job.

BC Human Rights Tribunal? (5, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363102)

To silence others who say things that may make you uncomfortable is not a human right.

To be able to say things that may make people uncomfortable is.

I would ask the BC HRT: Is your mandate to preserve human rights? Or is it to restrict them?

Fantastic sources. (2, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363130)

"Follow into foolishness" "Media gong show". I know people love echo chambers, but try looking for actual news articles rather than op-ed pieces that show their biases in the first bite-sized paragraph next time.

Canada's Hate-Crime Laws Violate Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363148)

It is a rampant form of censorship. Good thing I'm here in the good old USA, which still restricts free speech far too often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Canada
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

While those provisions might sound semi-reasonable on the outset, they are VERY broadly interpreted to disallow any speech questioning or condemning one of these protected groups. So, it's a thinly veiled anti-free-speech measure.

As an example, if somebody insinuates over the air that something might be amiss with some religious group, jokes about age, or questions somebody's sexual preference, there can be large fines or jail time.

May it never happen here.

Tolerance is a two way street (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363168)

As a Canuck, I can tell you that the human rights tribunal stuff is very scary...because they operate under the effective assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent, they do not conform to the crimina code of Canada, and there is no jury of peers.

Essentially it's a kangaroo court that is allowed to issue 'sentences' that are themselves not in keeping with the criminal code, but are legally binding in the sense that you can be charged with contempt of the court.

It's the dark side of over-liberalization, and the belief that you have the right to NOT be offended.

Tolerance does not mean you have to like someone...just put up with them.

Re:Tolerance is a two way street (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363556)

As a Canuck, I can tell you that the human rights tribunal stuff is very scary...because they operate under the effective assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent, they do not conform to the crimina code of Canada, and there is no jury of peers.
Sounds like the Human Rights Tribunal violates Human Rights by the very way the Tribunal is set up.

I'm no lawyer but ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363172)

Last I checked you had to actually action the hate.

Like I can write "I hate all jews," but I can't say "I hate all jews, lets set fire to their homes."

Talking negatively about a person, or a group, is not a "hate crime" because it's not a compelling enough reason for a reasonable person to be driven to some sort of criminal activity.

Like if I say, "most muslims don't respect women like we do in the West" (which in and of itself is up for debate) doesn't mean I think we should then chase after Muslims, show them contempt, etc.

Likely this will fail a Supreme court test. The REAL problem is how easy to file a complaint is, and how costly it is to defend against. Since these are not criminal proceedings you're not specifically provided with council. So you have to pay for that yourself.

Meanwhile, the person doing the complaining gets the government to pay for their legal council. ... odd that.

Re:I'm no lawyer but ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363474)

You are talking about US law, specifically Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org] , where inflammatory speech cannot be punished unless it will incite "imminent lawless action". In general, most countries have a much more restrictive view of the freedom of speech and hate speech. In some cases any likeliness to potentially incite lawless action is prohibited and in others any hate speech is prohibited (even if it won't incite any lawless action). I believe Canadian law follows the last view.

What Islam Isn't (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363174)

The original article at FrontPage [frontpagemagazine.com] magazine explains a lot.

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Full post at: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4DE15EF9-A76C-4DD4-81E2-75683AEED74D [frontpagemagazine.com]

Re:What Islam Isn't (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363208)

Satanists have more respect for other people than muslims do. Fuck Islam. I wipe my ass with the fucking Quran.

He SHOULD Be On Trial (1, Insightful)

abscissa (136568) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363182)

1. In Canada restrictions on charter rights ARE justified and this is well established in in jurisprudence. "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." (Charter 1.1)

2. Free speech is important, nobody is debating that. But there have to be limits on free speech when they can demonstrably justified. I cannot say ANYTHING I want about Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Gays in ANY forum at ANY time, especially when I target one group and I could impact THEIR right to live a happy and free life.

3. Mark Steyn's thesis is that muslims are taking over the west, "breeding like mosquitoes," and that they plan to replace our western legal system with Sharia law. And he is pretty offensive in the way he argues it. But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (2, Insightful)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363250)

3. Mark Steyn's thesis is that muslims are taking over the west, "breeding like mosquitoes," and that they plan to replace our western legal system with Sharia law. And he is pretty offensive in the way he argues it.
The truth isn't pretty.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363316)

Which truth? That Mark Steyn isn't fit for print? Or that muslims are 'planning to take over' the west?

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363444)

Muslims are planning to take over the West, just like Christians planned to take over the West, Capitalist and Communists planned to take over the west, etc.

Just because we're currently dominated by a certain ideological set doesn't mean that it's native or natural in anyway.

However, "universal" ideologies by their very nature need to spread or perish. There is a reason that Asataru and Judaism don't evangelize -- it's cause you're either one of them or you're not. period.

However, people can be "converted" to Christianity, Islam, Capitalism or Communism... and those that won't buy in, clearly just need to be gotten rid of.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363610)

You're joking right?

I'm a Christian, and I know 'spread the Gospel' was not intended to mean 'kill the pagans', just as muslims who recite the Shahadah don't automatically believe they have to 'kill the infidels'.

Ideologicals who do believe in that are themselves dominated by a culture of fear. This 'Us versus Them' mentality is not spread by the ideologies themselves.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363498)

The second one. It's simple fact that large parts of the islamic world would like nothing better then to see the entire world under islamic theocracy following sharia law, and that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (5, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363520)

Look at it this way. There's a group which tends to have large families and indoctrinates people to believe in a highly illiberal ideology. Let's forget the religion and skin colour. Imagine if it was purely a political movement that threatens to kill critics even outside the group and interprets criticism in an incredibly wide way. E.g. by telling people to kill authors and cartoonists in far away secular countries even though what they wrote or drew seems innocuous to outsiders. And it targets homosexuals and any women that want to marry outside the group. Men are free to screw unbelieving women [timesonline.co.uk] . At this point large numbers of its adherents arrive, legally and illegally, in liberal societies with low birth rates. Most of them end up poor and very much under its control. It tells them they are poor because society is too liberal. Potentially it could start to field political candidates in areas where its members are in a majority, and since it tends to deal violently dissenters and brainwash members to be obedient it could tell those members to vote for them at meetings and they probably would.

Doesn't that strike you as a threat to those liberal societies in the long run?

You offended me, you should be on trial (4, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363268)

People have the right to engage in offensive speech. It's an absolute right, though not one recognized by the Canadian Constitution. You have NO right to to not be offended by someone's speech. Don't like it, don't read it.

If you are not just trolling and really believe the crap you just spewed then I am highly offended by your attitude and plan on taking you to court. You obviously hate people who believe in Free Speech and you should be duly prosecuted under the laws you seem to think are a good idea.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (5, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363356)

1. Legal doesn't mean moral or right.

2. Free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. Show me one ounce of evidence Steyn has impacted anyone's right to a happy and free life -- other than being unhappy he's saying something bad about them. The idea that the law gives you a right to not be offended is dangerous.

3. The quote about mosquitoes is not original to Mark Steyn: he was quoting an Imam. As for offering a rebuttal, it's their magazine, their printing press. Why should they allow a rebuttal? Am I allowed to write a column in the New York Times if they print something I disagree with? No. Is Microsoft allowed to force Slashdot to post a pro-Vista rebuttal on the main page? No. Do we want that sort of stupid to be a law? No. It might seem nice and fair if you don't think about it, but when you do, you'll see a thousand ways it would be abused and used to bog down free speech to the point no one says anything someone else might not like for fear of having to let the someone else use their resources to yammer on and on about how wronged they were.

Also, considering the stink this idiot commission raised against Ezra Klein -- a rather liberal fellow who happened to publish some cartoons depicting Mohammad -- I don't trust it, especially when almost all the decisions directly financially benefit a former member of the council, Richard Warman. And these "awards" he gets aren't taxable.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363462)

Free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. Show me one ounce of evidence Steyn has impacted anyone's right to a happy and free life -- other than being unhappy he's saying something bad about them. The idea that the law gives you a right to not be offended is dangerous.
Hate speech is both an expression of hate (not so bad) and an incitement of hate(much worse). If I tell everyone that bears are going to take over the country, I have some 'evidence' and statistics to back it up, and get this message on a widely read magazine (crap magazine that it is notwithstanding), there might be quite a few more unemployed bears around the country. (Replace 'bears' with virtually any ethnic minority).

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (5, Informative)

cupiditas (640041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363376)

It was not Steyn who said that Muslims are "breeding like mosquitoes," it was a Muslim -- and he said it in order to celebrate what he believes to be the inevitable demographic triumph of Islam. Steyn just quoted him. Apparently you find accurate quotation to be offensive speech? Moreover, those who claimed to be offended by Steyn's writings did not ask to "offer a rebuttal," they asked for -- or rather demanded -- near-total control over an issue of the magazine, including what would appear on the cover. These facts are easily discovered by people who don't mind having their opinions contaminated by reality.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363388)

3. Mark Steyn's thesis is that muslims are taking over the west, "breeding like mosquitoes," and that they plan to replace our western legal system with Sharia law. And he is pretty offensive in the way he argues it. But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.

If the "REAL" issue is that they didn't publish a rebuttal, why is the Human Rights Commission involved at all? The magazine was privately-owned, was it not?

Also, article for context. [macleans.ca] See the last paragraph for mosquitoes quote.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (3, Interesting)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363392)

But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.

So a privately-owned business should be forced by government to give away wordspace because of some peoples' hurt feelings? Do you know much about this issue? Do you know the conviction rate of the HRCs? Are you aware of the tactics used by the HRCs?

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (5, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363396)

3. Mark Steyn's thesis is that muslims are taking over the west, "breeding like mosquitoes," and that they plan to replace our western legal system with Sharia law. And he is pretty offensive in the way he argues it. But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.
Specifically, they refused to publish an article written by the complainants without editing it. The group that filed the initial complaint demanded that McLean's publish a lengthy response that they had written without making any changes to it. McLean's responded that if they submitted the article they would like published, McLean's editors would edit it and place it in the magazine. The complainants refused this counter offer.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363486)

How does it feel to get fuckin' told?

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363546)

But there have to be limits on free speech when they can demonstrably justified.

If it's limited, then it's not free speech. What part of that is so hard for fascists to understand?

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363554)

The "breeding like mosquitoes" is an actual quote from an actual imam.

Nicely smeared, however.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (2, Interesting)

Mr. Beatdown (1221940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363566)

About point #3: The Muslim growth rate IS much higher than the growth rate of developed nations as a whole, and Muslims in Western and European nations OVERWHELMINGLY favor Sharia law.

A recent poll shows that 36% of Muslims in the U.K. support the death penalty for any Muslim apostate. That's extremism, and it has far too wide of support within a certain community. If you can't confront an ideology because it is associated with a religion, or with a culture, you are bound to have that ideology spread without meaningful resistance. The prosecution of "hate speech" without an incitement to violence is a war on ideology, where one side is demanding that the other drop their weapons and run.

When a third of Muslims in civilized nations support DEATH for those who leave their religion, and half of the blacks in America either believe the government created AIDS or are unsure if they did, there is a disturbing spread of ideas that must be opposed. The removal of repudiation of ideals, simply because those ideas are associated with a religion or culture, feels nice to some, but silences others.

Also note that this is not just academic, because our (possible) next president was born to a Muslim father and left Islam for irreligiosity at a young age. Though most do not support the death penalty for prepubescent apostates, some do.

The restriction of criticism of religion or cultures, in any form, does not contribute to, and has no place in, a society that allows it's participants to choose from a marketplace of ideas.

The marketplace of ideas should not be a single podium, but a bazaar.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363606)

Why should any publication be FORCED to print rebuttals?

Being FORCED to say something is every bit as much a restriction on free speech as is being PROHIBITED from saying something.

Not so funny now, is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363204)

It's the same game the atheist left and jews have been playing on the conservatives and the christians for years. Now that the muslims are playing it on them... well, pot, meet kettle!

BTW, the National Post is left-wing trash. Notice in TFA, the usual buzzwords, "white supremacist", "right-wing bloggers", "simplistic". And Warren Kinsella, the "former Liberal spin doctor", was once their oft-quoted darling who could do not wrong when he WAS a Liberal spin doctor.

Anyone who wants to look up hate monging in the newspaper archives would do well to look up the coverage Preston Manning and the Reform Party got. The late Mordecai Richler was particularly odious, as was the Globe and Trash, The National Liberal, and the Toronto Liberal. The Ottawa Shitizen can be referenced too.

Re:Not so funny now, is it? (1)

Nikkos (544004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363296)

That, and the Creationists vs Evolutionists, homo vs hetero, black vs white, etc, etc, etc.

The free and open discourse that the First Amendment was supposed to protect is being blindsided by special interests here in the US. It's coming to the point that you can't say _anything_ without someone who disagrees calling for your head.

Somehow we need to get back to factual debates and not knee-jerk demagoguery.

why (2, Insightful)

hansoloaf (668609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363220)

why is this on slashdot? i don't see anything nerdy or tech about this news.

Re:why (2, Insightful)

Shrubbman (3807) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363306)

News for nerds. Stuff that matters.

Re:why (4, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363372)

Then they came to restrict your speech, and there was no one left to speak out in your favor.

Media storm? (0)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363222)

Am I the only Canadian here who didn't hear about this until today? I've read the news every day this week, and I never noticed this in a headline. The National Post sure uses an odd definition of "media storm".

Re:Media storm? (3, Informative)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363506)

Am I the only Canadian here who didn't hear about this until today? I've read the news every day this week, and I never noticed this in a headline.
Most newspapers have been downplaying it, but there have been numerous articles on it over the last few months, and the Canadian "bloggosphere" has been going apeshit over it. Also, Macleans magazine - one of the oldest and most well known in Canada - is being "investigated" by the same commissions because they dared to publish an article by Mark Steyn, so they've certainly made plenty of statements on the issue.

Also, on the off-chance that you don't read magazines and newspapers, or don't follow news which disagrees with your politics, even Rick Mercer - a liberal comedian on a liberal TV network, covered a related case [youtube.com] in one of his famous "rants" recently.

If you've missed all coverage of this until now, then you either don't follow politics and current events, or you get all your news exclusively from far-left sources. I've been following it for months, and most of my friends and coworkers are at least aware of it, if not exactly well informed about the facts of the case.

As a practicing Muslim (0, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363240)

This leaves me with uneasy feeling.

The desirable course of events would be that Muslims in Canada unite around their religion in response to that attack, but I am afraid that decision of authorities will create false impression on some borderline Muslims that people who reject Allah and His Messenger, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, actually are "protecting" Muslims.

I view the concept of "speech" as a speech for which a man bares full responsibility, speech as an act for which the man is responsible before the Creator and before other people.

For example, if you offend somebody's mother, you should expect that you might get a beating at the hand of the son.

As for the content of the book, as far as I understood, it's about predictions what will happen. The author of this book is right, the rulers, the powers, the scumbags that rule your countries, that brainwash you with shopping channels and atheism, should be afraid of Muslims, should be afraid of Islam, because Islam is about enjoining Good and forbidding Evil, and those governments are pretty much on the evil side.

In the times of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, leaders of polytheist tribes were trembling upon hearing his name even at the distance of a month travel.

Ordinary people should not be afraid of Islam, because only good for then will come out of future Islamic domination.

Yes, every bad habit that destroys your life will be quite hard to follow: no liquor sores, no pornography, no public lewdness means that the things you have been addicted to will be hard to find. And that is good for you because more people will be free from that bad stuff that ruins their lives.

There will be much less street crime because most of the street crime is alcohol or drug fueled or gang-related and all those things will be gone during Islamic rule.

Most of you don't understand now that the rights you think you have now are illusion, they do not lead anywhere. If you think about it the rights that you have now are mostly used for bad things and government is ok with it. As soon as you apply this right to the stuff that matters, one of the following things happen: the powers either ignore you or suppress you.

Example: vast majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq, yet the government who was elected by the pressure and money of lobbyists is not listening to it.

So please think about the weight behind your right of free speech: is it just to make you feel good about yourself or does it have some effect on society?

As for real important freedoms, you will retain them: right to economic endeavors, right to practice religions, e.g. Christianity or Judaism.

Islam is good for you. Embrace it.

Re:As a practicing Muslim (1)

Usekh (557680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363384)

Unless of course we happen to be gay. Or enjoy a drink or two. Or hell want to jerk off to the latest video. And heaven forbid you are a woman.

Or hell stand up and say "Allah is CUNT"

Although I suspect you are trolling.

oh, irony (0, Troll)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363450)

I find it ironic that in the thread about free speech people mention trolling - which is exactly what is your concept of free speech about - right to express unpopular opinions.

Not that I care much about your definitions.

PS. If you are gay, do not try to popularize the idea of enjoying putting a sexual organ in the places tighter than the place it belongs naturally and thus getting more kick out of it. Be in your closet and your punishment will be postponed till the Judgment Day. Fair enough?

Re:oh, irony (1)

Usekh (557680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363594)

I only said suspect, it was a little too well written for the run of the mill troll. But some are smart.

I have a counter proposal for you. Practice your religion however you want to. Believe whatever you want to. Just don't try to impose your own beliefs on me. That sound fair?

Re:As a practicing Muslim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363390)

Example: vast majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq, yet the government who was elected by the pressure and money of lobbyists is not listening to it.

There are differences in America. You will not get shot or executed if you disagree with the government. And next election you get to fix it should enough people feel like you do. In Islam, there is only one non-elected government not by the people and they do what they want without any consideration of the welfare of their people.

Islam is good for you. Embrace it.

Nuke them first. Live Free Or Die. Better understand that.

But it does amaze me how America is getting caught in this this. Muslims control 1/3 of the worlds oil supply and I have no doubt in part the recent crisis are in fact engineered. Nuking Saudi Arabia is a good start.

Criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic (-Canada's PM) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23363252)

While I agree that this "hate speech tribunal" sounds pretty ridiculous -- past experience tell me this thread will turn into a Muslim-bashing thread.

So, let's hear those bashers give equal time to little gem, also comes from Canada: (Prime Minister Harper, in fact:)

Criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic [canada.com]

The world will be a better place.. (5, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363260)

...when one can make a spoof of "Life of Brian" but with Islamic connotations, without fearing for his/her life. For those that don't know, "Life of Brian" makes fun of both Christians and Jews, in a massive way. It's by far not the only movie that does that - in fact, both Christianity and Judaism (and Christians and Jews) have been on the receiving end of satire and comedy in all forms of artistic expression (plays, books, movies, figurative arts). And by "receiving" I don't mean it necessarily in a negative way.

I don't know how Islam got so protected and the Muslims so protective. It would almost seem like lack of self-confidence.

Re:The world will be a better place.. (2, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363536)

I don't know how Islam got so protected and the Muslims so protective. It would almost seem like lack of self-confidence.

The reason they are so protective of Islam is because that's all the have. Their entire lives are surrounded with inferiority to the rest of the world, economic, technological, etc. The one thing they have that they can latch onto to feel like they have some sort of dignity is their religion. and their "leaders" constantly pound this into their heads that they are superior because they know what's "really" true and wise.

Re:The world will be a better place.. (3, Insightful)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363544)

my view exactly. I think that there are enough muslim individuals who would be capable of this, but the problem is the violent minority that will not approve.

The west has been supporting this violent minority for way too long already, actively (e.g. the Taliban in afghanistan would never has been as powerful without US support) and passively (certain well-known extremist organizations are not forbidden in several european nations, despite their anti-democratic principles).

The Dutch politician Wilders has, like many, shown that just warning for the "muslim" threat, is not a way to fight this problem. It really is too generalizing, and you cannot deal with the muslim problem by generalization, because that would affect the whole democratic principle. Why forbid muslims to wear their head scarf, but allow jews to wear a wig and catholics to wear a cross.

It doesn't work that way. An evolution to muslim integration can only work by making sure the rotten apples don't get a change to spread. This might be easier than you would think, but there has to be a complete political will to do this. Hint: giving the extremist guns is not a very good idea, politicians: please stop with that first.

Re:The world will be a better place.. (0, Flamebait)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363580)

I don't know how Islam got so protected and the Muslims so protective. It would almost seem like lack of self-confidence.

It is simple. When you spoof Christians or Jews you don't have a rabid bunch of stone age character threatening your life. That is how islam deals with any form of criticism. Satanic Verses author had a death threat issued by a national leader. The Danish cartoonist who drew them pictures of muhammad is still under a death threat, over a fucking bunch of cartoons!

People are afraid to stand up to the muslims and it's that pure and simple. You try it and you get shit like subway bombings in Britain, 9/11 here in the states, and hundreds of school children murdered in Beslan.

Islam is with out a doubt the greatest threat to western way of life there is.

Hypocrtical maybe ??? (1, Interesting)

kaynaan (1180525) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363262)

while in the EU you go to jail for holocaust denial ... and the U.S government tramples on every human right there is ... some ppl on /. point finger up north. maybe its time to invade canada ?

As a canadian (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363282)

I'm not really surprised that a Maclean's authour is on trial for this sort of behaviour. I don't really consider myself to be a left wing guy, but Maclean's is xenophobic, right-wing sucking pile of trash. I say this with no exaggeration.

Whenever I've read a Maclean's article in the past, it only made me angry. This sort of thing should have happened long ago.

Re:As a canadian (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363570)

I'm not really surprised that a Maclean's authour is on trial for this sort of behaviour. I don't really consider myself to be a left wing guy, but Maclean's is xenophobic, right-wing sucking pile of trash. I say this with no exaggeration. Whenever I've read a Maclean's article in the past, it only made me angry. This sort of thing should have happened long ago.
You read a Macleans article??? How did that happen? You thought it was PRAVDA?

For those unfamiliar with Macleans, I should point out that BPPG over there is RTFO. People who consider Macleans a "xenophobix, right-wing sucking pile of trash" generally tend to be so far left that they make Stalin look like a Reaganite. He probably thinks CNN is even more right-wing than Macleans, FOX is the spawn of the devil, and Fidel Castro is "progressive".

Re:As a canadian (2, Insightful)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363604)

"I'm not really surprised that a Maclean's authour is on trial for this sort of behaviour. I don't really consider myself to be a left wing guy, but Maclean's is xenophobic, right-wing sucking pile of trash. I say this with no exaggeration."

So I guess you feel that you should be on trial too?

Hypocritial moron.

As they say (1)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363320)

Free speech is free, until you place restrictions on it. Yes, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a safety issue.

Yelling kike in a crowd is an issue of ignorance and maturity, both on the part of the person yelling it and the people taking offense. If you can't handle getting called a kike, fag, or a nigger, go home, grow the fuck up a bit, and try entering society once you've learned to consider the source and take things in stride.

I say let the biggots be biggots, and the rest of us can be adults.

Now THIS is censorship . (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363350)

Its being done by the government

Once you ban one type of speech, none is free.

Hate speech ? Bollocks !! (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363358)

im turkish. what he says is not what he conceives, or he expects or etc.

what he is saying about muslims taking over europe and putting women in burka and banning alcohol and bringing a medieval middle eastern culture all over europe is NOT what he imagines, its what MUSLIM GROUPS that hold great leverage and followers, say. they are OPENLY declaring that this is their intention. all around europe. in uk, netherlands, france and germany, these are going around in underhand jihad and propaganda cd distributions, in meetings or in obscure, far from sight mosques. but in turkey, now, there is a firm islamist government in control thanks to the votes from the islamists who SAID they were going to multiply and turn turkey to an islamist state back 20 years ago. and thanks to that islamist government, many sheiks, groups, 'charities' that were doing the same thing thats happening europe underhand, now are OPENLY and clearly declaring their intentions in public. no - not extreme, radical, eccentric people these are. these are major leaders of the islamist segments of the society. they are openly saying that democracy is no good, the only 'salvation' can be found under islamist republic with a theology, everyone HAS to live under the rules of islam. and when the constitutional court here tries to prosecute them for anti democratical and secular behaviour, guess what happens - they run to european union, and in an APPALLING move, european union supports, and tries to protect these people from being prosecuted inside turkey's borders according to turkey's own laws. i dont know which is more appalling though, the intervention in another country's LEGAL system, or the fact that eu, which is an organization that purports to be founded on ideals of humanism, democracy, modern values, actually protects people who say they WILL abolish democracy, and all of those modern values. no. dont do err here - its not 'opinion' or 'freedom of speech' or anything, they ARE actually taking measures and taking action to that extent - setting up 'charities' that fund 'boarding schools' in which youngsters aged 6 to 22 are brainwashed against EVERY of modern ideals we hold dear today, including freedom of speech, and non discrimination. and yes, indeed discrimination and hatred against western values are brainwashed into those kids, they are taught that west is rotten morally, anything good has to pertain to islam, jews, europe and us are satan, and they should fight against them. from whence do i know ? i HAVE been in those places. and i have many acquaintances and even relatives, who actually are lost to that brainwashing. it is sad. in turkey, since the last 6 years under this islamist party, enmity towards modernism and west has reached a peak.

what is more appalling for me is the stance of the 'mild' muslims, who supposedly constitute the majority of muslims in the world. what they dont realize that, under islam, there can be no mild muslim, and any idea to the contrary is make believe, and self delusion. in islam, there are very solid orders in koran that openly, plainly orders that muslims have to fight jews and christians, and either forcibly convert them, or subdue and take tribute from them (maida surah, 9/29) and similar. one would try to argue that, it was valid at that time, in 600 AD, but it has to be commented, interpreted in some other way, but you cant. when you try to do this, you hit a solid wall ; according to islam, koran is the unchanged word of god. noone's word, including mohammad's word can be held over koran. it is god's will. AND koran states multiple times (around 7 separate places actually) that it is a very clear, understandable book that does not require any interpretation, intermediary (cleric, priest or anything), or reference from other places. when you combine these 3 facts, you CANT argue anything against someone says that muslims should fight against jews and christians.

thats why all the modernist, reformist ideas that some people are trying to spread around in middle east are hitting brick walls. there has been some action in egypt, in which some prominent people with the backing of a new generation, supporting them through internet, blogs and all, but they all had to either go underground, or escape egypt, because of both government and extremist pressure.

now theres this - there cant be mild muslims in an islamist society, because extremists eventually take the upper hand, thanks to the support they can gather through koran's situation i explained below, and either subdue or oust mild muslims. unfortunately definition of an extremist, as you know, provides for anything extreme. go out of line, you risk repression, prosecution, even death.

i know that a lot of politically correct people and a lot of modern muslims in europe and us-canada are going to be furious with what i typed. i dont blame them, because they do not know how things work. they live in currently balanced, long rooted societies in which no radical view can totally take over the administration, and their rights are covered against anything, they cant imagine something that sinister (like some radical group trying to take over a country by multiplying their numbers and eventually suppressing opposition) can happen. i actually didnt believe, until i saw what happened in my own country in the last 15 years either. the catch is that, islamist ideology does not confer any rights even to mild muslims, or modernists. you have to stick with the crowd, or you are one of 'them' who they see as the enemy of islam. even when i tell here, it seems like a sci-fi movie set in a post apocalyptic world. however it isnt.

there are already multiple big 'charities' that are running in europe, setting up islamic schools, 'dormitories', courses everywhere. what goes on is not 'ethnicity' or 'multi cultured'ness. those people like saadettin kaplan (a radical cleric in germany), fethullah gulen (an islamist that brainwashed an entire generation of turkish youth in turkey through the 'boarding schools' he founded through his 'charities', and someone who miraculously resides in u.s. under fbi protection, after constitutional court prosecuted him and ran away) are openly stating their intentions. these are not 'opinions' like some redneck expressing his antipathy against some hippie, people. these are stuff that are organized, meant, and done.

im not a muslim anymore. i have long recanted islam, when i was grown up enough to see that there is violence openly ordered in it, contrary to what mild 'wisemen' has been saying those days. and im at all times ready to defend that there is violence in islam, regardless of what anyone might think, because of what i explained, and in any local or international court, as long as my life is guaranteed. but noone can guarantee that.

the most horrible thing someone who is a humanist and modernist and following on the footsteps of erasmus, spinoza, paine, rousseau can be to support repression of such criticism and giving heads-up from people like the one who is being taken to court in canada. it needs to be realized that you CANT allow ideologies that seek to abolish democracy, freedom of speech and multiculturedness under a democracy, EVEN for the sake of freedom of speech and democracy. its a total irony. its actually more than that, a suicide. its what it would be like to give the 1933 election in germany to nazi party, despite nazi party had been saying that they intend to abolish democracy for the last 10 years, if they did say so. they didnt. but these are saying that they are going to do that.

what the mild muslims need to do is not to get angry with people who are warning of the DECLARED intention of these sources, but to PREVENT those intentions from happening. because in an islamist society, there can be no mild muslim let around with that kind of freedom you enjoy in us, canada, europe.

dont be a fool and think that it cant happen. they SAID it was their intention and it would happen in turkey, and it IS happening.

just wake up. we have reached this level in civilization through thousands of years of suffering. even if you find the current modern society incomplete or lacking, its no reason to let it slip back to medieval ages, upon the desire of a religious crowd.

Political correcntes is censorship - now legally (1)

Eminence (225397) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363484)

Either freedom and free speech or political correctness, hate speech, hate crimes - next thought crimes. You choose.

This is really frightening to see how much freedom in the civilized countries has eroded over the last few decades. But this erosion was of course rather selective. So a pastor got jailed in Sweden for preaching that homosexuality is a sin and is bad (which it is according to his book), now this guy will be jailed for saying Islam is bad. Why the outcry is not equal in both cases? Both cases is free speech being eliminated because someone might be offended. Idiocy is reaching our legal system (well, Canadian system...).

Hate Speech or hated speech? (1)

Twanfox (185252) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363522)

I read the summary, kicked over to the article to find a few more details, but I'm having trouble comprehending the logical leap that's being made here. To start off with, the definition of 'Hate Speech' that I'm commonly familiar with.

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.

Ref: Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

To me, that would include such things as cursing out a group of people for being [whatever criteria from above] or as is done with such groups as the KKK, inciting violence based on the aforementioned criteria. Such hate speech doesn't make the victim angry per sae (though it has the possibility to), but would seem to be used to restrict or remove the rights of a particular covered entity and force them to endure intimidation, threats, or have to live in fear.

With that understanding in mind, how does one make the rational leap that speech-that-makes-the-victim-angry is on the same level as speech-meant-to-intimidate? Does that mean that were I to lean over to a friend and say something that made my friend angry, that even if it was as simple as "I don't like your hairstyle today" or "You stink!", that is hate speech?

Frankly, I agree with some other posters here that protections for hate speech should not be applied to groups that get offended by what someone else says, if what was said was not intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence. You do not have the right not to be offended by what others say. Only when they say something that would effectively remove your rights from you should you be able to seek protection.

It's things like this .. (0, Troll)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23363598)

It's things like this that make me proud to be an American. With all of crap that the current Administration has pulled sometimes I feel like there isn't much to be proud of but the Bill of Rights is certainly something that all Americans should be proud of (and the Bush Administrations constant attempts to piss on the 4th Amendment is something we should all universally condemn). Let people say whatever they want and trust the public to identify "hate speach" and counter it with reasoned arguments against it instead of trying to silence the speaker.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?