The judicial system is racist, and its the Jews' fault

[Velociryx]

You see no connection between Nazi ideology, the killing of millions of people for no crime, and a man saying that they were right?

What sort of willful ignorance award are you after?

Sure I see a connection. Just not the same one you do. About the only connection I see is that he referenced the historical event in his speech. You seem to think he had a plan and an agenda.

Crossed a line by inciting hatred, doing it publically, and doing it more than once.

He didn't simply have an opinion.

Advice: Look up the word "incite" and get back to me.

The man did no such thing.



How do you know this? It seems to me that you are assuming a lot.

I have no idea if his words have spurred action, and I live here. I simply admit that I am not going to be able to describe to you the inner working of the mind of every loon who has committed a racially motivatted crime in Canada over the past year.

And again, success is not what he was prosecuted for. Are you just ignoring that?

Hey...it's your law. According to you, this man said something that was liable to increase acts of violence against the jews.

He got arrested after the fact, which meant that the damage had already been done. Thus, we should have seen a measurable increase of acts of violence against the jews in canada after this man's words became widely known. The problem with your little puzzle box here, is that we didn't. Nothing of the kind was reported, which blows a rather large-sized hole in your position.


There is nothing to prevent, is there?

Are you a spokesman for Ernst Zundel? The Aryan Nations? The Klan? The Nazis? The PLO?

You assume a lot, if I may say so.

Nope, and this guy's not a spokesman for any of those groups either. Kindly stop treating him as though he were.



So, you've granted that such expression can be harmful in this context. Thank you very much.

You'll have to forgive a Canadian court, acting without your enlightened presence to lead them, for getting it wrong.

Yes. I freely admit that under certain very specific circumstances, speech can lead directly to action or the plan FOR action.

And, had you bothered to READ my post, I said that this guy met NONE of the requirements for doing so.

Or...to put in your language...BZZZZT! Wrong again.


Find me the loon saying Mongols should be killed, and I'll forward the information to the Crown attorney. Deal?

I just said it. Last page. And obviously you take me to be a loon. Better run along now and report me, 'eh?

Deflect what? Your hand-wringing over the loss of your right to promote hatred if you ever come to Canada?

Perhaps you think your denial of recent history is firm ground to stand upon?

Nope. More like the fact that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that your law does what it says it will do. That being, protect those poor, innocent minority groups. And when asked for such evidence, you freely admit that you can't provide any, and then try to take the argument in ANY other direction to minimize the impact of your failure to produce any tangible evidence to support your argument.


No. He made the comments, got lambasted, and then repeated them.

Apparently he doesn't share your view of the end of it.

I didn't say the man was smart, but again, stupidity isn't a crime in most places. Canada notwithstanding, apparently.

quote:
If you'd like to pretend that his arrest somehow prevented mass killings of canadian jews, that's your perogative, of course.


I don't. I never did. That is one more straw man.

I said that he did something wrong and he got prosecuted for it.

Nice try to put words in my mouth though.

Oh yes you did, good sir. Oh yes you did. Earlier you stated that the purpose of this law was to prevent harm from befalling those poor defenseless minority groups in Canada (implication: Harm WILL befall those groups without this law in place), AND you have repeatedly brought up the fact that there is an atmosphere of violence against the jewish population, AND you continually refer to this man's words as a call to incite further violence against the jews.

Nice attempt to dodge what you said tho.

I'm saying that prosecutors would take your words, current situations, and likely effects into account.

Contrary to your belief, Canadian courts are not jonsing for an opportunity to pass judgement on people for things they say.

Ahhh...well, given their less-than-enlightened decision in the case of Dingleberry here, forgive me for being less than enthusiastic about my chances.

-=Vel=-

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Somehow, I doubt your Postmodern Nazi Cookbook will ever have any merit.

I don't see how Mein Kampf could have any more intrinsic merit than such a publication.

Who's to determine what has historical worth and what does not?

We don't. Follow along, OK? The Canadian gvmt isn't doing anything to enforce our laws on this topic outside our borders. Also note that it is not illegal to read.

Then the government isn't banning hate speech effectively. Their law has little meaning if it only bans people actually speaking in public. For it to have teeth and be true and actually work, they're going to have to eventually expand coverage to the internet- I don't see why they would not- when more and more people start browsing the internet.

And if hate speech is banned in canada, but is allowed elsewhere, then people can still get their 'daily doses'

Read Chicken Little to see a demonstration of the value of screaming about ill events that never come to pass.

And people thought Hitler would never kill 6 million jews... It could never happen- neither could Sverblenica (sp?)

[DarkCloud]

and i think what I said here bears repeating and elaboration

However, banning speech that threatens no group- by saying that "the west is out to destroy islam and we should protect ourselves" would damage free speech to an amazing degree... If you ban that, then you could VERY easily ban someone stating that "John Q is an anti-semite who hates jews and therefore we should shun him and hate him." (even if it were true)... or that "president bush is an anti-islamist who hates islam and we should protect ourselves from him." or even that "it's good that greedy americans died in the WTC bombing since hundreds of palestinians die every year from Israeli incursions. Only now will the Americans be able to understand our pain." would be a jailable/fineable offense.

Some might say that what I said above is an example of the 'slippery slope argument' but no- it's an example of similar 'crimes' that would be prosecutable if people like this indian chief could be prosecuted.