[EyeBrock]

Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:

In The UK, Muslims are abusing Free Speech and none of these Human Rights Groups never hold them accountable..

Link

Yep, free speech is alive and well. It is also well known that so called "British" muslims, mostly of Pakistani origin are fighting our troops in Helmand Province.

Talk about the enemy within. We don't even need to guess these guys feelings towards our democracy and way of life.

How many times do they have to tell us they hate us before we believe them?

[Scrappy]

I saw nothing that would incite violence, just an opinion. We are entitled to our opinion. This is another example of the socialist in Canada using a "Minority group" to further their agenda of shutting up any opposing opinion. The Human Rights Tribunal is like SOW a waste of tax payers money. They always rule in favor of the so called injured party if they are a minority or gay. Their arragance should frighten all of us who value the right to opinine our opinion. Shut me up, I don't think so but it is the goal of radical Islam to silence all opposing voices. Is the complaintant the first wave in absolute intolerance of our Culture? I hope they post every minute detail of what transpires, let the HRT see what it's like to have your life put under a microscope. The left and right need to unite on this issue, it's an attempt to censor any opinion that doesn't fall in lockstep with the latest wave of Nazis known as socialists.

[Mustang1]

Let me preface this with the fact that I support open discourse where individuals can freely exchange informed ideas (even contentious ones) and that if forced, I would fall on the side of unbridled liberties rather than censored. BUT. Free speech isn’t unbridled. I don’t care what political spectrum people associate themselves (and many, quite frankly, wouldn’t know a Burkian from a Millian reformed) some posts do qualify as vitriolic, ignorant, intellectually relative dreck. Plain and simple. I’ve never subscribed to intellectually infantile notion of relativism, so it is possible to differentiate informed ideas from subjective opinions.

Having said that, and please save the prosaic Orwellian allusions, I think that we have to be very careful about policing the intellectual domain of Internet forums. These aren’t necessarily informed forums nor should they be treated as such. If ignorance was eradicated from the forums, we’d having nothing left at CKA but the arcade and the odd post from GerryHurt (cheap shot, but it was worth it). Seriously, I don’t subscribe to Freedomonion’s politics or ideology, but they should be relatively free to engage each other in controversial or adversarial debates – free from cultural relativism and free from political coercion. Again, no culture, creed, issue, gender should be sacrosanct as long as the venture is conducted in a learned manner, but, and here’s where it becomes vague, there has to be a line drawn between intellectual freedom and hate mongering. That line is evidently becoming murkier.

[baylee]

Ha, I would say most everyone on this forum is( excluding left wingers)

stratos stratos:

The day muslims quit insisting that we as a society make changes in how we do things to accomidate their religion then the anti muslim talk shall dwindle. The more they insist on society changing for their religious dictates the more people will become anti muslim with thier speach and thoughts.

So 1st second 3rd generation MOSLEMS born in Canada should have less rights than a kid born to a Christian family in Canada last year?

$1:

Scape
Quote:
If two preschoolers were caught fighting do you think the principal would take sides or put them both in detention?


It shows that you have no children in the current system because that is precisely what occurs.
In practice if one student assaults another, it is considered "a fight" and the victim is a participant, subject to detention/suspension even if the entire event is on videotape.

Can I use the word idiot here. I never swear on here like others so I should be allowed to.

That is just so stupid.

Maybe if you WORKED in the school system as we do you would know ( as I know you do) that is not true.

You just love to make things up knowing other RW,s wil just lick it up

$1:

Fortunately the Police and the courts do not subscribe to this BS, if involved.

Oh God, unbelievable

A cop murders Ian Bush.The cop says he was attacked first.
No witness, cameras that were supposed to be on were turned off.

Who do the cops believe?


Sickening


.

$1:

Really? I don't hear Muslims telling me to change for them, yet I hear things said about them that make my skin crawl

Exactlly

I have read some of the most disgusting hateful things writtenon this forum

How often have RW,s said the entire middle east should be nucked, killing everyone

Sickening

[Motorcycleboy]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Let me preface this with the fact that I support open discourse where individuals can freely exchange informed ideas (even contentious ones) and that if forced, I would fall on the side of unbridled liberties rather than censored. BUT. Free speech isn’t unbridled. I don’t care what political spectrum people associate themselves (and many, quite frankly, wouldn’t know a Burkian from a Millian reformed) some posts do qualify as vitriolic, ignorant, intellectually relative dreck. Plain and simple. I’ve never subscribed to intellectually infantile notion of relativism, so it is possible to differentiate informed ideas from subjective opinions.

Having said that, and please save the prosaic Orwellian allusions, I think that we have to be very careful about policing the intellectual domain of Internet forums. These aren’t necessarily informed forums nor should they be treated as such. If ignorance was eradicated from the forums, we’d having nothing left at CKA but the arcade and the odd post from GerryHurt (cheap shot, but it was worth it). Seriously, I don’t subscribe to Freedomonion’s politics or ideology, but they should be relatively free to engage each other in controversial or adversarial debates – free from cultural relativism and free from political coercion. Again, no culture, creed, issue, gender should be sacrosanct as long as the venture is conducted in a learned manner, but, and here’s where it becomes vague, there has to be a line drawn between intellectual freedom and hate mongering. That line is evidently becoming murkier.

But why does there have to be a "line"?

Why are we afraid of words?

I vehemently disagree with the concept of Human Rights Tribunals, but I also mildly disagree with Criminal Code sanctions against those who profess so-called "hate speech."

David Ahenekew was wrong, ignorant and bigotted. Same goes for Ernst Zundel, Mohammed Elmasry and Rev Boisson. But I don't think the sledgehammer of law is the appropriate way to silence people like that. Reasoned debate changes minds, not criminal sanction. Criminlalizing unpopular thought just forces things below the surface.

[Mustang1]

There will always be a line regarding free speech – should we allow perjury or perhaps endorse libel or slander or what about intellectual/commercial copyright? Unless one endorses unbridled liberties regarding expression, than a line will exist.

[Motorcycleboy]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

There will always be a line regarding free speech – should we allow perjury or perhaps endorse libel or slander or what about intellectual/commercial copyright? Unless one endorses unbridled liberties regarding expression, than a line will exist.

Libel, perjury and slander are deliberate falsehoods and are clearly illegal. Significantly, they have been clearly defined by centuries of jurisprudent legal precedent.

But opposing homosexuality, expressing concern about a real or perceived influence of Zionism in world affairs, or extolling the virtues of Sharia law are all opinions. I don't fear opinions with which I disagree. If anything, I relish the opportunity to challenge them.

Don't ban them, bring them on!

[Streaker]

sandorski sandorski:

stratos stratos:

The day muslims quit insisting that we as a society make changes in how we do things to accomidate their religion then the anti muslim talk shall dwindle. The more they insist on society changing for their religious dictates the more people will become anti muslim with thier speach and thoughts.

Really? I don't hear Muslims telling me to change for them, yet I hear things said about them that make my skin crawl.

Precisely.

On this site the anti-Muslim sentiment has become pervasive, as it has in the real world as well.

[Scape]

I have an opinion to cry fire in a theater. Should I voice it?

[Wullu]

As is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiment Streaker.

But, I forget, that is prefectly ok on this utterly warped planet.

[Streaker]

Wullu Wullu:

As is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiment Streaker.

But, I forget, that is prefectly ok on this utterly warped planet.

I've seen little anti-semitism on this site, thank God, but yes, there has been some Christian-bashing (usually by people with Christian backgrounds, I might add, which is an important distinction to note).

IMO, the Christian-bashing pales in comparison to the anti-Muslim hysteria to be found here.

[Motorcycleboy]

Scape Scape:

I have an opinion to cry fire in a theater. Should I voice it?

Interesting you should allude to Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous "quote" Scape.

Let's discuss that.

Juge Holmes rendered this so-called "quote" in deciding against the right of petitioners to hand out leaflets opposing conscription outside US Army Recruiting Centres during World War 1.

Are you of the the same belief? Is civillian opposition to war tantamount to shouting "fire in a crowded theatre?"

But let's get back to the subject;

Holmes actually wrote;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_f ... ed_theatre

$1:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

So once again, it comes down to stating deliberate falsehoods.

If Fred Phelps honestly believes "God Hates Fags", or Muslim Protestors at Queens Park believe that "There can be no peace till Islam is the Law From East To West" then they should be free to say so without state intervention.

And I should be equally free to call those people fucking morons.

[baylee]

Wullu Wullu:

As is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiment Streaker.

But, I forget, that is prefectly ok on this utterly warped planet.

I think you meant you forgot.

But.

Its Christians and Jews who own the most lethal weapons ever invented by man( just had to steal lthat line from MORON bush) and feel they have the right to intimidate anyone in the world they chose to do so, with them

[Scape]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

If Fred Phelps honestly believes "God Hates Fags", or Muslim Protestors at Queens Park believe that "There can be no peace till Islam is the Law From East To West" then they should be free to say so without state intervention.

And I should be equally free to call those people fucking morons.

If you want to call them morons that's your call but is it really staying at that level or is it going beyond that? Have internet forums become the new Beer Hall?

I mean were they there to drink beer or where they there to whip up a crowd into a frenzie? Are the countless threads on this board to engage about Muslims in an honest intellectual discussion or has it morphed in to something else?

[Patrick_Ross]

Is anybody else here getting the sense that Baylee is just too plain stupid to try to engage with on any intellectual level, or am I just getting old?