The first two youtube clips from Ezra's visit to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The good news? In ten minutes of footage, Ezra has yet to compare himself to Jesus. Highlights include Ezra's claim that he published the "offensive" cartoons for entirely frivolous reasons, and the commissioners early eye-rolling in clip two that, if you know how to interpret these things, means "Why do I get all the drama Queens?"
138 comments:
I distinctly remember making that speech when I claimed my ancient right to stay up past 8 o'clock when I was in grade 6. My parents, liberal fascists that they were, were singularly unsympathetic.
The adolescence of the Right is what continues to fascinate me. The most articulate among them never seem to rise above the level of Tracy Flick making her candidate speech.
Meanwhile,
Jonah Golberg's book "Liberal Fascism"
is now number one on the Amazon non fiction list.
As BCL and those on the left line up behind the use of a "human rights" commission being used to supress political thought on behalf of radical imams,
the sales of a book which describe the embrace of fascist principles on the left, soars.
Thank you for doing your part in confirming Golberg's narrative, to a tee.
Ezra Levant is saying: I mock because I'm allowed to mock and I mock you too. The defense rests.
Whether Mr. Levant knows it or not, he just answered two of prosecutions questions:
A. what did you do, and
B. why did you do it.
Cheers,
Coffee (aka Walks)
Anon 2:39 wrote:
"Jonah Golberg's book "Liberal Fascism" is now number one on the Amazon non fiction list."
You know, I'm old enough to remember when the Bay City Rollers were No. 1. Whenever they released an album, their fans would all go out and buy two copies so they scored top of the pops for that week.
Right on Ezra take it to those facist bastards at the hrc(does not deserve capitals).
here's hoping that this public display of the facist nature of the hrc will in every province be the catalist to shut down all hrcs and the perpatraters fired, No EI.
Ti-Guy you are a juvinial fool.
Yes,
by all means, we must answer to the state precisely what we think, believe and express and why.
In fact, we should all fill out regular thought/expression reports explaining to the state what we express/think and why.
Excellent point "walks with coffee".
I finally made it through the second clip. Can they cite you for contempt during these tribunals?
Why didn't he just admit he published the cartoons to ratchet up sales of his rag? Jesus Christ, so far, that's been the least offensive reason I can think of. Instead, he implies that even if his intentions had been to bring on a Canadian anti-Muslim version of Kristalnacht, he has that right.
Where else but from a human rights tribunal would one ever get to see the true character of these people revealed so baldly? We need to have more of them and air them on the CBC...kind of like reality teevee: "Canada's Most Shameless Bigot."
Ti-Guy,
Your stupidity used to amuse me, but now you're just boring.
This is not an issue of left or right. This is an issue for all of us to be able to state what we believe without fear of prosecution.
People like you and cc, who are the most vile and ignorant people imaginable, are the one that will be the first one's to be nailed if Ezra loses.
You had better hope Ezra wins, so that you can continue with your retarded statements.
Ti-Guy, please stop being juvinial. It sounds wrong, somehow. Any moment now they'll hand Ezra over to the secular arm after a good scourging. We're dealing here with nothing less than a crucifixion, can't you see that? Too bad the disciples are all anonymous.
Jonah Golberg's book "Liberal Fascism" is now number one on the Amazon non fiction list
Not amazon.ca.
Hehe,
BCL flippantly dismisses the widespread interest in Goldberg's though provoking (and quite accurate - as we see right before our eyes on this very blog),
as akin to a passing fad.
Uhhhhmmm, no I don't think concern about the embrace of facism is a passing fad.
Now, I fully understand how you would view such concern with bewilderment.
It's kinda like trying to explain the dangers of drowning to a fish.
Anon 2:57,
No, I was saying his fans are akin to teeny-boppers.
So if I understand Mr. Levant correctly, he was permitted to videotape the process on the condition he not release the video. He then releases the video, in contradiction of this promise, but he doesnot release all of it - on the "relevant" bits. Determined by him no doubt.
He is good friends with one of the top lawyers in Edmonton by the way - I noticed that lawyer was not representing him.
Hmm....
Not that he seems to need a lawyer because he is doing all the lawyering himself. Someone should tell him his argument is less effective when he relies on hyperbole to make his point.
I particularly like the fact he says he is not a racist after taking pains to point out the complainants are Muslim and they were raised and educated outside Canada.
People like you and cc, who are the most vile and ignorant people imaginable, are the one that will be the first one's to be nailed if Ezra loses.
I hope so. Then I can set up a fund to "finance" my defense...or "defense", and look forward to you rallying to support me.
Principle above all else, freedom warriors!
That should be "ONLY the relevant bits"
Is there a single word uttered by Ezra in that piece that you disagree with?
I appreciate you all like to stay safely on the peripheries of these delicate issues, hurling childish insults from the sidelines at those doing the heavy lifting on the playing field,
but care express a single point of disagreement with him, on a substantive level?
Gayle,
what "promise". They asked, he said no, and in fact his lawyers specifically stated that they would do this.
Or by "promise" do you mean a unilaterally imposed state thought control whereby, no matter what you say or do, the state will reinterpret that as a "promise" despite one's free will expressing otherwise.
Given the theme here, I'm assuming its the latter scenario.
Why are all the Ezra cheerleaders anonymous? Christ, it's not like it takes the courage of withstanding an interrogation by the State to sign up for a Blogger account.
I guess they just like to keep the option of sock-puppeting open. Or are in fact frightened that the State will track them down by subpoena'ing Blogger.
...or they're all well-known trolls.
So, anonymii, you brave freedom warriors...which is it?
by all means, we must answer to the state precisely what we think, believe and express and why.
Ya know, I don't think I should pay my fine for speeding either. Goddamn state, trying to tell me how fast I can go. Hey you kids get off my lawn!! Somebody wipe the drool off my chin.
Ha, a guy goes by the name of ti-guy and he is whining about the other commenters being annoymus? He should of just used the handle hypocritical idiot,and be done with it.
You go Ezra! You are making history, positive history, and they are dancing as fast as they can.
Ezra Levant is one of those great Canadians who will stand up for the rest of us, thankfully there are people like him in a position to do so.
Canadians are far too willing to accept that they can only say what the government and media allow them to say.
Ha, a guy goes by the name of ti-guy and he is whining about the other commenters being annoymus?
That's not my point, "Elaine." (Biff) I respect a person's right to be anonymous...I just expect to be dealing with a consistent anonymous/pseudonymous persona, rather than have to deal with sock-puppets or people who "go anonymous" to hide the inconsistencies they've expressed elsewhere.
Sadly Ezra is right. Free speech (freedom of expression) means we have to let morons speak too. Ezra has forced the issue by being said vociferous moron.
Your proposal to grow blog readership and cultivate debate by banning anonymous commentary and presumably anonymous blogging intrigues me, as a new reader, TiGuy, do go on...
um, why is this suddenly a left/right debate? i mean, granted, Ezra Levant's a bit on the fringey side of right, but, ain't he got a point?
what's the alberta human rights commission got to do with the re-publication of the cartoons that sparked a massive controversy? we can be suspicious of his motives, but whatever the motives where, how on earth does the AHRC figure it can get into the publishers suite?
we know there are prohibitions on hate speech, but there's no way this is hate speech.
no way.
the complaint says the publishing of these cartoons exposed muslims to hate.
i'm not sure if, strictly speaking, that's true. it seems to me it was the reaction to the publication of the cartoons that resulted in nastiness.
I can see no way it's demonstrably justified to curtail levant's right to publish those cartoons -- not in a free and democratic society, anyway.
as the soldiers say, i might not like what you say, but i'll die for your right to say it.
TiGuy, do go on...
Thank you.
*ahem*
OMG!!! Liberals lead Conservatives, polling...in majority territory!
..!!!
as the soldiers say, i might not like what you say, but i'll die for your right to say it.
Well, I should hope so. My taxes pay for their upkeep.
"Is there a single word uttered by Ezra in that piece that you disagree with?"
How about the word "interrogation"? Do you understand what the word actually means? It does not mean being called before a human rights tribunal. I would probably disagree with more if I bothered to listen to what the vicious narcissistic faux martyr said.
Problem with "lawyering" of any sort before these tribunals is that it deceives us with the notion that this is a "trial" or that any rules of evidence apply, or that the "judge" is impartial. None of the above. The courts are already bad enough, we do not need hopped up, biased kangaroo courts in tandem.
Anon 4:50 wrote:
"um, why is this suddenly a left/right debate? i mean, granted, Ezra Levant's a bit on the fringey side of right, but, ain't he got a point?
what's the alberta human rights commission got to do with the re-publication of the cartoons that sparked a massive controversy? we can be suspicious of his motives, but whatever the motives where, how on earth does the AHRC figure it can get into the publishers suite?"
There are two questions. Do you think we should have HRCs acting on examples of dangerous speech(and I do) and, if so, does Ezra meet the standard?
Maybe he does. Remember, this is the Western Standard we're talking about. They just caved and issued an apology to the Alta Muslim community over comments in a December blog post, in the face of another investigation, so they have a reputation for this sort of crap. And remember, in the original context, the Danish cartoons MAY have been a brave gesture. In Canada, Ezra has very little to be afraid of. In the war against Islamic Fascism or whatever, he's leading from way behind the front lines.
More likely he doesn't meet the standard. But why not let the process be tested on him? Like an experimental colonoscope.
The courts are already bad enough, we do not need hopped up, biased kangaroo courts in tandem.
Type "Kangaroo court" 300 more times. At that point, it will cease to be a talking point and become a compelling argument.
Again...righties disgrace themselves by arguing their case so very, very badly.
Ezra could have had some good comments, however, his website is full of personal attacks against the Edmonton Muslim Council and an Imam, accusing them of being tin pot fascists (does anyone bother researching political ideology anymore?). He accuses the Human Rights Commission of being "thugs." Honestly, the personal attacks he resorts to dilute his good arguments. And I don't think anyone can disagree (well you could, but you would be wrong) that Ezra Levant understands Islam, extreme or moderate, and as a result he probably doesn't understand everything he's being accused of. Everything about what he says is highly racist. He insults Syed Soharwady's grammar, even though that has nothing to do with anything. He attempts to discredit his opponent by attacking the way he speaks. The way Syed Soharwady speaks has nothing to do with the issue and it just makes him look more racist. If Levant wants sympathy then he should stick to the issues. If he continues to dehumanize his opponents then his arguments will grow more convoluted.
The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile.
test
"There are two questions. Do you think we should have HRCs acting on examples of dangerous speech(and I do)"
Sorta loaded question in that it assumes HRCs should exist (calls for genocide can be dealt with by cops, not HRCs) and assumes there is some sort of dangerous speech that isn't dealt and can't be with in our current criminal codes (death threats, inciting genocide).
"and, if so, does Ezra meet the standard?"
Not in this instance. I'm surprised nobody ever complained about the outright genocidal comments so common at the Shotgun prior to it recently getting sold, though, I can't be the only one who saw them. You might convince even some of the stronger free speech advocates that those crossed the line.
Ti guy sez...
"Why are all the Ezra cheerleaders anonymous?....courage of withstanding an interrogation by the State to sign up for a Blogger account."
So I looked for yours, this is what I got;
'The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile.'
Or is Ti guy your real name...?
sad really...
"personal attacks he resorts to dilute his good arguments"
Whether an argument is good or bad has nothing to do with the person saying it.
"examples of dangerous speech"
There is nothing dangerous about speech. And in particular, there is nothing dangerous about a cartoon.
That is the whole point of freedom of speech and expression. When a crime is committed, it is the person committing the crime that is reponsible. Not the person who wrote an editorial in a newspaper the day before. Your argument that speech is somehow dangerous hinges on the assumption that people are mindless drones, ready to be brainwashed by what they see on television. Enlightened western thought dictates that all ideas are valid, and that they should all be expressed, and that we all have the ability to listen to those arguments we hear and read and judge for ourselves whether they have merit.
I wonder how people can read a book like 1984 and then go on to create a monstrosity like a human rights commission.
You liberals are just happy because the target is a conservative who happens to have ideas contrary to your own, and one such idea is whether he has the right to express his opinions without fear of prosecution.
There will come a day when these same commissions come for people of your own ideology. They will form an argument that espousing socialist ideas such as redistribution of income and protectionism are a restriction of freedom and a step along the road to communism, totalitarianism and human suffering. When that day comes, the commissions will shut down the expression of thought from the left side of the spectrum. But by then it will be too late to stop them, for they will have the full legal authority of the state, the police and the legal system behind them, because you allowed that to happen.
"That will never happen", you may be thinking, because the HRC is on OUR side. Well, when these commissions believe they have the power to attack the most widely known Canadian magazine (Maclean's), the most successful columnist in the English-speaking world (Steyn), and any number of other law-abiding citizens, just because they happen to disagree with these people, then you can be sure they will disagree with what you have written someday.
And then Canada will become like any number of tinpot dictatorships we have seen in South America, Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa.
A place where people have no rights and struggle to survive.
The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile.'
Yeahbbut, you always know the commenter who posts under the Blogger username "Ti-Guy" is always "Ti-Guy." Having a visible profile, in which I indicate that my favourite band is Mott the Hoople and my favourite book is the next one from Michael Crichton won't change that fact.
I've explained that to you before, you ignorant douche.
I wonder how people can read a book like 1984 and then go on to create a monstrosity like a human rights commission.
I wonder how anyone can read 1984 and not remark on the Orwellian distortions of language the neoconservatives engage in, what with the use of "dog whistle" politics and their cavalier attitude toward the concept that words have actual, generally-accepted meaning?
"Problem with "lawyering" of any sort before these tribunals is that it deceives us with the notion that this is a "trial" or that any rules of evidence apply, or that the "judge" is impartial. None of the above."
Biff/Ezra:
Levant actually went to law school, and although he does not actually practice law I would think he might remember a few things (unless the reason he is not practicing law is that he failed Admin Law).
In any event, the HRC is an ADMINISTRATIVE tribunal, and as such the same rules of evidence that apply in a criminal trial do not apply here. Nor do they apply in a civil trial. There are rules of evidence in such a tribunal - Ezra simply disagrees with them.
"what's the alberta human rights commission got to do with the re-publication of the cartoons that sparked a massive controversy? we can be suspicious of his motives, but whatever the motives where, how on earth does the AHRC figure it can get into the publishers suite?
we know there are prohibitions on hate speech, but there's no way this is hate speech."
First, the HRC is conducting a hearing on this issue. The final decision has not been made.
Second, you hold the opinion it is not hate speech - perhaps the HRC will have the same opinion.
In my opinion Ezra is not doing himself any favours by the way he has been handling this. Say you have the right to publish them, but do not start your defence off by demonstrating what a racist you are. How much is he paying that lawyer anyway? I wonder if he simply took those donations to his legal defence and bought himself a new car.
If all you see here is a loud, abnoxious, arrogant Jew being, well, loud, abnoxious, arrogant and saying things that are distasteful and perhaps even offensive, then ask yourself if it would be a better country if you never heard from people like this. Then ask yourself if it'd be an even better country if you never heard anything contrary to ideas and opinions that you don't share. If your answer is 'yes', then get the fuck outta here and go back to Pakistan, Yemen, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, ... and let the rest of us continue living and thriving under the democratic capitalist tradition of freedom of speech, the rule of law, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
Nice try, anonymous.
It is indeed remarkable that in the minds of some, that to point out that a person comes from a "deadly serious" and hostile country and is bringing with him an ideology that calls for the death or conversion of Canadians, that that person is a bigot.
Remarkable indeed. The term useful idiot comes to mind.
Ezra is challenging the idea that the Human Rights Commission should actively work to define and suppress "hate speech". I'm sure he will be pleased as punch if the commission rules against him so that he can take his little show before the Court.
The thing that bothers me about Ezra is that he either misunderstands free speech or he is intentionally misusing it. Free speech is not an "ancient and inalienable right". It is a relatively recent ideal that needs to be preserved in spite of people like Ezra Levant, not because of them.
Anon 7:18pm. Get real. None of this has anything to do with Ezra's Jewish heritage. It hasn't got anything to do with China, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia or any other country either.
It is indeed remarkable that in the minds of some, that to point out that a person comes from a "deadly serious" and hostile country and is bringing with him an ideology that calls for the death or conversion of Canadians, that that person is a bigot.
And which person would that be, "Pat?" Ann Coulter?
...who's on record stating, on national media no less, that Canadians should be happy the US allows us to exist.
There is a third video that you might want to put up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXJaEYyYjY
biff at 7:18 - that is why we have a Charter. Perhaps you forgot that.
I don't think it should be the job of the government to determine what offends people. Besides, I find it paradoxical that we condemn the Danish cartoons for being racist but refuse to publish them so that we may view them for ourselves.
I find it paradoxical that we condemn the Danish cartoons for being racist but refuse to publish them so that we may view them for ourselves.
I saw those cartoons months before the now-defunct Western Rag published them.
The issue isn't access to offensive speech anymore. The issue is how we're going to deal with liars, like Ezra Levant and (shit)Steyn, who co-opt public discourse.
ti-guy you offend me with your ignorance and use of the Lords name in vain, I am launching a complaint against you.
"I don't think it should be the job of the government to determine what offends people."
We have been doing that for a long time. Why is possession of marihuana illegal, or prostitution? These are moral crimes, and they are but two of many examples.
HRC cases are not about what offends people, they are about what harms people. If the cartoons are deemed offensive but not harmful, I do not see how there can be a conviction. If they are deemed harmful because of racist overtones, that is something else entirely.
Sycophants R Us. You go girls.
Ezra Levant: I'm Out Of Order? You're Out Of Order! This Whole Damn COUNTRY Is Out Of Order!
Classic!!!lol
Don't agree with you on the issue, but the headline of your post, F'n rocks.
To funny, Enzra rocks.
Great title
"ti-guy you offend me with your ignorance and use of the Lords name in vain, I am launching a complaint against you."
Don't bother. Mr. Guy cannot commit a thought crime, clearly he is not capable of coherent thought.
Hey Sean: Ezra's rag received 132,000$ in 2007 from the federal Publications Assistance Program.
Just how much is this fatwad costing us, anyway?
A fact? Backed up by a link? A *true* (as opposed to Liberal) fact *and* a link to back it up? I've never been prouder of you, TiGuy. Work on the potty mouth and we may let you sit at the adult table soon.
Fuathear!
This is not an issue of left or right. This is an issue for all of us to be able to state what we believe without fear of prosecution.
Well, it depends on what your definition of left and right is. But if it's what I think you mean, then you are dead wrong. It has everything to do with it.
If you're a "liberal", as I am, and I mean that in the most accurate sense of the term, and to clarify, I vote Conservative, then this is an attack on you.
If you are a "centrist" or a "social democrat" than this is exactly what your philosophy demands; expropriation of individual liberty for the good of the society. It advocates class warfare, vast wealth distribution, identity politics, "social contracts" and various other anti-liberal philosophies.
So don't get confused. Philosophies rooted in liberalism (which include neoconservativism, neoliberalism, and libertarianism) are under attack by leftist philosophies which include (socialism, social democracy, centrism, syndicalism, etc) and they don't share a common love for liberty.
Social conservatives share a common enemy with leftists against liberals.
It's why said groups support "hate speech" legislation, and roll their eyes at Ezra Levant's speech, and make fun of people on the right for complaining about these encroachments on liberty. They philosophically have no problem with encroaching on individual liberty. In fact, the amount to which they believe in doing so, simply is a matter of degree. Social democrats tend to err more on the side of 'moderation', where as communists are on the extreme.
They are both rooted in the same fundamental philosophy that law should "maximize happiness" of the majority at the expense of the few.
They laugh at us because they think "absolute free speech" is a silly idea, or an "extremist" idea. They see no problem with government regulating it to the point that they view as reasonable within the framework of "social cohesion".
Any appeal to the left to fight this on a common front will only get shrugged off, so don't waste your time.
Many of you may consider Ezra Levant to be a "drama queen" but since this whole farce exhibits no more logic or reason than a Monty Python skit, it seems he is giving the process its due treatment.
And Mike Brock is absolutely right. Those of you on the left bear the bulk of the responsibility for the existence of these thought-crime tribunals. This fascist censorship is your flogger of choice and turning a blind eye to that is delusional and intellectually dishonest.
Ezra Levant may not be the best person to be doing it, but it is entertaining to see someone openly mocking a Human Rights Commission.
== ti-guy asks:==
="Can they cite you for contempt during these tribunals?"=
Good question, but I doubt it. The true legal authority of HRCs is very limited. They work more on coercion, rather then solid rules of law. With Levant broadcasting the proceedings, the ability of the HRC to coerce is likely greatly diminished.
This issue is shaping up not so much as about the Danish cartoons but more about what legal authority and legitimacy HRCs truly have. That is the far more interesting and important part of the story.
- Paul S
Sure enough, this blog confirms what many of us thought all along. Many Leftists are closet totalitarians.
Gayle, f# off. You're the type of person that enabled Stalin to come to power and we don't even know it.
"Social conservatives share a common enemy with leftists against liberals. "
In reality it is the social conservatives on the vanguard defending free speech, my Johnny-come-lately-never-cared-about-HRCs in-his-life-until-yesterday-23-year old-poseur 'liberal' friend.
Galye,
your attempts at legal analysis are frighteningly ignorant. I can only hope that you are only pretending to be a lawyer and are not out there engaging in real malpractice to the detriment of your clients/victims.
"your attempts at legal analysis are frighteningly ignorant. I can only hope that you are only pretending to be a lawyer and are not out there engaging in real malpractice to the detriment of your clients/victims."
Ezra/biff/silly little anon:
If you know what you are talking about, back it up.
For once it would be nice if you could actually substantiate your comments. This little drive by slurs are so weak, and sad, and pathetic - which is why I think you may actually be Ezra.
"Gayle, f# off. You're the type of person that enabled Stalin to come to power and we don't even know it."
Well argued! You sure proved me wrong...
Gayle asking for specificity regarding her grotesque distortion of legal principles,
is sort of like asking for a description of the various snowflakes in the three foot snow drift in my back yard,
but, since you asked let's start with:
your comparison of supression of free political thought with the state enacting drug offences.
This alone shows such a complete lack of basic understanding of principles of fundamental justice, and the state's coercive power, (not to mention a complete lack of common sense) it's almost too difficult to describe.
Let's just sum it up by noting that, while our right to freedom of expression is a fundamental bedrock to our liberal democracy,
the "right" to smoke a joint....er.....isn't.
Ezra - when you went to law school did you need someone to read the cases out loud for you? Illiteracy is the only way to explain how you missed this:
"HRC cases are not about what offends people, they are about what harms people."
In other words - morality crimes are about offending people. Restrictions on freedom of expression are about harm.
Do try and keep up.
Is Ezra posting here anonymously?
Pipe down, yankee doodle.
Go here and give them a what-fer.
...say hi to David Horowitz and Amir Taheri for me.
Hmmmm, these posts are starting to look like a celebration of HRC and the supression of speech. It always amazes me that bloggers who consider themselves to be quite thoughtful can be so ill informed when it comes to recognizing the danger of these speech supression mechanisms. History is filled with examples of speech supression being harmful. Nobody has every come up with an example of a nation that has used speech supression to benefit the people yet some commenters carry on as if the most important issue were guessing whether or not a particular statement violates a particular law.
Psychols...what makes you think people haven't already heard that argument?
Sure, being self-righteous is loads of fun, but so is Schadenfreude at Ezra Levant's expense. Stop ruining it.
God, if we only had caning in this country...
These comments are becoming even more ridiculous. No one proves anything by saying "f*ck you."
""personal attacks he resorts to dilute his good arguments"
"Whether an argument is good or bad has nothing to do with the person saying it.""
You missed my point. I'm saying the fact that LEVANT resorts to personal attacks against others dilutes LEVANT's good arguments.
In other words, and this is something that I believe everyone on this forum should take to heart, calling someone a pig doesn't prove anything and actually shows the insulter's lack of content and maturity. It does no one any favours, least of all the person who slings the personal attack.
"I WILL NOT SUBMIT!"
Ezra is an anti-fascist hero, and he stands alone as the Muslims try to morph Canada into a sharia state. They may have taken Ontario to the brink of sharia law, but the West will fight! If multiculturalism means our beloved land becomes more like Saudi Arabia, may the blood run in the streets. It is MY right to MOCK Mohammed or whomever I so damn well choose. And, screw the CBC for not covering this or caring one iota for diversity of thought.
"I WILL NOT SUBMIT!"
EVER!!!!!!!!
Ti.
go back and look at your comments
I am impressed with you well thought out and reasoned arguments
/sarcasm off
Ti-Gay,
What is your problem with Amir Taheri? Is he not Muslim enough for you?
No, we laugh at you because you are ridiculous. You cannot justify a lie by screeching "Free speech! Orwell! Banality of evil!" In our democratic country, liars do not have a right to tell lies without suffering the consequences.
Really? In fact, I do have a *right* to tell lies about you. The government cannot compel me to tell the truth about you, to represent you with honesty. You have legal avenues available to you, in order to redress your complaint, but they are not criminal in nature.
Yes, you may sue me for lying about you, and damaging your good name. But there is a huge legal difference between a civil liability and a criminal offense.
A civil court may compel me to financially compensate you for any financial damages I cause you as a result of damage to your reputation, but that same court may not compel me to not tell that lie again.
Good try though.
In reality it is the social conservatives on the vanguard defending free speech, my Johnny-come-lately-never-cared-about-HRCs in-his-life-until-yesterday-23-year old-poseur 'liberal' friend
I know I'm probably somewhere close to the most reasonable position, when people from the religious-right, and loonly-left are attacking me from both sides.
Holly Stick,
Did you go to law school at a local community college?
"Yes, you may sue me for lying about you, and damaging your good name. But there is a huge legal difference between a civil liability and a criminal offense."
Interesting, but Holly never said anything about criminal consequences. For that matter, the HRC has nothing to do with criminal consequences.
A financial award as a result of slander is what I would call a "consequence".
Try responding to what was actually said next time. It makes your point more compelling.
MAS
When did Holly make any claim about law school? And even if she had, do you really think posting something as pathetic and meaningless as "Did you go to law school at a local community college?" actually adds anything to this discussion? Do you have any reason to criticize her - I mean besides the fact you do not agree with her. Do you have an argument against her, or is your position so very weak that you have to resort to silly little smears.
Never mind. I just answered my own question.
You post a video of Ezra Levant to make fun of him, and people leave comments that show hatred of Levant and of the right in general.
But you all agree that Ezra should be punished for publishing cartoons that made fun of mohamed because it may have incited some hatred towards muslims.
Why is it ok for you but not for Levant and the right?
Only the left is allowed to make fun of people and possibly incite hatred?
Is that it?
Seriously, what is wrong with you people. Can you not read? How many people have posted here saying that Levant should be punished for these cartoons?
Are lies, and gross over-generalizations and factual distortions the ONLY way you guys can make arguments?
And when you refer to showing hatred for the right, are you referring to something like this?:
"Gayle, f# off. You're the type of person that enabled Stalin to come to power and we don't even know it."
as someone said,
the complaint says the publishing of these cartoons exposed muslims to hate.
and this site by posting this video is exposing Levant, Jews and the right to hate.
Why should Levant be punished by the HRC but not the owner of this site?
What is different?
and the commissioners early eye-rolling in clip two that, if you know how to interpret these things, means "Why do I get all the drama Queens?"
Sorry but those who filed a complaint for mere cartoons are the real drama queen.
Find me one act of hatred or violence towards muslims in Canada that was caused by publishing those cartoons.
What is next? people with big ears filing complaints against Disney for publishing images of Mickey Mouse?
That would be ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than the complaint against Ezra Levant.
The tens of thousands of dollars Levant will lose, and McCleans will soon lose trying to defend themselves are real drama.
those who filed a complaint for mere cartoons are the real drama queen.
Gayle,
"When did Holly make any claim about law school?" Look up the word sarcasm, Einstein. If you still need clarification, I was making fun of her authoritative tone when she was providing her scholarly legal opinion.
Friend of USA,
“But you all agree that Ezra should be punished”
That is so not true.
“publishing cartoons that made fun of mohamed because ... may have incited some hatred towards muslims.”
That would be a claim than only Islamofascists and some dumb Dhimmis would make.
For those who are celebrating Levant and Steyn being dragged in front of the HRC,
read this
from Glenn Greenwald's site,
UPDATE: Law Professor David Bernstein previously noted that Canada's hate speech laws have had unintended consequences, as such laws inevitably do:
Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn firsthand what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched into a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy. Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, had remarked that Americans are "bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood." The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.
Just like Bush followers who bizarrely think that the limitless presidential powers they're cheering on will only be wielded by political leaders they like, many hate speech law proponents convince themselves that such laws will only be used to punish speech they dislike. That is never how tyrannical government power works.
It will not be so funny when the HRC comes for you lefties huh?
What's incredible to me, though it shouldn't be after years of studying communists, is that two groups of people can watch the same video and come to completely different conclusions.
This is where the left DESPERATELY needs to rely on 'there are no objective truths' because clearly, unless you have a serious IQ deficiency, Ezra's points are very clearly made. Perhaps what's needed here is a glossary for the morons so they can follow along.
I'm amused by the same old ignorant comments. Gayle pointed out that Ezra claimed to 'not be a racist'. I know Ezra and know him not to be. What's her objection to this statement? He talks about the nuisance-makers being muslim.
ONCE MORE FOR THE CHEAP SEATS: 'MUSLIM' IS NEITHER A COUNTRY NOR A RACE. Are you all really that stupid? Is that where you get off calling intelligent people 'racists' and 'Hitler' and the like?
As much as it might disturb you, you need to crack a history book from time to time in order to get to the point where you can have reasoned debate on a given issue. All the tears in the world from the left won't equal one fact-based argument from the center.
Whatever. Go ahead and call Ezra names. Hate him. He's arguing for your right to do so - even if you won't.
Bigcitylib said:
"You know, I'm old enough to remember when the Bay City Rollers were No. 1. Whenever they released an album, their fans would all go out and buy two copies so they scored top of the pops for that week."
I remember the BCR quite well and only a Liberal would be stupid enough to purchase two albums from this pack of queers, let alone two.
"I was making fun of her authoritative tone when she was providing her scholarly legal opinion."
Except she never did that.
But apparently being truthful is not one of your strong points.
"and this site by posting this video is exposing Levant, Jews and the right to hate."
You know that Levant posted these videos, right?
Let me say it again - try using facts and evidence to support your arguments.
If you can.
Gayle said,
You know that Levant posted these videos, right?
And Gayle you know that the cartoons had been published first in Egypt a long time before Ezra published them?
try using facts and evidence to support your arguments Gayle.
The hatred and violence only started after an imam added some images that had nothing to do with the cartoons and toured the middle east encouraging muslims to do all the stupid violent things that they did.
Gayle, try using facts and evidence to support your arguments.
"And Gayle you know that the cartoons had been published first in Egypt a long time before Ezra published them?
try using facts and evidence to support your arguments Gayle."
Oooo, nice try changing the channel there. What, exactly, does your diversion above have to do with your false accusation about BCL posting this video when in fact Levant is the one ciculating this video?
Why don't you reference my quote about the cartoons? Oh right - because there isn't one.
If you have a problem with what I have said then tell me where I am wrong. It is much more effective than making things up.
Hi, Gayle; I admire your intelligent posts. :) I haven't met Levant, but have heard his nonsense in the media over the years. Remember when he was planning to run in the riding Harper wanter to run in? The righties were not so thrilled with him then.
It's hard to make him look ridiculous though, because he does that so much better himself. But underneath the silly stockaholic drama queen is a nasty little hater. He should not be punished for the cartoons, but he should also not be encouraged to spew hatred against any group.
Friend of USA,
“Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, charging Levant with "advocating hatemongering cartoons in the media”
No moderate Muslim gives a shit about cartoons of the Prophet, no matter how distasteful they are.
"we know the Imam who filed a complaint at the HRC can not be a dumb dhimmi so logically he is an Islamo fascist."
He absolutely is.
Gayle,
Remove the stick that’s up your ass before trying to talk to me. Or, better yet, look up the word “sarcasm”
It is much more effective than making things up.
what things have I made up?
this video is not here to be used to ridicule Levant and the right?
the cartoons had not been published in Egypt months before Levant published them?
An Imam did not add images to the cartoons and then tour the middle east to encourage people to do act of violence?
what things am I making up?
Levant is the one ciculating this video
yes I knew that,
but he does not do it to mock muslims or incite hatred.
It is leftists who use the video
with bad intent just like the Imam who toured the middle east and added other images of mohamed with a pig nose did.
Levant is using the video as a record of events and for free speech reasons.
Free speech means Levant can publish this video and he is free to publish cartoons even if it was to mock Muslims.
and
Free speech mean you can post this video, and you can post comments even if you mock Jews, Christians or the right in general.
What you hate about Levant is what you are doing here.
There is absolutely no difference.
He is using free speech, you are using free speech.
I am not making up anything.
Muslims against sharia,
Glad we agree!
and if I may, the HRC is acting like a dumb dhimmi.
and your comment about Gayle made me laugh out loud,
thanks I needed to laugh!
BCL and others who are happy to see Levant dragged in front of a unaccountable hack to satisfy some maladjusted overgrown brat who can't cope with someone not liking his religion should be reminded that saying,
"There is no god."
(subliminally include: "so what does that make Mohammed, Jesus or *you*?")
or otherwise mocking or questioning someone's imaginary friend and/or this imaginary friends' best friend on earth is demeaning and discriminating against theists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, scientologists whatever). Be ready for a court action. Personally I am waiting for them to bring in Hitchens and Dave Allen (through the use of a medium who I won’t believe – bring on the new-agers too!) into the dock.
I'm no fan at all of Steyn and Levant but I am thankful that he's standing up for the right to be not only a jerk, but a jerk who opposes bring what is effectively sharia law to Canada and apply it to all citizens, especially freethinking godless heathens like me.
But pseudo-liberals exercising their right to schadenfreude and get off on the predicament of these guys simply because the tribunals are giving them a satisfactory chill on speech they dislike (unsuccessfully it seems) are naively deferring their own right to speak truth to superstitious idiots down the road like a dumb student postponing his college loans till he wins the lottery. The right to a free press is a non-negotiable and not just an American affectation if you want a vibrant and free society. It is however, by the laws of physics, null & void when its not reciprocated – because who will be left to support you or me the time comes?
Thank you Ezra – but don’t expect me to marry you. And thanks for nothing Big City Liberal - may you never honk-off anyone with a grudge and a friend in the HRC.
Friend of USA,
“Glad we agree!”
We found that every reasonable person agrees with us, when he/she examines our position.
Holly Stick, that's a very interesting page. And it's quite sad that anyone would masquerade as someone else.
People seem to be constantly pointing to the fact that the Human Rights Commission is not democratic and thus unaccountable. This is probably a result of misinformation. Canadian/American/whatever society is not completely democratic. We are a republic with a mixed constitution. Therefore, we have aspects of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy all in our governmental system. So to expect everything to be "democratic" is ridiculous. That doesn't make it any less accountable either. The reason we have a mixed constitution is because it promotes a system of checks and balances. As in, it works. Yes, the Human Rights Commission isn't democratic. But it was established by legitimate government/judicial structures within this country. And the fact that it isn't democratic isn't an argument unto itself. That doesn't really prove anything. It's still legitimate.
And please. I've mentioned this a few times now. But personal attacks don't prove anything, and are frankly annoying. Do yourself a favour, be more mature then the rest. Thanks.
"Or, better yet, look up the word “sarcasm”"
Sarcasm:
"A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule"
Ok, I see where I went wrong. You are just not as witty as you think you are.
See, to be effective sarcasm should actually relate to the thing you are being sarcastic about.
Holly made no comments relating to the legal system at all, so your sarcastice comment was witless.
Nice try on the deflection though.
Here is what you made up:
"And Gayle you know that the cartoons had been published first in Egypt a long time before Ezra published them?
try using facts and evidence to support your arguments Gayle."
Your second paragraph implies I have contradicted the first, or that the first has anything to do with anything I have been saying. It doesn't. I have never said the cartoons are racist or that they incite hatred, or indeed said anything about them at all. Any implication to the contrary is false.
Holy stick,
if you read my first reply to Muslims against Sharia you can see I was a bit suspicious.
that is why I kind of tested them with the " islamofascist " logical conclusion.
at first I thought it was someone on the left, a kind of hoax, then I was not sure what to think.
I have no idea who they are but it does not matter,
I have my own opinions and I have brought good points and good arguments here.
If leftists can use Levant videos to ridicule him , Jews and the right,
then Levant can use cartoons to ridicule Muslims.
There is NO difference.
He should NOT be dragged in front of the HRC and neither should left bloggers who post his videos to mock him.
The drama queens are the Imams, not Ezra Levant who will lose tens of thousands of dollars defending his right to do what is done every day on thousands of left and right blogs.
If Big City Lib had to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending his right to post videos of Ezra Levant maybe he and others leftists here would understand.
But I will not hold my breath.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is costing Levant money? It's been pointed out that he did not have to appear before the HRC, that he could have sent them a letter. He chose to go and record himself playing the false martyr and drama queen.
You might want to check out another post where stageleft suggests Sevant has made money from this whole business.
http://www.stageleft.info/2008/01/12/martyrdom-for-fun-and-profit/
If he did not lose money then why is his magazine gone?
playing the false martyr and drama queen.
How many acts of violence have been committed against Muslims because Levant published the cartoons?
If there is a a false martyr and a drama queen here it is the Imam who is using your tax dollars and mine to harrass someone who did not do anything different that every blogger - left and right - is doing every day.
Levant did not do anything different than Quebecers and Ontarians do every day; the y publish caricatures of those with whom they disagree.
no one got hurt.
Anyone claiming a cartoon hrut them is a false martyr and a drama queen of the worst kind.
I am not asking anyone to agree with Levant, with Jews or with the right,
but is there an honest person here who will admit Levant has not done anything worse than is done everyday on blogs and in news papers?
Is there an honest leftist here who will admit there is no difference in posting a video to mock Levant and publishing cartoons to mock Muslims?
^Nope, no honest leftist would admit they're the same.
Couldn't resist.
Levant is a person, Muslims are a group of people characterized by religion. You can see there's a difference here.
Criticizing a single person is specific, and usually avoids over generalization. When you mock an entire segment of people, however, generalizations occur and the truth is simplified. This is, of course, what humour and satire thrive on. But it's still not the same thing.
Friend of USA,
The Imam got death threats. Circumstantial, but most likely they picked his name from something that Ezra wrote or that appeared on his website.
And not everyone blog. Not everyone likes the snakepit atmosphere.
And Ezra lost his magazine because, as someone wrote elsewhere, he's not smart enough to be able to run a Conservative magazine in Alberta.
Just as an aside, the Imam screwed an apology out of Western Standard not a month ago. Comments appeared on the site advocating Muslim genocide.
"If he did not lose money then why is his magazine gone?"
Because people were not buying it.
Funny, even though his magazine got a government grant of, what was it Ti-guy, $130,000 or so? So maybe Levant should be called a welfare drama queen.
The Imam got death threats. Circumstantial, but most likely they picked his name from something that Ezra wrote or that appeared on his website.
I understand this is serious, and what someone says or publish could get someone else killed.
But sometimes it is the messenger himself who is at risk.
And sometimes the message or publication is about peace and brotherhood and you still get people who want to kill you,
Martin Luther King got killed for what he said and what he believed in.
Should a commission have silenced him too?
Sarah,
Do you really believe that if one moron tells a lie and another moron like Holly Stick repeats it, it becomes true? Do you always prefer to listen to idiots instead of thinking for yourself?
Gayle,
Holly Stick is a pompous ass. How you fail to see that is beyond me.
“so your sarcastice comment was witless.”
Is there at least a small chance that you are not smart enough to get it?
Friend of USA,
“Levant can use cartoons to ridicule Muslims.”
The whole point is that those cartoons DO NOT ridicule Muslims. The only Muslims who are offended are the ones who consider themselves and Islam above criticism.
bigcitylib,
“The Imam got death threats.” Big fucking deal! Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets them all the time. Should she sue those Imams who call for her demise?
"Is there at least a small chance that you are not smart enough to get it?"
Could you, perhaps, try to find a quote from HS that suggests she is "providing her scholarly legal opinion"?
Otherwise your question may as well be "is there a slight chance you do not understand that 2 plus 2 equals 14?"
Holly
I do not know if he is a Muslim, but it seems pretty clear he is a liar - and a bad one at that.
Unless, of course, you studied law at a community college :).
Gayle
“Could you, perhaps, try to find a quote from HS that suggests she is "providing her scholarly legal opinion"?”
Yes, you idiot, I could: “In our democratic country, liars do not have a right to tell lies without suffering the consequences.” Are you too dumb to find it yourself?
Holly Stick,
“Hey, Muslims against Sharia, you're not behaving as a good Muslim should.”
Dear Holy Shit,
We apologize for not conforming to your Muslim stereotypes. From now we will try to defame everyone who criticizes Islam, yell “Death to America” every chance we get, and once in a while kill an occasional infidel. We hope to get back into your good graces and become the kind of good Muslims that you think good Muslims should be. We appreciate your comment and looking forward to more constructive criticism.
Cordially,
Muslims Against, scratch that, For Sharia
"Yes, you idiot, I could: “In our democratic country, liars do not have a right to tell lies without suffering the consequences.” Are you too dumb to find it yourself?"
Oh, OK. In your little world speaking about DEMOCRACY is the same thing as providing a legal opinion.
I studied democracy in political science. It is a political term, not a legal one.
Here is a definition for you:
"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
Hope that clears things up for you.
If you were referring to her comment about consequences, then I am afraid you look rather silly. You see, in our LEGAL system one does indeed face consequences for lying.
Either way, your "sarcastic" comment was neither sarcastic nor amusing. It was just dumb.
I've spent time in the Law Library at university, but didn't study law and nevera ttended a community college.
MAS, if you think that statement was a legal opinion, you are free to send me $400 dollars for the time I spent producing it.
...your Muslim stereotypes. From now we will try to defame everyone who criticizes Islam, yell “Death to America” every chance we get, and once in a while kill an occasional infidel."... That may be your stereotype of Muslim behaviour, however I was referring to the generally honest and polite behaviour of most Muslims. If you were really a Muslim, you would have known what I was talking about. Or even if you watched "Little Mosque on the Prairies."
Gayle,
"I studied democracy in political science. It is a political term, not a legal one."
Now I understand why you got offended by my condescending remark about community college.
Holy Shit,
"but didn't study law and nevera ttended a community college."
I believe you. Judging by your arguments you must have stopped your education somewhere in the grade school. So, considering you modest base of knowledge, you're doing pretty well. Cousin dad must be real proud!
Ooh, bad temper. Drama Queen.
Holly
There is clearly no chance that MAS will ever acknowledge his or her mistakes, misstatements and outright lies.
Like most people whose arguments are weak, s/he consistently completely ignores the point, choosing insults and so-called sarcasm over logical, substantiated arguments.
I think we both know why.
I hope you have a pleasant evening Holly.
Gayle
Gayle,
"There is clearly no chance that MAS will ever acknowledge his or her mistakes, misstatements and outright lies."
We'd love to. Can you provide an example of a lie?
Sorry Gayle, I forgot who I was talking to and I should have been clearer. When I said, "lie", I meant "lie that came from Muslims Against Sharia", not "lie in general".
Sure. Here are three:
"I was making fun of her authoritative tone when she was providing her scholarly legal opinion.
No moderate Muslim gives a shit about cartoons of the Prophet, no matter how distasteful they are.
We found that every reasonable person agrees with us, when he/she examines our position."
"I was making fun of her authoritative tone when she was providing her scholarly legal opinion.
No moderate Muslim gives a shit about cartoons of the Prophet, no matter how distasteful they are.
We found that every reasonable person agrees with us, when he/she examines our position."
How's any of those statement a lie?
1. Holy Shit was talking about rights, which would make it a legal opinion if she had a clue.
2. We dare you to find a single moderate Muslim who is offended by Mohammad cartoons
3. We dare you to find a reasonable person who disagrees with our positions see www.reformislam.org
Just because you have no sense of humor, too damn stupid or caught up in your stereotypes the statements that you mentioned do not become lies.
Thanks, Gayle and a good evening to you.
And a loud raspberry to MAS.
"Just because you have no sense of humor, too damn stupid or caught up in your stereotypes the statements that you mentioned do not become lies."
They are lies because they are not true.
It is quite simple really.
1. First, her statement was correct (something you have yet to prove otherwise). Second, and I will say this again, she never purported to offer a "scholarly legal opinion". Third, discussing "rights" is not limited to legal opinion.
2 and 3. Prove your own statements (both of which I happen to know are untrue).
--No moderate Muslim gives a shit about cartoons of the Prophet, no matter how distasteful they are.
I would tend to believe this is true,
And I would think
Moderate liberals, moderate conservatives and moderates of all kinds believe these mere cartoons are well...
mere cartoons!
To riot and burn down buildings for mere cartoons is UNreasonable
to drag someone to the HRC for mere cartoons is UNreasonable
and people who agree with the Imam supposedely offended by the mere cartoons are UNreasonable.
The HRC is beyond UNreasonable for taking these cases.
Gayle,
no one can prove 2 and 3 are true or untrue.
But you "know" they are false?
You know every moderate muslim on the planet and you have asked them what they think of the cartoon?
You have talked to every moderate person who know what MAS's position is?
Wow.
"You know every moderate muslim on the planet and you have asked them what they think of the cartoon?"
Nope - but I know a few, and they find the cartoons offensive.
"First you call an opinion that you disagree with a lie, and then you want us to prove the negative..."
You do love missing the point don't you.
Anyway, as I see this entire discussion is going nowhere I will log off now. I will return if you have anything substantive to say.
Gayle,
"Nope - but I know a few, and they find the cartoons offensive."
That's your first clue that they are not moderate.
We understand that all the bullshit coming from radical Muslims it is not easy to determine who moderate Muslims are, but this will help.
MAS,
Moderate Muslims do find these cartoons offensive. I know because I'm Muslim and I'm not even practicing, but hell, I found these cartoons offensive. But that's not the point. The point is if they are actually propagating hate. Anyone can be offending by anything. But if there is a deliberate intent of malice behind a publication, that's a different story.
And FYI, reading the blog Holly pointed to, and examining your little organization, I can easily see that you're not Muslim. Furthermore, your swearing, personal attacks and lack of knowledge about the religion only does a disservice to Muslims. So if you are Muslim, I ask you to stop. Because you're not giving a good name for them. Every Muslim in Canada that I've met has known that they cannot swear and act rudely to your opponent, because that only proves a false stereotype. Those that are under attack often must be the most civil, because they have a disadvantage in arguments and therefore must focus solely on content. I do believe Holly, and I don't believe you. Your words on this forum already prove that you are untrustworthy, no matter what your religion is or who you are. I am far more likely to believe someone who is civil then someone who resorts to ad hominom attacks.
Do not call people idiots. It is unfair, rude and highly unprovable. Holly has given constructive arguments, whether you agree with them or not, and has shown great consideration in dealing with you. Please, if you are going to engage in debate, act reasonably and focus on the arguments, not the person you are arguing with.
Sarah,
"Moderate Muslims do find these cartoons offensive. I know because I'm Muslim and I'm not even practicing, but hell, I found these cartoons offensive."
You are a lying piece of shit, pretending to be a moderate Muslim. If you were a moderate Muslims, you would not be offended by those cartoons. The only reason you’d be offended by those cartoons is because you’d consider Islam above criticism which makes you a fundamentalist. Maybe I should not have called you a lying piece of shit, because most fundamentalists truly believe that they are moderates.
Sarah, I'd say you can ignore "Muslims" Against Sharia from now on. He has already demonstrated he is a liar and a foulmouthed hater.
MAS,
You missed my point entirely. Congratulations, you look less credible.
I'm saying being offended is not the point. It's whether the cartoon was actually trying to promote hatred, that's the point. After this cartoon controversy, my university paper published a paper that illustrated Jesus felating a pig. There was a huge outcry from religious students, the editor had to resign, and the controversy seeped its way into the local paper. Tell me, because these students were offended, does that make them extremists? They protested, the editor resigned from his own free will (but was under pressure from his own journalists). They didn't actually do anything other then voice their concerns. Does voicing your concerns, does speaking freely mean you are an extremist? If you tell people how you feel, that you were offended by something, does that make you an extremist. If you engage in free speech, the very thing you want to defend, and relate your thoughts to the public, does that make you an extremist? If you choose a peaceful avenue instead of violent one, then still a person is an extremist?
You defend Ezra Levant, even though he called his opponents thugs and crack pots. You don't say that that's extremist. And yet, I say that I was offended, but that's not the real issue at hand. And suddenly I'm an extremist? You haven't even asked me why. You do yourself a disservice by not listening to what others have to say.
I offered my piece, and in the end you believe what you believe. However, I suspect you don't believe what you write, but that's fine because no one believes what you write either. You are not an asset to the right wing. I have many conservative friends who have always managed to argue very eloquently. It baffles me that you would not even try to do the same. Say what you would like, but do not expect me to respond when you do not provide anything substantive. I really do not understand why you don't get it. ARGUE THE ISSUES. You're not. You completely miss all points and instead call people liars and idiots. Tell me, what are you proving? How are you furthering your points? How are you teaching people? You aren't. And until you do you will never be seen as credible. It only makes your guise thinner. Good luck to you.
Holly,
I think you have a wonderful point. =)
Cheers
"You completely miss all points and instead call people liars and idiots. Tell me, what are you proving? How are you furthering your points? How are you teaching people?"
This is fair comment, but sadly will be lost on MAS.
The point is not to "prove" anything. It is to silence those of us who oppose the Levants of the world. Piling on abuse, attempting to derail the discussion and making absolute comments like everyone who does not agree or conform is an exremist or a liar are simply tools used to silence all opposition.
I am with Holly (and you). Ignoring MAS is the best way to combat his particular form of censorship.
Sarah,
“I'm saying being offended is not the point.”
Yes, it is. You claim to speak from the position of a moderate Muslim, but in fact, you claim to speak from a position of a Muslim fundamentalist.
“Jesus felating a pig” is not exactly Mohammed having a bomb on his head, but the students who were offended not by indecency of the picture, but on religious grounds are absolutely religious extremists. But what I like about Christian fundamentalists is that in the worst-case scenario they will bore you to death. Our fundamentalists will cut your head off.
“Does voicing your concerns, does speaking freely mean you are an extremist?”
Not per se. But when you’re voicing criticism of political speech, it usually does.
“If you engage in free speech, the very thing you want to defend, and relate your thoughts to the public, does that make you an extremist?”
If I call for murders of sons of apes and swine, then pretty much, yes.
“You defend Ezra Levant, even though he called his opponents thugs and crack pots”
As long as he does not ask to limit thugs’ and crackpots’ Free Speech or does not call for violence against thugs and crackpots, he can say whatever the hell he wants.
“You haven't even asked me why. You do yourself a disservice by not listening to what others have to say.”
My mistake. Why did you get offended?
“no one believes what you write either.”
Why don’t you speak for yourself and some other idiots on this forum? Our target audience - moderate Muslims (real moderates, not “moderates” like you) - is content with what we say and have no reason to distrust us.
“I have many conservative friends who have always managed to argue very eloquently. It baffles me that you would not even try to do the same.”
Just because we came out in support of Free Speech it makes us conservatives? Just the other day some redneck called us libtards. I’m thinking at least one of you must be wrong.
“ARGUE THE ISSUES. You're not.”
It looks like you do not understand the issues. The issues were discussed in the very first comment that we posted on this thread. Then the asswipes came out of woodwork. Read the thread.
“You completely miss all points and instead call people liars and idiots.”
First, your opinion about us missing the point is just that - opinion. Second, when we call people liars, we can prove that they lie, when we call people idiots it follows some idiotic statement made by those idiots.
“How are you teaching people?”
We don’t believe you can teach an idiot who doesn’t want to learn, but what makes you thing we’re using this thread for teaching?
“And until you do you will never be seen as credible. It only makes your guise thinner.”
So, let me get this straight. You are a moderate Muslim who knows that we a liars pretending to be moderate Muslims, yet you offer us an advice who to improve our deception tactics. Interesting.
Sean, I agree. Someone needs to get a lawyer and sue him for his ignorance! He's being disrespectful.
Post a Comment