[...]
"They're getting stronger, they're showing their flags," [said Anti-racism activist Bonnie Collins, who lives in one of the targetted houses] . "There's a lot of kids drawn to it -- they're looking for something and they find acceptance with these groups."
On this particular case the Anti-Racist Canada Blog writes:
While we aren't certain that the firebombing is as a result of Ms. Collins' anti-racist activism, we are probably 99.5% in agreement that this was a legitimate act of intimidation and perhaps attempted murder. At least on[e] Aryan Guard member is closely associated with a neo-Nazi originally from Kitchener, Ontario who is believed to have been involved in some assaults and a firebombing in Edmonton. These two were roommates in Kitchener and moved to Calgary together, however the one eventually returned to Ontario, then moved to Edmonton. It was during his time in Edmonton when the assaults and firebombing took place; similar incidents in Edmonton declined when this individual left the city again. This all speculation, but it's based on some precedent.
For what its worth, the Aryan Guard has denied responsibility on Stormfront.
But, in any case, something to keep in mind when you read one of Jonathon Kay's columns.
Update: The Anti-Racist Canada Blog is fascinating. They report that the Aryan Guard has endorsed the Wildrose Alliance due to their alleged stand against the CHRT/CHRC. However, the Alliance doesn't want their endorsement, and begs to differ:
Further to this, whomever was saying we do not support Human rights commissions is obviously speaking out of turn as there is no such policy and certainly no such prevailing sentiment in the party.
Honestly, you know Ezra's crusade is headed for the tank when he can't even win over Alberta's right-wing fringe.
14 comments:
Well to be fair, he's at a distinct advantage when it comes to winning over the Wildrose Alliance.
You see, they've met him.
I sure hope we don't see an anti-white backlash because of the alleged actions of some extremist white groups. Maybe we just need to make them feel included and empowered in our society? Isn't it OUR fault that they lash out with their frustrated feelings of disenfranchaisement?
(Let's seem what other arguments does the Left use when Muslim 'youths' riot and burn cars . . . )
Oh yeah! They're exercising their freedom of speech!!
I sure hope we don't see an anti-white backlash because of the alleged actions of some extremist white groups
You'd better hope, nazi. And don't count on this white Christian to care when you get what you've been been inviting so enthusiastically.
You dont need HRT's when the neo-nazis are firebombing stuff. Last time I checked arson is a serious criminal offence.
So we have to wait for firebombs before we get to mediate these types of conflicts?
This isn't Alabama, you know.
So we have to wait for firebombs before we get to mediate these types of conflicts?
Not if there is evidence of a conspiracy to commit the firebombing.
But yes normally we wait for an offence to be commited rather than punishing people for having views that may some day cause them to commit a crime. Are we going to lock up anti-globalization and environmental activists because SOME of there views cause them to commit crimes?
But yes normally we wait for an offence (sic) to be commited (sic) rather than punishing people for having views that may some day cause them to commit a crime.
Not necessarily (depends on how the view is expressed) and not according to our laws. If you want to argue that that should be the case, then do so, although, as we all know, those of us who don't believe the world began on September 11, 2001 have been hearing those arguments for quite a long time.
Actually, as far as I know even those who hold or express views sympathetic to terrorism are not punishable until they take the next step and actually start planning a crime. If I am incorrect on this I challenge you to find the statutory provision that allows for punishment for such "thought crimes". Even those who express the belief that terrorism is a justifiable practice in response to real or perceieved grievances have more legal protection than hatemogers.
If I am incorrect on this I challenge you to find the statutory provision that allows for punishment for such "thought crimes".
What thought crimes?
Well according to you and BCL it is not necessary for a hatemonger to actually go out and commit a hate crime to be punished. As soon as they express their hatred that is enough to censor them. Whereas someone who holds the belief that terrorism is a justifiable act is free to go around and advocate that belief, and cant be punished until they actually go out and blow something up.
As soon as they express their hatred that is enough to censor them.
An expression is not a thought. And if someone manages to express it, no one was censored.
If you're going to argue legal issues, you have to be more careful about language. You're using the word "crime" pretty carelessly as well.
This is why I always recommend that those who don't like the speech restrictions of our laws argue for their abolishment, not try to parse them (and the discussion generally) in order illustrate some error of reason or logic. It just doesn't work. You're either a free speech absolutist, or you're not.
Stay in your basement ti-guy, your hentai downloads are ready.
Can you imagine the grubby, stinky little troll lurking for hours and then finally writing that?
Oh, Biff. Biff, Biff, Biff...
Post a Comment