It happens all the time, as recently as a week ago:
BFA condemns any violence against those of the Moslem faith who mean us no harm. But sadly, it would be foolish for us to allow anyone of the Islamic faith to live in this country. At the very least, our government should deport all foreign Islamic persons immediately as they could pose a greater threat than illegal immigration or even the enemy we fight in Iraq, for some of these Islamists mean us harm while on our own soil.
That's from an article linked to at the site. Some of the responses:
Political correctness is protecting these scum from prosecution, the same way it protected/protects HIV.
And:
If Muslims had shown up in 2001 from outer space, then we would know exactly what to do, but since they originated here on the earth, technically they are not aliens. I think the distinction is becoming less relevant with every passing year, and sooner or later it will come down to us or them. Then we will see whether God is as tolerant of them as columnist David Warren implied He was...
This is surely the problem with any argument Ezra Levant and co. make re CHRC investigators and human rights activists like Richard Warman joining forums like StormFront and FreeD just to "plant" evidence of racism and hate speech. The evidence is there already, to be gathered by anyone with eyes to see.
Incidentally, anyone still huffed at my "linking" Ezra to far right militants should note his cute little shout-out to pre-eminent Canadian Nazi Mark Lemire in the post above.
How come, with free speech warriors like Ezra "counter hate speech with more speech" Levant, we never get the "more speech" needed to challenge that slurry of bad science and flawed reason that supports the garbage being posted over at Free Dominion? Why is it always their targets (who are usually powerless and embattled enough as it is) who are left with the responsibility to do all of that extra work or to ignore it, usually at their peril?
ReplyDeleteI personally consider the exhortations for "more speech" to be a complete waste of time and energy when it comes to racism, bigotry and hate speech. The core issues have long been settled and the elements of bad science and bad reason are always the same. But I should think people like Ezra Levant and the rest of them would find that part of the whole hate speech/free speech equation energising and intellectually stimulating at least once in a while, no? Free speech absolutists like Glenn Greenwald (who has defended neo-nazis in court) spends quite a bit of time doing exactly that.
The reason they don't is very telling. They either agree with the sentiment or, as in the case of Jay Currie, really don't have the intellect required to deal with it.
While I agree it's the free speech warriors' choice to ignore what doesn't interest them, it seems presumptuous in the extreme (and ultimately self-defeating) to hector, lecture and badger others to support a freedom they choose to do nothing useful with to challenge what most of us consider destructive, while expecting everyone else to do the hard work they recommend is the alternative solution to human rights commissions and criminal hate propaganda legislation.
These people are not part of the solution...they're part of the problem.
some people get it . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618
Anon, I've always said British wingnuts are far more charming than ours.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is another great source for hate speech. You can't swing a dead cat here without hitting somebody's hate speech.
ReplyDeleteYou really do believe that anybody who doesn't agree with your political beliefs does so because they hate the other side. That's the only possible explanation in your mind.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, your hatred of conservatives, christians, Albertans, etc. is potrayed by you to be 'neutral'.
You can't engage the other side's arguments logically, so your only defense is calling names.
ReplyDeleteI presented an argument in the very first comment in this discussion, and you didn't respond to that, did you? All you did was call people names: "Liberals really are mentally immature."
Really, I don't who these people continue to think they're fooling.
Too stupid to live.
Anyone ever notice that people who say "you can't win an argument so you just call everyone a bigot" are almost always bigots?
ReplyDeleteAnyone ever notice that people who say "you can't win an argument so you just call everyone a bigot" are almost always bigots?
ReplyDeleteYou mean all the Conservatives accusing people of anti-semitism because they can't win the argument are bigots?
Yes, indeed, Bifffrances. I have noticed that.
Actually that was me, good ol anonymous, I meant it to apply mainly to the crazy so-cons. people at FD post the worst kind of vitriol and if people call them on it they tend to say "ha! you have no logical argument so you call me prejudiced!" How calling a bigot a bigot can be anything except logical escapes them.
ReplyDeleteActually that was me, good ol anonymous, I meant it to apply mainly to the crazy so-cons. people at FD post the worst kind of vitriol and if people call them on it they tend to say "ha! you have no logical argument so you call me prejudiced!" How calling a bigot a bigot can be anything except logical escapes them.
ReplyDeleteOh, sorry. I misunderstood, given the context.
The problem is, most people don't understand what bigotry and chauvinism are (I think they've got a handle on racism, since they can at least acknowledge physical differences).
I've never been someone to throw out the accusation of racism and bigotry that cavalierly (although since that's fundamental to conservatism, that's hard not to do). It really does depend on the evidence of expressions, actions and associations you have at hand to conclude certain things about someone's beliefs. As well, the silence on certain issues is also very revealing.
The worst, most entrenched bigots and chauvinists are those who claim they're not...that their convictions are based on the absolute superiority of their beliefs and their way of life compared to others'. What gives them away of course are their anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism, their generalisations, their lack of compassion, their hate (focused on things that don't effect them in any way at all) their humourlessness and their misery, none of which are qualities of superior human beings in any way shape or form. It makes them more barbaric than the barbarism they believe they're challenging.
Hey TI . . . guess if Ezra was just picking on Christians it would be fine with you . . .
ReplyDeleteHow is critizing a religion "racist"? . . . the adherants can be from anywhere . . . even Mars . . . so it would seem to me you are somewhat irrational. But of course this comes with being a lefty . . . when you have no response hurl insults.
Your debating skills are in the same league ad Al Gore's. Just run like a London Bomber and cry "settled science".
I wanted to be a lefty once . . . but they told me I would have to get a Labotomy, so I declined!!!
The left wants to kill "Free Speach" in Canada . . . today!!!
"Hey TI . . . guess if Ezra was just picking on Christians it would be fine with you . . .
ReplyDeleteHow is critizing a religion "racist"? . . . the adherants can be from anywhere" ...and...blah...blah...blahhhhhh.
Hey, homeschool, did you actually read the article? Or look at the source? "Phil Magnan, Director, Biblical Family Advocates", in which he quotes himself for a Christian Newswire story. It wasn't just from 'anywhere' or 'Mars', this piece of garbage is being expounded by someone who professes to be 'Christian'(TM).
Riiight.
Homeschool...I thought you were dead?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to criticise religions, go right ahead. Start with mine...Catholicism. I can show you how to do it without slipping into anti-Catholic hate speech, if you'd like.