Two things. 1) National Post wants, no needs your money, and will run anything, anything that you want to stick in those vast stretches of unpurchased ad space within its pages. 2) I have no idea what BB is trying to accomplish with this other than to spend alot of money creating some really poorly designed adverts throwing insults at our local Muslim population. Are they still pissed over that thing with the Higgins Counterterrorism Research Centre and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission? I mean seriously: is this supposed to stiffen somebody's spine re the Afgh. mission? I have no idea.
Larger version here.
A special greeting for SDA readers here.
97 comments:
Someone needs to pin these douchebags down on what they want to see happen.
I find this ad revolting. Please please tell me that the mainstream Jewish community does not sanction this racist ad. Has anyone spoken to or heard from CJC on this?
I dont see why this ad should be seen as "an insult to our local muslim population". Would an ad targeting "radical christianity" be considered an insult to christians?
The ad seems to highlight historical facts, which based on what I know, are accurate. Historical facts, by definition, cannot be insults. For example, pointing out that the killer of Dr. Tiller is a christian fundamentalist is not an insult to christians.
As to BB's purpose, I can only guess, but I would surmise that they are only trying to counterbalance the efforts of CNN, CBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, ... to pretend there is no threat from radical islam (like they are shamelessly, and rather poorly doing with respect to the Ft. Hood incident).
A similar attack on the Jewish community by the Muslim community wouldn't even be able to find a venue and even if it did would rightfully be decried as repugnant antisemitism.
Funny how the rules are different.
You're not looking at the big picture, Jerome. Stuff like this is simply a means to and end. The problem lies in what end BB is seeking. Are they saying wake up and start accepting that we need to bomb more Muslims? Are they saying wake up and start expelling Muslims from our society?
The other problem is that the definition of radical Islam is being constantly redefined to include more and more Muslims. All you need to do is look at any Muslim haters blog to see that radical Islam is increasingly defined as any Muslim that says anything they disagree with.
Posters like this are classic priming of the pump. After enough of it the general population will accept as reasonable any unreasonable action we take against these radical Islamists; many of whom won't actually be radical Islamists at all.
Would an ad targeting "radical christianity" be considered an insult to christians?
After 8 years of an elaborate campaign to associate Christianity with acts of terror and violence, one that resulted in the illegal invasion of a Christian country, what do you think?
As to BB's purpose, I can only guess, but I would surmise that they are only trying to counterbalance the efforts of CNN, CBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, ... to pretend there is no threat from radical islam (like they are shamelessly, and rather poorly doing with respect to the Ft. Hood incident).
...just as these same outlets have cautioned against making connections between the Bernie Madoff fraud (and the larger banking crisis in general) and the Jewish community.
That's just being responsible, Maître Bastien. You don't try people in the court of public opinion and stigmatising groups of people, as we know and the Jews should all too well, is detrimental to public security.
B'nai Brith needs to be declared a terrorist organisation.
The "Responsible Jewish advocacy" at the bottom is a nice touch.
I think the next big poster ad could say "Hitler started with big colourful posters. We've learned a lot from him."
But the alternative is to pretend there is no threat from radical islam...
What is radical Islam? As I pointed out, it can mean anything.
There are nutjobs on both sides...
True, but only one side is taking out full page hate speech ads.
After 8 years of an elaborate campaign to associate Christianity with acts of terror and violence, one that resulted in the illegal invasion of a Christian country, what do you think?
Whose "elaborate campaign"? Al-Qaeda's?
The ad is clearly targeted at "radical islam". I take Robert's point that the line between islam and radical islam may be blurred in some quarters, but I dont believe that this should prevent discussion of radical islam, which is clearly responsible for loads of atrocities (9/11, bali, london, madrid, somalia, nigeria, tanzania, chechnya, kashmir, india, thailand, beslan, ft. hood, ...)
Switching gears from shock and outrage mode, what should we do about this. Should we file complaints with the RCMP asking them to investigate BB for hate speech?
Jerome, you are just being dishonest. That ad is a racist piece of shit. When I look at it I remember Ezra Levant's voice on the radio saying in the most hateful voice: "He's a Jew-hater. He's a Jew-hater."
Sorry, I don't like Muslim-haters any more than I like Jew-haters.
But the alternative is to pretend there is no threat from radical islam,
Maybe there isn't. Did you ever entertain that possibility?
In any case, I don't see how elevating the levels of public hysteria will stop terrorist acts.
What is radical Islam? As I pointed out, it can mean anything.
I think you know it and I know it too. Sure, some retards will see all muslims as potential terrorists. I dont think we should be gauging what is or isnt acceptable discourse based on what a retard might do if exposed to it.
If you want to be fair, just apply the reasoning to Israel, which I know, based on your many national post comments, is not your favourite country in the world. Would you curtail criticism of Israel for fear of setting off an anti-semite nut? I dont think you would, and I dont think you would be doing anybody a favour if you did.
True, but only one side is taking out full page hate speech ads.
Sure, but I encourage you to test BCL's point (1) in this post by trying to have an ad published in the NP which describes some of the worst abuses of the IDF.
Anyways "full page hate speech ads" or not, each side finds ways to get their message across, and its not like the anti-israel side is not without its extremist hateful morons.
Maybe there isn't. Did you ever entertain that possibility?
I entertained it, but I coudlnt seal the deal.
I dont personally fear for my life because of muslim extremists, but there's no sense in denying that people have died in every corner of the globe at the hands of muslim extremists.
Jerome,
"I think you know it and I know it too."
Actually, I don't. For example, some have argued (Tarek Fatah(?))that any Muslim advocating Sharia law in a Canadian jurisdiction is an Islamist. I certainly don't; I also wouldn't support Sharia law (as currently constituted) in, for example, Ontario. But I wouldn't declare anyone on the other side of that argument a radical islamist.
Ezra calls everyone an Islamist that pisses him off.
Actually, I don't. For example, some have argued (Tarek Fatah(?))that any Muslim advocating Sharia law in a Canadian jurisdiction is an Islamist.
How about this: somebody who is prepared to kill, or advocates killing, of random non-muslims in the name of islam is a radical islamist.
I like Tarek Fatah very much, but I agree that his definition maybe a bit too broad. However, shariah law does require killing "apostates", and he has consistently been labeled as such by the pro-shariah crowd, and he has therefore good reason to fear for his life. In that sense I can understand if his judgment on the matter is tainted.
To be clear, those who want to have Tarek Fatah killed for his alleged apostasy (he has not, as far as i know, renounced islam, but regardless) are radical islamists. Others, who just wish to have, for example, access to shariah-compliant mortgages are clearly not radical islamists.
B'nai Brith needs to be declared a terrorist organisation.
Never going to happen with Iggy and Harper courting their vote...
I think that Jerome, with that comparison to signs at protests, in the Excited States of America no less, has removed himself from the category of serious commenters in this discussion.
This is what passes for people with advanced degrees these days. And they claim radical Islam is a threat...
I suggest somebody submit an ad to the Post featuring photos and quotes from the more radical and viciously anti-muslim elements of the illegal settler movement and calls for ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Israel's current Foreign Minister.
I'm sure the Asper family will be happy to publish a full page ad of this type.
BCL, did you get that picture from their website or what?
Omar Ha mentioned it in writing on his facebook page, and Blazing Cat Fur reproduced it. BCF don't link to me, though, so I don't link to him.
I'm sure the Asper family will be happy to publish a full page ad of this type.
I doubt they'd even agree to publish an ad promoting the beliefs and works of mainstream Muslims or their associations.
I think that Jerome, with that comparison to signs at protests, in the Excited States of America no less, has removed himself from the category of serious commenters in this discussion.
my point was perhaps poorly made, but I think a smart guy like you can figure it out anyways.
as for rejoinging the category of serious commenters, please please please can i rejoin? how about if i crack about canadian_sense yanking it two-fisted?
Jerome, I'm not sure I would call it "hate speech" according to some technical definition. I WOULD call it assholish, and frankly disappointing from a group of BBs stature. As I may have written elsewhere, I do find them a bit on the Conservative end of things at times (esp. re Israel), but am on the whole supportive.
I doubt they'd even agree to publish an ad promoting the beliefs and works of mainstream Muslims or their associations.
Wouldnt that be a perfect test of BCL's point (1)? (reproduced below for your convenience)
National Post wants, no needs your money, and will run anything, anything that you want to stick in those vast stretches of unpurchased ad space within its pages.
Jerome, I'm not sure I would call it "hate speech" according to some technical definition. I WOULD call it assholish, and frankly disappointing from a group of BBs stature.
on that BCL, we agree. clearly assholish. there are better ways to pass their message, probably a gazillion better ways.
but as a member of the canadian-assholish community myself, I resent the negative connotation.
my point was perhaps poorly made, but I think a smart guy like you can figure it out anyways.
Yes, I did figure it out. This society is producing a surplus of credentialed buffoons, lawyers no less, who are not even acquainted with basic reason and logic.
That's a bigger threat to Western civilisation than radical Islam ever will be.
The ad is clearly stupid.
The problem is that it does reflect the opinions of too many Canadian Jews. I believe very strongly that this sort of reaction in the community results from being under constant attacks from "anti-Zionists" like Robert McClelland.
The fact of the matter is that attacks on Israel - not considered, rational disagreements on government policy, but attacks on the state itself - have become all too common and accepted in Canada. It makes Jews feel singled out in exactly the same way that I presume this ad makes most Muslims feel. It's all well and good to hide behind "anti-Zionism", but that would be like defending this ad because it is only "anti-radical Isalm".
While I disagree strongly with B'nai Brith and have for some time, I also understand what has led B'nai Brith's leadership to take irresponsible actions like this. I've seen this view in my family from people who we would otherwise consider highly reasonable and intelligent.
So what are they doing? I think B'nai Brith is trying to change the debate from a debate about Israel to a debate about radical Islam. I think it is a negative, hurtful reaction to a negative, hurtful message. I don't like it at all, but it is not going to go away unless we, as a society, do something to clarify the bounds of reasonable debate on the Middle East.
Jason, how about admitting that a war crime is a war crime, even when the IDF commmmits it.
"unless we, as a society, do something to clarify the bounds of reasonable debate on the Middle East."
As defined by the author of the 'the official position of Liblogs on the fighting in Israel and Gaza' no doubt.
Calling this ad hate speech is in my view quite similar to calling any criticism of israel antisemitism. Or any critcism of obama as racist. It devalues the meaning of these terms, and adds nothing to the discussion.
Hear, hear. I'm a supporter of prosecuting hate speech, so I resent it when people play into the hands of those on the other side of the debate by giving support for their slippery-slope arguments in favour of removing hate speech legislation.
I believe very strongly that this sort of reaction in the community results from being under constant attacks from "anti-Zionists" like Robert McClelland.
Fuck off, Chernyuk, I've never been an anti-Zionist.
Well Ti-Guy, I encourage you to take out a full page ad in the NP to warn the world about the threat I pose to the world.
You, Cherniak, Kinsella and Rob Harvie.
How does that old joke go? What do you call 100 lawyers chained up at the bottom of the ocean?
It's not funny to think that years and years of expensive education results in people asserting that B'nai Brith and a sign by a nobody in protest in the US are comparable, or that Robert McClelland is why the B'nai Brith has to engage in campaigns to vilify Muslim Canadians.
I suspect you all know this as well, which only adds moral bankruptcy to your patently obvious intellectual one.
Of course it is, HS. Now will you admit that there is no such thing as a "crime" without a fair trial?
It's so easy to take sides and write and read reports and opinions. That goes for both sides.
Ultimately, I think the problem is that there is no impartial judge who can really deal with this. As a result, the argument has become a never ending war of words between two sides. My gut instict is that a panel of Obama and Clinton would do it, but I know a lot of other people who would reject that argument. Ultimately, we can't even agree on the rules of the game!
This is why the process is best left to mediation by a party agreed on by both sides. All these arguments about "crimes" miss the basic point that none of us know enough to pass judgment.
I believe very strongly that this sort of reaction in the community results from being under constant attacks from "anti-Zionists" like Robert McClelland.
Bnai Brith turned into a bunch of racists because bloggers yelled at them? Seriously? That's what you're going with?
Excuse me, but *I* want to talk about the moral and intellectual vacancy of lawyers, not about the Goldstone Report.
I'm pretty sure that's a discussion around which we could achieve a high degree of pubic consensus and from which suggestions for remediation might ensue.
Nice. So far, the responses ignore my entire point about this being a disgusting response to disguisting attacks and essentially prove my point.
I'm not going to comment further except to point out the obvious that I argued that this is a reaction to anti-Zionists in general. I only used the McClelland personality (still not convinced "he" is a real person) as an example because the person is posting under that name here.
What's the point of trying to debate people who cannot distinguish a general argument from a specific example of that general argument?
the responses ignore my entire point about this being a disgusting response to disguisting (sic) attacks
Two wrongs don't make a right. Done and done.
You, Cherniak, Kinsella and Rob Harvie.
Ouch. Lumping me in with Kinsella truly hurts. I thought you liked him though.
How does that old joke go? What do you call 100 lawyers chained up at the bottom of the ocean?
I dont know it, what's the answer? Please dont spare my feelings (not that I expect you would), but I really enjoy good lawyer jokes. Besides, as one very good law professor told the class once, lawyers are regularly named as the most hated profession, yet, survey after survey shows that people always like their own lawyers. What people dont like, is other people's lawyers, which is how it should be. Besides, I dont practice law in the conventional sense, I write patents.
It's not funny to think that years and years of expensive education results in people asserting that B'nai Brith and a sign by a nobody in protest in the US are comparable
Ok, clearly you're hung up on the fact that I posted this link so I will try to clarify what I attempted to do.
I was responding to Robert, who had said "only one side is taking out full page hate ads" or something like that. Well since Robert started talking about "sides", rather than specific organizations, I just meant to show him that both "sides" have morons.
As to the significance of BB taking this ad vs the significance of a Berkeley douchebag protesting, I concede that berkeley douchebags have very little significance.
Now, if you could please promote me back to "conservative speechy asshole" instead of "greater threat to western civilization than radical islam", it would make my day.
"Now will you admit that there is no such thing as a "crime" without a fair trial?"
Unless you're a New Democrat and Jason thinks he's got a chance to gain partisan advantage by falsely claiming you've been kicked out of the party for antisemitism.
Did I miss your apology to Stacy Douglas for your vicious slander of her Jason?
Somehow I doubt it.
Excuse me, but *I* want to talk about the moral and intellectual vacancy of lawyers, not about the Goldstone Report.
Haha, love the *I*.
I would too but our code of ethics actually forbids us from talking sh1t about the profession.
Rule 4.06 of the Rules of Professional Conduct:
A lawyer shall encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice.
I was responding to Robert, who had said "only one side is taking out full page hate ads" or something like that. Well since Robert started talking about "sides", rather than specific organizations, I just meant to show him that both "sides" have morons.
Yes, we all know lawyers can parse language very well.
Western law is what we are supposed to consider our civilisation's greatest achievement. It's frightening, terror-inducing in fact, to see it reduced to mere technique.
In my judgement and I would argue many other Jews, B'nai Brith is nowhere close to representing Canadian Jewry.
This ad is the brainchild of the head of B'nai Brith and nothing more. It's Board is at best a paper tiger. Unless and until groups like the CJC or the UJA support such ads (which I doubt you will ever see) B'nai Brith should be seen as a rump group within the large Canadian Jewish community.
It's frightening, terror-inducing in fact, to see it reduced to mere technique.
Does that make me a terrorist?
But seriously, Im not actually practicing law by posting comments on BCL. I comment in my capacity as an individual.
Also, the genius of common law, is the fact that, through the adversarial system, it allows lawyers to employ "mere technique", and more often than not achieve an equitable result. If the success of common law, or "western law", depended on the good faith of individual lawyers, we'd be knee-deep in shit.
Your original objection to the ad was that it would lead some racist to hate muslims even more.
That's what hate speech is. It's speech that's intended to promote hatred of an identifiable group of people.
it allows lawyers to employ "mere technique", and more often than not achieve an equitable result.
After several centuries of having the Law degraded by technique to the point where the barriers between the citizen and basic justice are formidable, I'm not so sure about that, especially when we consider the resources that are now required to achieve those results.
But anyway, it was the error in basic reason that I was reacting to.
That's what hate speech is. It's speech that's intended to promote hatred of an identifiable group of people.
Not quite. Your objection was that it would lead an already racist person to hate muslims even more. Not a reasonable person.
Like I said earlier, if the standard for hate speech is any speech that leads an excitable moron to be excited, than any criticism of anybody is hate speech.
This ad, which I consider assholish (as per BCL's formulation), is not hate speech. It is specifically directed at radical islam. The fact that people who are already racists consider any muslim to be radical doesnt mean that this ad is hate speech. It means nothing more that racists will be racists.
After several centuries of having the Law degraded by technique to the point where the barriers between the citizen and basic justice are formidable,
you make a fair point that basic justice is often inaccessible in many cases. but you are mistaken that the law has "degraded" to the current level. it is far easier today for the poor to have access to justice than it was 50, 100, 200, or even 500 years ago.
Robert,
Your position on hate speech in this context is breathtaking in light of many comments made on your blog that you characterize quite differently.
"After several centuries of having the Law degraded by technique to the point where the barriers between the citizen and basic justice are formidable, I'm not so sure about that, especially when we consider the resources that are now required to achieve those results."
One of the few Libertarian ideas that I agree with wholeheartedly is the various pushes for 'Plain English' laws. Or Plain French, plain Spanish - whatever. Basically proposals requiring that contracts and legislation be required to be short, pithy and unambiguous to any reader whether they have a law degree or not.
Of course such a change would put a lot of lawyers out of business - so don't hold your breath.
you make a fair point that basic justice is often inaccessible in many cases. but you are mistaken that the law has "degraded" to the current level.
I tend to have the American legal system in mind when I'm making more extravagant claims about the Law. Which is what worries me most about our legal system...American influence. My level of sheer terror waxes and wanes, depending on current events.
The last decade has been particularly grotesque.
Basically proposals requiring that contracts and legislation be required to be short, pithy and unambiguous to any reader whether they have a law degree or not.
You'd think we'd have all come to the agreement that contracts written in such language are even more formidably binding and less open to interpretation than ones which practically everyone asserts they never understand anyway. But it's become a game that we all can't seem to stop playing, possibly because we prize a type of intelligence that's good at deciphering complex code, regardless of whether that complexity is necessary or not.
Your objection was that it would lead an already racist person to hate muslims even more.
No it wasn't. I only brought up the Muslim haters to point out that the definition of radical Islam was continually being expanded.
Hate speech is not contingent on its success, only its motive. And it's hard to see how the motive in this ad is anything other than the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group of people.
Well I guess we'll be seeing a Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Islamophobia any time now then.
But it's become a game that we all can't seem to stop playing, possibly because we prize a type of intelligence that's good at deciphering complex code, regardless of whether that complexity is necessary or not.
I agree that legislation and contracts are written in ridiculously complex language, i.e., legalese.
This is due, wrt to contracts at least, and imho, to judges who misinterpret clear language in order to achieve a desired result in a case, more often than not, to favour an individual litigant over a major corporation.
With respect to legislation, a fine example of a law which even lawyers struggle to understand is the Income Tax Act. In this particular case, this is due to the injection of social policy in tax laws, which create loopholes, and the law is amended to close loopholes, and on and on.
Hate speech is not contingent on its success, only its motive.
In the court of public opinion, perhaps, but legally, its not about motive.
Re: hate speech, you can look here at the Criminal Code, with the relevant sections being 318 and 319. There are several elements to the offence and several defences aviailable as well.
Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred
The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:
* communicate statements,
* in a public place,
* incite hatred against an identifiable group,
* in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
This ad undoubtedly meets the first three criteria, Jerome. Only the last is questionable. And you'll note that motive is indeed relevant.
In this particular case, this is due to the injection of social policy in tax laws
...while simultaneously permitting everyone to find ways out of supporting social policy in taxation, if they are so motivated. In the end, the simple calculus should prevail: cui bono?
It's a mess. The only problem is that remediation is just as politicised as the problems are.
No blogging on last night's by-elections? Wazzup with that? :O
Shoot, BCL, I knew I should have checked your place out this morning.
I don't find the ad racist, mind you, just stupid and unhelpful.
For the origin of the "Grand Mufti" shot, check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8162841.stm
No coincidence there.
This ad undoubtedly meets the first three criteria, Jerome. Only the last is questionable. And you'll note that motive is indeed relevant.
you wont get much by reading the CC. You need to read SC decisions dealing with them. Taylor is a good one, but deals with the human rights act instead of the CC. R. v. Keegstra would probably be best.
I cant find anything that suggests motive is relevant Robert - Im not trying to be difficult, but these 4 elements have nothing to do with motive.
Also, if you read Keegstra, you'll find that what matters is the impression a reasonable reader gets from the expression, not the motive of the writer/speaker.
This ad undoubtedly meets the first three criteria, Jerome. Only the last is questionable. And you'll note that motive is indeed relevant.
You also have to look at the applicable definition:
"identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
Here it would be argued that the speech relates to a group that shares an ideology and not to any identifiable group as defined. Some of the defences also would be in play.
But I assume the point being made isn't that a crime has been committed, but that it is irresponsible for a reputable advocacy group to run an ad of this nature.
In the end, the simple calculus should prevail: cui bono?
lawyers and politicians of course.
lawyers and politicians of course.
And accountants. And the wealthy, generally. Who I used to admire, until it became clear that we just can't afford them anymore.
Mmmm popcorn, beer.
I'll see if Harry Abrams will stop by and make my afternoon complete.
So the big question is who will file that s. 13 complaint and who will sue whom for defamation.
Good times!
(Plus Jason Cherniak...the Liberals own gift to Christian theology.)
I'll see if Harry Abrams will stop by and make my afternoon complete.
Why does he have to come here? Is Blazing Cat's Ass not letting his comments through at your blog again?
And speaking of tasteful:
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11267:celebrating-diversity-progressive-style&catid=99:moonbats
Ooops, the mask slipped a little.
Are we 100% sure that this is legit? The ad has crappy design, not quite consistent with BB's usual tone, and no mention of it on thier website ...
Do we know someone who definitely saw it in print? Smells a bit like internet hoax ...
This society is producing a surplus of credentialed buffoons, lawyers no less, who are not even acquainted with basic reason and logic.
And on cue, we have Jason Cherniak chirping in...
The problem is that it does reflect the opinions of too many Canadian Jews.
So I take it that you will be decrying this at the next B'Nai Brith meetings?
The fact of the matter is that attacks on Israel - not considered, rational disagreements on government policy, but attacks on the state itself - have become all too common and accepted in Canada.
Bullshit.
There was a report from the UN that basically accuses Israel of war crimes, yet no one seems to care (apart from a few).
To you, this is just another case of Israel right or wrong but always right.
I've seen this view in my family from people who we would otherwise consider highly reasonable and intelligent.
And that is my main point on the Israel/Jewish debate. For some reason, when it comes to Israel, it seems that religion will take precedence over any normal debate and replace any sane discussion. We talk about radical Islam, but this is nothing compared to radical Zionism that inhabits Jews when it comes to Israel and any sense of morality.
What's the point of trying to debate people who cannot distinguish a general argument from a specific example of that general argument?
Still trying to frame this aren't we....
The ad is clearly designed to incite hatred.
Focusing on a meeting with the Grand Muftl of Jerusalem and Hitler is rather low.
And of course trying to equate Nazism & Radical Islam... well...
Why not indite the west also for refusing to exchange 10,000 winterized trucks for 1,000,000 Jews during WW2 - it makes about as much sense...
Are we 100% sure that this is legit? The ad has crappy design, not quite consistent with BB's usual tone, and no mention of it on thier website ...
Do we know someone who definitely saw it in print? Smells a bit like internet hoax ...
Yup--it appears on the back page of the first section as a full page ad.
Omar Ha-Redeye has seen it and been offended:
http://www.hs.facebook.com/pages/Omar-Ha-Redeye/40525419360?v=feed&story_fbid=172857914521&ref=mf
No, really that is his real name.
Hey, Currie: Speaking of tasteful...
I fear, ti-guy, that I can't take credit for the graphic...but the song adaptation is my own. Glad you appreciated it.
It's not so much that Jay is a pig, or a censor, or a liar, or a racist-coddler. It's mostly that he's so...trivial.
He got bored with his own blog, so he came over here.
Send that old woman Arnie Shaidle over, Jay. You're dull.
Speaking of douchebags, the sheer thought that Robert "Fuck the Jews and their pain' McClelland is on this thread passing judgement is nauseating.
That's Lashon hara, BB. Say three Hail Moses as penance.
Not to be pedantic, by the way, but that wasn't Lashon Hara. It was straight Motzi Shem Ra.
It was straight Motzi Shem Ra.
Not if BB was referring to this post. Or maybe. I don't know. The Right hasn't cared about the truth for such a long time I doubt they're even capable of recognising it anymore.
Fer cryin' out loud, that was an ironic reference to a despicable action by Kate McMillan! I wish these people would learn the meaning of context, or is that the context of meaning?
"Fer cryin' out loud, that was an ironic reference"
But Dawg, according to our betters at the CHRC, intent cannot matter. It is the message, not the messenger to quote the coward Lynch and the very able Mark Freiman.
Nonsense, Jay. Context matters, which is why the CHRC threw out a nuisance complaint against Richard Warman, who has merely quoted some neo-Nazi or other.
there's a little bit more to that the post cited by TiGuy, Dr. Dawg.
google "robert mcclelland"+jews and Mr. McClelland's problems with Jews will become a little more clear.
Not me [won't speak up when the State comes for his Jewish neighbours ]. People like Klownsella, Chernyuk and Smeagol the Jew have taught me it’s not worth getting involved. When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a “what a shame”.
http://myblahg.com/?p=1932#comment-37270
p.s. my comments are neither lashon rara or, god forbid, motzi shem ra.
A snootful of lashon hara:
Backseat Blogger was kicked off the Blogging Tories and won't tell us why.
oops, forgot this one:
apparently mr. mcclelland doesn't see the anti semitism in the phrase: World Trade Center buildings as a "shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/9/4/3869268.html
BB,
While I've clashed with Robert in terms of how he has handled certain comments on his blog, you have to concede that there is a difference between:
1. what a reputable advocacy group puts in an ad (with that ad being accepted for publication in a MSM publication), on the one hand, and;
2. what a commenter using an assumed name puts in a comment on a blog read by only a very small number of people, on the other hand.
(Written in the style of a contractuual clause just to drive Ti-Guy crazy.) ;)
Having said that, I do find it interesting that Robert doesn't find the comments I've noted ad nauseum to be close to the line in terms of either antisemitism or Criminal Code hate speech, yet seems to think the ad being dicussed here is both Islamophobic and hate speech.
If there is a difference that he sees based in good faith on reason and principles, he hasn't articulated it yet.
Marky Mark: I haven't written a single comment for against the BB ad. I simply pointed out that the thought of mr. mcclelland passing judgement on it given his history is really rather nauseating.
Google "Religion Of Peace"
I will say no more!
"Are they still pissed over that thing with the Higgins Counterterrorism Research Centre"
___
I think they are frightened because they are conscious of the historical context and want to make sure that others are as well. Indeed, knowing about the anti-Semitism rampant in and around the Second World War does alert one to the threat of militant Islamism. They have been quite blantant about their hatred for Jews. To not pay any attention to the lessons of history is foolish. Moreover, I think hostile reactions to this sort of ad indicate the reality of anti-Semitism -- or at the very least a lack of concern about a threat they face.
I think comments like McClelland's "What is radical Islam? It can mean anything." are a bit simple minded. Most people are able to distinguish between Islam and Islamists. To question the very concept of "radical Islam" -- as though it could mean anything -- is to shut down dialogue on this important issue. We need to be realistic about the threat from "radical Islam" -- and, of course, we need to ensure that we are not targeting all Muslims with what we deem to be a reasonable response to that threat.
I can understand why Muslims would be upset...the ad is accurate. If it isn't, then prove that it is not, free speech affords them that privilege.
To say that it isn't accurate because they're jerks too is not a rebuttal. It's a deflection.
http://tinyurl.com/ylfgvn9
Any devout Muslim is obliged to follow the teachings of the Quran
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
and so on...
and for those calling the ad racist - Islam is a religion/Ideology - NOT a race
DAWG
"a nuisance complaint against Richard Warman,"
WOW - thats rich!
To Gord MacDonald,
Yes Islam is a religion, no a race, a beautiful religion like all others. It is only the ignorants who will insult "the other" . Hostility is what we all gain from such attitude .
2:62
VERILY, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians49 - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds - shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.50
5:82
Thou wilt surely find that, of all people, the most hostile to those who believe [in this divine writ] are the Jews as well as those who are bent on ascribing divinity to aught beside God; and thou wilt surely find that, of all people,96 they who say, "Behold, we are Christians," come closest to feeling affection for those who believe [in this divine writ]: this is so because there are priests and monks among them, and because these are not given to arrogance.97 (5:83) For, when they come to understand what has been bestowed from on high upon this Apostle, thou canst see their eyes overflow with tears, because they recognize something of its truth;98 [and] they say: "O our Sustainer! We do believe; make us one, then, with all who bear witness to the truth. (5:84) And how could we fail to believe in God and in whatever truth has come unto us, when we so fervently desire that our Sustainer count us among the righteous?"
Jewish people have a right to speak their minds. Remember free speech is also speech you may not like. When you have been persecuted like them and have walked in their shoes then maybe you will get what they are talking about.
Enough killing on US soil for Allah.
Post a Comment