Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Saudi Funding of Muslim groups in Canada


Argus

Recommended Posts

Actually this Invision board drives me nuts.. I find it cumberson and greatly prefer vbulletin.

Also, in my non-virtual life, I don't waste time trying to have a discussion with bigots or racists and I greatly prefer discussions based on fact to those based on beliefs.

In an interesting fact, tangentially related to the foolish belief that Canadians are somehow threatened by others who are Muslim and come from foreign countries, you may be amused to learn that a woman born in Kitchener, Ontario, of Canadian mixed ethnicity European stock, a highly respected scholar, and teacher, who converted to Islam while her lawyer sister converted to Judaism, and her lawyer brother remained Catholic, has been elected President of one of the leading Muslim umbrella organizations in the USA and North America.

http://tinyurl.com/jxnyw

It amuses me to speculate how that event must spin the irrational fears you have about foreigners and foreign religions taking over WASP Canada.

It also amuses me to think how many holidays the three siblings get to celebrate each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this Invision board drives me nuts.. I find it cumberson and greatly prefer vbulletin.

Also, in my non-virtual life, I don't waste time trying to have a discussion with bigots or racists and I greatly prefer discussions based on fact to those based on beliefs.

How embarrassing for you, then, that you are unable to come up with any in your discussions here, resorting to snide emotionalisms, pathetic insults, and sanctimonious threats.

May I suggest, bearing the above in mind, that you leave and go live life in your splendid world where everyone is just like you, thinks like you, believes as you do, and never says a discouraging word?

You won't be missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this Invision board drives me nuts.. I find it cumberson and greatly prefer vbulletin.

Also, in my non-virtual life, I don't waste time trying to have a discussion with bigots or racists and I greatly prefer discussions based on fact to those based on beliefs.

How embarrassing for you, then, that you are unable to come up with any in your discussions here, resorting to snide emotionalisms, pathetic insults, and sanctimonious threats.

May I suggest, bearing the above in mind, that you leave and go live life in your splendid world where everyone is just like you, thinks like you, believes as you do, and never says a discouraging word?

You won't be missed.

I note that you do not respond to my reference to the fact of North American Islam electing a non-Arabic, non-immigrant Canadian as a leader to counter your bigoted claim that Muslimas in North America are all suspects of terror and sedition, paid for by the Saudi government and dominated by immigrants.

I note that you accuse me of emotionalism, insult and threats but are unable to quote me to that effect.

Strawmen argument and ad hominem are the favored tools of the racist mind though the seem meaningless to the rational reader.

OTOH , I agree with your last sentence. Regardless of which bulletin board is employed, I cannot remain as a participant in a group that shelters bigoted racists espousing restriction of the human rights of others because of the others ethnicity or religion.

And, as you suggested in an earlier post, it is probably better for me to direct my complaints against racism in a more official manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that you do not respond to my reference to the fact of North American Islam electing a non-Arabic, non-immigrant Canadian as a leader to counter your bigoted claim that Muslimas in North America are all suspects of terror and sedition, paid for by the Saudi government and dominated by immigrants.

I do not see where Argus stated that all Muslims in North America are suspects of terror and sedition.

Argus's concern is not that Muslims in North America are Saudi-funded terrorists, it's that Saudi oil money is spreading a branch of Islam that's not compatible with western values.

I note that you accuse me of emotionalism, insult and threats but are unable to quote me to that effect.

Strawmen argument and ad hominem are the favored tools of the racist mind though the seem meaningless to the rational reader.

I'm becoming unclear as to who you're actually arguing with.

Argus has, in this thread, focused his attention of Saudi Arabia funding the spread of Wahhabism.

You raised the possibility of legal action in response to a message by Leafless, who at that point had done nothing other than complain that the Charter of Rights is allowing Canada's culture to be changed.

Would you agree that you've made mention of making hate-literature complaints in this thread, and that people would be justified in perceiving this as a threat?

OTOH , I agree with your last sentence. Regardless of which bulletin board is employed, I cannot remain as a participant in a group that shelters bigoted racists espousing restriction of the human rights of others because of the others ethnicity or religion.

And, as you suggested in an earlier post, it is probably better for me to direct my complaints against racism in a more official manner.

In my former capacity as a technical support representitive for a very large multinational corporation, one of the guidelines we were given was that the instant a customer mentioned legal action, I was to inform them that I was not authorized to discuss legal matters on behalf of my employer, and that any further mention of legal matters would force me to terminate the call.

I am not authorized to discuss legal matters on behalf of MapleLeafWeb either.

However, I'm hopeful that we can discuss this rationally. Please cite which statements you feel are are in violation of Canadian legislation on hate speech. Please be specific. Let's examine this rationally.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll play one more time.

Avoiding Invision for to avoid more debateers skirting around issues by critiquing my quoting skills instead of my reasoning, I will construct this post in Word and copy and paste it to the Invision board. Any of you who feel it necessary to continue with your attack on my posting style will please quote an authority such as the Chicago Manual of Style in support of your critique in an entirely new thread.

I am all in favour of “reasonable”, Kimmy.

In your post,#10 of this thread on August 28, 2006, you said;

“Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead.”

As that is obvious nonsense, why did you post the statement? If it was a joke, why didn’t you include an “LOL” or <G> or something to signal that it was a joke. If it was a joke, why would you make a joke about a religion that was hurtful to members of that religion, particularly in the context of the thread.

A reasonable person in the context of this thread, would infer that you were ignorant about the religion, particularly about how people came to belong to it, that you despised the religion enough to make a sarcastic reference to its claim of being a religion of peace, and that you intended you readers to find a reason to dislike, even hate, followers of Islam.

A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide.

I have been specific with respect to fact and clear about my line of reasoning with respect to this one statement.

I look forward to your specific facts and clear line of reasoning demonstrating that I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be leery of another culture because of the atrocities that are carried out in a daily basis in the name of that culture is being ethnocentric at best. If i say to you, "Muslims blow up buildings and buses. " Am i wrong? No because it happens on a daily basis. Just so you know, Im just as leery of Christian fundalmentalist as i am Islamic. The difference here is that you dont see Buddhist setting off bombs in markets or flying planes into buildings. Is it fear that drives me to be leery of Muslims, maybe some, but more likely its my instinct to survive that every person has. I would rather err on the side of caution and appear a dick then to be wrong and have my head lopped off.

Getting back to the topic at hand, If you want to really stab at the heart of Terrorism you have to attack Saudi Arabia its one of the largest funding points for terrorism in the world. Unfortunetly my US government is on friendly terms with them. Apparently some terrorist are ok while otheres are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this Invision board drives me nuts.. I find it cumberson and greatly prefer vbulletin.

Also, in my non-virtual life, I don't waste time trying to have a discussion with bigots or racists and I greatly prefer discussions based on fact to those based on beliefs.

How embarrassing for you, then, that you are unable to come up with any in your discussions here, resorting to snide emotionalisms, pathetic insults, and sanctimonious threats.

May I suggest, bearing the above in mind, that you leave and go live life in your splendid world where everyone is just like you, thinks like you, believes as you do, and never says a discouraging word?

You won't be missed.

I note that you do not respond to my reference to the fact of North American Islam electing a non-Arabic, non-immigrant Canadian as a leader to counter your bigoted claim that Muslimas in North America are all suspects of terror and sedition, paid for by the Saudi government and dominated by immigrants.

I never made any such claim, so you're lying again. As to them putting a puppet public face in place, good on them. I'm sure she'll be useful on the talk show circuit. When we can see her hair and when she stops with her ludicrous claims that Wahhabism is little more than a reform movement someone other than the gullible might find that to be actual progress.

I note that you accuse me of emotionalism, insult and threats but are unable to quote me to that effect.

Pretty obvious in your posts.

OTOH , I agree with your last sentence. Regardless of which bulletin board is employed, I cannot remain as a participant in a group that shelters bigoted racists espousing restriction of the human rights of others because of the others ethnicity or religion.

And, as you suggested in an earlier post, it is probably better for me to direct my complaints against racism in a more official manner.

Good bye. See ya later. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll play one more time.

Avoiding Invision for to avoid more debateers skirting around issues by critiquing my quoting skills instead of my reasoning, I will construct this post in Word and copy and paste it to the Invision board. Any of you who feel it necessary to continue with your attack on my posting style will please quote an authority such as the Chicago Manual of Style in support of your critique in an entirely new thread.

I am all in favour of “reasonable”, Kimmy.

In your post,#10 of this thread on August 28, 2006, you said;

“Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead.”

As that is obvious nonsense, why did you post the statement? If it was a joke, why didn’t you include an “LOL” or <G> or something to signal that it was a joke. If it was a joke, why would you make a joke about a religion that was hurtful to members of that religion, particularly in the context of the thread.

A reasonable person in the context of this thread, would infer that you were ignorant about the religion, particularly about how people came to belong to it, that you despised the religion enough to make a sarcastic reference to its claim of being a religion of peace, and that you intended you readers to find a reason to dislike, even hate, followers of Islam.

A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide.

I have been specific with respect to fact and clear about my line of reasoning with respect to this one statement.

I look forward to your specific facts and clear line of reasoning demonstrating that I am wrong.

Your posts are the antithesis of reasonableness. Your posts, in fact, display a distinct hostility towards anyone who questions Islam, and towards basic concepts of free speech.

I think I'm being fair in questioning whether your evaluation of what "a reasonable person" would think has much value.

Also, weren't you going to leave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raised the possibility of legal action in response to a message by Leafless, who at that point had done nothing other than complain that the Charter of Rights is allowing Canada's culture to be changed.

What's this recent trend towards threat of legal actions in connection with web boards? I thought this was recreation. This is taking it a bit far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide.

That assumes that Islam is a religious group. I would classify radical Islam as a death cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all in favour of “reasonable”, Kimmy.

In your post,#10 of this thread on August 28, 2006, you said;

“Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead.”

As that is obvious nonsense, why did you post the statement? If it was a joke, why didn’t you include an “LOL” or <G> or something to signal that it was a joke. If it was a joke, why would you make a joke about a religion that was hurtful to members of that religion, particularly in the context of the thread.

A reasonable person in the context of this thread, would infer that you were ignorant about the religion, particularly about how people came to belong to it, that you despised the religion enough to make a sarcastic reference to its claim of being a religion of peace, and that you intended you readers to find a reason to dislike, even hate, followers of Islam.

A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide.

I have been specific with respect to fact and clear about my line of reasoning with respect to this one statement.

I look forward to your specific facts and clear line of reasoning demonstrating that I am wrong.

Ok, if you're going to go around threatening people with Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, perhaps it would be informative to have a look at what that legislation actually says.

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

( a ) killing members of the group; or

( b ) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

( a ) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( b ) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

( a ) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( b ) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

( a ) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

( b ) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

( c ) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

( d ) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) In this section, “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; “identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318; “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; “statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

So, you claim:

"A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide."

I think you're completely wrong. I think a reasonable person would recognize the opposite.

First of all, note the word "Historically" in my comment. Historically, Islam *was* spread by military means in many instances. I don't see that it's hateful to modern-day Muslims to point out this fact, any more than it's hateful to modern-day Catholics to point out that a large number of women were tortured and murdered because of Catholic ideology. It might make them unhappy to talk about it, but that doesn't change the truth of it.

Second of all, note sections 319.3a and 319.3c.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;

I have reasonable grounds to believe my statement true. From the time of Mohammed up to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Islam has spread at least in part through conquest and violence.

And while Islam apparently condemns forced conversion, the recent experience of the captured reporters suggests that it's a somewhat flexible rule. As does this-- http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=763

Swordpoint conversion at the hands of Muslims, both historic and present-day, seems like justifiable response to Drea's question of what's the big deal, does it not?

So there you go. While my comment might not make Muslims very *happy*, it's founded on information which I believe is accurate, is relevant to current events, and is pertinant to this discussion. In short, while you might dislike what I said, I think it's pretty clear that it's not described by the definition of hate propaganda written in the Criminal Code.

If "hate propaganda" legislation were as broad and restrictive as you seem to believe, "The DaVinci Code" would have gotten Dan Brown arrested instead of making him rich.

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You state in your post,

“So, you claim:

”"A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide."”

I think you're completely wrong. I think a reasonable person would recognize the opposite.

First of all, note the word "Historically" in my comment. Historically, Islam *was* spread by military means in many instances. I don't see that it's hateful to modern-day Muslims to point out this fact, any more than it's hateful to modern-day Catholics to point out that a large number of women were tortured and murdered because of Catholic ideology. It might make them unhappy to talk about it, but that doesn't change the truth of it.”

I said your statement breached the law. You said your statement did the opposite. I am new to the concept of an ‘opposite’ to the breaching of a law. I’ll presume you mean that it does not breach section 319 (2).

You go on to say7:

“First of all, note the word "Historically" in my comment. Historically, Islam *was* spread by military means in many instances. I don't see that it's hateful to modern-day Muslims to point out this fact, any more than it's hateful to modern-day Catholics to point out that a large number of women were tortured and murdered because of Catholic ideology. It might make them unhappy to talk about it, but that doesn't change the truth of it.”

Is that all you said? Of course not! You have begun the racist’s dance around accountability for your words

Let me paraphrase for you for the sake of clarity: in fact, you said that the only people who were Muslims had been forced to join the religion. The null hypotheses for that bit of ridiculous fact is that one person historically became a Muslim of their own free will. As I have already posted in this thread about a wonderful Canadian woman who did just that, became a respected scholar and was elected to lead a major North American body of Muslims, there is ample proof that your statement is false.

You spring into the next step of the racist dance and claim that the Muslim faith “was” spread by force of arms in the past. But that isn’t what you said in your statement, which clearly says, “is”. (It’s the Religion of Peace” means it is now.) Very typical of racists argument is to try to change the meaning of the statement by adding conditions and codicils after the fact.

Your next step in the dance is to rely on your pretence that you were speaking of the past to demonstrate that you have a defense in truth as provided by section 319(3). But, as I have just illustrated, your truth does not withstand an examination of its null hypotheses. Ergo, you have not made a true statement and have no defense under that part of the law.

Then you state:

“I have reasonable grounds to believe my statement true. From the time of Mohammed up to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Islam has spread at least in part through conquest and violence.”

More dancing by the racist thinker! Your original statement did not allow for any means other then force for conversion to Islam. Now you say “in part” That is the kind of adjustment that racists make when called out for their despicable, evil and illegal public posts. They don’t change their minds but the scramble to cover their ass(es).

You begin again with new racism:

”And while Islam apparently condemns forced conversion, the recent experience of the captured reporters suggests that it's a somewhat flexible rule. As does this-- http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=763

Swordpoint conversion at the hands of Muslims, both historic and present-day, seems like justifiable response to Drea's question of what's the big deal, does it not?”

With the intent to slander, because one group of Muslim today, or 100,000 Muslims in a war long ago force conversion on people, you accuse all Muslims of doing so. That is the very heart of racism and bigotry; to characterize an identifiable group by a hateful practice based on the actions of some members of the group.

You finish with:

So there you go. While my comment might not make Muslims very *happy*, it's founded on information which I believe is accurate, is relevant to current events, and is pertinant to this discussion. In short, while you might dislike what I said, I think it's pretty clear that it's not described by the definition of hate propaganda written in the Criminal Code.”

I have proven by applying the null hypothesis that your claim that Muslims were forced to join the religion is untrue. I have identified the occasions where you have altered your original statement in an attempt to reduce the impact of the remark in case you are ever asked to defend it in law. And I have pointed out that your comments regarding forced conversion reflect the very essence of racism in characterizing an entire group on the basis of the actions of part of the group. You even say that your comments might not make Muslims happy, thus admitting that your comments are hateful toward them.

Your reply, reliant on easily disproved claims of fact, characterizing an entire religious group with engaging in hateful practices, is as full a confession of guilt under Section 319 (2) as any law enforcement agency or human rights tribunal is ever likely to see.

By the way, I don’t simply dislike your racism. I find it abhorrent and disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear kimmy,

'Daddyhominum's ad hominum towards you gave me a jolly good wheeze.

Your reply, reliant on easily disproved claims of fact, characterizing an entire religious group with engaging in hateful practices, is as full a confession of guilt under Section 319 (2) as any law enforcement agency or human rights tribunal is ever likely to see.
This is laughable.
By the way, I don’t simply dislike your racism. I find it abhorrent and disgusting.
As is this.
A reasonable person in the context of this thread, would infer that you were ignorant about the religion, particularly about how people came to belong to it,
A reasonable person knows that, as with most religions, one is brainwashed as a child to conform to their parent's beliefs. Both Islam and Christianity converted by the sword. Even the Catholic Church, during the Sapnish Inquisition, changed their parameters for allowing different beliefs from :conversion or expulsion, to "conversion or death". Yet some followers of Islam are among the few that still hold this pratice as legitimate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said your statement breached the law. You said your statement did the opposite. I am new to the concept of an ‘opposite’ to the breaching of a law. I’ll presume you mean that it does not breach section 319 (2).
If you want to nitpick, then yes, that's what I meant.
Is that all you said? Of course not! You have begun the racist’s dance around accountability for your words

Let me paraphrase for you for the sake of clarity: in fact, you said that the only people who were Muslims had been forced to join the religion.

My statement:

"Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead."

My statement says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether people have joined the Islamic faith through other means. My statement only addresses the fate of those who refused to convert. Your paraphrasing is completely wrong.

This is what's known as a "straw-man fallacy."

The only inaccuracy in my statement was the word "everybody". Obviously not everyone who refused conversion was killed. Some were enslaved, some driven out, others were allowed to live as "dhimmis" in their conquered homelands. Regardless, the meaning is essentially the same. Islam brought peace by killing dissenters, or driving them out, enslaving them, or oppressing them.

I find calling Islam "the Religion of Peace" to be about as sensible as calling Catholicism "the Religion of Science."

The null hypotheses for that bit of ridiculous fact is that one person historically became a Muslim of their own free will. As I have already posted in this thread about a wonderful Canadian woman who did just that, became a respected scholar and was elected to lead a major North American body of Muslims, there is ample proof that your statement is false.

Since you've applied your "null hypothesis" to something not implied in my statement, you've amply proven nothing, except that you can work with straw-man arguments.

You spring into the next step of the racist dance and claim that the Muslim faith “was” spread by force of arms in the past. But that isn’t what you said in your statement, which clearly says, “is”. (It’s the Religion of Peace” means it is now.) Very typical of racists argument is to try to change the meaning of the statement by adding conditions and codicils after the fact.

If you insist on looking only at the present day, we could still look at Sudan and Nigeria and Algeria and Indonesia to see Islam "making peace" by killing or driving out those of other faiths.

Your next step in the dance is to rely on your pretence that you were speaking of the past to demonstrate that you have a defense in truth as provided by section 319(3). But, as I have just illustrated, your truth does not withstand an examination of its null hypotheses. Ergo, you have not made a true statement and have no defense under that part of the law.

You've only illustrated that you don't know what "paraphrase" means.

Then you state:

“I have reasonable grounds to believe my statement true. From the time of Mohammed up to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Islam has spread at least in part through conquest and violence.”

More dancing by the racist thinker! Your original statement did not allow for any means other then force for conversion to Islam. Now you say “in part” That is the kind of adjustment that racists make when called out for their despicable, evil and illegal public posts. They don’t change their minds but the scramble to cover their ass(es).

My original statement never excluded other means by which people joined Islam, so "in part" is not a contradiction or adjustment of it at all. Sorry, but you're still arguing with your own straw-man.

You begin again with new racism:

You begin again with new fallacies:

”And while Islam apparently condemns forced conversion, the recent experience of the captured reporters suggests that it's a somewhat flexible rule. As does this-- http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=763

Swordpoint conversion at the hands of Muslims, both historic and present-day, seems like justifiable response to Drea's question of what's the big deal, does it not?”

With the intent to slander, because one group of Muslim today, or 100,000 Muslims in a war long ago force conversion on people, you accuse all Muslims of doing so. That is the very heart of racism and bigotry; to characterize an identifiable group by a hateful practice based on the actions of some members of the group.

I make no claim at all regarding the conduct of *all* Muslims.

The fact that most Canadian Muslims are capable of coping with our pluralistic society does not alter the history of their faith or the fact that Islam is still expanding through violence in other parts of the world.

Canadian Muslims seem to have accepted the pluralistic nature of our society, but this thread is discussing the wholesale export by Saudi Arabia of a branch of Islam that is by its nature incompatible with our pluralistic society.

I have proven by applying the null hypothesis that your claim that Muslims were forced to join the religion is untrue. I have identified the occasions where you have altered your original statement in an attempt to reduce the impact of the remark in case you are ever asked to defend it in law. And I have pointed out that your comments regarding forced conversion reflect the very essence of racism in characterizing an entire group on the basis of the actions of part of the group.

The claim that all Muslims were forced to join the religion is not implicit in my statement.

I have not altered the statement, I have expanded on it.

I said nothing about the entire group.

You even say that your comments might not make Muslims happy, thus admitting that your comments are hateful toward them.
We do not yet live in a society where it is making someone unhappy is considered "hateful".
Your reply, reliant on easily disproved claims of fact, characterizing an entire religious group with engaging in hateful practices, is as full a confession of guilt under Section 319 (2) as any law enforcement agency or human rights tribunal is ever likely to see.
If you're hoping to become a prosecutor... don't quit your day job. Unless you're already a prosecuter, in which case you should consider finding a new one.
By the way, I don’t simply dislike your racism. I find it abhorrent and disgusting.
(shrug) I guess I'll have to live with that.

By the say, I wouldn't normally mention it, but since you started the nitpicking: Islam is a religion, not a race.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much drivel deleted.

Were you not leaving? We're all racists here, you know. You should really move along, go find somewhere you're more comfortable. Like Iran, perhaps.

BTW, I'd think it would self-evident to anyone that if one finds the complexities of using this web site so beyond him he's just simply given up on doing it properly, that this says quite a bit about his intellect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said your statement breached the law. You said your statement did the opposite. I am new to the concept of an ‘opposite’ to the breaching of a law. I’ll presume you mean that it does not breach section 319 (2).

If you want to nitpick, then yes, that's what I meant.
Is that all you said? Of course not! You have begun the racist’s dance around accountability for your words

Let me paraphrase for you for the sake of clarity: in fact, you said that the only people who were Muslims had been forced to join the religion.

My statement:

"Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead."

My statement says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether people have joined the Islamic faith through other means. My statement only addresses the fate of those who refused to convert. Your paraphrasing is completely wrong.

This is what's known as a "straw-man fallacy."

I can’t review your whole dance away from culpability so let me respond to the following bit of bafflegab.

I quote you:

<begin quote>My statement:

"Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead."

My statement says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether people have joined the Islamic faith through other means. My statement only addresses the fate of those who refused to convert. Your paraphrasing is completely wrong.

This is what's known as a "straw-man fallacy."<end quote>

What does the word ‘everybody’ mean to you? When we refer to everybody we include all. If you include all in your statement, then how does your statement allow for any other means of conversion?

The Strawman fallacy requires that I put words in your mouth but you did say everybody. I paraphrased what you said.

As for the rest of your dancing, keep practicing. All you really need to do is stop speaking hatred about identifiable groups in a public place to co0nform to Canada’s laws. Nobody cares what your private opinion is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the rest of your dancing, keep practicing. All you really need to do is stop speaking hatred about identifiable groups in a public place to co0nform to Canada’s laws. Nobody cares what your private opinion is.

I thought you were leaving. Didn't you assure us all that we were beneath contempt? Don't you have more enlightened people to go and chat with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were leaving. Didn't you assure us all that we were beneath contempt? Don't you have more enlightened people to go and chat with?

Sadly, more enlightened people do not need my help in learning the responsibilities entailed in Canadian citizenship that you do, my dear Argus.

I will stay to help you yet a wee while, perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were leaving. Didn't you assure us all that we were beneath contempt? Don't you have more enlightened people to go and chat with?

Sadly, more enlightened people do not need my help in learning the responsibilities entailed in Canadian citizenship that you do, my dear Argus.

I will stay to help you yet a wee while, perhaps.

Well, it would help, then, if you established sometehing approaching credibility, rather than making yourself look somewhat crazed by accusing people of breaking a law you clearly don't understand, and then nitpicking it to death while everyone rolls their eyes.

So then, want to talk about foam-at-the-mouth Muslim religious wackos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were leaving. Didn't you assure us all that we were beneath contempt? Don't you have more enlightened people to go and chat with?

Sadly, more enlightened people do not need my help in learning the responsibilities entailed in Canadian citizenship that you do, my dear Argus.

I will stay to help you yet a wee while, perhaps.

Well, it would help, then, if you established sometehing approaching credibility, rather than making yourself look somewhat crazed by accusing people of breaking a law you clearly don't understand, and then nitpicking it to death while everyone rolls their eyes.

So then, want to talk about foam-at-the-mouth Muslim religious wackos?

The law was quoted by someone earlier. Was there a part of section 19 that I could help you to understand? The law is very clear on what constitutes hate speech and is not at all difficult to understand.

Allow me to quote it to you again.

"CANADA, R.S., c. 11(1st Supp.), s. 1.

319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements,

other than in private conversation,wilfully promotes

hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of:

- an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment

for a term not exceeding two years; or

- an offence punishable on summary conviction"

Everyone means no one is left out of the law so it includes you.

Other then in a private conversation means any statement made publicly such as in an internet forum.

Indictable means such a person may be charged.

Imprisonment means a lifestyle change for uo to 2 years.

Punishment by summary conviction means without indictment and without jury.

As an example of the kind of statement covered by the law, take a look at you febrile bait phrase. "foam-at-the-mouth Muslim religious wackos"

The phrase clearly promotes hatred. Identifiable group is made a unclear because the statement identifies a group that is protected from hate speech, to wit, Muslims, then does a little dance to the side by using two qualifiers. The adjective 'religious' clearly identifies the group but the word 'wacko' permits for interpretation of part of the group that is undefined.

The gimmick aims to leave uncertain if the speaker means all Muslims are religious wackos or whether the term wacko is meant to limit the meaning to a portion of religious Muslims.

This is a favorite gimmick of the white-supremacist racist who believes he cannot be held accountable due to a lack of specificity. Fortunately, that is not true.

As the meaning is not clear, a judge or a jury are free to determine what the authour of the phrase intended. If the court decides that the message was intentionally unclear to permit an interpretation of hatred toward the religious (or other) group, the court can rule on the intent based on evidence drawn from cross-examination and previous speech. Poor old David Irving is still whining because he was convicted by a jury for what he meant and not just what he said.

IMO, your piece of bait is an excellent example of how racists try to skim past the law. Nonetheless, the court is free to determine the meaning of an uncertain statement on evidence from other public statements. You are clearly indictable.

Want to talk about other racists who thought they were too clever to be convicted of hate speech?

I hope this has been helpfull to you. :unsure::unsure::unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were leaving. Didn't you assure us all that we were beneath contempt? Don't you have more enlightened people to go and chat with?

Sadly, more enlightened people do not need my help in learning the responsibilities entailed in Canadian citizenship that you do, my dear Argus.

I will stay to help you yet a wee while, perhaps.

Well, it would help, then, if you established sometehing approaching credibility, rather than making yourself look somewhat crazed by accusing people of breaking a law you clearly don't understand, and then nitpicking it to death while everyone rolls their eyes.

So then, want to talk about foam-at-the-mouth Muslim religious wackos?

The law was quoted by someone earlier. Was there a part of section 19 that I could help you to understand? The law is very clear on what constitutes hate speech and is not at all difficult to understand.

Allow me to quote it to you again.

"CANADA, R.S., c. 11(1st Supp.), s. 1.

319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements,

other than in private conversation,wilfully promotes

hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of:

- an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment

for a term not exceeding two years; or

- an offence punishable on summary conviction"

Everyone means no one is left out of the law so it includes you.

Other then in a private conversation means any statement made publicly such as in an internet forum.

Indictable means such a person may be charged.

Imprisonment means a lifestyle change for uo to 2 years.

Punishment by summary conviction means without indictment and without jury.

As an example of the kind of statement covered by the law, take a look at you febrile bait phrase. "foam-at-the-mouth Muslim religious wackos"

The phrase clearly promotes hatred. Identifiable group is made a unclear because the statement identifies a group that is protected from hate speech, to wit, Muslims, then does a little dance to the side by using two qualifiers. The adjective 'religious' clearly identifies the group but the word 'wacko' permits for interpretation of part of the group that is undefined.

The gimmick aims to leave uncertain if the speaker means all Muslims are religious wackos or whether the term wacko is meant to limit the meaning to a portion of religious Muslims.

This is a favorite gimmick of the white-supremacist racist who believes he cannot be held accountable due to a lack of specificity. Fortunately, that is not true.

As the meaning is not clear, a judge or a jury are free to determine what the authour of the phrase intended. If the court decides that the message was intentionally unclear to permit an interpretation of hatred toward the religious (or other) group, the court can rule on the intent based on evidence drawn from cross-examination and previous speech. Poor old David Irving is still whining because he was convicted by a jury for what he meant and not just what he said.

IMO, your piece of bait is an excellent example of how racists try to skim past the law. Nonetheless, the court is free to determine the meaning of an uncertain statement on evidence from other public statements. You are clearly indictable.

Want to talk about other racists who thought they were too clever to be convicted of hate speech?

I hope this has been helpfull to you. :unsure::unsure::unsure:

Way to establish that credibility! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does the word ‘everybody’ mean to you? When we refer to everybody we include all. If you include all in your statement, then how does your statement allow for any other means of conversion?

I shall provide for you a Sesame-Street level example, since that seems to be about the limit of your reading comprehension:

"Jimmy and Suzie converted willingly. Joey and Sally converted because they were threatened with harm if they refused. Maggie and Mike refused to convert and are dead."

In my example, everybody who refused to convert is dead, and yet Jimmy and Suzie converted by other means.

The Strawman fallacy requires that I put words in your mouth but you did say everybody. I paraphrased what you said.

As just illustrated, your paraphrasing is inaccurate.

I find it fascinating that you're able to throw around fancy terms like "null hypothesis" yet seem to have difficulty in correctly interpretting simple statements.

As for the rest of your dancing, keep practicing. All you really need to do is stop speaking hatred about identifiable groups in a public place to co0nform to Canada’s laws. Nobody cares what your private opinion is.

Unlike some countries where I would be hidden under a burqa or flogged for speaking in public, it doesn't matter if you don't care for my opinion. If you don't care for my opinion, the only remedy available to you is to not read it.

Your shoddy reading comprehension skills has also apparently given you a misguided notion of what constitutes spreading hatred. Your continuing accusations against me are closer to breaking the law (slander, libel...) than anything I've written.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...