Israeli fascist Moshe Feiglin barred from UK but coming to Canada this week

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
B.L. Zeebub LLD

quote:


Originally posted by jester:
[QB]

You are the one doing the parroting when you change the context and intent of my words to fit into the mold of how they [i]should[/i] be [b]interpreted[/b] by the great minds who espouse treading upon the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

I am independent minded and do not subscribe to any particular political orthodoxy but accepting that fact will negate your efforts to label me a right-wing whatever.


I just noted two tendencies. You're doing the rest.

Ibelongtonoone

Beezelbub

I don't understand yr question - are you saying - should the CBC be forced to air Nazi ads ? I assume you picked the CBC because they are a public broadcaster but don't all media, speaking venues, ect have to make decisions on who or what is given time or space to air their views.

I seem to remember Geraldo and Jerry Springer letting grand wizards of the klan in their bedsheets and neo-nazi skinheads on their shows in the old days and they looked like the kooks they are and were mocked and laughed at by most everyone I'm sure.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

I find it interesting how Jester is speaking out about themselves not being labeled into some sort of political group...bad bad.. and then in the next couple of breaths proceeds to generalize other people into a political group. *scratching my head*

Are we playing a 'do as I say, but don't do as I do' game here?

Ibelongtonoone

spot on

hypocrits rarely realize they are hypocrits

also people get defensive when attacked and last out in kind

jester

quote:


Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]

Thank you, Mr. DeTocqueville, but you didn't answer the question: should Neo-Nazis be able to freely advertise on the CBC?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ][/b]


I'll agree with your use of 'we' in the collective as in "we" refering to all Canadians.

I'll get back to you on the loaded "When did you stop beating your wife" question. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] . I require some legal research into applicable laws.

jester

quote:


Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]

I just noted two tendencies. You're doing the rest.[/b]


Ahhh....that makes it OK,then.

B.L. Zeebub LLD

Ibelongtonoone:

It's simple enough: should the CBC air Nazi propaganda and simply let people seperate the "muffins from the marsh muffins" as Jester so colloquially put it? I'm not talking about being sideshow freaks on televised sideshows. If we are to simply allow expression of all and sundry, then who are we to stop them from putting out their preferred image of themselves?

And yes, I chose the CBC because they are a public broadcaster with a mandate to represent Canada as a whole and are, in that way, analogous to our legal system, which is also mandated to represent all and sundry - even Nazis.

I'm asking Jester to tell us what the practical limits are of free expression in his/her imagined society. Shall we allow pornography on every channel, and pedophiles to advertise outside schools? If there is no "we" to draw the line, then on what grounds do we allow or disallow their speech?

I guess my point is that without distinctions of moral and legal nature, there is no "society" to speak of. We must have our "yes" AND our "no". This goes against some of the "diversity theorists" out there as well - like Judith Butler. She talks about including "marginalised" voices. Well, aren't Nazis a "marginalised" voice? Shall we invite them to the pic-nic, too? If we follow Jester's lead, if we don't we're headed "down the slippery slope to totalitarianism", aren't we?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

B.L. Zeebub LLD

quote:


Originally posted by jester:
[b]

I'll agree with your use of 'we' in the collective as in "we" refering to all Canadians.

I'll get back to you on the loaded "When did you stop beating your wife" question. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] . I require some legal research into applicable laws.[/b]


Loaded? The tough ones usually are. But you aren't set up to fail, I'm asking you to apply your theory of unlimited expression to a practical reality and tell me what you think "we" ought to do.

jester

quote:


Originally posted by ElizaQ:
[b]I find it interesting how Jester is speaking out about themselves not being labeled into some sort of political group...bad bad.. and then in the next couple of breaths proceeds to generalize other people into a political group. *scratching my head*

Are we playing a 'do as I say, but don't do as I do' game here?[/b]


Mea Culpa. I'm generally labeling the individuals labeling me. I suppose that is unfair and should I address their concerns singly.

Ibelongtonoone

It's an unfair question. Even in this hypothetical Canadian society there has to be a good reason for airing something - even simply profit if you want to take it that way ? On what show would this happen, the newscast, HNIC,this hour has 22 MInutes ?

Ibelongtonoone

as I noted earlier - the only shows I've ever seen these clowns on are the morning freakshows(Springer, Geraldo, and even they don't do it anymore) - and the reason is profit - supposedly entertainment but general to make fun of them and do something edgy.

B.L. Zeebub LLD

quote:


Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
[b]It's an unfair question. Even in this hypothetical Canadian society there has to be a good reason for airing something - even simply profit if you want to take it that way ? On what show would this happen, the newscast, HNIC,this hour has 22 MInutes ?[/b]

It isn't unfair in the least - it's just difficult to answer from a certain - rather tenuous - theoretical position.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Ibelongtonoone

I can bring people to my house and spout whatever garbage I want - but even in this hypothetical "total free expression" society, editorial decisions have to be made to give a channel or show or page or whatever some kind of structure and most importantly even for public broadcasting - there has to be some demand from the public, if no watches - they cancel it. or if to many people complain they cancel it.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

BTW, Jester's newly added link in no way supports his claim. An apology is in order, and said smear should be removed.

There's no need to discuss the general political orientation that would lean toward spreading such misconceptions, is there? After all, that would be 'labelling'.

Michelle

Sorry, LTJ - there is room for agreement and disagreement about jester's statement, but as far as I'm concerned, it's fair comment on a politician's actions, based on this:

quote:

One tactic employed by the tiger lobby has been its blatant manuevre to get close to the opposition New Democratic Party. When Liberal MP"s kept away from a pro - tiger rally i Toronto last year the tiger lobby promptly wooed and got NDP leader Jack Layton on its platform at the last minute. Layton in his zeal to grab the Tamil vote made a controversial comparison between Nelson Mandela and Pirapakaran that disgusted its traditional supporters. Now Layton is part of the MP group accompanying Martin but has insisted that the Prime Minister should visit "Tamil" areas. He may even undertake a separate visit to the North - East supported perhaps by the Tiger lobby.

You are more than welcome to refute his claim, of course.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

His claim was that Layton engaged in fundraising for the Tigers. Where is that supported in his link?

BTW, his source is very biased. Other sources note that [url=http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/News/Scarborough/article/28187]all parties[/url] have attended rallies where Tamil Tiger flags have flown.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]His claim was that Layton engaged in fundraising for the Tigers. Where is that supported in his link? [/b]

What are you asking me for? Ask him. Or better yet, tell him you don't think his claim is supported in the passage he quoted from his link.

quote:

BTW, his source is very biased.

Yes, that happens sometimes. The rest of your post is an excellent example of refuting his claim. Great!

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


What are you asking me for? Ask him.

I believe I did. I wasn't asking for an apology from anyone else.

Michelle

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood. Usually when I am directly addressing someone, I don't speak about them in the third person for multiple posts. I'll wait for you to ask directly for intervention next time.

(In my defense, however, I did get a complaint by e-mail from another babbler about his post, which is why I told him to provide support for his claim.)

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

No problem. Your interventions are generally most welcome - even when they're an indiction that I need to dial it back a notch. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

jester

quote:


Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]

Loaded? The tough ones usually are. But you aren't set up to fail, I'm asking you to apply your theory of unlimited expression to a practical reality and tell me what you think "we" ought to do.[/b]


Right. First of all,my theory of unlimited expression is anything but. I have never subscribed to unlimited freedom of expression, I am baselessly accused of holding that view but it is not correct. I believe that the individual has the right to openly and honestly express their views but that they must also be held accountable for those views and the actions those views promulgate.

As far as your question is concerned, No, I do not believe that any divisive organisation such Neo-Nazis should be allowed to advertise in any publicly owned media. These organisations' right to free expression under the law in no way means that society (we) has any obligation to tolerate those views. Furthur, I do not believe that these organisations have any recourse in law if private media refuses their custom.

jester

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]His claim was that Layton engaged in fundraising for the Tigers. Where is that supported in his link?

BTW, his source is very biased. Other sources note that [url=http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/News/Scarborough/article/28187]all parties[/url] have attended rallies where Tamil Tiger flags have flown.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ][/b]


No, I didn't say fundraising,I said "pitching" By pitching,I mean lending his presence to an organisation that lends it credibility. I'm certain he didit unwittingly but he still did it.

Jack saw an opportunity to make some inroads with a minority group and was manipulated into an involuntary association with the Tigers. He isn't alone.

The whole flap is a good lesson about the insidious nature of various nationalist organisations and how they attempt to manipulate our government including lobbying to have certain speakers barred entry to Canada.

It also shows the political motivation behind the seemingly endless delays in having unsavoury organisations declared terrorist.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Weasel words.

quote:

The Tamil Tigers don't seem to have a problem raising funds - doesn't Jack Layton pitch for them?

I certainly see the words 'fund' and 'raising' in your claim. And you've directly tied Jack Layton's 'pitch' to them.

St. Paul's Prog...

I have to say, this Shaarei Tefillah seems to have become quite the centre of far-right activism in the Jewish community. There was an article in the CJN a while back about a rightward drift of the Orthodox community in Toronto. They're talking about a religious divide, but perhaps it's playing out politically as well.

[url=http://tinyurl.com/23ycyc]http://tinyurl.com/23ycyc[/url]

quote:

One member of an Orthodox synagogue, who declined to be named, says he has never felt more alienated from the Orthodox community.

“The yeshiva world has taken over Orthodoxy,” he said. “There is a drive within the yeshiva-oriented haredi establishment toward total self-isolation – socially, religiously and culturally – and the effect of this is to try and re-engineer the Orthodox community so that it is split between ‘true Orthodoxy,’ and ‘go hang everyone else.’”

Evidence, he said, can be seen in the “overwhelming value” placed on conformity when it comes to attitude, belief, dress and behaviour. “Anyone in the Orthodox community who does not conform is clearly and increasingly an outsider.”

He sees the controversy over Rabbi Slifkin as an example, suggesting that “to be an accepted member of the Orthodox community involve[s] a total rejection of contemporary science and the adoption of… a total suspension of reason… actually a hostility toward modern knowledge.

“The Orthodox community has a sort of atavistic tendency which seems to make the rejection of modernity an article of faith and a test of membership.”

Haredi Judaism also rejects other aspects of contemporary life, including literature, openness and tolerance, he said.

“It’s not a respectful refusal to engage. It is [that] the outside world is false and liars.”


In other words, it's not the Orthodox Judaism of my youth, which was actually much more liberal than it is today.

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: St. Paul's Progressive ]

jester

I don't know much about Canada's hate speech laws and in doing some research, I discover great controversy over the HRC's ability to protect Canadians from hate speech.

There appears to be a gulf between proponents of [i]generous interpretation[/i] of the Charter based on the [i]living tree doctrine[/i] and the neo-conservative argument that the courts have used the doctrine to create new rights.

Does the Canadian HRC adequately protect Canadians from speakers such as Feiglin or neo-nazis or other proponents of division?

Some argue that selective enforcement of hate speech laws allow political dissidents to be criminalised.

The HRC is criticised for overzealous and potentially unlawful conduct that is giving neo-nazis a victory of sorts.
[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=405744]A disaster for Canadians[/url]

quote:

Earlier this week, I argued that Canada's human-rights censors have managed a seemingly impossible task: They've found a way to rehabilitate the image of neo-Nazis, transforming them from odious dirtbags into principled free-speech martyrs.

quote:

In fact, for an organization that is supposed to promote "human rights," the HRC's agents seem curiously oblivious to basic aspects of constitutional law. In one famous exchange during the Lemire case, Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" -- to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." (I guess Section 2 has been excised from his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights.)

quote:

This is the beginning of the end for Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, the legislation that (nominally) mandates this kind of hate-speech fishing expedition. For years, Canadians have averted their eyes to the shenanigans going on at our nation's human-rights commissions under the theory that any means used toward such a noble end as "human rights" must somehow be justified. What we saw this week turns that conceit into a pathetic joke.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

You agree with Jonathan Kay of the National Post?

How surprising. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

LTJ, that [i]Nazional Post[/i] article is full of the usual right-wing drivel but there are plenty of respectable babblers who take exception to Section 13.1 of the CHRC. There might be a gem hidden in that pile of shit.

pogge

quote:


Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" -- to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." (I guess Section 2 has been excised from his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights.)

Strictly speaking, Steacy is correct. "Freedom of speech" isn't mentioned in Section 2 or any other part of the charter. Dr. Dawg attended the hearing and has reported on it at his blog which has led to a lot of conversation there. This is from his comment on [url=http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/03/assault-on-blind-man.html]this post[/url].

quote:

the notion of freedom of expression is quite different in the two jurisdictions: there is a difference between the First Amendment:

[i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]

and the Charter:

[i]2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.[/i]

modified by:

[i]1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.[/i]

"Freedom of speech" per se is not mentioned in the Charter, as has been noted. And "freedom of expression" is subject to the limits set out in S.1.


I think that given the context, Steacy was quite right to make the distinction. This wasn't a casual conversation, it was legal testimony concerning the way in which he conducts his job. American law simply doesn't apply.

As for the [i]National Post[/i]'s coverage, it's been extremely slanted where it wasn't [url=http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/03/national-post-reporting-warman-... dishonest[/url].

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by pogge:
[b]

I think that given the context, Steacy was quite right to make the distinction. This wasn't a casual conversation, it was legal testimony concerning the way in which he conducts his job. American law simply doesn't apply.

As for the [i]National Post[/i]'s coverage, it's been extremely slanted where it wasn't [url=http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/03/national-post-reporting-warman-... dishonest[/url].[/b]


Steacy wasn't asked about American law. He was asked whether he gives freedom of speech any consideration at all while he is doing his job. He brought up American law in his reply.

While our Charter doesn't specifically mention freedom of speech, it does mention freedom of media. I would assume this includes websites,
[i]Macleans[/i], [i]The Western Standard[/i](now defunct) and any other media that have been investigated under Section 13. Steacy's testimony also revealed that investigators post hate messages of their own under aliases and also by using unprotected wifi internet connections owned unknowing and unrelated citizens. Why would they do this? This concerns me quite a lot and deserves far more media attn than it is receiving.

My main problem with the HRC is that it doesn't seem to have much regard for due process and the onus is on the accused to fund their own defense. Legal Aid should be available.

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

jester

quote:


March 25, 2008 has been the single worst day the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ever suffered in it's 25 year history of thought control. The hearing is over the Constitutional Challenge filed by Marc Lemire of the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

After 10 months of litigation due to absurd claims of "national security" by a panic stricken CHRC, and a blizzard of legal motions, Marc Lemire won the right for a subpoena of the records of Bell Canada to reveal the subscriber information of "Jadewarr" an account used on the White Nationalist Stormfront.org website that attempted to entrap Marc Lemire. A few months ago it was revealed that the "Jadewarr" account was used by numerous CHRC employees, but primarily by a Senior Investigator named Dean Steacy.



[url=http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/]http://canadianhumanr...

I'm not advocating the NP's position, merely posting it for discussion. As pogge demonstrated,the bias is easy to see through but the issue still remains: are we adequately protected from hatemonger by present laws?

Freedom of expression in Sec 2 is limited by Sec 1 of the charter but practically,are the mechanisms of the law strong enough to provide adequate protection or thwart persecution of political dissidents?

Personally,I agree with the HRC's attempts to expose the neo-nazis BUT in law,are they undermining their own case by entertaining these methods without benefit of a warrant?

pogge

quote:


Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Steacy's testimony also revealed that investigators post hate messages ... [b]by using unprotected wifi internet connections by unknowing and unrelated citizens[/b].

Emphasis added. If you have proof of that other than Joseph Brean's news report and Jonathan Kay's editorial, I'd like to see it. Seriously. As far as I know, no one has proven that the CHRC is hacking into third party wifi networks and I've only seen that suggested in one place (though I'm sure the accusation has been picked up and amplified by Lemire, et. al.)

I'm not here to support Section 13 but, as I've said, I think the [i]National Post[/i] coverage has been irresponsible and I think people should form their opinions on the merits, not on somebody else's spin.

As I said, Dr. Dawg attended the hearing and wrote about it. Kady O'Malley of [i]Macleans[/i] also attended and [url=http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20080326_110442_5820]live-blo... it in detail tedious enough that I'll readily admit I haven't read it all yet.

pogge

Almost forgot about this part.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]

Steacy wasn't asked about American law. He was asked whether he gives freedom of speech any consideration at all while he is doing his job. He brought up American law in his reply.[/b]


The question was posed to him using the expression "freedom of speech." We're so inundated with American culture that we often talk about "freedom of speech" and "fair use" as if they are recognized concepts in Canadian law and they're not. The American Constitution has a much more absolutist approach towards this issue where the Canadian Charter recognizes that the government will impose limits. That's something that Steacy would have to be conscious of to do his job and it doesn't surprise me that he would react to the question the way he did.

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by pogge:
[b]

Emphasis added. If you have proof of that other than Joseph Brean's news report and Jonathan Kay's editorial, I'd like to see it. Seriously. As far as I know, no one has proven that the CHRC is hacking into third party wifi networks and I've only seen that suggested in one place (though I'm sure the accusation has been picked up and amplified by Lemire, et. al.)

I'm not here to support Section 13 but, as I've said, I think the [i]National Post[/i] coverage has been irresponsible and I think people should form their opinions on the merits, not on somebody else's spin.

As I said, Dr. Dawg attended the hearing and wrote about it. Kady O'Malley of [i]Macleans[/i] also attended and [url=http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20080326_110442_5820]live-blo... it in detail tedious enough that I'll readily admit I haven't read it all yet.[/b]


This was the first CHRC hearing where a transcript wasn't available; it is only audio.

I am referring to teh testimony on March 25th by a Bell executive where a woman was named as owning the IP address used to make the "Jadewarr" hate message postings. Steacy admitted to creating this id.

pogge

quote:


Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]I am referring to teh testimony on March 25th by a Bell executive where a woman was named as owning the IP address used to make the "Jadewarr" hate message postings. Steacy admitted to creating this id.[/b]

The woman doesn't own the IP address, Bell does. And, at least with its Sympatico service, Bell assigns IP addresses dynamically which means a user's IP address can change from one day to the next. It would take a lot more than you've provided to prove that the CHRC is guilty of hacking. If it's investigated and proven, fine. But as far as I know it hasn't been proven and government employees are subject to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. Unless you work for the [i]National Post[/i].

My ISP is Rogers which also assigns IPs dynamically. After remaining the same for months, my IP not only changed recently, it changed to a completely different block. It just isn't as simple as the Forces of Lemire might claim.

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by pogge:
[b]

The woman doesn't own the IP address, Bell does. And, at least with its Sympatico service, Bell assigns IP addresses dynamically which means a user's IP address can change from one day to the next. It would take a lot more than you've provided to prove that the CHRC is guilty of hacking. If it's investigated and proven, fine. But as far as I know it hasn't been proven and government employees are subject to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. Unless you work for the [i]National Post[/i].

My ISP is Rogers which also assigns IPs dynamically. After remaining the same for months, my IP not only changed recently, it changed to a completely different block. It just isn't as simple as the Forces of Lemire might claim.[/b]


From what I have read (from Kady OMalley's blog), the Bell executive gave the date and time, which matched the date and time of a specific website posting.

jester

quote:


The Bell Canada subscriber using IP address 70.00.000.3 on Dec 8, 2006 (connected for the entire day) was: xxxxx. Of xxxxx Avenue in Ottawa.

I'm not taking sides but if this is true, how does this situation help protect us from hatemongering?

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: jester ]

Noise

quote:


The Bell Canada subscriber using IP address 70.48.181.203 on Dec 8, 2006 (connected for the entire day) was: xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx

...
From what I have read (from Kady OMalley's blog), the Bell executive gave the date and time, which matched the date and time of a specific website posting.


Kinda surprised... At most Bell is capable (as with any ISP) of determining which account had that IP adress. There is no method of proving who actually logged into that account. It's more than possible (and I wouldn't put it by someone trying to hide their identity) to hide your ip address or even make it look like it's coming from someone/somewhere else.

Works as conjecture at best, nothing provable.

(edited by moderator to remove identifying information)

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

pogge

quote:


Originally posted by jester:
[b]I'm not taking sides but if this is true, how does this situation help protect us from hatemongering?[/b]

It doesn't. I'm not defending hacking, I'm saying that proving it isn't a slam dunk. If it turns out the CHRC is guilty of doing what it's accused of here, I hope whoever is responsible gets nailed to the wall.

If this young woman is innocent, how are you helping her by publishing her name, address and IP? This is what Lemire did. And it's what the CHRC is accused of doing except that [i]it's everyone else including you[/i] who is making her information public.

pogge

quote:


Originally posted by Noise:
[b]It's more than possible (and I wouldn't put it by someone trying to hide their identity) to hide your ip address or even make it look like it's coming from someone/somewhere else.[/b]

And at the other end, IP logs can be forged. When you comment at my blog your IP address is logged in Movable Type (the blogging software). It would be a relatively trivial matter for me to access the database and change that IP. I don't have access to the [i]server[/i] logs in this case because it's a shared hosting account but if I owned the server I could probably figure out how to do that, too.

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

jester

quote:


If this young woman is innocent, how are you helping her by publishing her name, address and IP? This is what Lemire did. And it's what the CHRC is accused of doing except that it's everyone else including you who is making her information public.

yeah. I thought of that after posting.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I would request that you remove the name and address of this working person from your post. She deserves to have her privacy respected and not to be exposed to any potential harassment.

jester

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I would request that you remove the name and address of this working person from your post. She deserves to have her privacy respected and not to be exposed to any potential harassment.[/b]

Already done,k. It was a hasty judgement based on providing accurate information or being accused of providing suspect sources. I was in a hurry and didn't have access till 3:37 to edit. It was a bad call and although the info is in the public domain and the IP will have changed,there is no reason for adding to the mistake.

jester

Zounds! Our freedom of expression quibbles have drawn the attentions of the mighty [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7273870.stm]BBC News[/url]

quote:

'Flawed approach'

The commission officials who vet complaints deny acting like rogue inquisitors, and insist they strictly follow the law.

"We have a legal obligation to consider every complaint we receive if it fits one of the grounds for which discrimination cases can be heard," says Carmen Gregoire, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

But according to critics, the fact that commissions are acting within the law offers little comfort.

Alan Borovoy, a veteran lawyer who campaigned to set up the commissions, says their willingness to hear complaints about speech rests on flawed legislation.

He regards the provisions on "hatred or contempt" as departures from the original purpose of the Human Rights Act, and wants them scrapped.

"The human rights statutes were designed to deal with discriminatory acts, not discriminatory words," he says.


jester

After reading Spector's links and a few more, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Moshe Feiglin is a legitimate member of a legitimate political party in Israel. He espouses the usual family values, rails against post-modernism and has the same grievances against the Supreme Court as his Canadian conservative cousins.

If Feiglin was a member of the CPC, he would hardly stand out. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

The following quote from the Globe and Mail article in the opening post sums things up nicely: More baseless agitation from the same crowd who stopped Binyamin Netanyahu fro mspeaking and who will attempt to stop any Israeli politician from speaking in Canada on partisan political grounds dressed up as countering a threat to society.

quote:

Mr. Fogel rejected the notion that Mr. Feiglin's presence in Canada could stimulate hostility toward Israel.

The people who will be publicly hostile to Mr. Feiglin's presence would be hostile to just about any Israeli public figure, he said.

Mr. Fogel said so long as Mr. Feiglin "comports himself in an appropriate way" in Canada there are no grounds for concern about his presence.


So, did Feiglin speak in Toronto yesterday?

aka Mycroft

quote:


Originally posted by pogge:
[b]

The woman doesn't own the IP address, Bell does. And, at least with its Sympatico service, Bell assigns IP addresses dynamically which means a user's IP address can change from one day to the next. It would take a lot more than you've provided to prove that the CHRC is guilty of hacking. [/b]


If you had a wireless computer you wouldn't say that. Logging on to an available, unsecured, wireless hot spot in your neighbourhood is not "hacking" since there's nothing to hack. Hell, my laptop automatically logs on to the strongest unsecure signal. If someone opts to keep their wireless router unsecured and not put a password on it then they're letting their making a choice to allow their neighbours to piggyback on their wireless signal.

aka Mycroft

quote:


Originally posted by jester:
[b]After reading Spector's links and a few more, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Moshe Feiglin is a legitimate member of a legitimate political party in Israel. He espouses the usual family values, rails against post-modernism and has the same grievances against the Supreme Court as his Canadian conservative cousins.

If Feiglin was a member of the CPC, he would hardly stand out. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


Really? Do many members of the CPC call for the deportation of any Quebecer who doesn't swear loyalty to Canada? I had no idea.

B.L. Zeebub LLD

quote:


who will attempt to stop any Israeli politician from speaking in Canada on partisan political grounds dressed up as countering a threat to society.

Is there any sort of politics which is not "partisan"? I mean, you have to be for some things and against others, right?

quote:

Moshe Feiglin is a legitimate member of a legitimate political party in Israel. He espouses the usual family values, rails against post-modernism and has the same grievances against the Supreme Court as his Canadian conservative cousins.

That's not all he espouses. You're leaving out the really relevant bits. Also, the question is not whether he passes the legitimacy test in Israel, but whether he passes our legitimacy test in Canada. As with Apartheid Era South Africa, we as a society remain complicit in Israel's state crimes as long as we let these "legitimate" politicians strut their stuff on our soil while their thugs destroy people homes and lives based on a thoroughly racist ideology back home.

Put it this way: imagine Feiglin was an Afrikaner who believed that Blacks were incapable of democracy and sullied everything they touched.

Should we let that guy in to speak?

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

jester

quote:


Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]

That's not all he espouses. You're leaving out the really relevant bits. Also, the question is not whether he passes the legitimacy test in Israel, but whether he passes our legitimacy test in Canada. As with Apartheid Era South Africa, we as a society remain complicit in Israel's state crimes as long as we let these "legitimate" politicians strut their stuff on our soil while their thugs destroy people homes and lives based on a thoroughly racist ideology back home.

Put it this way: imagine Feiglin was an Afrikaner who believed that Blacks were incapable of democracy and sullied everything they touched.

Should we let that guy in to speak?

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ][/b]


I surfed about last night looking for relevant bits about Feiglin and the guy is a real nobody as far as internet popularity is concerned. The parts about his views come from his own website and may be suspect.If anyone has other sources on this guy, please link.

I can't find anything about whether he spoke on Thursday or not. I'll agree that there are certainly odious views espoused by Feiglin that run counter to Canadian values but the deeper I dig into the issue,the more uncertain of any position I become.

I have blindly assumed that Canada's Charter protections and anti-hate speech laws protect us from fascists - the neo-nazi variety being most prominent. With the controversy over the Lemaire prosecution going off the rails and the overzealous and allegedly unlawful investigating by HRC, Feiglin becomes part of a much broader issue.

B.L. Zeebub LLD

quote:


I surfed about last night looking for relevant bits about Feiglin and the guy is a real nobody as far as internet popularity is concerned. The parts about his views come from his own website and may be suspect.If anyone has other sources on this guy, please link.

Have you read THIS thread?

Check out the [b]very...first...post.[/b]

Pages

Topic locked