A House of Commons committee has recommended making it a crime to “glorify” terrorism, a proposal critics fear would erode freedom of speech and alienate Muslims.
58 Replies to “The “Denis Coderre Can’t Party With His Friends” Law”
That would be bad for many in hollywood who regulary glorifi terrorist just look at that crappy film HOOT which came out last year
a proposal critics fear would erode freedom of speech and alienate Muslims.
Well, at least they’re finally admitting that Muslims support terrorism.
funny how whenever we talk terrorism Muslim comes up in the convertion
just saying
oops that was “conversation”
Sorry Kate
Very appropriate title to the blog. Yet the Taliban suspected of causing the killing a Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan, has been freed for the second time? How come we didn’t hear the Liberals calling for him to be sent back to jail? The Taliban are terrorists, as far as I’m concerned, once our troops turn them over to the proper people, their job is done.
Why stop at “glorify”?………the MSM continues to justify Muslim terrorism acts in order to absolve, condone, defend, excuse, legitimize, validate just about any cause that suits their lefty Western democracy destruction agenda…………..Why, In Heaven’s Name?
Anyone who supports this nonsense is an outright bolshevik. This proposal would make celebrating the 4th of July illegal. And as long as Natives get a free pass to terrorize Canadians the definition of terrorism in this country is worthless.
Does dancing in the street when passenger jets are flown into office towers qualify as glorifying terrorism?
Cesspool
It’s a Matter of Priorities, Kid.
From Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Liberals Denis-Hezbollah Coderre and Citoyen Dion:
“Do you think it is easy to make priorities?”
I guess the Muslims will all have to take a vow of silence if they want to observe our laws. Gore should be happy – that in itself will reduce CO2 emissions by 90%.
“… and alienate Muslims.”
That’s too funny. Wouldn’t want to alienate them now, would we?
Who are these unnamed “critics” by the way?
Is there any SANITY left in our House of Commons?
They need a law against glorifying something which is already a crime?
Critics think it might alienate Muslims? These would be some of the same people who still refuse to link the sources with terrorism?
It would seem marching in a parade with Hezbollah terrorists, with their flags held high, is certainly glorifying their cause.
Denis Coderre did just that. Now the little blowfish is all concerned about the Taliban POW’s, the ones our Forces are fighting in Afghanistan.
Strange piece of work indeed.
There will be no such Law passed, it goes against our Charter, that’s how asinine the Charter is.
The dismantling of the Charter should be the number one priority of the new parliament under the CPC majority. We must protect ourselves from the dangerously shifting demographics by any means necessary.
Meanwhile, some Muslim groups are worried that anti-glorification measures could unfairly target their community.
“If an imam or any other religious figure glorified the Sept. 11 attacks, we have to speak out against that. The question is what is the definition of terrorism?” said Sameer Zuberi, a spokesman for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.
“If it’s a vague and wishy-washy definition, that would be quite problematic.”
Indeed, the definition of “terrorist activity” under the act has been in limbo since an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled last fall that defining terrorism based on religious, political or ideological motives violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Translation
Muslims and one Ontario Superior court judge ruled that terrorism does’nt exist, so suck on it!
Soooo…. would flying the flag of Hezballah (or other banned entities) in public in Canada be an offense under this newly proposed legislation? If it is not a specified offense along with a substantial mandatory penalty, what is the point?
Anti-glorification sounds like a whole lot of fluff with no teeth. We already have enough of this kind of legislation on the books. The larger problem is the will of people/the supreme court to make stick the legislation already on the books.
More important is utilizing legislation already in place as regards intimidation in whatever form that is used to silence/intimidate/raise money for banned entities/money laundering used by banned organizations against people at large.
Lawyers once again will see a financial windfall as they defend on the basis of violation of the sacred Charter and argue the definition/intent of “anti-glorification”.
What we don’t need is the Supreme Court ruling on another issue that will likely end up with furthering us on the road to Extreme Political Correctness by further incursion into curbing freedoms.
Perhaps the same ground can be covered by provinces doing their own work in terms of “reasonable accommodation”. I don’t want Ontario or Federal Gov’t legislation dictating what is good for Alberta or any other province.
What we do need is action to lessen the impact of political correctness, not increase it.
Actually, I think we NEED to alienate these militant moslem arseholes. I am personally sick of them and their crap and think they should be sent home if that is the way they are going to act.
Jim is exactly right. It’s hard enough to fight them over there when we have to appeease them over here. Eventually something decisive will have to be done, or else we’ll have to endure hundreds of years of war and headaches. Harry Truman had the right idea. Too bad he didn’t have a big enough arsenal to finish the job. If he did, our car companies would be in much better shape today.
What’s next – only professionals will be allowed to report the news?
Get a grip you guys? I could card less if this alienates anyone. But an “anti-glorification” law. WTF is that about? Our country is supposed to be free, not some freakin’ anti-rights despot crushing the little guy.
Remember back in the 70’s when all you would need would be an FAC to buy a gun. Same thing here, only a lot more insidious.
If it is to be a crime to glorify terrorism, can we expect a pat on the back for making a citizen’s arrest of someone carrying a Hezbollah, PIJ or Hamas flag?
‘Cause that’s something I would probably pay to see.
Not long ago a little girl was prevented from playing soccer because a referee ruled that “Law 4” applied to the wearing of a khimār on the field. Without wanting to re-open that debate, which had a good run here, my problem with the ruling was its sheer arbitrariness. She had played in numerous other games without incident. Law 4 is so open to interpretation that no one can know for certain where they stand, and that makes Law 4 a bad rule.
By the same token, a law that bans “glorifying terrorism,” without a clear definition of either “glorifying” or “terrorism,” is open to considerable abuse and inconsistent application. Rules need to be clear; people need to know where they stand. Ambiguity invites arbitrary, selective measures. I am quite pleased to see that a number of conservatives, those with a libertarian streak, have grasped this point. Will the Harper bunch do so as well?
It’s too bad I had to read that last comment, because I was in such a good mood this morning. And now I have to be subjected to a moonbat’s ramblings about “ambiguity” and “arbitrariness”, and I’m shocked that the word “nuance” wasn’t included. Our culture and way of life is at stake, and she’s worried about a Muslim tyke’s soccer game. Sorry Dawg. I’d prefer to protect our culture and way of life from those terrorists, even if it means a little less colour on the soccer pitch.
“Ambiguity invites arbitrary, selective measures. I am quite pleased to see that a number of conservatives, those with a libertarian streak, have grasped this point.”
I”m happy to see others recognize this problem. Now, I presume we have the full co-operation of the left in pushing our lawmakers to remove “hate laws” from the books?
The whole premise of the proposed law is ridiculous. As others have noted this is insiduous, unenforceable, redundant and reeks of political correctness.
As a conservative minded person I want to hear what others have to say regarding terrorism or any other number of issues. How else can I appropriately respond? Am I to rely on Cherniesk type “real rumors” if opinion is driven underground? God help us if it comes to that.
Know thy enemy!
Syncro
Personally I think if anything like that was ever passed here it would be nothing but show legislation. Is there anyone left in this Country with the guts, balls or tits to enforce it? If someone did step up to the plate they would be tarred with the discrimination brush immediately. I think it’s just another piece of sound good feel good look at me I’m doing something legislation. I say that because of where it came from.
But, properly done, enforced and expanded it could go a long way to weeding out local terrorism. I just don’t think there is the will in this country for than kind of legislation to succeed.
As much as it galls me, I agree with Dr. Dawg. This law is a really bad thing.
We already have “hate speech” legislation in this country. It was passed to control neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zundel, but lately it is being used by gay rights activists to muzzle Christian activists. Meanwhile the Mohawk Warrior Smuggling Society squats on land in Caledonia and flies the Palestinian flag with impunity.
With a sufficiently vague definition of “terrorism” a future Liberal government could ban Small Dead Animals.
Bigger government is never the answer boys and girls. Cut taxes, cut regulations, cut the civil service and increase personal freedom. This is the Conservative way.
I’m against such a law. Operationally, it’s because the terminology of ‘glorify’ and even ‘terrorism’ could be given so many paradoxical interpretations by various ‘human rights’ activists and lawyers that it would be a hysterical morass. It would also be a violation of freedom of speech.
Remember, I have a possibly limited definition of free speech – the words have to be open to debate, questions, dissent. If a speech doesn’t have those attributes then it would not be supported under the right of free speech, ie, if it is dogmatic preaching. So, if an authority figure is telling his people ‘all X people must be eliminated’ – that’s not free speech. But if an authority figure is glorifying terrorism AND this opinion is open to debate – that’s free speech.
Dawg – I strongly take issue with your soccer event. Remember that you, a postmodernist, accept that the Author of an opinion has no authority over his words; indeed, an Author can hardly be accepted as the correct interpretor of what he said. It is up to the Reader to correctly interpret those words, and I, the Reader, say your opinion, as Author, was meaningless.
Will your Dion bunch do so as well?
I presume we have the full co-operation of the left in pushing our lawmakers to remove “hate laws” from the books?
Kate, you took the words right out of my keyboard. On the same note, I also wonder where all the leftists who have protested the arrest of terrorism suspects using “security certificates” were when Ernst Zundel was arrested, tried in camera, and deported?
“…without a clear definition of either “glorifying” or “terrorism,” is open to considerable abuse and inconsistent application.”
How about carrying a Hezbollah flag and collectively chanting “Death to Israel?” Given that Hezbollah is a banned terrorist organisation and its supporters are uttering death threats, could it be any more clearly defined for even the lowest form of pond life?
I for one am sick and tired of Muslims. They bring their hatred here and then parade it on our streets. They reject our culture and belittle and threaten our laws. And despite their obviously inferior way of life, historic accomplishments and culture – their supremacist bigotry knows no equal. Of course, none of that being enough, they plan mass murder of Canadian citizens, supported in a recent CBC poll by 27% of the Canadian Muslim population.
An increasing number of people, including journalists, are calling for an end to Muslim immigration. That, monitoring mosques and islamic schools, shutting down Saudi funding for Wahabiism, deporting the ringleaders and adjusting our hate crime laws to specifically target Islamists and their supporters is the only sane thing to do.
How can one “alienate” complete aliens?
This law, if enacted, will make it a crime for anybody to ‘glorify’ terrorism. It doesn’t target any religious group. So why are the Muslims squawking? Guilt? What would be the Muslim reaction be if this same law specifically and only targeted Jews and Israel? The friggin two faced hypocrits would be dancing in the streets. Tough, suck it up boys and girls. If you don’t like it, there are planes leaving this country every hour of every day, go and get on one.
Finally somebody making some sense here! Good on you, Daisy. We have to treat our own cancer before we can rid the world of it.
“I”m happy to see others recognize this problem. Now, I presume we have the full co-operation of the left in pushing our lawmakers to remove “hate laws” from the books?”
On the other hand Kate, we could be positivist and enact “love your neighbour laws”.
It would interesting to see Parliament grapple with the classical different types of love such as:
1. Eros
2. Agape
3. Philos
4. Mania
5. Ludus
6. Pragma
7. Storge
What penalties should we have for failing to ‘love your neighbour’?
On the other hand what if one ‘hates’ political stupidity?
Should you go to jail for that as well?
Now, I presume we have the full co-operation of the left in pushing our lawmakers to remove “hate laws” from the books? -Kate
–Precisely. Took the words out of my mouth, Kate.
Why is it that we’re not allowed to call homosexuals “fags” and “faggots” and that we’re forbidden to declare that we believe homosexuality to be “immoral”, “abnormal” and “unnatural” but the left wants to protect the glorification of murdering innocent people in the name of Allah?
The left wants to have it every way they want. The left is hypocritical to the max.
Like I say, we’ve no lessons to take from leftists on free speech or on the Charter. They’re throwing stones in a glass house.
And I note that Dr. Dawg wants once again to confuse the whole issue by demanding we define stuff we already understand. Not going to fall for it. The left doesn’t define anything they say, after all. They just label people, actions and utterances however they please and expect us to shut up. If we question them, they scream like demons…
I also wonder where all the leftists who have protested the arrest of terrorism suspects using “security certificates” were when Ernst Zundel was arrested, tried in camera, and deported?
I weep no tears for Zundel, but at the time I had a word or two to say about the Globe and Mail‘s opposition to a security certificate for him but support of them for the other guys, you know, the ones with Arab-sounding names. When it comes to law, I like consistency. Admittedly, when they booted this Nazi out, I didn’t lose a lot of sleep over it.
On the issue of hate laws, Kate, I do think that Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, while far from crystal-clear, are written in somewhat more precise terms than “glorification” or “terrorism.”
ET, thanks for the morning smile. I don’t have a “Dion bunch,” by the way, and don’t want one, thank you–it sounds a bit like a wedgie.
I should add that Dawg’s little business with the girlie playing soccer is nonsense. Soccer refs should and do have powers on the field that governments should not. Dawg seems not to make that distinction.
I’m against this for the same reason I’m against hate crime laws. I beleive freedom of speech is a right. I don’t think the freedom from being offended is a right.
Without freedom of speech, you lose all other freedoms.
My point, Phantom, was only that rules should be as clear as possible so that those governed by them know when they are or are not in conformity with them. Vague language calls for a breadth of interpretation that makes everyone vulnerable.
Those who think this law would be applied only to Muslim extremists should give their heads a collective shake. As Bob comments above, celebrating the 4th of July could be covered as well. One person’s terrorist is always another person’s freedom fighter.
As Bob comments above, celebrating the 4th of July could be covered as well. One person’s terrorist is always another person’s freedom fighter. -Dr. Dawg
More typical leftwing gobbleddygook. Now the left is equating celebrating a national holiday to glorifying the chopping off of heads of schoolgirls and the blowing up of one’s children in pizza parlors and on school buses…
Pure gobbleddygook.
Impossible to take leftists seriously. Have to be out of one’s mind to take seriously those who’re out of theirs.
Phantom: No point even mentioning the Mohawks or any other tribe of Aboriginals, our laws don’t apply to them, they are above and exempt. They resort to all sorts of thuggery over land claims and no police force will touch them.
Never mind they sold it for whatever hundreds of years ago at an agreed price back then, now they want it back. It’s even better if it’s developed and with real estate.
Yes, they are intimidating and terrorizing people.
Nothing will happen until one of them gets killed then all hell will break out. Recall Dudley George.
You see, Dawg is very clearly illustrating the kind of dangerous mentality that has seeped into the mainstream and will lead us to doom. Not to mention the everyday glorification of terrorism that has permeated our MSM. That is precisely why we need to have tighter controls to protect ourselves. Rupprecht’s people had the right idea.
As Bob comments above, celebrating the 4th of July could be covered as well. One person’s terrorist is always another person’s freedom fighter. -Dr. Dawg More typical leftwing gobbleddygook. Now the left is equating celebrating a national holiday to glorifying the chopping off of heads of schoolgirls and the blowing up of one’s children in pizza parlors and on school buses…
Yeah, well…banning 4th of July celebrations might be a bit of an unrealistic possibility, but it’s certainly true that vague and restrictive laws have a way of being used in ways the original proposers had no idea were possible. All the more reason to invoke Notwithstanding and make the proposed law Muslim-specific, eh? That would clear things up…
irwin daisy – your suggestions come close to imitating those used to prevent Jewish immigration prior to and during WWII.
I don’t think we can legislate speech, free speech, that is. Legislating non-free speech or dogma, preaching violence, can be legislated.
But what we should be doing is rejecting multiculturalism and insisting that immigrants follow our established normative standards. We must reject the Trudeau-pian tactic of isolation. Isolation of immigrants into closed identity groups. Isolation of Canadians into linguistic divisions of the ROC versus Quebec.
Trudeau’s divide and conquer tactic enabled the dev’t of a centralist authoritarian gov’t, a huge unaccountable bureaucracy to oversee its authority, and the removal of the electorate from power over their own gov’t.
Multiculturalism, the ‘enclosing’ of immigrants into defined and closed groups must be stopped. We must insist on common standards of behaviour.
As for the Muslim reality – a reality trapped within a 7th century tribalism, we must insist that its rules are not our rules, and if they immigrate to this country, they must follow our normative standards.
What are our standards? There are several important ones. First, is our secular gov’t with its division of church and state. This means that religion is a private not public affair and that our laws and normative rules of behaviour are not bound to a religion.
Second is our insistence on freedom of speech. Again, free speech is not dogmatic speech. This speech must be open to dissent. Otherwise it is not ‘free speech’.
Third is our insistence on the role of the individual as someone capable of reason and responsibility.
Fourth is our identity as a nation; we are first and foremost, Canadians. Our religions, ethnicity, old culture are completely secondary to this primary identity and must not be allowed to trump that basic identity. This means that we do not set up ‘identity politics’ or special rules for groups whose members are defined as ‘outside the normative rules’.
These normative rules have been hard fought for and hard won. We must retain them.
OK, ET, I’ll bite: [F]ree speech is not dogmatic speech.
The word “idiosyncratic” springs to mind. If dogmatic speech is fair game for banning, then 99% of what appears in the blogosphere would fall afoul of the law. I might not even escape myself. 🙂
I can tell you that I go out of my way to make sure whenever I spend money in a store or gas station or whatever if a muslim works there or owns it I go somewhere else. I vote with my wallet, if everyone else did they wouldnt have any funds to send back home to fight us. I guess that makes me a islamaphobe. I like to think that I am VERY proud of that fact.
Remember the “Law of Unintended Consequences” would apply were such a law regarding “not glorifying terrorist activities” enacted. I agree with Dawg, Bob et al who would oppose such a vaguely worded law.
“would erode freedom of speech and alienate Muslims.”
only if Muslims are terrorists…. are the critics suggesting muslims are terrorists? no? then there should be no problems with such a law.
are the critics suggesting muslims are terrorists? no? then there should be no problems with such a law.
…until, under a future government, you get arrested under said law for speaking out in favour of, say, what some bien-pensants call America’s “war” on “terror”.
Muslims employ two types of Jihad: Passive and aggressive jihad.
The aggressive type we see everyday on TV. The passive we witness every day in the testing and whittling away of our laws, and in the case of the little girl, rules.
Muslims, including their terrorist supporting organisations like CAIR, purposefully abuse our laws and judicial system to gain advantage in normalizing their barbarism, bigotry and finally Sharia law. Not to mention, dhimmitude.
In America, some politicians are starting to fight back. There’s a bill in the senate to shut down CAIR’s legal attack against the passengers who witnessed the devious flying imams.
No other ethnic/religious group can be compared to Islam and it’s foul and constant inside attacks against our culture and way of life.
Specific, targeted laws against Islamist tactics and hatred is vital.
No,dawg, I’m not advocating banning dogma. I said that dogma does not fall under the rights of free speech because its content is not open to debate. That doesn’t mean it should be banned. But, the type of dogma that advocates violence can be banned.
If I, for instance, want to claim that anthropogenic factors are causing climate change, and I’m not interested in any debate on the topic because my mind is made up – Fine. Let me rant on about this nonsense.
If I want to declare that aliens have populated the earth and I’m not interested in any debate on the topic – Fine. I can rant on about this nonsense.
Neither of these declarations are attacking the freedom, person, security etc of anyone.
But, if I stand up in a pulpit or room, or in the MSM, and using my authority which sets up my words as more valid than my listeners, declare that all people who wear Purple must be killed because they are aligned with the Purple Skinned People – well, I think that’s cause for stopping me.
That is – there’s harmless and harmful dogma. Neither of them are what I term ‘free speech’ which I particularly confine to opinions that are open to dissent.
As for ‘idiosyncratic’ – what’s that got to do with anything?
And yes, I do agree, a lot of your opinions are, in my view as the Reader, pure dogma. Harmless dogma, dawg. Ah well, such are the trials of a flitting postmodernist, to always be under the fly swatter of a realist.
So FREE,
Say you’re having a heart attact, you phone 911, and a muslim paramedic shows up. Do you refuse his help and die? “I’m dead and damn proud of it. If only more people would…”
Just wonderin’.
That would be bad for many in hollywood who regulary glorifi terrorist just look at that crappy film HOOT which came out last year
a proposal critics fear would erode freedom of speech and alienate Muslims.
Well, at least they’re finally admitting that Muslims support terrorism.
funny how whenever we talk terrorism Muslim comes up in the convertion
just saying
oops that was “conversation”
Sorry Kate
Very appropriate title to the blog. Yet the Taliban suspected of causing the killing a Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan, has been freed for the second time? How come we didn’t hear the Liberals calling for him to be sent back to jail? The Taliban are terrorists, as far as I’m concerned, once our troops turn them over to the proper people, their job is done.
Why stop at “glorify”?………the MSM continues to justify Muslim terrorism acts in order to absolve, condone, defend, excuse, legitimize, validate just about any cause that suits their lefty Western democracy destruction agenda…………..Why, In Heaven’s Name?
Anyone who supports this nonsense is an outright bolshevik. This proposal would make celebrating the 4th of July illegal. And as long as Natives get a free pass to terrorize Canadians the definition of terrorism in this country is worthless.
Does dancing in the street when passenger jets are flown into office towers qualify as glorifying terrorism?
Cesspool
It’s a Matter of Priorities, Kid.
From Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Liberals Denis-Hezbollah Coderre and Citoyen Dion:
“Do you think it is easy to make priorities?”
I guess the Muslims will all have to take a vow of silence if they want to observe our laws. Gore should be happy – that in itself will reduce CO2 emissions by 90%.
“… and alienate Muslims.”
That’s too funny. Wouldn’t want to alienate them now, would we?
Who are these unnamed “critics” by the way?
Is there any SANITY left in our House of Commons?
They need a law against glorifying something which is already a crime?
Critics think it might alienate Muslims? These would be some of the same people who still refuse to link the sources with terrorism?
It would seem marching in a parade with Hezbollah terrorists, with their flags held high, is certainly glorifying their cause.
Denis Coderre did just that. Now the little blowfish is all concerned about the Taliban POW’s, the ones our Forces are fighting in Afghanistan.
Strange piece of work indeed.
There will be no such Law passed, it goes against our Charter, that’s how asinine the Charter is.
The dismantling of the Charter should be the number one priority of the new parliament under the CPC majority. We must protect ourselves from the dangerously shifting demographics by any means necessary.
Meanwhile, some Muslim groups are worried that anti-glorification measures could unfairly target their community.
“If an imam or any other religious figure glorified the Sept. 11 attacks, we have to speak out against that. The question is what is the definition of terrorism?” said Sameer Zuberi, a spokesman for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.
“If it’s a vague and wishy-washy definition, that would be quite problematic.”
Indeed, the definition of “terrorist activity” under the act has been in limbo since an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled last fall that defining terrorism based on religious, political or ideological motives violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Translation
Muslims and one Ontario Superior court judge ruled that terrorism does’nt exist, so suck on it!
Soooo…. would flying the flag of Hezballah (or other banned entities) in public in Canada be an offense under this newly proposed legislation? If it is not a specified offense along with a substantial mandatory penalty, what is the point?
Anti-glorification sounds like a whole lot of fluff with no teeth. We already have enough of this kind of legislation on the books. The larger problem is the will of people/the supreme court to make stick the legislation already on the books.
More important is utilizing legislation already in place as regards intimidation in whatever form that is used to silence/intimidate/raise money for banned entities/money laundering used by banned organizations against people at large.
Lawyers once again will see a financial windfall as they defend on the basis of violation of the sacred Charter and argue the definition/intent of “anti-glorification”.
What we don’t need is the Supreme Court ruling on another issue that will likely end up with furthering us on the road to Extreme Political Correctness by further incursion into curbing freedoms.
Perhaps the same ground can be covered by provinces doing their own work in terms of “reasonable accommodation”. I don’t want Ontario or Federal Gov’t legislation dictating what is good for Alberta or any other province.
What we do need is action to lessen the impact of political correctness, not increase it.
Actually, I think we NEED to alienate these militant moslem arseholes. I am personally sick of them and their crap and think they should be sent home if that is the way they are going to act.
Jim is exactly right. It’s hard enough to fight them over there when we have to appeease them over here. Eventually something decisive will have to be done, or else we’ll have to endure hundreds of years of war and headaches. Harry Truman had the right idea. Too bad he didn’t have a big enough arsenal to finish the job. If he did, our car companies would be in much better shape today.
What’s next – only professionals will be allowed to report the news?
Get a grip you guys? I could card less if this alienates anyone. But an “anti-glorification” law. WTF is that about? Our country is supposed to be free, not some freakin’ anti-rights despot crushing the little guy.
Remember back in the 70’s when all you would need would be an FAC to buy a gun. Same thing here, only a lot more insidious.
If it is to be a crime to glorify terrorism, can we expect a pat on the back for making a citizen’s arrest of someone carrying a Hezbollah, PIJ or Hamas flag?
‘Cause that’s something I would probably pay to see.
Not long ago a little girl was prevented from playing soccer because a referee ruled that “Law 4” applied to the wearing of a khimār on the field. Without wanting to re-open that debate, which had a good run here, my problem with the ruling was its sheer arbitrariness. She had played in numerous other games without incident. Law 4 is so open to interpretation that no one can know for certain where they stand, and that makes Law 4 a bad rule.
By the same token, a law that bans “glorifying terrorism,” without a clear definition of either “glorifying” or “terrorism,” is open to considerable abuse and inconsistent application. Rules need to be clear; people need to know where they stand. Ambiguity invites arbitrary, selective measures. I am quite pleased to see that a number of conservatives, those with a libertarian streak, have grasped this point. Will the Harper bunch do so as well?
It’s too bad I had to read that last comment, because I was in such a good mood this morning. And now I have to be subjected to a moonbat’s ramblings about “ambiguity” and “arbitrariness”, and I’m shocked that the word “nuance” wasn’t included. Our culture and way of life is at stake, and she’s worried about a Muslim tyke’s soccer game. Sorry Dawg. I’d prefer to protect our culture and way of life from those terrorists, even if it means a little less colour on the soccer pitch.
“Ambiguity invites arbitrary, selective measures. I am quite pleased to see that a number of conservatives, those with a libertarian streak, have grasped this point.”
I”m happy to see others recognize this problem. Now, I presume we have the full co-operation of the left in pushing our lawmakers to remove “hate laws” from the books?
The whole premise of the proposed law is ridiculous. As others have noted this is insiduous, unenforceable, redundant and reeks of political correctness.
As a conservative minded person I want to hear what others have to say regarding terrorism or any other number of issues. How else can I appropriately respond? Am I to rely on Cherniesk type “real rumors” if opinion is driven underground? God help us if it comes to that.
Know thy enemy!
Syncro
Personally I think if anything like that was ever passed here it would be nothing but show legislation. Is there anyone left in this Country with the guts, balls or tits to enforce it? If someone did step up to the plate they would be tarred with the discrimination brush immediately. I think it’s just another piece of sound good feel good look at me I’m doing something legislation. I say that because of where it came from.
But, properly done, enforced and expanded it could go a long way to weeding out local terrorism. I just don’t think there is the will in this country for than kind of legislation to succeed.
As much as it galls me, I agree with Dr. Dawg. This law is a really bad thing.
We already have “hate speech” legislation in this country. It was passed to control neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zundel, but lately it is being used by gay rights activists to muzzle Christian activists. Meanwhile the Mohawk Warrior Smuggling Society squats on land in Caledonia and flies the Palestinian flag with impunity.
With a sufficiently vague definition of “terrorism” a future Liberal government could ban Small Dead Animals.
Bigger government is never the answer boys and girls. Cut taxes, cut regulations, cut the civil service and increase personal freedom. This is the Conservative way.
I’m against such a law. Operationally, it’s because the terminology of ‘glorify’ and even ‘terrorism’ could be given so many paradoxical interpretations by various ‘human rights’ activists and lawyers that it would be a hysterical morass. It would also be a violation of freedom of speech.
Remember, I have a possibly limited definition of free speech – the words have to be open to debate, questions, dissent. If a speech doesn’t have those attributes then it would not be supported under the right of free speech, ie, if it is dogmatic preaching. So, if an authority figure is telling his people ‘all X people must be eliminated’ – that’s not free speech. But if an authority figure is glorifying terrorism AND this opinion is open to debate – that’s free speech.
Dawg – I strongly take issue with your soccer event. Remember that you, a postmodernist, accept that the Author of an opinion has no authority over his words; indeed, an Author can hardly be accepted as the correct interpretor of what he said. It is up to the Reader to correctly interpret those words, and I, the Reader, say your opinion, as Author, was meaningless.
Will your Dion bunch do so as well?
I presume we have the full co-operation of the left in pushing our lawmakers to remove “hate laws” from the books?
Kate, you took the words right out of my keyboard. On the same note, I also wonder where all the leftists who have protested the arrest of terrorism suspects using “security certificates” were when Ernst Zundel was arrested, tried in camera, and deported?
“…without a clear definition of either “glorifying” or “terrorism,” is open to considerable abuse and inconsistent application.”
How about carrying a Hezbollah flag and collectively chanting “Death to Israel?” Given that Hezbollah is a banned terrorist organisation and its supporters are uttering death threats, could it be any more clearly defined for even the lowest form of pond life?
I for one am sick and tired of Muslims. They bring their hatred here and then parade it on our streets. They reject our culture and belittle and threaten our laws. And despite their obviously inferior way of life, historic accomplishments and culture – their supremacist bigotry knows no equal. Of course, none of that being enough, they plan mass murder of Canadian citizens, supported in a recent CBC poll by 27% of the Canadian Muslim population.
An increasing number of people, including journalists, are calling for an end to Muslim immigration. That, monitoring mosques and islamic schools, shutting down Saudi funding for Wahabiism, deporting the ringleaders and adjusting our hate crime laws to specifically target Islamists and their supporters is the only sane thing to do.
How can one “alienate” complete aliens?
This law, if enacted, will make it a crime for anybody to ‘glorify’ terrorism. It doesn’t target any religious group. So why are the Muslims squawking? Guilt? What would be the Muslim reaction be if this same law specifically and only targeted Jews and Israel? The friggin two faced hypocrits would be dancing in the streets. Tough, suck it up boys and girls. If you don’t like it, there are planes leaving this country every hour of every day, go and get on one.
Finally somebody making some sense here! Good on you, Daisy. We have to treat our own cancer before we can rid the world of it.
“I”m happy to see others recognize this problem. Now, I presume we have the full co-operation of the left in pushing our lawmakers to remove “hate laws” from the books?”
On the other hand Kate, we could be positivist and enact “love your neighbour laws”.
It would interesting to see Parliament grapple with the classical different types of love such as:
1. Eros
2. Agape
3. Philos
4. Mania
5. Ludus
6. Pragma
7. Storge
What penalties should we have for failing to ‘love your neighbour’?
On the other hand what if one ‘hates’ political stupidity?
Should you go to jail for that as well?
Now, I presume we have the full co-operation of the left in pushing our lawmakers to remove “hate laws” from the books? -Kate
–Precisely. Took the words out of my mouth, Kate.
Why is it that we’re not allowed to call homosexuals “fags” and “faggots” and that we’re forbidden to declare that we believe homosexuality to be “immoral”, “abnormal” and “unnatural” but the left wants to protect the glorification of murdering innocent people in the name of Allah?
The left wants to have it every way they want. The left is hypocritical to the max.
Like I say, we’ve no lessons to take from leftists on free speech or on the Charter. They’re throwing stones in a glass house.
And I note that Dr. Dawg wants once again to confuse the whole issue by demanding we define stuff we already understand. Not going to fall for it. The left doesn’t define anything they say, after all. They just label people, actions and utterances however they please and expect us to shut up. If we question them, they scream like demons…
I also wonder where all the leftists who have protested the arrest of terrorism suspects using “security certificates” were when Ernst Zundel was arrested, tried in camera, and deported?
I weep no tears for Zundel, but at the time I had a word or two to say about the Globe and Mail‘s opposition to a security certificate for him but support of them for the other guys, you know, the ones with Arab-sounding names. When it comes to law, I like consistency. Admittedly, when they booted this Nazi out, I didn’t lose a lot of sleep over it.
On the issue of hate laws, Kate, I do think that Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, while far from crystal-clear, are written in somewhat more precise terms than “glorification” or “terrorism.”
ET, thanks for the morning smile. I don’t have a “Dion bunch,” by the way, and don’t want one, thank you–it sounds a bit like a wedgie.
I should add that Dawg’s little business with the girlie playing soccer is nonsense. Soccer refs should and do have powers on the field that governments should not. Dawg seems not to make that distinction.
I’m against this for the same reason I’m against hate crime laws. I beleive freedom of speech is a right. I don’t think the freedom from being offended is a right.
Without freedom of speech, you lose all other freedoms.
My point, Phantom, was only that rules should be as clear as possible so that those governed by them know when they are or are not in conformity with them. Vague language calls for a breadth of interpretation that makes everyone vulnerable.
Those who think this law would be applied only to Muslim extremists should give their heads a collective shake. As Bob comments above, celebrating the 4th of July could be covered as well. One person’s terrorist is always another person’s freedom fighter.
As Bob comments above, celebrating the 4th of July could be covered as well. One person’s terrorist is always another person’s freedom fighter. -Dr. Dawg
More typical leftwing gobbleddygook. Now the left is equating celebrating a national holiday to glorifying the chopping off of heads of schoolgirls and the blowing up of one’s children in pizza parlors and on school buses…
Pure gobbleddygook.
Impossible to take leftists seriously. Have to be out of one’s mind to take seriously those who’re out of theirs.
Phantom: No point even mentioning the Mohawks or any other tribe of Aboriginals, our laws don’t apply to them, they are above and exempt. They resort to all sorts of thuggery over land claims and no police force will touch them.
Never mind they sold it for whatever hundreds of years ago at an agreed price back then, now they want it back. It’s even better if it’s developed and with real estate.
Yes, they are intimidating and terrorizing people.
Nothing will happen until one of them gets killed then all hell will break out. Recall Dudley George.
You see, Dawg is very clearly illustrating the kind of dangerous mentality that has seeped into the mainstream and will lead us to doom. Not to mention the everyday glorification of terrorism that has permeated our MSM. That is precisely why we need to have tighter controls to protect ourselves. Rupprecht’s people had the right idea.
As Bob comments above, celebrating the 4th of July could be covered as well. One person’s terrorist is always another person’s freedom fighter. -Dr. Dawg
More typical leftwing gobbleddygook. Now the left is equating celebrating a national holiday to glorifying the chopping off of heads of schoolgirls and the blowing up of one’s children in pizza parlors and on school buses…
Yeah, well…banning 4th of July celebrations might be a bit of an unrealistic possibility, but it’s certainly true that vague and restrictive laws have a way of being used in ways the original proposers had no idea were possible. All the more reason to invoke Notwithstanding and make the proposed law Muslim-specific, eh? That would clear things up…
irwin daisy – your suggestions come close to imitating those used to prevent Jewish immigration prior to and during WWII.
I don’t think we can legislate speech, free speech, that is. Legislating non-free speech or dogma, preaching violence, can be legislated.
But what we should be doing is rejecting multiculturalism and insisting that immigrants follow our established normative standards. We must reject the Trudeau-pian tactic of isolation. Isolation of immigrants into closed identity groups. Isolation of Canadians into linguistic divisions of the ROC versus Quebec.
Trudeau’s divide and conquer tactic enabled the dev’t of a centralist authoritarian gov’t, a huge unaccountable bureaucracy to oversee its authority, and the removal of the electorate from power over their own gov’t.
Multiculturalism, the ‘enclosing’ of immigrants into defined and closed groups must be stopped. We must insist on common standards of behaviour.
As for the Muslim reality – a reality trapped within a 7th century tribalism, we must insist that its rules are not our rules, and if they immigrate to this country, they must follow our normative standards.
What are our standards? There are several important ones. First, is our secular gov’t with its division of church and state. This means that religion is a private not public affair and that our laws and normative rules of behaviour are not bound to a religion.
Second is our insistence on freedom of speech. Again, free speech is not dogmatic speech. This speech must be open to dissent. Otherwise it is not ‘free speech’.
Third is our insistence on the role of the individual as someone capable of reason and responsibility.
Fourth is our identity as a nation; we are first and foremost, Canadians. Our religions, ethnicity, old culture are completely secondary to this primary identity and must not be allowed to trump that basic identity. This means that we do not set up ‘identity politics’ or special rules for groups whose members are defined as ‘outside the normative rules’.
These normative rules have been hard fought for and hard won. We must retain them.
OK, ET, I’ll bite:
[F]ree speech is not dogmatic speech.
The word “idiosyncratic” springs to mind. If dogmatic speech is fair game for banning, then 99% of what appears in the blogosphere would fall afoul of the law. I might not even escape myself. 🙂
I can tell you that I go out of my way to make sure whenever I spend money in a store or gas station or whatever if a muslim works there or owns it I go somewhere else. I vote with my wallet, if everyone else did they wouldnt have any funds to send back home to fight us. I guess that makes me a islamaphobe. I like to think that I am VERY proud of that fact.
Remember the “Law of Unintended Consequences” would apply were such a law regarding “not glorifying terrorist activities” enacted. I agree with Dawg, Bob et al who would oppose such a vaguely worded law.
“would erode freedom of speech and alienate Muslims.”
only if Muslims are terrorists…. are the critics suggesting muslims are terrorists? no? then there should be no problems with such a law.
are the critics suggesting muslims are terrorists? no? then there should be no problems with such a law.
…until, under a future government, you get arrested under said law for speaking out in favour of, say, what some bien-pensants call America’s “war” on “terror”.
Muslims employ two types of Jihad: Passive and aggressive jihad.
The aggressive type we see everyday on TV. The passive we witness every day in the testing and whittling away of our laws, and in the case of the little girl, rules.
Muslims, including their terrorist supporting organisations like CAIR, purposefully abuse our laws and judicial system to gain advantage in normalizing their barbarism, bigotry and finally Sharia law. Not to mention, dhimmitude.
In America, some politicians are starting to fight back. There’s a bill in the senate to shut down CAIR’s legal attack against the passengers who witnessed the devious flying imams.
No other ethnic/religious group can be compared to Islam and it’s foul and constant inside attacks against our culture and way of life.
Specific, targeted laws against Islamist tactics and hatred is vital.
No,dawg, I’m not advocating banning dogma. I said that dogma does not fall under the rights of free speech because its content is not open to debate. That doesn’t mean it should be banned. But, the type of dogma that advocates violence can be banned.
If I, for instance, want to claim that anthropogenic factors are causing climate change, and I’m not interested in any debate on the topic because my mind is made up – Fine. Let me rant on about this nonsense.
If I want to declare that aliens have populated the earth and I’m not interested in any debate on the topic – Fine. I can rant on about this nonsense.
Neither of these declarations are attacking the freedom, person, security etc of anyone.
But, if I stand up in a pulpit or room, or in the MSM, and using my authority which sets up my words as more valid than my listeners, declare that all people who wear Purple must be killed because they are aligned with the Purple Skinned People – well, I think that’s cause for stopping me.
That is – there’s harmless and harmful dogma. Neither of them are what I term ‘free speech’ which I particularly confine to opinions that are open to dissent.
As for ‘idiosyncratic’ – what’s that got to do with anything?
And yes, I do agree, a lot of your opinions are, in my view as the Reader, pure dogma. Harmless dogma, dawg. Ah well, such are the trials of a flitting postmodernist, to always be under the fly swatter of a realist.
So FREE,
Say you’re having a heart attact, you phone 911, and a muslim paramedic shows up. Do you refuse his help and die? “I’m dead and damn proud of it. If only more people would…”
Just wonderin’.