Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Quote of the day | Main | Meeting Moe »

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons

Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've graduated from law school, and I've never seen a more frivolous, vexatious, infantile suit than this.

But that's the point -- this complaint is not about beating us in the law. Freedom of speech is still in our constitution; we'll win in the end. It's a nuisance suit, designed to grind us down, cost us money, and serve as a warning to other, more timid media.

The hand-written scrawl and the spelling errors were what first disgusted me with the suit; but the arguments were what really got me. The complainant, Imam Syed Soharwardy, a former professor at an anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, doesn't just argue that we shouldn't have published the cartoons. He argues that we shouldn't be able to defend our right to publish the cartoons. The bulk of his complaint was that we dared to try to justify it.

He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime.

Here is a letter I sent out to our e-mail list, explaining our legal situation.

Here is the formal response I shall file with the human rights commission tomorrow.

And here is where you can chip in to our legal defence fund if you want to support us. Our lawyers tell me we'll likely win, but it could cost us up to $75,000 to do so -- and the case against us is being prosecuted by government employees using tax dollars.

We're a small, independent magazine and we don't have deep pockets to fight off nuisance suits, so please chip in if you can.

ADDENDUM: In response to various commenters, unfortunately, even if we are successful in the human rights commission, we will not be compensated for our legal fees. It's not like a real court, where an unsuccessful plaintiff would be ordered to pay a successful defendant's costs. So even if we win, we lose -- the process is the penalty. Worse than that, the radical imam who is suing us doesn't have to put up a dime -- the commission uses tax dollars to pay lawyers and other inquisitors to go at us directly. Human rights tribunals themselves are illiberal institutions. Read my larger brief, linked above.

UPDATE 1: Here is a scan  of the imam's complaint.

UPDATE 2: We are currently working to change our legal defence fund web page to accept donations from outside Canada. In the meantime, please e-mail Rita at [email protected] or phone us at 403-216-2270 and we can help you that way -- thanks!

Posted by Ezra Levant on March 29, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834267e1453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons:

» Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons from Complacent Nation
A nutball is trying to financially hurt the Standard using the Western legal system Here's the opening lines: Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've gra [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-29 8:34:32 PM

» Western Standard Sued for Publishing Cartoons from The Life of Nick
The only Canadian news source with the guts to actually print the cartoons of Mohammed (seen above), the Western Standard, has been sued by a radical Calgary imam. He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime. The press has been g... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-29 10:17:53 PM

» Western Standard Sued for Publishing Cartoons from The Life of Nick
The only Canadian news source with the guts to actually print the cartoons of Mohammed (seen above), the Western Standard, has been sued by a radical Calgary imam. He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime. The press has been g... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-29 10:21:59 PM

» More Fear of a Jihadist Planet from Kesher Talk
And you thought the Motoon kerfluffle was a) over, and b) a kerfluffle. But no. Dominos continue to fall. This week saw NYU unprecedentedly denying the public access to a previously open panel discussion. The Western Standard of Canada published... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 12:54:25 AM

» Western Standard Legal Defence Fund from Blue Blogging Soapbox
From an email sent out by Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant. If you don't want to donate to the fund, at least consider purchasing a subscription. Link to the subscription page is at the top of the blog. [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 1:20:52 AM

» Fear of a Jihadi Planet from Winds of Change.NET
And you thought the Motoon kerfluffle was a) over, and b) a kerfluffle. But no. Dominos continue to fall. This week saw NYU unprecedentedly denying the public access to a previously open panel discussion. The... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 2:13:25 AM

» More Fear of a Jihadist Planet from Kesher Talk
And you thought the Motoon kerfluffle was a) over, and b) a kerfluffle. But no. Dominos continue to fall. This week saw NYU unprecedentedly denying the public access to a previously open panel discussion. The Western Standard of Canada published... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 2:41:45 AM

» Western Standard Before Human Rights Commission from small dead animals
The complainant, Imam Syed Soharwardy, a former professor at an anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, doesn't just argue that we shouldn't have published the cartoons. He argues that we shouldn't be able to defend our right to publish the cartoons.... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 6:24:27 AM

» Islamofascist Tries To Silence The Western Standard from Riehl World View
It appears a radical islamist has figured out a new way to try and silence a free press.Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 10:55:53 AM

» Western Standard sued over Mohammed cartoons from Magic Statistics
Syed Badauddin Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, has lodged a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against the Western Standard magazine, and its publisher Ezra Levant, for printing the Danish Mohammed... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 12:52:18 PM

» Is Levant using frivolous lawsuit to make money? from The Sudden Sage
Ezra Levant must be loving this. His publication is being sued in human rights court for publishing those anti-Muslim cartoons the other month. Yes, hes happy! With this in hand, he gets to be the victim, and hes fundraising for lawyers&#... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 12:56:27 PM

» Freedom of the Press vs. the Alberta Human Rights Commission from EclectEcon
This morning I read in the Trono Globe & Mail that the Danish newspaper that published the infamous cartoons is being sued: [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 1:46:57 PM

» Canadian magazine sued over cartoons from Overlawyered
Following up on earlier threats (Feb. 14, Mar. 19), Syed Soharwardy has brought a complaint against the Western Standard before the Alberta Human Rights Commission over its publication of the Mohammed cartoons. Ezra Levant, publisher... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 8:08:16 PM

» Canadian Paper Sued Over Muhammed Cartoons from The Jawa Report
For a bunch of F*cking fascists, they sure are a bunch of whiney bitches. FYI-our good friend Kate from Small Dead Animals writes for the Western Standard, so were more than just supportive on the principle of the matter.... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-31 9:46:05 AM

» What Craveness Begets from Just Some Poor Schmuck
What the "Danish Cartoons", to use the current euphemism, showed the world was not the superiority of Western ideals or the strength of a free press, but how easy it is to roll the Politically Correct who seem to make... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-31 10:43:07 PM

» You Can Help Defend Free Speech from Captain's Quarters
The excellent Canadian magazine Western Standard now faces a lawsuit from an Islamic cleric in Calgary for publishing the Prophet cartoons in its coverage of the massive riots around the world earlier this year. The suit was presented in "human... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-04-01 8:55:53 AM

» You Can Help Defend Free Speech from Captain's Quarters
The excellent Canadian magazine Western Standard now faces a lawsuit from an Islamic cleric in Calgary for publishing the Prophet cartoons in its coverage of the massive riots around the world earlier this year. The suit was presented in "human... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-04-01 8:59:13 AM

» Rally to defend freedom of the press! from Being American in T.O.
Apr. 1 - It appears that there is more than one way to supress press freedoms, and I'm finding it hard to restrain the contempt I feel as I report that a Canadian human rights commission in Alberta is complicit... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-04-01 2:28:36 PM

» Cartoon Jihad: The Canadian Front from Winds of Change.NET
In Canada, only one magazine published the Mohammed cartoons. To my knowledge, you couldnt find them anywhere else. That is, by any standard, an incredibly shameful record. That shame is compounded by Imam Soharwardys use... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-04-04 3:40:15 AM

Comments

Conrad,

Easy there, that was kind of a rambling post, but I think I'm with you, not against you.

No one wants to sweep the trash out more than I do!

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-04-03 11:20:39 AM


William McCullough

That's just the point - the Alberta Human Rights code was set up to deal with equality issues in social areas - such as employment, housing and social services. Most of these have been dealt with over the past few decades by the forces of the market place and via peer pressure; You can't own an apartment building and have full rentals if you refuse to rent to x-people. And, as an immigrant country, particularly after WWII, Canada has recognized that diversity.

Therefore, the Human Rights Commissions have had less to do; and - they've moved outside of their original mandate - which was based on clear, distinct and objective criteria - into the murkiness of subjective feelings.

That's not their mandate. And, they shouldn't be defining themselves as such - because there are no objective criteria for subjective feelings.

The cases in which they have been recently involved have had nothing to do with employment, housing or social services. Instead, they have focused on 'how someone felt when they read or heard X-person's opinion'. That can't be criminalized but that is exactly what is happening.

As for Levant, which you are trying to use as a counter-example - it isn't a valid counter example. Levant was presumably claiming that Strahl was slandering/libelling his services.

Slander and libel have nothing to do with subjective feelings. If I say that X-person plagiarized all the material in an article, and this is untrue, this is slander. Slander, defamation, libel - are based around FALSE allegations. The focus is on the speaker/writer who makes the statements. And, the focus is on whether or not these allegations are false or true.

In these HRC cases, there is no interest in truth or falsehood. Instead, the focus is on the subjective feelings of the listener/recipient. Were their emotions hurt? That's absolutely impossible to legislate - and yet, that's what these HRC have moved into. That was never, ever, the original mandate.

Posted by: ET | 2006-04-03 11:22:06 AM


Conrad,

Easy there, that was kind of a rambling post, but I think I'm with you, not against you.

No one wants to sweep the trash out more than I do!

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-04-03 11:22:07 AM


sorry... computer probs...

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-04-03 11:25:39 AM


I am not sure if you read everything that was linked to the complaint. But, I will give you that benefit.

Ezra Levant published cartoons then went on a cross- country tour to gloat. Okay, that's not really fair. He went to explain why he published the cartoons. But, did the cartoons spark hatred toward muslims?

Some of the emails indicate this.

"In your kind's eyes...it is perfectly alright for a radical muslim to call for the destruction of Israel and burn the Jewish flag."

"your kind..burned the American flag. Knocked down two office towers in New York"

"It is ok for your kind to cut off the heads of human beings"

"If you don't like what the Danes published, well too bad so sad go back to wherever country you immigrated from and practice your religion back there".

hmm..If Jews don't like the anti-semetism go to Israel?

""That's why [Hitler] fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the God-damned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries."

(I'm sure we all remember that unfortunate quote)

"we have every right to ridicule Muhammed in any fashion that we want...this is the Free West"

"Islam is a evil murderous cult founded by a depraved murdering child marrying looting scoundral"

"Time for you to go back too any Islamic hellhole where you can happily slaughter those that leave Islam or make fun of the meccan murderer"

(actually telling a guy to go to another country and slaughter people happily)

So...this is where my statement of linking the Calgary Imam to radicalism comes in. Levant called the Imam a radical...thus linking him to these types of comments.

It's the aftermath that has fueled the complaint.


Posted by: William McCullough | 2006-04-03 2:53:47 PM


nomdenet,

Allow me to step over the steaming turd of a post left here by Joseph (Joe, we're keeping the spot under the rock warm for you, so please hurry back and crawl into your natural home), ET's typically ill-considered and inaccurate ramblings about law and all the other detritus and attempt to address your comments about the relative cost of HR commissions and whether this complaint actually does "muzzle" freedom of speech.

First, keep in mind that criminal law, civil law and administrative law exist as parallel systems, each with its own rules and underlying principles, all related but operating independntly of one another.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the difference between the first two is by reference to the O.J. Simpson case. As you may recall, O.J. was charged and acquitted of the murder of his wife and her friend, but still faced a wrongful death lawsuit from the victims' families. Despite his success in the criminal trial, he lost the civil suit, in part because the case against him only had to be proved on a balance of probabilities, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. He was assessed something like $24 million in damages.

In this case, the Crown and the police determined, properly I think, that there were no grounds for criminal charges. And because the commmon law holds that you can't defame a group, no civil action in defamation can be brought against the WS.

But consider, for a moment, what would have happened if that cartoon, rather than suggesting that all Muslims were implicated in terrorism (for that seems to be both the complainant's interpretation of the cartoons and that of many of the anti-Muslim posters who reacted to it) suggested that the complainant, Mr. S. was implicated in terrorism.

I'm assuming that he's not, but regardless of the truth of the matter, he could bring a defamation suit that would take several years to get to trial, involve extensive discoveries and interlocutory procedures, take several weeks to try when and if it did get to trial and, potentially consume hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs. If the WS's defence was that the cartoon was "true", it would have to prove the truth on a balance of probabilities. If it's defence was that this was fair comment, it would have to establish the underlying facts the the comment was based on. All that proof doesn't come cheap.

To give you some measure of how time-consuming and expensive a defamation trial can be, consider what happened when Tony Robbins, the informercial pitchman, sued the Vancouver Sun for suggesting he "stole" the wife of a local man. The case took four years to get to trial, the trial lasted three weeks and it was estimated that each side spent more than $500,000 on legal fees. In the end, Robbins won (defamation law in Canada generally favours the plaintiff) and was awarded $20,000 in damages. He'll be able to recover some of his costs, but certainly not all of them, from the Sun.

But, as I said, at common law, groups can't be defamed. And yet we know that the reputation of identifiable groups - religious groups, racial groups, gays and lesbians - can be affected by publication of attacks on their perceived characteristics. In response to this, some (but not all) human rights codes allow individuals or representatives of groups to file a complaint when the attacks reach a certain threshold -- usually when the publications advocate discrimination or expose the groups to hatred or contempt. This is, it should be noted, a far higher bar than that set for defamation actions.

And what happens to those complaints? Well, as you'll see if you visit the complaint process chart on Alberta commission's website, the commission can dismiss it out of hand, it can attempt some form of conciliation, it can investigate and it can hold a hearing. The process is less formal than ordinary court, more amenable to lay litigants, less time-consuming and, hence less costly. And unless there's a claim for lost wages, there's much less at stake. A typical award for non-pecuniary damages is less than $5,000, often much less.

Another example, by way of comparision: in Kane v. Alberta Report, the Jewish Defence League filed a complaint about a story that included an anonymous quote stating that the commercial real estate business tended to be dominated by jewish-owned firms who freeze out outsiders. The hearing took two days. Both parties were self-represented. And when the panel found for the complainant on one ground, Alberta Report appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, where, after a one-day hearing, the judge sent it back for rehearing on what you folks on the right would call a technicality. And there, I believe, the matter ended.

So am I worried that the imam is trying to muzzle our precious freedom of speech? No. Or at least not anymore than I'm concerned that Conrad Black or Ezra Levant are trying to do so by filing defamation law suits against those who criticize them, knowing that the very possibility of extended and expensive litigation will bring about the desired silence.

Have the human rights tribunals exceeded their mandate, as alleged by ET and Mr. Kay? Again, no.
As a statutory body, their powers are set out in the legislation and the legislation clearly charges them to hear complaints of this sort. If you don't think that their mandate should extend that far, then lobby the government to change the legislation. But spare me the complaint of rogue human rights tribunals running roughshod over civil liberties.

BTW, I had no intention to suggest any moral equivalence between radical Muslim clerics and nutty Christians like Pat Robertson. My concern, however, is the desire of would-be theocrats to inject their religion into my secular state. And by my estimation, there's a much greater chance of the likes of Mr. Robertson doing that than some obscure Muslim cleric.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-04-04 7:32:22 AM


Yes, truewest that one is steaming. I was going try and guess who’s cartoonish comments caused that skat but I decided to take your lead to step over it rather than needlessly tie up the HRC with it … ;>)

I give you credit, you know more about HRC’s than I do and I will also take your advice on that skat, which is to lobby the government to make its mandate clear. Because as ET said, my gut tells me, the free-market looking for customers and employees in a diversified population has taken care of a lot of the discrimination that the HRC’s were set up to protect people on. The market works, not perfectly and we need some lower cost entity as you’ve suggested to deal with this. But in a business, the management is always looking around for departments to close down that have passed their sunset. There are no sunset clauses in government departments like the HRC and I have a hunch it needs to go and/or be remandated.

I’m pleased with the clarification that you don’t equate the extremists in Christianity with Islamists. Your comments about the theocracy and Pat Robertson are a classic among my Liberal friends. If the Liberal is an insurance type I always try to talk about it in cold risk terms and I’ll ask him/her to bring me a price for an insurance premium to cover potential damages that might ultimately be caused by the latest frothing Toronto imam versus a premium for a Pat Robertson facsimile's potential damages.

I argue the point in this manner because my little business mind says everything has an inherent price that can be quantified. We will pay a price for our bad decisions one way or another. Anyway, I usually get from the insurance types a concession that the Pat’s of the world have less propensity to behead or blow-up things than imams do. But not surprisingly, I never get quantification nor an insurance premium price comparing the two theocratic wannabes. We can at least agree that we neither one want Pat nor the imam running for office. But that we can’t disallow either running, we’ll have to fight those types at the ballot box if it happens. Depending on how the voters in the riding get stacked I actually think it is more likely long-run for an imam to get elected than a Pat. We’ll see.

This has been a good discussion; let’s leave the skat here and pick-up our healthy democratic dissent on another thread sometime. Cheers.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-04-04 9:44:41 AM


Contraty to Truewest's personal oppinions ( which have no legal validity) I do believe the AHRC has overstepped its mandate...actually I agree with ET that the original commissioning premise to ensure employment,housing,services were not doled out on a discrimanory nature which precludes the charter section 15 minorities....this ,ission was largely taken care of voluntarily by prevailing market realities and civil cultural tolerence in our province.

The HRC now feels its in the game of hearing and ajudicating individual torts that the common and criminal courts reject as frivilous.

As I stated earlier, I whouldn't even recognize the authority of this section 15 star chanber to call me before it on such a rediculous claim.

If it's as seriously injurious or potentially dangerous as the claimant has charged....take me to court of queens bench and prove it....other wise piss off and stop creating civil unrest with pandering ethnic politics.

Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 2006-04-12 10:58:53 AM


It's a goofy complaint and should never have seen the light of day. The AHRC has indeed overstepped itself. I've sent in $50. Do the same. If any other media outlet had showed any guts in standing up to these religious dingbats, I'd have said the WS is on its own and good luck. But the fact is that everyone else was too busy trying to figure out what they could/should say to stop for a mnute and think: "WHY DON'T I FEEL FREE TO SIMPLY SPEAK MY MIND?"

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says it is right and just for her and other judges to "write in" words to the Charter where they thnk the Charter needs to "evolve" (read: "change"). Think how odd that is, considering the difficulties which our ELECTED representatives built in for them to change what was written! Now the AHRC seems to have developed a taste for the same elitist "Father Knows Best" attitude; all dressed up in multisylabic reasoning, of course.

It's got to stop.

Posted by: Moose Hunter | 2006-04-13 4:43:13 PM


wlyonmckenzie,
Here's a simple suggestion. Go here and read section 3(1)(b): http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/H14.CFM

That's the law, as passed by the Alberta legislature. It's not my opinion and it's not something the AHRC made up on its own. And it clearly gives the AHRC jurisdiction to consider the complaint. If you want to explain how this is some sort of rogue operation, operating without jurisdiction, I'm all ears. But I expect I'll see pigs fly sooner.

If you want to tag along with legal illiterates like ET -- and clearly you do, because your post shows a similar gaping ignorance of the law -- and blather on as if the commission was making this up as they go along, there's not much anyone can do to stop you. If you don't like the law and want it changed, write your MLA. In the meantime, tossing around legal jargon while pretending the statute doesn't say what it does just makes you look stupid.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-04-17 10:21:36 AM


Too rich, one group of religious bigots taking on another group of religious bigots. Judasim, Christianity, Islam, what is the one true religion? Please keep disrespecting every group don't like, it sure got Ted Byfield's BC Report and his shareholders' far. You make your bed you sleep in it. No more free copies for Air Canada? Boo hoo! Nothing worse than a bleeding heart conservative. At least you and Muslims still have homosexuals to blame for all of soceity's problems. I sure Rev. Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would agree with that. I suggest you take a page from Rev. Phelps and gang and start protesting at funerals of people you don't like. After all it's only free speach.

Posted by: ZaZu | 2006-04-18 10:44:58 PM


Yes - when is brave sir Ezra and the WS coming to the rescue of the good reverend ? How can they sit by and watch his 1st Amend. rights be trampled on by limiting his right to protest at the funerals of those who have paid the ultimate price for their country; fighting for the very right that some would now limit and take away from Fred and Family ? Where's the editorial? Where's the defense fund?

Alternatively, Where are the so called peace loving Christians? Why have we not heard them speak out against this Phelps Baptofacist ? Why haven't they done something about him ? Surely their silence is an indications of complicity and we are all entitled to believe that Jesus is a homophobic bigot out to destroy the peace of the dead . We are right in mocking him so because mocking him asks serious questions "like where are the peace loving Christians? .


But a few minor factual pints ZaZu ( any relation to Hector ? )

1. I think you mean Alberta Report - not B.C.

2. If you're talking about Kane, Alberta Report's appeal was granted on a point of evidence (concerning a thing called "judicial notice") and sent back for a rehearing before the tribunal. As the Report is no more I'm not sure what the status of the case is now.

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-04-19 12:18:57 AM


look this page

Posted by: zionist | 2006-04-19 6:03:18 PM


Sue Islam as well-all their charities and mosques etc:
precedence:
`the law could be invoked for seeking a ban on their holy book, the Quran.`
http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chi1.htm

O)r it should be for `restricted use` by scholars etc. All that hate etc in the book is certainly not fit for the young-nor old.

Posted by: hutchrun | 2006-04-24 5:03:50 AM


I am glad this is going to court, to beg for donations for your legal defense fund is a real laugh. I would contend that the free WS advertising attained at the height of the cartoon publishing was worth more then the 75 K, show us the books IZRA!

Posted by: Colin | 2006-04-24 2:08:40 PM


Z S Lohat, Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi gave a landmark verdict discharging Rajkumar Arya and Indra Sain Sharma on 31 July, 1986. I give below the operative portion from his judgement:

'It is found that the Ayats are reproduced in the same form as are translated in the said 'Quran Majeed'. In my opinion the writer by writing the above words has expressed his opinion or suggestion and at the most it can be branded as a fair criticism of what is contained in the holy book of Mohammedans'.. With due regard to the holy book of 'Quran Majeed', a close perusal of the Ayats shows that the same are harmful and teach hatred and are likely to create differences between Mohammedans on one hand and the remaining communities on the other.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Sundaram60315.htm

Posted by: leavingtheleft | 2006-04-25 3:05:39 AM


Shop online for saree in Canada, Indian designer silk sarees, bridal wedding saree, salwar kameez, designer shalwar kameez, Indian salwar online, bridal wear lenghas, Indian wedding lehenga, designer lehnga choli and other Indian wedding, party casual dress outfits from this Indian outfits store with more than 10000 designs in stock and for express delivery to Canada, Vancouver and worldwide

Posted by: Mr. Hemant Jain | 2006-08-21 1:34:59 PM


Dear Fellow Warriors against Islamism.

RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS VILFICATION AGAINST JEWS AND CHRISTIANS in the Quran, should be the basis for a COUNTER SUIT and a complaint in the Equal Opportunity/Human Rights commission.

Quran 9:30 "Jews (race) believe Uzzair is Son of Allah, Christians (religion) believe the Messiah is Son of Allah..... MAY ALLAH DESTROY THEM (Shakir) ALLAHS CURSE BE ON THEM , they are PERVERSE, Allah himself fights them etc etc etcl

Full exposition is found here
zhttp://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Versions/009.030.html

Take THIS to the court separately and argue your case. Seek to have the Quran BANNED on the basis of HATE SPEECH. Also.. see this.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/056.sbt.html

MORE HATE SPEECH against Jews and Christians.
"Allahs curse be on them" REPEATEDLY on his death bed..his last words curse Christians and Jews..

THIS IS HATE SPEECH.

P.....lease..don't give me this 'oh.. they won't listen, oh.. we don't have a chance.. oh.. they only support minorities oh oh oh" etc..
GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING !!!!
In Australia we had a case like this, YES it cost megabucks but we did win.. "The 2 Dannies/Catch the fire ministries"

DEMONSTRATE at mosques, at Islamic bookshops..AGAINST HATE SPEECH. etc.. raise awareness.. stir stir stir.. Demonstrate at the HUMAN RIGHTS commission... Demonstrate at Parliament....
go go go. :)

Posted by: BOAZdavid | 2007-08-10 4:33:09 PM


PS.... that last post is not empty words.. we DID stuff here.. we DID demonstrate, we DID haunt every and all forums and public spaces..
I myself have gone to a university and single handedly shows a picture of the massacre of Christians at DAMOUR lebanon.. and of the 2 people who spoke to me one was named 'Mohammad' and he CONGRATULATED ME for exposing this atrocity by the PLO and mercinaries.

At an industrial relations rally/protest, with at least 20,000 unionist present, I stood there with a sign "BLAME CHINA-tax slavery at customs" and a communist woman DID attack me, (After unsuccessfully trying to get the unionists to gang bash me) but most people agreed.

Stand up... for truth.

[email protected]

Posted by: BOAZdavid | 2007-08-10 4:37:29 PM


What has happened? I never read the thread, but all I can say is this is very good. The monitoring on hate is below any reasonable standard. Still, there are censoreship idiots wanting bans on anyone left of OBC (making Attila a Martha Stewart homemaker of himself).

Take breath, Harper noecons, its a LONG, LONG way down....

Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-10 4:43:23 PM


mun-duh-roe,

You either take pride in "not knowing" as in decidedly ignorant, or you don't know, and have decided you will not know. In either case, you are totally ignorant.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-10 4:47:04 PM


What else would you expect from a union thug?

Posted by: obc | 2007-08-10 5:02:37 PM


Seems as though he has ran away--cause it is not in the collective bargaining package that he is so familiar with.

Besides, they still need him to design the next retarded poster....

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-10 5:14:21 PM


Thank you - Lady and OBC. Proves my innocence and demostrates your complete lack of consideration and analysis.

Lady, if attending OBC's trailer park consider the nature of your gifts (danger, dear, danger)............

Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-10 5:15:43 PM


Lady, are you so vain to think I follow your spit and spite? This time I noticed......

Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-10 5:18:52 PM


Blog They didn't know the camera was running Cheating wife caught fucking black guy on .[url=http://video-up.info]hidden camera[/url]. catches teen girl getting fucked by her boyfriend. amateur porn videos secret Sexy videos PornThat guy filmed his girl hidden,pornography video flicks another such a cute video. Humor N Sex Sex s and set ups. You'll see the mayhem. Ends in a.? Bathroom Sex Tape Russian Home Porno Sexy chicks caught naked in sauna by hidden spy. captures porn to david bowie. [url=http://cool-star.i
nfo]spycam[/url]Porn nun Pranks Just For laughsXhr load. High speed hosted videos with no crap. Euro Porn Zone - Voyeur SexHomeHiddenCams is You Need Hot Porn The best

Posted by: milleroff | 2008-02-25 2:43:56 AM


dangerous space for buddy. yearning to get more from your side :)

Posted by: Penisa | 2008-12-28 5:49:30 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.