The Shotgun Blog
« Faceoff: Watch Your Mouth | Main | Syed Soharwardy will withdraw complaint from AHRCC »
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Is 'Glorifying Terrorism' a Crime?
In Britain, it is--now. Canada's still taking stock
Jordan Michael Smith - May 7, 2007
Mizanur Rahman, a radical Muslim who led a protest in London, England, last February against Danish cartoons of Mohammed by holding up signs saying, "Behead those who insult Islam" and calling for a "9/11 all over Europe," has been convicted of promoting racial hatred.
At the same protest, Umran Javed shouted through a megaphone, "Denmark, you will pay with your blood," and warned non-Muslims to learn "the lessons of Theo Van Gogh," the Dutch filmmaker murdered in 2004 by an Islamic radical. Rahman was convicted in November, and Javed was convicted this January of inciting murder and racial hatred.
No charges similar to those faced by Javed and Rahman have been laid against any Canadian citizens, and not necessarily because Islamic radicals are absent here. "We don't have legislation as substantial as the U.K. has," says Craig Forcese, a lawyer at the University of Ottawa who is working on a book about Canada's national security policy.
Read the entire article here:
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2492&start=0
Posted by Matthew Johnston on December 22, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fae16028833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is 'Glorifying Terrorism' a Crime?:
Comments
Is 'Glorifying Terrorism' a Crime?
That depends on what your values are.
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-12-22 12:18:12 PM
"Western Standard Apologised to the Muslim Community
Syed Soharwardy will Withdraw Complaint from AHRCC
Today’s Protest at the City Hall Has Been Cancelled"
----------------------------------
Since there is no comment allowed on the post following this one, I will make a comment here and hope it stays up.
The absolute dhimmitude shown by Matthew Johnston, the new owner/operator of this blog is stunning.
Matthew Johnston, you have apologized for other people whom you don't even know. They spoke freely on this blog and if they broke no laws, there is nothing to apologize for.
You have now set yourself up to be monitored closely by the Calgary Muslim community who will now be seen as the moderators of what's left of the Western Standard Shotgun blog.
You have made a big mistake and this blog has no credibility now.
If OBC whom I understand is the main offender, then you should have appealed to him to apologize to the over-sensitive Calgary Muslim community and let the chips fall where they may.
You had no reason to apologize for him or anyone else.
Enjoy the new box you are now in. It is an empty one.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-22 12:56:40 PM
I have completely lost respect for the owner of this site. No one has the balls to stand up and say whats wrong anymore.
Posted by: Jason Brevik | 2007-12-22 1:11:28 PM
Ditto to John West. The MSM is revelling in the Standard's cave-in. Hello Submission, good-bye credibility!
Posted by: gordon Tryon | 2007-12-22 1:13:47 PM
It's over guys.
What does it feel like to roll over and expose your underbelly? I almost gave up once in 1983. I had a broken nose, a swollen eye, and I thought the referee was an Italian waiter. I decided to go till the end. I don't even remember the pain, but I hold my head up every time I think how I didn't give up. How will you feel in 25 years?
If anyone wants to support obc, I'd like to hear about it. Everyone should be entitled to voice his opinion. Maybe a show of support might slow this train down a bit.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 1:27:00 PM
Way to go Matthew Johnston! Your appeasement will surely go a long way to ensuring the crocodile eats you last.
Not allowing comments was a fittingly spineless accompaniment to your cowardly capitulation to Islamic Fundamentalism.
Posted by: Steve | 2007-12-22 1:36:34 PM
wow. what the hell has been happening since i've been gone?!
self censorship and appeasment to people who don't understand fundamental liberties like free speech and private property rights?
these are some of the reasons why North America is so attractive to the rest of the world.
Matthew Johnston, you do not add credibility and value to this site by hanging your head and shuffling from side to side like some guilty kid with a slingshot in his back pocket and his hands in his front pockets.
please retract your appology or, at least, don't start censoring our comments. you are not responsible for what someone else posts on this thread.
if we go down this slippery slope, this stimulating blog will, at the very least, drown in cookiecutter boredom like so many others.
Posted by: shel | 2007-12-22 1:37:45 PM
obc~
did you make the comments in question?
i know your style and don't believe what you said was any more radical than what you usually say. i can't see how anyone who is secure with himself could possibly find so much offense with your comments, he would take the Shotgun to task. methinks the newly minted Standard is showing us in which direction it's heading.
can you tell me what you said, for my own curiosity? careful though; our thought police may be watching.
too bad. :(
Posted by: shel | 2007-12-22 1:46:49 PM
As all this has played out with worldwide media attention, the "bend-over and take it" postion shown here by M.J. is going to embolden those who want to subvert free speech.
Just another nail to hammer into our coffin, and it's getting a bit more stuffy in here each day.
Posted by: prairie dog | 2007-12-22 1:50:58 PM
shel ~
It's difficult to answer your question in view of the fact that my nic was hijacked several times by Fact Check and Roger, among others.
Who knows what they posted when I was asleep or out of town.
Those who have been following my posts know who I am. The rest I could care less about.
This however is designed to silence the non-politically correct voices in Canada. You have all been warned now - which is their intention all along.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-22 1:53:18 PM
i believe in the markets. if a company or corporation doesn't impress me, i don't run to the State. i boycott.
so here's the scoop: Mr Johnston, retract your apology, or at the very least, assure us you will not censor us, and i will subscribe to the new Standard. if i don't get an assurance, i will not subscribe.
Posted by: shel | 2007-12-22 1:55:04 PM
It should be obvious by now to even the most left leaning that Islam is not compatible with democracy. There isn't a single free and democratic Islamic nation on the planet. If we continue to play by their rules we are lost.
If enough citizens of this country stand up to every challenge to free speech, we can turn this thing around. How about a protest of our own? I don't live in Calgary, but I am willing to volunteer in some fashion. How about some billboards obc? Civil disobedience (non-violent) has been the driving force of every just movement.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 2:06:17 PM
Hi
Sad when I hear Canadians being racist and then loudly defending themselves. I now live in a country where racism is deeply ingrained - the USA. I come from a country where racists are a small but loud minority - Canada. The fewer the forums for their narrow minded views the better.
The Standard is now one less of those forums.
Great to hear the voice of decency rising above the shrill. Thanks to Mr Johnson and the Standard
Posted by: Stan Geddes | 2007-12-22 2:10:58 PM
Stan Geddes~
"racists"?
you're joking right?
refute, with facts, one statement made on this thread.
Posted by: shel | 2007-12-22 2:16:40 PM
One last comment to the new owner.
You can't buy a whore house and turn it into a tea room without losing your customers.
Don't expect many new customers. Would you want to have tea in an old whore house?
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 2:19:11 PM
I will be a new (actually a returning, old, pre whore-house) customer, Matthew, once the Shotgun acquires some competent bouncers. If you missed them before, you may wish to peruse my previous comments on this matter at:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2007/12/new-plans-for-w.html#c93037312
Merry Christmas
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-12-22 2:34:41 PM
Well Stan, I wouldn't want burst your bubble on what you have been conditioned to believe what Canada is suppose to be like....it is after all 'the holiday season'. Voices of reason will not be kept silent while the media mullahs push their agendas. Racist comments have, and will always be spewed by humans, regardless of their skin color...facts of life.
Oh, yeah and Merry Christmas to you All!
Posted by: prairie dog | 2007-12-22 2:41:24 PM
I was a proud subscriber to the old Alberta Report, and when that folded I continued with the Western Standard. Since that is now gone we only have the Western Standard online. I will subscribe to that when Mohammed Elmasry posts an apology on here that he is sorry for saying that every Jew over 18 is fair game.
Posted by: MikeP | 2007-12-22 3:10:53 PM
Stan Geddes,
You are misinformed. This is not about racism it is all about a global jihad that has the Western world in it's sights. We are part of that Western world.
Islam is comprised of many races from very black to very white and from all countries.
The West has many races from very black to very white.
This is about an ideology of enslavement and our right to defend ourselves with word and deed.
The Internet and the kangaroo courts of the CHRC is where the verbal battles are happening. Afghanistan and Iraq is where the physical battles are currently happening.
Also, in all kinds of other places around the world where there are Muslims who hate their neighbors simply because they are not Muslim. There may well be man Muslims who are not happy to go along with this, but I have not seen or heard from very many. I suspect they are afraid to speak out too.
Wise up.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-22 3:13:31 PM
I too have read OBC's many comments on this site and in fact have agreed with them on many occasions. I have found NOTHING to indicate a racist thought or suggestion and, to the contrary, have seen him admonish those that spew comments of a racial nature.
Before you start banning thoughtful comments about what the concerns of ordinary Canadians have, think well to your objectives.
I see the comment about my Asian grandchildren as being "little brown pieces of shit" is still contained in the archives.
It is my contention that OBC was co-opted by some malcontent that wanted to destroy him and this website by posting under his nic. If that is indeed the case, he has succeeded.
For those of you who wish to continue with racist and over-the-top comments, you know where to find my email address.
Posted by: atric | 2007-12-22 3:25:21 PM
Vitruvius~
i like your "pub" analogy. let me expand it.
why do people go to pubs?
they go to talk politics, argue, mingle, joke around, escape reality if only for awhile, get drunk and entertained, etc.
and, as private property rights should dictate, the owner should have the right to boot out anyone who does not conform to his customer standard.
i haven't been to a bar in years. but, know what? the most fun bars were those in which more than one type of person congregated. it made for an interesting evening out. sometimes, when the bouncers were more lax than usual, the action got intense enough to raise my blood pressure with excitement. not always positive, and the intellectual level tended downward at these times, but memorable.
same with a blog. in the heart of every racist lies a Statist collectivist. the people on this blog tend to be conservative/libertarian types. the odd racist, whether a collectivist fascist to the right or a collectivist commie to the left, gets my blood boiling and stimulates me to respond.
let the whackjobs and knuckleheads have their say. they bring the intellectual level down only for a moment. they expose the danger of ignorance and should be kept on blogs as examples of what not to be.
Vitruvius, warts n' all, it's FUN to be on this blog.
want a dead, unread blog? keep advocating for self censorship.
Posted by: shel | 2007-12-22 3:26:36 PM
It's fine to apologize if it's really sincere, truly realized as an error and warranted.
There are often ulterior motives for apologizing.
We witnessed the NDP apologizing in the HOC recently for falsely accusing people, sadly the damage was done and the apology was a farce, they accomplished what they wanted. The apology was to save face, nothing more.
I have concerns about apologizing for someone else. It's outrageous that our present Government should apologize for wrongs done decades ago by our forebears. We are not responsible for the sins and errors of others. It has no value aside from saying it was wrong and we disagree with it.
Christianity and those who practice it, Judaism and all other faiths in the world are Infidels in the eyes of Islam. It appears we are all fair game for all manner of abuse and threats, it's just the way it is.
It's far too acceptable for Islamist extremists to terrorize, kill and maim "Infidels" with impunity with too little condemnation from the mainstream, "normal" Muslims.
They do not apologize for them either.
We are the apologists for expressing opinions under our Charter Rights. Often for merely telling it as it is, telling the truth.
Is there something wrong with this picture?
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-22 3:28:47 PM
I am utterly offended at the disgrace brought to Freedom, Liberty, Democracy--as currently rought through this site.
It is ungentlmanly, and unladylike to cow to those who are not here to be like us--but rather to make us--FORCE US--to be like them.
And when I say that I am NOT talking about ALL!!!
There is legitimate criticism--and when that legitimate criticism is squished through litigiousness, then we are really in for it. Silence--from where I am coming from--simply stated--leads to some of the worst things humanly possible.
One goes away for a couple of weeks--and look what happens!
I will take the offence of those who are ALWAYS offended, seriousely, when they begin to be openly offended at the suicide bombings that are occurring in the name of their religion and dogma, through a dangerous ideology and cultural bagage of death (as the highest form of expression--frome where they are coming from) around the world. Until then it is as if a cow had been hatched in our own back yard--and it cheaps like a chick and moos like a cow.
PATHETIC!
I hope that everyone who cows to that has an absolutely horrific time next year--because there has never been any good in cowing to evil.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-22 3:37:09 PM
Shel, if self censorship implied a dead unread blog, then SDA (at which Kate does bounce people who have developed a reputation for vomiting on others) would be dead unread blog, not the winner four years in a row of the Best Canadian Blog award, not a site that now gets over a million visits a year.
As Kate mentioned yesterday, "One of Ezra's biggest mistakes was in dictating to his blog authors that they no longer had the right to delete offensive comments. When you own property, and allow the graffiti artists full reign, it shouldn't come as a surprise that both the attractiveness and value might fall as a result".
Further, there are other less traffic blogs that I frequent because of the relative high level of dialectics and rhetoric and relatively low level of drive-by vomiting. (I'll refrain from mentioning them because I don't want then to attract said vomiters.)
Nevertheless, what I prefer is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the owners of the New Shotgun property prefer. Once they make their decision, then I will make mine.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-12-22 3:41:56 PM
Excuse me Vicarious.
Your wonderful Kate doesn't need anyone else spewing hatred on her blog. She does a great job of that all by herself. She posted on WS several times over the last week, and caused such a reaction that they had to close the comments.
I'm sure that by eliminating most of the interesting, free thinking posters, your pseudointellectual rants will once again get top billing.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 4:36:31 PM
Vit,
I am not opposed to turfing trolls who bring down debate and argument to a level of name calling. However, unless someone is actually causing harm to another, there should be no censorship. I don't not think the CHRC should be the arbitrator of what is causing harm. We have liable laws and real courts to do that sort of thing.
I agree that Kate does a great job of keeping her blog intelligent, but there are still a few on there every day with little more than a megaphone and some verbal slop I don't ever see her apologizing for them to anyone.
If apologies become part of blogging fare then what I would expect to see more of is people from the Islamic world apologizing for what some of their fellow Islamists are doing all over the world all the time. They can't have only going one way.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-22 4:37:20 PM
dp,
Can you substantiate that claim about Kate's posting here? I find that hard to believe.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-22 4:38:53 PM
Check archives: Dec 11 and Dec 13
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 4:45:33 PM
In the comments I linked to above, John, at http://tinyurl.com/2rqhmf - I said:
"There have to be house rules, not on the thesis being argued, but on the style of argumentation. If one does not wish to be constrained by the rules on the nature of the rhetorical forms that are considered by the house to be reasonable in support of one's dialectic position, then one can simply seek out some other pub where their style is supported, or start such a pub of their own".
Frankly, I wish Kate would be a bit stricter about the degree of verbal slop she allows in, but that's up to her, not me. As I said, there are lots of other interesting blogs; my job is to pick the ones I like to hang out at, not to demand that others run their blogs the way I would wish them to.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-12-22 4:46:57 PM
And dp,
You are not paying attention ... there is nothing pseudo about Vitruvius. I have been reading his comments for a long time. He is no dummy.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-22 4:50:03 PM
I didn't say he was stupid. But who wants to listen to someone go on and on like a junior high teacher who just did his first hit of mescaline?
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 4:55:32 PM
dp,
You don't actually have to 'listen' to anyone. This is text and you don't need to read it all. Usually the first and last paragraphs will tell you if you want to read the entire content.
With auto mouse scrolling available now, you don't even have to tire out your index finger scrolling past it.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-22 4:58:49 PM
Thank you for your kind words, John. In general I just ignore people who have nothing more to contribute than gratuitous ad hominems; it is when a blog degenerates to the point that most comments are ad hominems that I call a cab.
Perhaps another way to conceptualize the problem is this. What is the purpose of the blog? If the purpose is to attract people who make sufficiently intelligent arguments such that they may actually affect what reasonable people think about an issue, then hosting unreasonable people is going to interfere with that purpose.
On the other hand, if the purpose of a blog is to provide an outlet for people who reasonable people otherwise wouldn't associate with, then the constraints are looser.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-12-22 5:08:36 PM
dp,
Seen and even more offended than before ref 111207, 131207...I typically stay on top of the news AND totally missed that one, until today.
I was away--indulging in some heavenly-bliss--and although I am back, I remain offended that whatever was said is now beyond--well beyond--the respect that was what we once had--that no matter what is said, in freedom of speach we could have said something--and then having found out otherwise--learnt--now whatever it is is gone from view--and I can only imagine.
I will only say this--Sudan USED to be a free nation--with free votes--and freedom from submission. Submission has brought them death--and no one has the freedom there to speak the truth.
Same as this place--I suppose.
It is, after all, part of their plan.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-22 5:12:18 PM
Vit,
I think we are basically on the same page with some minor differences. Perhaps it's only my gut has a bit more influence over my thinking than yours does from time to time. We do have our own personal natures to deal with when we open our jaws and let it out.
I don't know if I will be able to continue on this blog if it becomes as controlled as I thing it might. The the fear of lawsuits and HRC charges might be the undoing of the Shotgun. Ezra is in that quag right now.
I am hoping the Mark Steyn/Macleans adventure will serve to chop down the CHRC so the rest of us can speak more easily about what drives us crazy.
Freedom to bitch is one of the last things we have left in Canada. If that goes, this place will get very ugly.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-22 5:19:41 PM
Vit,
I think we are basically on the same page with some minor differences. Perhaps it's only my gut has a bit more influence over my thinking than yours does from time to time. We do have our own personal natures to deal with when we open our jaws and let it out.
I don't know if I will be able to continue on this blog if it becomes as controlled as I thing it might. The the fear of lawsuits and HRC charges might be the undoing of the Shotgun. Ezra is in that quag right now.
I am hoping the Mark Steyn/Macleans adventure will serve to chop down the CHRC so the rest of us can speak more easily about what drives us crazy.
Freedom to bitch is one of the last things we have left in Canada. If that goes, this place will get very ugly.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-22 5:20:00 PM
Lady
Putting aside some healthy disagrements, what do you think would be an appropriate way of showing support for obc among others? I've been on the wrong end of a few comments, but I still support his right to make them.
As for Sudan, did you ever read (our see the movie) Khartoum? They've been in a world of s**t ever since they butchered "Chinese" Gordon.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 5:23:13 PM
I too think we are on the same page, John. I too think that people should have freedom to bitch, and much more, but that applies at the State level. Freedom of speech means the State may not proscribe your speech. (And even then, every State has some limits on speech, such as slander, and I don't think most reasonable people want to do away with that.)
Nevertheless, the New Shotgun is not the State, it is a private property. I ask you this dear readers: would you let someone come into your house and shout obscenities at your spouse, children, and friends? Would let someone come into your business if they wandered around insulting your customers? So, why should the New Shotgun?
Anyone who doesn't like someone else's house rules is of course free to open up their own house to the public and let in whomever they want.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-12-22 5:31:46 PM
dp--no matter what our dissagreements, I have always respected your right to say whatever you believe in...same with obc...and same with whoever...so long as it has not been hyjacking freedom and disrespectful. Badly thought out posts could have been deleted, while leaving the debate going---yet removing an entire thread is simply insane! It is insanity! It is something that would make Stalin proud!
This site was the best place to speak from the heart--no matter how right or how wrong. The different views were real learning. I am grateful for having read those views--no matter what. I felt at peace here...even in the midst of the strongest possible debates...because I was safe.
The only way I feel that we can do justice to freedom of speach, AND OBC is to abandone this site, and go see what Levant gets going...for the meantime, one more "hit" (meaning going from page to page and providing hits and adding to the stats of this site--therefore the wealth) is too many and too much.
Those who live to appease will fail to see the dangers that are apparent to me. My foremothers and forefathers lived in the lands where everyone became forced to cow--and fled them. In days gone by my people were called Arabs who practiced Judaism, who traced their origins to the holy lands, where we were called the children of Israel. Now, we found freedom, and now it is being taken away--piece by piece. Today--we are Canadian--yet tomorrow--if things continue--who knows.
First they came for teh Saturday people....
I cannot stomach what I have seen...it is unerving, so it is not boycott that I propose--because that means you will one day come back...I mean total abandonement.... Abadoneing freedom is not the Western Standard. Although a rose, by any other name, is still a rose--this is an entirely new species. It is not a rose--thorns and petals and all--so I must go.
Fairwell--be safe--and continue in freedom. It is clear today--from what I have learnt, that freedom--the real freedom fighters--are now going underground. By that I mean the free voices have no place in public view--where blogs were what got them into the open and above ground.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-22 5:40:32 PM
Hi John, it's me again. I your first comment above, you wrote: "Matthew Johnston, you have apologized for other people whom you don't even know. They spoke freely on this blog and if they broke no laws, there is nothing to apologize for."
Continuing with my above analogies, say you invited someone into your house, and they went out the back door and vomited on your neighbour's steps. Would you not apologize to your neighbour?
I will argue that hate crimes are a bad idea. I will argue the the HRCs are anacronistic kangaroo courts that should be abolished. Yet I do not see how others have the right to force one to violate the existing statutes in their name.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-12-22 5:44:02 PM
Vit,
The arguement that the public is your house is the arguement used in the middle east (excluding), to argue against the freedom of the west. If I invite a guest into my house, and they happen to spill wine, then the western way is to spill yours as well, so your guests do not feel uncomfortable. I heard it and read it with my own ears. Clearly you know that arguement, and agree with it--but this Canada IS my house--and here in Canada, people are free to say whatever they want. If you don't like it, then kindly stuff-it in a pipe and smoke it!
This site is now a wasteland....
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-22 5:46:30 PM
Vitrius ~
One problem with your analogy - the rules, if they WERE broken, were done so under previous management without a word of admonishment. In other words, there were no rules in place then.
Do you remember Roger who posted vile comments under his own name AND mine? He was a pro-Islamic racist but the Muslim groups did NOT utter a word when he reigned over this site.
When nics were hijacked and postings aired that were inimical to the original nic owner, it took WEEKS to have them removed.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-22 5:49:46 PM
[offensive comment deleted and IP address reported]
Posted by: A Canadian | 2007-12-22 6:02:06 PM
As a matter of jurisprudential precedent, Lady, people in Canada are not free to say whatever they want. We may wish it were so, completely or to varying degrees, yet it remains the case that the law is the law.
Now I will note that Thomas Jefferson said, "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
I happen to agree with him. I don't think a person is morally required to submit to a law they think is egregious (though they will have to weigh the axiological cost of the mandated punishment if they are caught or fail). Nevertheless, it's up to me, not you, whether or not I do so in a particular case. And so it is with the owners of any non-State blog.
Please note, OBC, that I have not been discussing the details of any particular event in the past. I am discussing the nature and properties of the New Shotgun.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-12-22 6:04:43 PM
Vit ~
In that case, I agree with you in principle.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-22 6:08:02 PM
vitruvius~
i agree with everything you've said on your last post (5:31:46).
i've not read Kate's blog, so don't know what she mediates and lets go. is her blog popular because she's strict? or is there something else involved? we all have biases, blinders, and different standards of what constitutes obscenity and poor taste. i have a sneaking suspicion she lets go more than an average blog (unlike the boring nazis at the Globe and CTV). at any rate, i'll be the judge of that when i check it out.
a blog does not become popular because it self censors and mediates. it becomes popular because it is interesting.
i'll bet ya five, count'em, FIVE WHOLE DOLLARS, :)if Mr. Johnston refused to capitulate, this issue would have hit the msm, and this blog would have gotten bigger than it is (and it's not doing too badly now...).
Posted by: shel | 2007-12-22 6:09:51 PM
[offensive comment deleted and IP address reported]
Posted by: A Canadian | 2007-12-22 6:11:52 PM
Vit ~
Of course, we can extrapolate from this that bar owners should be the ones to decide if smoking is permitted in their establishments - and let the public decide if they care to frequent their bars.
BUT NOOOOOO! The nanny state has decided it will regulate private businesses in this regard.
I wonder if they will one day send their agents into these same bars to eavesdrop on conversations to ensure that no one is "offended" by the patrons who express politically incorrect opinions there.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-22 6:12:49 PM
Hey Vociferous- It's like fingernails on a blackboard.
Don't worry, you've got the place to yourself. The party is moving on. You can surely impress the maid while she's cleaning up.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 6:13:47 PM
How come these so-called Imam's never have to apologize for the anti-west racist and hateful messages they sermonize in the mosques, in order to bring down liberal and open society?
Is it because the post-colonial leftists are controlling the human rights tribunals?
And I am a proud apostate. Eat your hearts out leftists, post-colonials, and post-moderns.
Posted by: Muslim Apostate | 2007-12-22 6:21:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.