The Shotgun Blog
« Obama clinches nomination | Main | 1080p Patton - a Revelation »
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
This is a hate crime in motion!
Ezra and Andrew Coyne are both reporting that this post on the Western Standard's blog was just mentioned at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing.
As evidence of rampant Islamophobia, no doubt.
Interestingly, my built in Firefox spell-checker does not recognizing "Islamophobia" as a word -- I wonder why?
UPDATE:
Faisal Joseph thinks we're all idiots.
Posted by Terrence Watson on June 3, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e552b795808834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This is a hate crime in motion!:
Comments
Is this the one that featured a call for Muslim genocide in the comments? I have that as being Dec 5
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-06-03 1:30:57 PM
BCL,
There are some deleted comments in that thread around December 5th -- maybe the one you mention was one of those? If there is still a call to genocide in that thread, or any other, please let us know, and someone will take care of it.
Thanks,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-03 1:34:19 PM
I'm thinking the one that got Soharwardy ticked, which you then worked out between you. So post was written Dec 2, offending comment appeared Dec 5. You then removed it. Does that sound right?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-06-03 1:38:06 PM
You could almost certainly make a case that the comment was Islamophobic, couldn't you though?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-06-03 1:56:33 PM
You could almost certainly make a case that the comment was Islamophobic, couldn't you though?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 3-Jun-08 1:56:33 PM
Actually you can't make that case. One case you can make is a former liberal PM was responsible for the release from prison of an al-Qaeda terrorist. The question I have for you bigcitylib is, when will the LPC cut it links with terrorists?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-03 2:28:40 PM
Is this the one that featured a call for Muslim genocide in the comments? I have that as being Dec 5
Posted by: bigcitylib | 3-Jun-08 1:30:57 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361705,00.html
Will the liberals call for a human rights tribunal on Ahmadinejad, or are going to stick with their true beliefs and continue to cozy up to terrorists? What's the answer bigcitylib?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-03 2:52:59 PM
BCL,
People say stupid, evil things on the Internet. Anonymity (perceived or otherwise) seems to help with that.
Do you think Ezra's post was Islamophobic?
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-03 3:29:44 PM
Stop Muslim immigration now.
Posted by: JP | 2008-06-03 4:15:02 PM
I wish I had a dollar for every time someone on some blog or web forum called for a genocide of somebody. Of course, 99 times out of every hundred, it is the Jews that are being threatened, so you know, Mr. Soharwardy and Mr. Elmasry aren't all that concerned.
Posted by: RM | 2008-06-03 4:20:25 PM
I have read and heard countless times for many years now from various Muslim imams, terrorists and other Islamic leaders that Islam is sworn to destroy the West and eventually rule the world for Allah.
They have blown up a lot of stuff and killed a lot of innocent people already for simply being Westerners or Jews.
By their words and actions, they have convinced me that they want me and my family dead or living in dhimmitude. Their terrorism has generated a certain amount of fear and loathing in me and many others I know, as is natural.
I believe that has made me somewhat phobic around Islam. Therefore, I can probably be considered Islamophobic, but they started it! I was ambivalent about Muslims until they stepped up their threats and murders.
Since these lunatics decided to terrorize me and my family diminished my quality of life and sense of well-being has been diminished. I am injured.
Whom exactly should I take to the CHRC to claim compensation?
Also ... We need to end all Muslim immigration to Canada NOE. Keep them out until they learn to live in peace with those who are not the violent lunatics they are.
Big City Lib ... you can kiss my big old hairy ass. You are already a dhimmi and a dummy.
Posted by: John West | 2008-06-03 5:18:34 PM
If you search the archives you can find all sorts of dim bulbs claiming genocide on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Take Lefty99 for instance: this star intellectual repeatedly claimed here that the West was responsible for genocide in Africa because of our responsibility for global warming. I can't count the times he called me a murderer for denying AGW as established fact.
Given the calls for interning, censoring, censuring for the "deniers", I would call that hate speech. And let's not forget those who call humans a cancer on the planet and openly muse about plagues wiping out most if not humanity.
Where are the investigations of these misanthropes? I find them offensive.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-03 5:42:01 PM
Terrence, I think Ezra is totally an Islamophobe and the post was Islamophobic. I think Merle thinks so too, although he isn't talking much these days.
As for Soharwardy, he's walking across Canada to preach peace. Ezra's hustling up funds to pay for the various lawsuits he's been hit with. Who do you think is the better Canadian?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-06-03 6:02:29 PM
BCL,
"As for Soharwardy, he's walking across Canada to preach peace. Ezra's hustling up funds to pay for the various lawsuits he's been hit with. Who do you think is the better Canadian?"
I really can't say. But is that really a relevant question? You're not saying that a person's speech rights should be protected less just because he's an unpleasant human being, are you?
I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying, which is why I still don't see the relevance of the question. Surely we should care whenever anyone's rights are violated, no matter what we think of his or her character.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-03 6:09:58 PM
BCL
"Ezra's hustling up funds to pay for the various lawsuits he's been hit with. Who do you think is the better Canadian?"
Are you saying that victims of specious and frivilous lawsuits can't also be good Canadians?
Or are you saying that victims of specious and frivilous lawsuits shouldn't defend themselves?
Help me out here. Start with your definition of what a good Canadian is? Please finish with what we should do with those who don't measure up to your standars of being good Canadians?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-03 6:11:59 PM
From Ezra's blog: "Dammit I'm a lucky man. You're known for your friends -- and you're also known for your enemies. I'm pleased to have the second-rate anti-Semites of the CIC condemning the Western Standard's website -- a website with several excellent pro-freedom Muslim bloggers, by the way, including the great Kalim Kassam, and the Iranian refugee, 'Winston'."
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-06-03 6:43:36 PM
Who do you think is the better Canadian?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 3-Jun-08 6:02:29 PM
Would you consider someone who got a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist out of prison a good Canadian?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-03 8:12:50 PM
"Who do you think is the better Canadian?"
Posted by: bigcitylib | 3-Jun-08 6:02:29 PM
And here I thought the libs believed in equality. Now I see there is a hierarchy of Canadians. Some good, some iffy, some not so good.
I guess liberals who inhabit big cities aren't opposed to questioning someone's patriotism after all. What's next? A loyalty oath?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-03 8:21:07 PM
Asking "who do you think is the better Canadian" is simply tragic. Whatever happened to 'diversity'?
Oh yeah. Well, with Ontario reviving Apartheid, what is old is now new. Pathetic.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-03 8:27:44 PM
"Would you consider someone who got a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist out of prison a good Canadian?
Posted by: The Stig | 3-Jun-08 8:12:50 PM"
Depends on which court convicted him, on what their standard for evidence was, and on the competence of his/her lawyer. I think we're all learning about the importance of "proper" court proceedings from this farce of a "trial/tribunal" in British Columbia.
I hope you haven't left, bigcitylib, because I like Terrence's question. What does being a good Canadian have to do with whether or not you should be legally permitted to criticize or opine?
If your point is different (like, for instance, that we shouldn't think Ezra is a nice guy, and that Soharwardy is a nice guy), then I'd like to hear you say that.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-06-03 8:30:49 PM
Hey P.M.
There is a charitable way to frame the point here (and I'm not claiming this is BCL's point -- just that it might be.)
Suppose we have two people, Mr. Nice and Mr. Mean. Because we have limited resources, we might be able to fully protect both of their rights at the same time. For example, if we protect Mr. Nice's rights 100% of the time, we will only be able to protect Mr. Mean's rights 50% of the time. Or something like that.
Think of trying to allocate police officers among a neighborhood of mean people and a neighborhood of nice people. It does not seem _entirely_ obvious to me that the officers should be allocated without regard to the niceness or meanness of the people in either neighborhood.
We usually think of rights and desert as occupying different moral dimensions. That still seems like the right view to me, but I wonder what you think of the example I just sketched.
T.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-03 8:41:53 PM
Based on BCL's comments here one could conclude that he is both anti-Semitic and a Christianophobe. That is assuming that one thought and reasoned in the same manner. Just cut the crap BCL for first there is no such thing as Islamophobe and secondly having your feelings hurt is just part of life.
Save the name calling, so typical of lefties, for Mr. Levant has never written or indicated anything suggesting that he hates all Muslims. That is more than one can say about the Saudi trained cleric whom you view as an ideal Canadian. No wonder Canada is in such a mess.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-06-03 9:03:10 PM
Depends on which court convicted him, on what their standard for evidence was, and on the competence of his/her lawyer.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 3-Jun-08 8:30:49 PM
The terrorist was Ahmad Said Khadr and the "good" Canadian was Chretien. So it's not a hypothetical question. I'll ask the question to bigcitylib again, when will the LPC cut its ties with terrorists?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-03 9:15:49 PM
Terrence,
"There is a charitable way to frame the point here"
Being charitable or generous toward an opponent is appropriate in a civilized discourse.
However, that goes both ways.
BCL stated unequivocably,
"As for Soharwardy, he's walking across Canada to preach peace. Ezra's hustling up funds to pay for the various lawsuits he's been hit with."
He categorized Soharwardy as peaceful and implies Ezra as a conman of some sort.
Before the quibbles start, I'll rephrase:
He portrays Soharwardy positively and Ezra less than positively.
Then sticks in the "good Canadian" test of merit as a sly way of appying who is worthy of being a Canadian.
If I were being less than generous, I'd chalk up the "divided loyalty" seque as a typical Lefty blood libel. But I won't! Or did I just do it anyway? I'm so confused by the ever shifting verbal games of post-modern debates.
Maybe I should just let Allah sort it out.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-03 9:30:33 PM
"Good Canadians"? We all know where the whole lot of them live = Toronto. No others need apply.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-03 9:44:16 PM
Terrence: Great question. I like it, and I agree with you. If the situation is as you describe it (you know, the real world, with limited resources for police and court protection), then it seems we should protect the rights of the Nices more than the Meanies.
We can still agree on this principle: The General Principle (TGP): "Everyone ought to have their rights protected."
And this principle: Merit(niceness?)-Based Priority (MBP): "Whenever you have insufficient resources to defend the rights of everyone, defend the rights of those who merit it most first, merit it less second."
And this proviso on MBP: Non-Diminishing Rights Proviso (NDRP): "On the condition that MBP does not diminish respect for rights in general."
Incidentally (and I don't know if this was coming across), I was trying to be charitable to bigcitylib. I was putting the question to him, and leaving it up to him to either defend the position that (it seemed to me) he was putting forward, or correct my interpretation if I was wrong.
The principle of charity, by the way (this is to h2o), applies regardless of how mean or pleasant your interlocutor is. And it doesn't mean that you're nice to the guy, it just means that you use the best possible interpretation of an argument you can (and by "best" is meant: the most persuasive). No one gets anywhere if the argument reduces to: "That's not what I meant."
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-06-03 9:58:30 PM
P.M.J.
"The principle of charity, by the way (this is to h2o), applies regardless of how mean or pleasant your interlocutor is. And it doesn't mean that you're nice to the guy, it just means that you use the best possible interpretation of an argument you can (and by "best" is meant: the most persuasive). No one gets anywhere if the argument reduces to: "That's not what I meant.""
Yes. I quite agree. That's what I was trying to say in a very clumsy way.
I was trying to point out that BCL wasn't being very charitable in his assessment of Ezra, his arguments, nor his character.
If we are to be generous in how we interpret BCLs arguments (and we should), don't be surprised if that generosity evaporates when we learn our opponent won't reciprocate.
If he'll do it Ezra, he'll do it to you.
I wonder if that makes me less than a good Canadian, as well?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-03 10:32:39 PM
May I give my opinion on who's the better Canadian? Perhaps my method of measurement might reflect the opinions of the lowbrow working class background I come from.
First of all, which one is contributing more to the economy? Which one has created employment opportunities for Canadians?
Second, which one has been more of a burden to the system? Living off public, and/or private donations while pertetually burdening our legal system with cases that mean absolutely nothing to 90% of Canadians might be considered counter productive. On the other hand, starting businesses and taking advantage of tax credits might appear a burden. I guess we can weigh the merits of both career paths.
And which man represents the hopes and fears of more Canadians? Last time I asked around, 100% of the people I deal with like this country the way it is. Only one of these guys wants to make sweeping changes to the religious/political landscape. He's scaring the hell out of a lot of people. We all know he doesn't really come in peace.
So by my standards Mr. Levant is the better Canadian.
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-03 10:44:16 PM
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 3-Jun-08 1:34:19 PM
Are you saying that you actual censor free speech? What is the threshold here? Genocide? Or what about threats of violence?
I remember rather clearly that on more than one occasion someone on here posted personal information of mine not to mention posting threats to my person. I also remember the deafening silence of all the "crusaders" on here who seem to stand for "upright citizens".
Guess only if your own ass is on the line your delete button gets some action.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-03 11:30:31 PM
Snowrunner,
"Are you saying that you actual censor free speech?"
Don't be silly. This forum is private property. The owners can determine what can and can't be said here. If they don't want to look at comments advocating genocide, they can have them removed. What's the big deal about that?
Sorry if people have threatened you around here. That shouldn't happen and if those comments were made on one of my threads I would delete them immediately. I'm sure others would do the same.
But, really, why are you trying to equate government censorship with the control I exercise over my living room when/if I choose to remove someone from it? Isn't there a difference?
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-03 11:41:58 PM
Snowy
"I remember rather clearly that on more than one occasion someone on here posted personal information of mine not to mention posting threats to my person. I also remember the deafening silence of all the "crusaders" on here who seem to stand for "upright citizens"."
We've been down this road before. I wasn't there to stand up for you and I would have. However, you brought this up once before and I agreed with you that it was not proper and the person should be chastised. So I'll do it again because you seem to have a short memory.
It is wrong to threaten Snowy or anyone with harm and wrong to post their personal information.
Happy?
Now, I would appreciate a bit more charitable interpretation of the various people here instead of referring to ALL the "crusaders" here as if this is some monolithic echo chamber and you are being unfairly vilified.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-04 6:26:53 AM
Yes, John West...
What you say is really true...and many, many, many people in Canada feel this way...those who pay any attention at all...but they quiver silently in their living rooms afraid to share their beliefs openly...
Sick and tired of these lunatics...From the first big news story that allowed us all to be aware of how their influence can infect the daily lives of sane people...over the death threats to Salhmon R. I am outraged and have been for years at what these crackpots are allowed to get away with in the name of religion...They are the new Hitler youth in Canada...We still have a chance..Europe is done for...
Posted by: cosmic | 2008-06-04 6:28:50 AM
Anybody walked around carrying a forbidden book lately, like the soon to be Steyn book, or a Salmon R. book...or defiled a Koran in any way such as reading your copy in English and with no kleenex having to sneeze and not wanting to sneeze all over people in front or back, putting up the open book to catch the snot and then having to rip out the page rather than shut the book with flem and snot sticking the pages together......
Then being assaulted for this...
I know a female senior who did this in Toronto in a subway station coming up past the newsstand vendor and was chased, then threatened by death, then physically assaulted, by the news stand attendant who was defending His honor and His religion and His holy book. He grabbed the womans hand and tried to rip her book from her. He chased her up the escalator and out the door. Afterall, he has made a stand there..It is his area how..and he has a right to chase her out. Police informed her that what she did was a Hate crime and that the much physically stronger younger man who was within his rights to intimidate, chase, threaten, usher death threats...and further more he could press charges...even though the whole incident was clearly on video...
The following day just to show support and make their claim to the area and their presence known......a huge gathering occured at the park across from the subway station...over 40 full Burka wearing girls and their many many many children along with another group of husbands who sat adjacent them...
Vivala Canada...
Posted by: cosmic | 2008-06-04 7:00:59 AM
I have bought and read Mark Steyn's book "America Alone", I have watched the movie "The Davinci Code"., and I will read Salmon's books also, if I can find them. Why?, because certain religions say I can't.
Posted by: Glenn | 2008-06-04 9:02:24 AM
The fact that this Vancouver-based version of the Canadian Kangaroo Court system considered the linked posting of this Blog as evidence tells me that this (equivalent to a) private conversation is fair game for the Thought Police.
Would it be charitable and reciprocal to ask that what is said in all Mosques be recorded and brought in front of one of these tribunals or is that an admission that free speech is now lost and resentment-politics is kicking-in? Something for the Islamists and their left-lib cheerleaders to consider.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-06-04 9:59:06 AM
The CIC's claim that they speak on behalf of ALL Muslims in the world, and that the action is on behalf of all is unravelling.
This is a gong show and when people start laughing AT you, your case is done.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-06-04 10:43:28 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.