let em talk

[46zilzal]

Years ago I got the opportunity to see a propaganda classic, Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl. I had recently seen the Battleship Potemkin and did not want to miss the chance to witness, for myself, what this controversial film actually contained. In order to see this however, a group of us had to endure a lecture from the head of the American Nazi Party, the soon to be assassinated, George Lincoln Rockwell.

Like most "Shock talkers" he began a long winded rant on how the Jewish race was responsible for all the maladies from time immemorial. Some Jewish students, really angry over this bile, stood up and turned their backs on him while the rest of us listened and could not believe anyone, with any sense of the obvious, could fall prey to the lunacy he was emoting.

Over the years hence, it is obvious that these shock talkers are all about the genesis of anger in their audiences, not about any factual discussion. Billy Sunday tried to blame all the ills of the world on alcohol, Tail Gunner Joseph McCarthy said it was all about the clandestine, and obviously invisible Commies, Pat Robertson and the nutty tele-evangelists make headlines with their outlandish crap ("the purple teletubbie is gay"), Stern the shock jock of radio does it with outlandish talk as does Madonna in reinventing herself every so often to add to the old saying:"The only thing worse than bad press, is no press at all."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/ann-coulter-prepares-human-rights-complaint/article1510468/

So another version of the same clown is now making the rounds of Canadian Universities spewing out the same crap that old George Lincoln Rockwell did all those years ago. With just as much fact on her side as he had, and just as much vile and simplistic logic, she is meeting much of the same negative response as did the old Nazi.

I for one say let her talk. She is just as full of shit as all the rest so let the content of her malarkey be the standard to evaluate her, not just WHO she is.

[Tom]

I agree - let everyone talk.
But, in reality, anyone on the right is generally shouted down and protested. The left is usually AFRAID to hear the message of the right.
Especially those who are campus-protected.

Wassup wit the college kids - afraid to hear something not on their agenda?

[Greyfox]

Canadians are afraid to hear a Virgin Wolf's bark??:D

[boxcar]

Years ago I got the opportunity to see a propaganda classic, Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl. I had recently seen the Battleship Potemkin and did not want to miss the chance to witness, for myself, what this controversial film actually contained. In order to see this however, a group of us had to endure a lecture from the head of the American Nazi Party, the soon to be assassinated, George Lincoln Rockwell.

Like most "Shock talkers" he began a long winded rant on how the Jewish race was responsible for all the maladies from time immemorial. Some Jewish students, really angry over this bile, stood up and turned their backs on him while the rest of us listened and could not believe anyone, with any sense of the obvious, could fall prey to the lunacy he was emoting.

Now, just substitute "Shock Talkers" for Democrats and "Jewish race" for the Private Sector, and we see that the same scenario is repeating itself today. All that's different is the time, the people and the object of hate. (Also, remember, the Private Sector is the villain in man-made global warming and is the cause environmental Armageddon that is just awaiting us all around the next turn.)

Good post Zil. I thank you for contributing to one of my great analogies. :ThmbUp: I especially love this line:

Over the years hence, it is obvious that these shock talkers are all about the genesis of anger in their audiences, not about any factual discussion.

How, true, how true. However, you let me down with this with one:


Billy Sunday tried to blame all the ills of the world on alcohol, Tail Gunner Joseph McCarthy said it was all about the clandestine, and obviously invisible Commies

Commies are not spirits. Unfortunately, they are alive and well and kicking and breathing human beings and their leaders rule such countries as Russia, China, N. Korea, etc, etc., etc. They're literally all over the world and even right here in our own backyard. Even Al Sharpton this past Sunday in an extremely rare and shocking moment of honesty was surprised that anyone else could be surprised at BO's socialist agenda. In essence, Sharpton was saying, if you didn't want socialism, why did you vote for BO? The only fault I find with his sentiments is that he didn't go far enough. BO is more than a mere, common, run-of-the-mill socialist (which would be bad enough!), and I would bet my very life that he's a Marxist to the core!


Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Canadians are afraid to hear a Virgin Wolf's bark??:D
If you had read the article the university canceled the talk because they could not be sure that some in the crowd might physically assault the woman.

[Greyfox]

If you had read the article the university canceled the talk because they could not be sure that some in the crowd might physically assault the woman.

Geez you make some painfully stupid assumptions for a man with degrees.
I read the article. I also noted that she was threatened with being charged with dissemination of Hate.

Of course, you should have known that I read the article. Nowhere in your first post rant do you mention Anne Coulter which I thought was another serious omission.

[rastajenk]

I was going to mention this in the Wal-Mart thread, Mr. Zilly. Here is (http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/03/ann-coulter.html) another link about Coulter in Canada. From the article: "In his letter Houle [the university's vice-president academic and provost] warned Coulter that "promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

You OK with criminalizing thought, Zilly? Is that how they do that up there in your neck of civilization? I know you've already said let her talk, but what if she ends up in the pokey? Seems more than a little Orwellian, doesn't it? But it's not rightwing fascists leading the charge; its liberal fascists, the kind you claim don't exist. I think here is pretty good proof they do.

[46zilzal]

You OK with criminalizing thought, Zilly? Is that how they do that up there in your neck of civilization? I know you've already said let her talk, but what if she ends up in the pokey?
You either mis-read or did not read the opening statement at all. LET the fool talk and I gave several examples of just how outrageous the idiots I've heard over the years promote the same idiocy she and the others cited have barfed out.

Would not matter what place on any political spectrum this lady placed herself: let the content of the speech be heard for all to evaluate.

[Tom]

Ms. Coulter said her aides told her protestors had been advised by some of her opponents to give her a rough welcome. “The liberal blogs were saying bring rocks and sticks and tar and feathers and don’t let Ann Coulter escape unharmed today.”

Wow. What a motley crew, you Canadians.
An after we gave so many of you the health care you "canoot" get at home.
:lol:

[mostpost]

If they, could not be sure that some in the crowd might physically assault the woman. they should have hired someone. Never count on someone else to do what you want done. :rolleyes:

[rastajenk]

Yeah, I read the "opening statement." You said, let em talk; it's the title of the thread. I took it to mean you're OK with letting her address the students; that's good. But what if, after the expression of controversial ideas, she has to face a judge, or worse, an administrative panel to answer to her "crime?" Are you OK with that? What I'm getting at is the difference between suppression of free speech before the act, and punishment after the act. What good is the former if you have to deal with the latter? I guess in Canadia they're OK with the term "chilling effect."

[46zilzal]

Speech is not crime, never was never will be.

If others want to judge it somehow, let em, as it matters not to me.

[Greyfox]

Ann Coulter spoke the other evening at The University of Western Ontario. Her speech was described by those there as stimulating and entertaining, whether or not you agreed with her.

Last night protests were inspired by:
1. Francis Houle - a Vice President at the University of Ottawa who cautioned Coulter on what she could and could not say, blah, blah, blah.
2. Student thugs looking to protest, and who were aware of Houle's comments.

The situation was deemed unsafe by Coulter's body guards.

The University of Ottawa should hang its head in shame on that serious attack on the freedom of speech. Canadians everywhere should be embarrassed and ashamed.

Coulter's remarks should hit home with them.
She said:
"I've never had any trouble at the Ivy league schools. It's always the bush league schools....This has never, ever, ever happened before - even at the
stupidest American University.....I've been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given."

Coulter will be speaking tonight at The University of Calgary, hopefully they are not as backwards as the Ottawa students.

[rastajenk]

If others want to judge it somehow, let em, as it matters not to me.It doesn't matter to you if someone is punished by the state for their thoughts? Wow.

[BenDiesel26]

Speech is not crime, never was never will be.

If others want to judge it somehow, let em, as it matters not to me.

As a Canadian, can you inform us as to the laws in place where she would face legal action for a speech (nothing more than spoken words) as the chancellor implied? This is interesting.

[NJ Stinks]

I'd like to say I feel sorry for Ann Coulter but I'd be lying.

[46zilzal]

As a Canadian, can you inform us as to the laws in place where she would face legal action for a speech (nothing more than spoken words) as the chancellor implied? This is interesting.
I have no idea and I was born in Georgia

[BenDiesel26]

I have no idea and I was born in Georgia

Are you not a Canadian?

[Greyfox]

I have no idea and I was born in Georgia

And you have no interest to google Canada + Hate + Freedom of Speech
and find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

then scroll down the page to the Canada tag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

(I would know the laws of the land if I lived there.)

[Rookies]

This is an article directly related to the matter in question from the Canadian Jewish Congress.... (CJC) See: http://www.cjc.ca/hate-speech/

Hate Speech
Introduction

"Canadian Jewish Congress believes that both the criminal and human rights law in Canada require provisions to deal with matters relating to hate speech. We believe that both criminal and civil tracks are necessary to indicate society’s abhorrence for hateful speech and the consequences of such speech.

Canada’s criminal and human rights codes provide protection against expressions of hatred and contempt directed against individuals or communities that are distinct because of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. Such protections are found in virtually every democracy, with the exception of the United States of America, where the principle of free speech is interpreted in a very broad and expansive fashion. That said, even in the United States, there are statements which are deemed to be unworthy of constitutional protection. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right in any jurisdiction. It is the responsibility of lawmakers and the judiciary to determine where the line between the permissible and the impermissible will be drawn.

Legislation

The Criminal Code of Canada contains three sections pertaining to hate speech:


Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide against an identifiable group;


Section 319(1) makes it an offense to communicate statements in a public place that will incite hatred against an identifiable group, and thereby lead to a breach of the peace; and


Section 319(2) makes it an offense to communicate statements, other than in private conversation, which willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.
Sections 318 and 319(2) require the consent of the relevant provincial attorney general before charges can be laid. This acts as a safeguard to ensure that freedom of speech is impaired in as minimal a fashion as possible.

Canadians may also gain protection against hate speech through the Canadian Human Rights Act and the codes which are enforced by provincial human rights commissions. This webpage focuses on the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states that

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

There are a number of differences between the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act provisions.


The intent of the criminal code is to punish wrong doing while the purpose of human rights law is to ameliorate conditions in society and provide education so that infractions do not re-occur;
While the burden of proof for criminal offenses is proof beyond a reasonable doubt the human rights code relies on the standard that is used in civil proceedings, where decisions are based on a balance of probabilities; and
In criminal proceedings, the Crown must prove that the accused had the intent to break the law (this is especially clear in section 319(2) which speaks to wilful promotion of hatred), while such intent is not required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
These sections of the criminal and human rights codes have received significant attention since their inception and have been under increasing scrutiny since 2007 when human rights complaints were filed against Maclean’s magazine for publishing an article by Mark Steyn, and against Ezra Levant for his publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons” in the now-defunct Western Standard. These complaints have now been rejected by the various provincial and national human rights commissions. No matter, the question of Free Speech is firmly placed in the public square.

While critics of hate speech provisions may have somewhat mixed feelings on the inclusion of such an offence in the Criminal Code, many believe that section 13 has no justification. Indeed, strident critics of this section have charged that it provides the basis for punishment for “thought crime” and that speech should be completely unfettered except in those rare cases where it presents a clear and present danger to society."

[boxcar]

Stay tuned, folks, for this too will soon happen in Amerika -- the Land of the Once Free and Home of the Slave.

Boxcar

[rastajenk]

Here are some comments from Mark Steyn (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGFlZjc2MmUyZDZhMmQ1NjZmOTMxYTMxNTM0MDFkMzQ=), who has had a close encounter with the Canadian Human Rights Commission himself.

"Dean Steacy, lead investigator of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission:
Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value."

How nice.

"Susan Cole, Canadian “feminist,” defending the mob on Fox News:

We don’t have that same political culture here in (Canada)....We don’t have a 1st Amendment, we don’t have a religion of free speech....Students sign off on all kinds of agreements as to how they’ll behave on campus, in order to respect diversity, equity, all of the values that Canadians really care about. Those are the things that drive our political culture. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech. It’s different, and for us, it works.

Translated from the original Canadian, “diversity” means “state-mandated mob-enforced conformity.”

More Orwellian magic from our friends from the North.

[Tom]

That's why we have a border.

[Rookies]

That's why we have a border.

Thank God... we do !

[skate]

that's what they say, "the truth hurts".


Ann paints with pain.:cool: