I am posting these articles to illistrate the need for anonymous communication and to show what surpressing free speech can do and how it can corrode the democratic process. I am also posting them to how how fast it can happen, even in a supposedly “free” nation. Canada is not China, it’s a supposedly western capitalist country. Well anyone who thinks we have a functional democracy can see for themselves they are wrong.
We need SAFE for political expressin, discussion and control of our financies.
This all sounds like the actions of a bungling Minister really, who will probably start back-tracking soon. I’m absolutely certain he could never get away with using Hate Speech Laws against the BDS.
I’d be careful of being mislead by some of the dodgy reasoning in the reports though:
“Some of these groups had noted that the government changed the Criminal Code definition of hate speech last year, adding the criterion of “national origin” to race and religion.”
“This change could, they feared, effectively lump people who speak against Israel in with those who speak against Jews.”
I get that all the anti-terrorist, snooping laws,C-51 etc are horrendous, but I’m not getting the connection with the original Post? The amendment to the Hate Speech law seems not un-reasonable to me, and the quoted argument against it, seems flawed/twisted.
The only actual “thing wrong” I can see is the Minister bigging himself up to his audience, confusing issues and oblivious to the fact he could never get away with what he was proposing - this suggests bungling to me.
Like you say though, legislation like C-51 and “Data and Communication Acts” makes all these arguments a bit moot really If they can monitor everything BDS does, then surely they will find something to use against them if they wanted to?
The only feasible argument I can think of, how they could use Hate Speech legislation to prosecute BDS, would only really apply if the BDS advocated targetting businesses run by Israeli’s, rather than businesses dealing with Israel - it would be a similar scenario to writing “Juden” on businesses I think. It would be the same as boycotting businesses run by Black people.
(Note this would be based on the Rights of the individuals/group of individuals - as opposed to say…the right for the business to exist… Otherwise it could be cleverly argued that boycotters are “killing” something with a right to exist.
Protesting against the political decisions and oppressive regime of a country is not anti semmetite hate speech as it has nothing to do with race. Just like if one protested a group of neo-nazis from texas one wouldn’t be having an issue with the fact they’re white or from texas, one would have an issue with racism, oppresssion and what they’re doing. Israel is oppressing and occupying Palistine and massacring their people. If any other country did this it wouldn’t be tolerated but because it’s Israel they allowed to get away with it because have so much political influence and they keep playing the anti-semetite race card. And people are stupid enough to keep falling for it.
The connection with the original post is quite simply this: Harper wants to keep people from discussing such things. Professors and students alike can be brought up on charges just for DISCUSSING Israel in regards to Palastine. That is censorshoip and the suppression of political free speech. We NEED anonymous communication and a private secure internet to ensure our voices can be heard.
There are actually a shit-load of conflicts on earth where equally and more horrible things happen than in this one. But they get far less attention from politicians and activists alike. This one has a very big a propaganda/media war attached to it, from both sides. I don’t mean to marginalize the suffering in this conflict, but what you claim is simply not true.
The poorer and less advanced a group of people is, the less they are cared about in international politics.
Perhaps but given the last couple wars at least have been to “overthrow repressive regimes” or at least that’s the excuse they give it doesn’t follow that there’s a major high profile repressive regime that is not being overthrown. You know what I’m saying?
I wouldn’t doubt at all this isall about money, most wars are. However the motivational excuse given for having a war has to remain consistent or else you lose credibility for having your next one, or current one.
OK,I see…you are repeating the flawed argument. The Hate Speech Laws do not criminalise discussion on “Israel” whatsoever.
“Religion”,“Race” etc are also included in the Laws. Using the case of Religion, one may not incite hatred against individuals based on their shared characteristic of belief - one is perfectly free to criticise the Religion itself, as it is only an idea, organisation etc,as opposed to a person.
“Kill all Muslims” is wrong.
“Islam is a dangerous/bad/crappy whatever Religion” is OK.
So, “Kill all Israeli’s” is wrong
"Israel, (or more correctly the Govt) are bad, lets boycott" is OK
This dishonesty in arguing is usually the hallmark of some form of propaganda, which was my first thought and as @Seneca says there is propaganda on both sides of this particularly thorny issue.
I think you’re misunderstanding the situation. Yes the laws DO criminalize political speech. And no there is no dishonesty here. This has been a major political issue for quite awhile now. No the BDS or anyone else against what Israel is doing does not have an issue with Israelies themselves but rather the oppressive occupation and actions taken by Israel as a political body. However any criticism of Israel it’s government is being construed as “hate speech” and therefore is falling under C-51. That’s the issue. You’re right the two issues should not be confused or conflated, it’s stupid that anyone would fall for it and corrupted democracy that it’s being done but that’s the situation. It’s not political bungling, it’s quite deliberate and understood across the board as a way of supporting Israel and stifling dissent and political oppisition. It has nothing to do with Religion. It has to do with money as Israel owns the banks and the banks own the politicians. Harper is a bloody Zionist.
Possibly, as I know little about Canada,except it’s maybe a bit cold, has Mounties and loads of Moose,but not actually sure of any of this. I am saying however that from all the articles and arguments reported, I cannot find anything to support your position.
Then they should have no concerns about the Hate Speech Laws. They are printed and there really is nothing contained within it to suggest otherwise It is a fact.
You are referring to the bungling Minister? If not,where else is this construed this way, by whom and where is it written? I’ve offered an explanation for the Minister and suggested he will back track and that he bungled. If what you say is true, then where is his or the Govts defense/re-iteration of this position?
You’re not actually supporting this with any evidence, though maybe as you said its common knowledge so to speak in Canada allegedly,but I can’t really comment further without more info
Way to go…Zionism is the belief that Jews should have their own Nation within the “Holy Land”- obviously all the Muslims oppose this because they are expecting the 13th Imam to crawl out of a well in the same area, fulfilling prophecy - once the the World has “fallen into chaos” of course - which is handily similar to the desired outcome of the Christian Fundamentalists/Evangelists.
So 3 major Religions all claiming the same land with at least 2 actively wanting to bring on some form of Armageddon. It’s Crusaders and Jihadists, as it’s always been.
Here’s an article about 1 mad Crusader in particular
I don’t really care if Israel wants it’s own piece of dirt but when they start influencing other nations and particularly the laws of other nations THEN I have an issue. As for the rest of it I’ll get back to you as I’m going to eat now.
OK, the video is exactly the same report about the bungling Minister and the article is criticising Israel politically. How exactly does just repeating stuff further the discussion? It is just a form of propaganda to do this too.
Look, I’m hoping this is a case of a bungling Minister and that you are wrong – I’m saying that you have not provided anything new to convince me of your case or demonstrate why what I’m hoping/assuming is wrong.
If you are right, it would be a nightmare situation and very worrying, so people should be informed and directed to the evidence. As a non-Canadian, I can only sit on the fence until further info becomes available either way. This would be in the form of further statements from Govt either re-iterating the claim or denying it. It is looking to me like they are going to deny it, from the responses so far……is what I’m saying.
Ahhh….If you are right, then I think this is going to be more about trying to argue/link incitement to Genocide with arguments for Israel’s legitimacy as a Country in International law – again, this won’t work though. The only situation where this could possibly be argued, is if the BDS or its affiliates make statements calling to “Wipe Israel off the map” by force of violence. It all gets really interesting argument wise then……
Tell me about it dude. Welcome to Canada. There’s a whole movement here against C-51 because of this shit. It’s NOT a case of a bungling Minister and I’m not wrong. It is a nightmare and people do need to be informed more and that’s what the activism is about.
If people operated by having nice rational and well thought out debates yes. However politics and law doesn’t work like that. Especially when you mix in idiot cops and words like “terrorism”, “anti-semitism”, “national security”, “zero tolerance” and other such things. Have you heard of the case of Officer Bubbles during the G8 summit? Youtube him sometime.
Ok, we’ve been through this, the anti-terrorism legislation has nothing to do with Hate Speech legislation - you are conflating the 2 things. What does the officer Bubbles thing have to do with anything btw? I’m sorry but you seem to just be linking unrelated things to support your particular viewpoint.
If you are actually saying that the Hate Speech legislation is the problem in the way that it interprets/labels things as anti-Semitic, when in your view they are not -then you should really change the title of the thread to “We need Maidsafe to combat Hate Speech laws” - so people have the freedom to express hate speech anonymously. Hate Speech laws have the very opposite intention, than to oppress people.
What behaviour/Speech exactly has been labelled as “anti-Semitic” and by whom?
I decided to investigate my bungling theory a little further and managed to source a photo of the Minister addressing the UN……this shifts the weight of eveidence in my favour, I believe: