|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 27, 2009 12:08:45 GMT -5
A fundamantal human right is free speech yet there are those who want to institutionlize punishment in the name of THEIR religion. As for the UN and it's thirld world majority, the tail is waggin the dog...... ~~~~~~~ UN rights body approves Muslim-backed call to combat criticism of religion GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism. The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies. A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general." (to which I reply...here is my middle finger.)"Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said. (I guess he never met a hate filled madras he didn't like)"It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone," he said. (So this will allow you to "legally" terrorize ANYBODY who disagrees with you in the name of religion. Say hello to the Muslim Inquisitions. )Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech. (Unaccaptable to the blindly indocritnates)"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said. (Ever hear the hatred that masquerades as free speech off madrases?)Opponents of the resolution included Canada, all European Union countries, Switzerland, Ukraine and Chile. (Where is the US on this?)"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier said. (yay!) India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection. (Of cousre only Islam was named.)India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism. (Let's appropiatly link it to hatred of free speech)The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Its resolutions are not binding, but are meant to act as recommendations for U.N. member states on issues of human rights. (Stick to blackmailing us with oil and screaming for hand outs.)More UN garbage.... www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-un-un-free-speech,0,1253666.story |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 27, 2009 14:45:15 GMT -5
Since when has anyone given a flying rat's ass about what the UN has to say?
Yes, it was - hell, is - a grand idea (mankind working together for the common good and all that) but it's become about as relevant as the League of Nations circa 1936. It is nothing but beaurcrats trying to decide if they should raise at stud or draw or spit in the ocean. No teeth, no real means of getting anything done.
Frankly, let them pretend eliminate the freedom of speech. No one will care. At least no one in the sensible regions of the world (Canada, the EU, Switzerland - I don't think the US is on that particular council HA).
I'll wory when someone tries it here. Until then - go nuts. I know you're just wasting money (my money too, but it's a cost of doing business in the world).
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 28, 2009 17:07:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 28, 2009 17:18:16 GMT -5
Two entirely different things IMO .. Yes, they are banning him from Canada, and by doing so they are in essence banning his speech in Canada. But they are not banning free-speech. They are banning a person from Canada, who has financially supported terrorists that our military and are allies are currently at war with .... there is a difference. Canadians can still get Galloway's views on whatever through the internet and other means. They aren't banning the speech they are banning the person from setting foot in Canada. I'm sure if he wanted to give a speech through video conferencing or something, nobody will stop him .... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2009 3:03:51 GMT -5
Two entirely different things IMO .. Yes, they are banning him from Canada, and by doing so they are in essence banning his speech in Canada. But they are not banning free-speech. They are banning a person from Canada, who has financially supported terrorists that our military and are allies are currently at war with .... there is a difference. Canadians can still get Galloway's views on whatever through the internet and other means. They aren't banning the speech they are banning the person from setting foot in Canada. I'm sure if he wanted to give a speech through video conferencing or something, nobody will stop him .... Some of that is true, except that they are also trying to "bar Canadian citizens who have submitted affidavits opposing Galloway's ban," which is totally in opposition to the principle of free speech, and unfortunately is typical of this government. It's not true that our military is at war with Hamas. And if the standard is supporting "terrorism" then I don't understand why we let someone who financially supports Israel - which is just as guilty of "terrorism" as anyone else - into Canada to give a speech (I'm referring to former President GWB). BTW, I'm putting "terrorism" in quotes because it is so subjectively defined. It has basically come to mean violence by people the speaker disagrees with.... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2009 8:45:51 GMT -5
Some of that is true, except that they are also trying to "bar Canadian citizens who have submitted affidavits opposing Galloway's ban," which is totally in opposition to the principle of free speech, and unfortunately is typical of this government. No, it's not. Freedom of speech does not mean you can go into a court of law and say what you want. Courts have the right to ban any piece of evidence which might be prejudicial to the proceedings and which are completely irrelevant to the proceedings. The fact that a group of people - even a large group of people - want this guy to come to the country to go on a talking tour or whatever has no relevance whatsoever on this guys case, since he has been denied entry into the country because he has supported a terrorist organization. The rules on the matter are quite clear. If the people who support Galloway want them changed, then go to the place where the rules are made (and can be changed) - the elected leaders of the country. (Now, if we didn't permit them to do that, or to write whiny newspaper articles about why it's so unfair that would constitute an attempt to ban free speech) It's not true that our military is at war with Hamas. And if the standard is supporting "terrorism" then I don't understand why we let someone who financially supports Israel - which is just as guilty of "terrorism" as anyone else - into Canada to give a speech (I'm referring to former President GWB). According to you. Unfortunately you don't get to set the definition of terrorist organization - the duly elected government does. When you get elected you might have a say in this. BTW, I'm putting "terrorism" in quotes because it is so subjectively defined. It has basically come to mean violence by people the speaker disagrees with.... Nope, it's pretty clearly defined. The law says "Hamas is a terrorist organization" (it also lists a number of other organizations as well, in the same clear manner). And again the list is created and maintained by the duly effected government. Again, just because you disagree with the way they define it doesn't invalidate it. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2009 13:08:15 GMT -5
So essentially you are admitting that it's nonsense being used to restrict access to opinions that the government doesn't like. Saying "it's the law" doesn't make it any less a violation of free speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2009 14:10:55 GMT -5
So essentially you are admitting that it's nonsense being used to restrict access to opinions that the government doesn't like. Saying "it's the law" doesn't make it any less a violation of free speech. No. I'm not. There is no restriction on "access to his opinions". There is a restriction on him entering the country because he has committed an act in the past which puts him in violation of our immigration laws. That is not restricting anyone's right to free speech. He can go on puttering about Great Britain saying whatever he wants. His supporters can republish every word out of his ever loving mouth in whatever format they wish with impunity. If he's that popular and he has that many people who are willing to write affidavits then why don't they all get together and write a monthly newsletter detailing his opinions. Right to free speech does not mean you have a right to expect the government to forgive your past crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2009 15:06:01 GMT -5
Right to free speech does not mean you have a right to expect the government to forgive your past crimes. Nor does it mean you are given immunity to enter a country. Would we let Hitler (if he were alive, and yes, I realize this is the extreme case) enter the country now? Why not? Isn't it free speech to say Jews are bad and deserve to die? We wouldn't ban him for that, we'd ban him for his actions .. all that killing stuff and concentration camps. (If you don't like the Hitler example, pick someone anyone who has violated Canadian Law) It is Canadian Law that no one who has violated a law of this land is allowed to enter ... and supporting government defined terrorist groups is against Canadian Law. That's why he isn't entering ... nothing to do with his speech whatsoever. How are we banning "free speech" when no one is stopping his attempts to give his speech via teleconference.... his speech will still be heard live in Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2009 15:07:13 GMT -5
It's not true that our military is at war with Hamas. But our allies are .... I apologize I forgot the and/or |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 30, 2009 19:40:31 GMT -5
A fundamantal human right is free speech yet there are those who want to institutionlize punishment in the name of THEIR religion ... UN rights body approves Muslim-backed call to combat criticism of religion Folks, try to watch this all the way through (about 7 minutes). Important to know that Condell is an atheist. However, he starts with the UN and he ends with the UN. Free Speech is Sacred (Pat Condell) |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 31, 2009 7:17:21 GMT -5
Rather than complaining about the UN Human Rights Commission, we should really be complaining about our own, Canadian Human Rights Commissions, which are wildly out of control. If anybody here has a subscription to Macleans you know what I am talking about. If not, then you should really look up some of disgraces coming out of these non-legal, yet-binding commissions. Amongst others, ordering MacDonald's to pay $55,000 to a woman they let go because she refused to wash her hands while at work, despite putting her on two separate disability leaves (paid of course) to see if she could figure out a way to wash her hands without developing a rash. The BC Humans Right Commission concluded that she shouldn't have been fired because "there was no evidence presented to establish a link between poor hygiene and food contamination, adding that McDonald’s didn’t prove there would be a public health risk if the woman didn’t wash her hands regularly.In another case an Ontario restaurant owner is currently wrapped up in a legal fight with the Ontario Human Rights commission, for ordering a man who was smoking a marijuana joint in his restaurant to leave. Violated his human rights, you know, because he had it for medicinal purposes. So far it has cost him $20,000 to fight the charge, and he could be on the hook for over $150,000 by the time all is said and done. The commission wanted him to pay the "victim" $2000 and post a sign warning other patrons that marijuana may be smoked in his restaurant. In other case the commission ordered a priest to never say the "disparaging things" when referring to gays. "Ever." Yes, the commission apparently thinks it can control what a person says. In still another case, a man Richard Warman, "infiltrated" a white supremacist chat room - using a government lap top, but connected to a local woman's wi-fi internet network (without her knowledge), made some racist postings, and then brought those who responded to the postings before the commission. Where he was the lawyer prosecuting them. And where he hoped to be compensated. In fact, Warman doesn't appear to have a job, but seems to live off the proceeds of his numerous complaints against various organizations to the HRC. In fact, our very own, Canadian Human Rights Commissions attempted to block publishing of those Danish cartoons that prompted all that controversy. How is that for denying free speech? They were eventually shot down, but not until a lengthy and costly "hearing" was held. It should be noted that the "prosecutors" - the people bringing the charges of discrimination that is - do not have to pay for their legal bills, as it is the government who covers their expenses. The defendents on the other hand, must not only pay their own bills, but cannot qualify for legal aid. Forget the UN and their powerless declarations, no matter how stupid they may be. The real problem is in our own backyard, where similar declarations are made, and where REAL Canadians are forced to pay REAL money to defend themselves, or as payments for their "convictions." EDIT: Here is a summary of the free speech controversy the HHRC seems to be embroiled in. My favorite quote? ...lead CHRC investigator Dean Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" Dean responded: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept." Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 31, 2009 9:00:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 31, 2009 10:22:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2009 21:40:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 1, 2009 7:53:53 GMT -5
Rather than complaining about the UN Human Rights Commission, we should really be complaining about our own, Canadian Human Rights Commissions, which are wildly out of control. BC, the major problem is that, those who speak their minds in our country are often ostrisized for doing so. The press is often just waiting to single out someone for speaking up that contradicts what agendas they, themselves, are promoting. We can only speak our minds when it doesn't offend anyone else and political correctness has destroyed us. Wish I had more time. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 1, 2009 8:00:27 GMT -5
Going back to the CHRC investigator, he's right. Freedom of Speech is an American concept, and isn't a protected right of ours.
In fact, I'm not sure it's ever even been a tabled issue in parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 1, 2009 8:26:46 GMT -5
Going back to the CHRC investigator, he's right. Freedom of Speech is an American concept, and isn't a protected right of ours. In fact, I'm not sure it's ever even been a tabled issue in parliament. Freedom of speech may be an “American” conception (I would argue that is a basic, universal human right, but whatever), but freedom of expression is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution (Section Two). To argue that one does not support “freedom of speech” merely because the word “speech” is different from the word “expression” speaks volumes about the bureaucratic and petty nature of these commissions, and/or the lead investigator. In my mind, in the minds of most, and I would bet in the minds of the people who wrote both the Canadian and US constitutions “speech” and “expression” are the same thing. To argue otherwise is to argue semantics. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 1, 2009 8:31:04 GMT -5
Going back to the CHRC investigator, he's right. Freedom of Speech is an American concept, and isn't a protected right of ours. In fact, I'm not sure it's ever even been a tabled issue in parliament. I'd slightly disagree. In Canada we do not call it freedom of speech. We call it freedom of expression. Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists the fundamental freedoms that every Canadian citizen, whether they be an individual or a corporation. These freedoms include freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.Section 1 of the Charter guarantees these freedoms to everyone in Canada, but section 1 also gives the power to limit these freedoms. And of course, we all know that section 1 gives the Prime Minister the power to temporarily invalidate any freedom by using the notwithstanding clause. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 1, 2009 8:32:09 GMT -5
Going back to the CHRC investigator, he's right. Freedom of Speech is an American concept, and isn't a protected right of ours. In fact, I'm not sure it's ever even been a tabled issue in parliament. Freedom of speech may be an “American” conception (I would argue that is a basic, universal human right, but whatever), but freedom of expression is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution (Section Two). To argue that one does not support “freedom of speech” merely because the word “speech” is different from the word “expression” speaks volumes about the bureaucratic and petty nature of these commissions, and/or the lead investigator. In my mind, in the minds of most, and I would bet in the minds of the people who wrote both the Canadian and US constitutions “speech” and “expression” are the same thing. To argue otherwise is to argue semantics. Beat me by that much .... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 1, 2009 18:02:48 GMT -5
Free speech? Hmmmmmmmmmm..............
Do you have the right to go to court and rant that Bernie Madof should be shot?
Do you have the right to march in London and chant down with bankers and up with anarchy?
Do you have the right to teach either Natural Selection or Creationism? (in Iran)
Down with Sunni's up with Sheites?
Do you have the right to go to Church and rant during the marriage of your ex-wife?
Can a mafia don proclaim $100,000 for the person who kills the mayor.
Freedom of speech? Encitement to riot? Wanton destruction?
Libel?
There are some things that are in bad taste.
Some things that are dangerous (in my opinion)? Can we weigh free speech against my personal opinions and not the opinions of others? (my personal opinions are changeable)
It's worthy of note that Gainey did not criticize Carbo before or after firing him.
I can rant that Breezeby sucks, but Gainey can't and when Lafleur does, it's Guy who looks bad.
Freedom must be limited.
If a cleric insights suicide bombers to kill, he must be held accountable for his actions, actions that amount to speech and not deeds.
Fire in a crowded theatre. The holocost never happened. GM is going bankrupt minutes before the opening bell. The Hab's were sold.
No absolute answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2009 0:26:35 GMT -5
Going back to the CHRC investigator, he's right. Freedom of Speech is an American concept, and isn't a protected right of ours. In fact, I'm not sure it's ever even been a tabled issue in parliament. I'd slightly disagree. In Canada we do not call it freedom of speech. We call it freedom of expression. Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists the fundamental freedoms that every Canadian citizen, whether they be an individual or a corporation. These freedoms include freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.Section 1 of the Charter guarantees these freedoms to everyone in Canada, but section 1 also gives the power to limit these freedoms. And of course, we all know that section 1 gives the Prime Minister the power to temporarily invalidate any freedom by using the notwithstanding clause. I thought it was only for provinces...but I was wrong. Here is a lot more information about that clause. Note, it has a five year lifespan afterwhich point it has to be re-enacted. Five years also allows for he possibility of a new party taking over. www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 2, 2009 9:40:18 GMT -5
Going back to the CHRC investigator, he's right. Freedom of Speech is an American concept, and isn't a protected right of ours. In fact, I'm not sure it's ever even been a tabled issue in parliament. Freedom of speech may be an “American” conception (I would argue that is a basic, universal human right, but whatever), but freedom of expression is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution (Section Two). To argue that one does not support “freedom of speech” merely because the word “speech” is different from the word “expression” speaks volumes about the bureaucratic and petty nature of these commissions, and/or the lead investigator. In my mind, in the minds of most, and I would bet in the minds of the people who wrote both the Canadian and US constitutions “speech” and “expression” are the same thing. To argue otherwise is to argue semantics. The point I was trying to make is that the reporter was stupid enough to ask a question that doesn't actually pertain to Canada (semantics or not.. remember you're speaking to a lawyer) and he received a stupid answer. Deservedly so. Also, the American concept of free speech doesn't have a "yes but" with a bunch of small print, the way ours does. It is not an unequivocal right that cannot be taken away. And as freedoms go, in both countries it's one that's continually debated and refined by ruling in our respective supreme courts, so I take an enormous dose of salt when I hear people proclaim it's an unabashed right to say whatever you want. It's not within the realm of free speech or expression to be libelous, for instance, except in the case of religion (for now, anyway). For what it's worth our freedom of expression is more all-encompassing than the US' free speech (speech being a subset of expression) and as such it's a very different concept than what our American counterparts have. As an example, flag burning is a right of ours, where as depending on the justices in the Supreme Court in the US that could change because there's no speech involved in flag burning. Semantics doesn't begin to describe it. For what it's worth, I do agree that the tail is wagging the dog here. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 2, 2009 15:24:15 GMT -5
Going back to the CHRC investigator, he's right. Freedom of Speech is an American concept, and isn't a protected right of ours. In fact, I'm not sure it's ever even been a tabled issue in parliament. I'd slightly disagree. In Canada we do not call it freedom of speech. We call it freedom of expression. Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists the fundamental freedoms that every Canadian citizen, whether they be an individual or a corporation. These freedoms include freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.Section 1 of the Charter guarantees these freedoms to everyone in Canada, but section 1 also gives the power to limit these freedoms. And of course, we all know that section 1 gives the Prime Minister the power to temporarily invalidate any freedom by using the notwithstanding clause. Freedom of expression, as long as it is equally prominent in French as it is in English. Freedom of naming rights? Can the rights to the Bell Center/Centre Bell/Molson's Center be renamed the Adolph Hitler Center by whoever pays for the rights? |
|
