The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

My Take On Free Hate Speech

After reading Brian's [Ed.:—Wasn't mine] post highlighting Five Feet of Fury's response to Haroon Siddiqui's column in the Canadian paper The Star, I felt the need to respond with my own post. The guys over at Five Feet of Fury were completely right in their vociferous attack on this dimwit from up north, but I thought I could add a few more insights. I will highlight and then comment:

One staple of anti-Semitism has been that Jews have taken over the world, or are about to. Now Muslims are being accused of the same.

Let's see. Is it really anti-Semitism to joke about how Jews have taken over the world through their shrewd banking and investing in businesses and corporations? Is it really hate speech to believe that Jews have their hands secretly into all facets of our lives and are secretly controlling corporations and their outputs? How can paranoia be considered hate speech? And no, Muslims are not being accused of the same thing that Haroon cited as fact in the first sentence of his intellectually and logically bereft stenciled piece of toilet paper. Muslims are not being accused of secretly controlling corporations and banking. Muslims wouldn't know the first things about how to be secretive let alone controlling corporations as an outside influence. When was the last time you heard someone complain that there were too many Muslims in the banking world?

The accusations against Muslims of today have nothing to do with what the Jews are being said to have done. When radical Muslims want to take control over something, they do so overtly and with force. They use violence and intimidation by spouting religious messages and claiming they do so under their god's directives. Jews live their lives based on their God's directives, but they do business to make money.

Please continue reading my very long hate speech...
That Muslims pose a dire demographic and ideological threat to the West was the hypothesis of a 4,800-word article, The Future Belongs to Islam, in Maclean's magazine in October 2006. Its reverberations are still being felt.

It is not a hypothesis. Just look at England and the nations that only just recently were turned Muslim like Lebanon, Kosovo, Turkey, Phillipines, etc. Once peaceful places are now rampant with violence, death and destruction. Please explain what "reverberations" are still being felt? Prove it Haroon!! Show how these words have led to MORE hate and violence against ordinary Muslims. I don't think you can. Ordinary moderate Muslims did not take offense to anything that is said against the violent and extreme version of Islam. Ordinary and moderate Muslims only want to live and provide for their family. They want to become part of their community and become a member of the country they live in. They will even join the military and local political organizations. The other side of Islam will do whatever it takes to change the country they live in into Islam.

The commissions are responding to petitions filed by a Muslim group that argued the article constituted hate and that Maclean's refused an adequate counter-response.

How can speaking truth be hate? You know, if I were to run these commissions, my first rule change would be to require more than one person to show offense. There would have to be a number of people, like 200 for local incidents and 200,000 for regional incidents, before there can even be a whiff of possible hate-crimes. To have numerous commissions enacted and hold COURT over the hurt feelings of one or a few people. That is insane and it is completely spurious to even think there is merit to any of this over a few hurt people. And please tell me how refusing to allow a counter response on MacLean's valuable paper space PROVES the case that their original article was hate speech? If I refuse to listen to your response to an argument I make, am I committing hate speech as well?

Many commentators vilified the complainants – or Muslims in general. Joining the latter was CBC-TV's Rex Murphy. He sneered at the idea that Canadian Muslims would have the temerity to go to human rights commissions when "real human rights violations" were rampant across the Muslim world, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Murphy is entitled to his sulphurous opinions. But why doesn't the publicly funded CBC offer counterbalancing points of view?

Oh the temerity of vilifying the complainants. How dare someone think one side is in the wrong. How hypocritical of you Haroon!! You complain against those who "vilify" the complainants while you yourself and the complainants complain against Mark Steyn and MacLean's. Can't you see the ironic twist here that shows your hypocrisy? And here, you cite one person who finds it hard to believe that a few people will file a hate-speech complaint while real and profound atrocities are occurring within Islamic countries right now. And, you call that "sulphurous"? Highlighting a truth known world over is sulphurous, meaning volcanic, meaning ultimately destructive hate speech? If I called you stupid would you think I launched an A-bomb toward you? Would you think I launched a 20-year long diatribe chock full of expletives, threats,
condemnations of your sexuality and proof of birth? How about a little balance here.

Just because you do not like what someone says, putting your head in the sands is not going to make the bad people go away. And, if your problem is with the CBC providing a counter point of view, then your complaint is with the CBC. You are mad at Rex Murphy for expressing a point of view while not expressing anger or contempt towards the CBC for not allowing you or your ilk to offer a counter point of view? Don't you think your anger is misplaced? The CBC won't listen to you so you get mad at Rex Murphy?

And no, you can't just get away with saying, "Many commentators..." Who? When? Who are these people you are trying to cite?

Other commentators have invoked the free-speech argument, in its various formulations – free speech is so precious that even hate speech should not be censored.
But freedom of speech is not absolute. "Except for the U.S., virtually every Western democracy has laws against hate," notes Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "Our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused."

Again with not citing your suspicious "other commentators". Who are these people? I can tell that you believe that free speech should not be free. You believe that speech in all its forms should be regulated and monitored? To what extent? I bet you are perfectly ok with people suing over hurt feelings and bruised egos, aren't you? You would love to be able to write how Christians and Conservatives have been silenced from revealing the truth about the people they oppose. But, you know what is funny about regulated speech? It tends to be one sided. And what is scarier still is that you place in your column a comment by a person who believes that the
"anti-hate" laws and commissions are underused. That is scary. To think that you and he believe that there should be more of these farces run amok is frightening for the continued well-being of your country.

And Haroon, you are wrong. The US does indeed have laws against hate. Our are very effective too. We even have laws against murder and robbery. Despite you being illiterate and bigoted against the USA, we do have laws that prevent people from spewing hate. Have you ever heard the analogy that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater? That is pretty much the basis for our speech laws. While we claim to have "free" speech, our speech is also regulated so that someone just can't utter hateful and untrue things about people.

Try to learn facts before you start spewing worthless sewage.

The Supreme Court has upheld those laws. Jewish, gay and other groups have long advocated their use. Few Canadians complained. But now that Muslims are, many are.

I know you are in Canada and you people speak funny English up there, but you can still write correctly in English, right? Please do! For your information sir, since you are incapable of figuring this out for yourself, when non-Muslims (as you put it, or Christians and non-Christians) were utilizing these commissions there were real cases to be adjudicated. Jews and Christians have long been victims of abuse and hate. As well as certain minorities. Valid cases received few complaints because, gasp, Canadians believed that they were real and valid complaints. They let the commissions do their jobs.

And yes, now that non-Christian Muslims have turned these kangaroo courts into travesties of justice, people are going to complain. How thick are you to not see the connections here, Haroon? Or are you just that biased towards the non-Christians.

"People need scapegoats. It used to be Jews. Now it's Muslims, to a great extent. Tomorrow, it may be Bahais or somebody else ...

"People should focus on the law, not on those using it. If the complaint is frivolous, the system will deal with it."

Not if those in charge of the cases are frivolous as well? Or if they hold a bias similar to the complainants. Are you really so dense that you think laws in of themselves are sacrosanct? Laws can be good andor evil. Laws can benefit one group while harming another. Laws can also be completely harmful to all people. Is the fact that it is Law mean that it is good and should be followed?

So, Muslims are now under a greater attack than Jews have been? Is that what you are trying to say? Prove it. Prove it by showing and citing where ordinary Muslims have been under constant barrage from Christians and non-Christians! And I take offense at your spurious statement that people need scapegoats. Whining liberals need scapegoats. They try to place blame where it is easiest. Logical thinking conservatives and Christians place blame where it is deserved. That may offend people and hurt their feelings by having their fallacies and problems exposed, but that is how resolutions are accomplished. People can not fix the problem if it is not exposed.

Jews may have been scapegoats for jokes and looked upon as the only people who can make good during downturns in the economy, but once again that is not hate speech. That is paranoia and thoughts of simpletons. Should I sue whenever someone makes a crack statement against Rednecks? No, because I am wise, astute, and mature enough to know that these are jokes. I am even mature enough in my own self to not be harmed by slightly offensive speech. And if I am, I don't listen to that person any more.

Even while refusing to hear the Maclean's case – because her commission, unlike the one in B.C., does not have the jurisdiction to hear cases against the media – she used her "broader mandate to promote and advance respect for human rights" to speak out:

So, a commission chair who did not have jurisdiction to hear certain cases expanded the commission's role never-the-less? Her basis was "a broader mandate"? She had to expand her commission's mandate in order to speak out and promote respect for human rights? What non-fascist, non-marxist, non-communist nation does not promote and respect human rights? Does this mean that the purpose of having her commission is now complete? Can she now close her commission since we democratic countries promote and respect human rights? Or, should she instead MOVE TO and focus on those countries that TRULY do not have respect for human rights, like many Islamic and non-Christian-based nations?

There is no human right to not be offended. That is no where in the Canadian or US constitutions (or whatever you call it up there). You have no right to have your voice heard in public either. There is also no guarantee to get everything you want. One must live with life's little problems and bumps that make life difficult. Because, in case you elitist snob have not heard, life is hard. Normal people get a skin and get through it all by themselves.

"Islamophobia is a form of racism ... Since September 2001, Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent and Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance ...

This person is an idiot!! And she is in charge of a "human rights" commission? This person is an ignoramus like you, Haroon. Islam is a religion. Arabs are a race. Muslims are those that follow Islam (am I right on this? If not please correct me. I will not be offended). You can have problems with the Islamic religion and not have problems with Arabs. Arabs are not necessarily followers of Islam. Palestinians and Egyptians were originally just Arabic until they saw glory and money in a shared hatred of Israel in Islam.

Athiests are Christianity-phobic. Does that make their beliefs worthy of hate-crime investigations? No. It is their belief that the Christian religion is wrong and they have every right to espouse their beliefs just as Christians have a right to their beliefs and statements. Just because someone exposes problems with the religion of Islam does not make them racist. There has to be a race for a perceived hatred to be racist.

"The Maclean's article, and others like it, are examples of this. By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to `the West,' this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others." Her statement, posted on the commission's website, is worth reading.

That right there just proves that these commissions are biased toward Muslims from the get go. As a person of some supposed intellect Haroon, you should question the judgment of placing a biased individual into a position that is supposed to find truth.

I hate to tell you this Haroon, even though you are intellectually inferior to a toad, but all religions face scrutiny and unfair comparisons. Take the Christian religion. While there are numerous factions within the Christian religion umbrella, only one was responsible for the evils of their day. "Some commentators" use that sects evils to color the entire Christian religion. Is that fair? Is that even warranted now that the modern Christian reformation has occurred? No it is not. But that does not stop it from happening. Do you hear Christians whining up and down in the court rooms and in hate-crime proceedings to get injunctive relief? HELL NO!! We use communication and sharing of knowledge to teach people that there are differences between the sects of Christianity. Do we whine when they don't listen? HELL NO. They have a right to their belief.

If a group of people do not believe that stated characteristics do not apply to them, they correct that belief or they just turn and walk away.

As far as I know there are five sects of Islam. The four recognized with Islam are Shi'a, Ahmadiyya, Sufism, and Sunni. The fifth and unrecognized group are the moderate followers of Islam who believe that the Qu'ran preaches peace and love of all mankind. Thus the reason the Shi'a and Sunni believers denounce the moderate believers and infidels and backsliders. I hate to tell you this, but since most of the people of Islamic faith are true-believers, then many will actually be characterized by the statements made by Stein and MacLean's article. How can truth be offensive to those it does not apply to?

If you were to make a statement characterizing the over 200 sects of Christianity based upon the actions and beliefs of one sect, then that would be a harmful generalization. However, if the characterization is shared among 3/5 of the sects that comprises a vast majority of the total population of Muslims, then it is not a generalization.

If I were to say that all women have breasts, that would not be a generalization even though not all women have breasts. Now if I said all women have blonde hair, that would be a generalization. How can this woman be an effective commission leader if she does not even know the definition of race, racism, characterization and generalization. But then, neither do you it seems.

People will always differ on what constitutes hate or where to draw the line on free speech. But most people would agree that free speech is not a licence to target vulnerable groups, let alone risk rupturing the common good in Canada.

In your first sentence you actually state a defense of free speech. The first in your article. And then you counter yourself in your next sentence by using your own dreaded generalization by using the defense of "but most people" (even if you do it grammatically incorrect). I'm sorry, but did you just say that Muslims are a vulnerable group? How can a group comprising 1.2 to 1.8 billion people be a vulnerable group? Christianity is said to have over 2 billion. Please explain to me how the second largest religion in the entire world can be a vulnerable religion? How can a religion be vulnerable when its own precepts demand murder, war, violence and other aggressive actions against non-believers?

Sir, it is you and these whiny spineless liberal muslims that are using the Rights Commissions to silence critics of their religion for their own gain that are fracturing the common good of Canada. And since when has there been a common good in Canada?!?!? The West side believes in the fair market, capitalism and the English language while the East side believes in socialism, tolerance (to the point of hating and prosecuting any divergent opinions and beliefs from the state's) and speaking French.

Haroon, if you really want to know what oppressive hate speech is all about, if you want to know what intolerance feels like, then move to a wholly Islamic state. If you are married and have daughters, I recommend taking them as well. Parade them openly and freely out in public. Tell them to go talk to men openly out in public. Have them start espousing some of your liberal views on tolerance and freedoms. Then write back on what the response was... that is if you are still able after being locked up and possibly killed by the "Islamic Vice Squads".

Free speech is just that. Free. Those with the right to say what the want are given that right by their Creator. The Creator does not give the right to be free of hurt feelings. Regulating the ability of people to express their beliefs and thoughts is an oppressive governments tool to control its people and take away more civil liberties. If you want to take away my right to say bad things about people who I view are in the wrong, then you are infringing up on my rights. Until you and your fairy weak-kneed ilk change the constitution to eliminate free speech of those you disagree with, then I will continue to have the right to point out that you are a twit, a dimwit, an intellectual inferior to cockroaches, a person lacking testosterone, and a thick dense mat of spewed rotting sewage.

And, I hope you do take offense. I was offended by your words as well.



#1 Cletus 19-Jun-2008
This guy isn't a Dimwit, he's a full on practicing muslim.

Another member of the Taqiyya gang.
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us