Media Ignores Gagging Sound From Canada

We Should Be Concerned

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=135546

 

Usually, when a journalist is censored in a Western nation, American news organizations respond with collective outrage. But as a major attack on press freedom unfolds in Canada, America's mainstream media are silent. Neither the TV networks nor the major newspapers have reported on hearings last week at what amounts to a Stalinesque show trial in Vancouver, British Columbia.

 

 Mark Steyn, a Canadian journalist who now lives in New Hampshire and whose column appears in National Review magazine as well as several U.S. and Canadian newspapers, is facing charges before British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal.
 
His crime? Spreading "hatred."
 
The evidence? A 5,000-word excerpt of Steyn's book America Alone that was carried as an article, "The Future Belongs to Islam," in October 2006 by the Canadian magazine Maclean's, which is also a defendant. The hearings, which were held June 2-6, amount to a star chamber with the rules of evidence constantly changing according to the whims of the three commissioners. A verdict is expected in September.
 
Steyn and the magazine are also expected to be charged with a hate crime by the national  kangaroo court, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and another such tribunal in Ontario. Not a single defendant has ever prevailed before the national board in its 31 years of existence. To be accused is to be guilty, Soviet style.
 
The Canadian press has been all over this story, but it has not registered a blip in the United States, except for an AP brief, an article in The Washington Times and on conservative Internet sites and talk radio.
 
A highlighted piece of the case was a comment from an imam, Mullah Krekar, that Steyn drew from an interview in a Norwegian newspaper:
 
"'We're the ones who will change you,' the cleric said. 'Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU [European Union] is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children .... Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours.'"
 
British Columbia's hate crimes law requires only a "reasonable determination that the excerpt did express hatred and contempt toward Muslims, and likely caused it to spread," according to the National Post.  As evidence, complainants cited postings from two California-based Websites, FreeRepublic and Catholic Answers.
 
The hate crime charges were brought on behalf of a recent law school grad, Khurrum Awan, and the Canadian Islamic Congress's national president, Mohamed Elmasry, and its B.C. director, Naiyer Habib.
 
The three want to force Maclean's to run an identically long piece from their point of view.  That or contribute $10,000 to a race relations foundation, as Awan admitted under cross-examination, according to the Globe and Mail. Later, speaking before the Canadian Arab Federation, Awan threatened to use civil courts to extract "a few million dollars" from any media company that refuses their demands.
 
For the record, Steyn and Maclean's are accused of violating B.C.'s Human Rights Code, whose Section 7(1)(b) reads: 

"A person must not publish, issue or display ... any statement, publication ... or other notice that is likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt."

"There has never been a case in this country that has had such clear, concise evidence, ever," said Faisal Joseph, an attorney bringing the charge before the tribunal.  Joseph noted that the magazine had introduced Steyn's piece this way:

"The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambitions. The West is growing old and enfeebled, and more and more lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it.  It's the end of the world as we've known it."

Considerable evidence is mounting, particularly in Europe, that this scenario is a common-sense observation. Muslim populations are growing while other religious groups are declining, thus Muslim influence is increasing. Great Britain's Labour government has even gone to the absurd lengths of describing any Muslim-caused domestic terror as "anti-Muslim" activity because the bombings make other Britons less likely to feel good about Muslims. There is open talk of infusing British law with Islamic Shariah law, an accommodation that the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested would be "inevitable" before an outcry forced him to recant.
 
But getting back to Mr. Steyn and Maclean's, they are the poster victims of the trend in Canada to suppress the freedoms of speech and press at the whims of special-interest groups.
 
Most Americans are not only unaware of the Steyn show trial but also the many incidents in which Canadians have been hauled before human rights tribunals and charged with hate crimes for merely expressing traditionalist morality in public.
 
An evangelical pastor, Stephen Boisson, was fined $5,000 by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal on May 30, 2008, for writing a letter to the editor of a local paper in 2002 critical of homosexual activism in the schools.
 
A Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, newspaper publisher and a private citizen were each fined $4,500 in 2001 for the crime of publishing an ad that listed five Bible verses about homosexuality and had a circle with two stick figures of men holding hands with a line across it.  Three homosexual men had complained that they did not like the ad.
 
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has for a decade prohibited the broadcast of any material critical of homosexuality. Stations that carry Focus on the Family and other American radio programs have been warned that they could lose their licenses unless  segments dealing with homosexuality are edited out.
 
Many Americans have a warm, fuzzy view of Canada, and have no idea that a totalitarian nation is taking shape, instigated by gay activists and Muslim pressure groups in the name of "tolerance."
 
They do not know because America's mainstream media are refusing to cover it.
 
Perhaps it will take someone like Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan being charged with a hate crime in Canada to get the media's attention.  But that's unlikely, since celebrities have long understood that the only group that it is still okay to ridicule is Christians, especially Catholics and evangelicals. And that's not news.
 
As for Canadian mullahs attempting to use the law to gag Mr. Steyn and anyone else who gets in their way, well, that's just not news either in the United States.

Robert Knight

 

8,408 views 59 replies
Reply #1 Top
It is not really surprising. Canada is more European than American. The media is not covering it because they are silently cheering it. As long as the censors go their way.
Reply #2 Top

Yep, the liberal media isn't going to touch this by the sounds of it.  All the more reason to put it on loud and straight on a blog site. 

For whom it may concern that is. 

 

Reply #3 Top

Actually, the New York Times has had this story in its paper and on the web for days. I think the Times qualifies as MSM.  The Times article is a good explanation of the differences between free speech here and elsewhere. See ya!

Reply #4 Top

One added thought.  The issue is centered around the relative rights of individuals verse the rights of the group. The rights of the individual can be abridged under certain conditions.  The argument is where to draw that line.

 

Be well.

Reply #5 Top

One added thought.  The issue is centered around the relative rights of individuals verse the rights of the group. The rights of the individual can be abridged under certain conditions.  The argument is where to draw that line.

End of quote

What rights of groups?

 

Reply #6 Top

Actually, the New York Times has had this story in its paper and on the web for days.
End of quote

is it the AP brief that was mentioned in the main body of the article? 

 but it has not registered a blip in the United States, except for an AP brief,

Reply #7 Top

I believe this actually made the front page of the NYT.  That's pretty mainstream. 

Reply #8 Top

Leauki, the right of a group to a safe environment.  We are not individuals only.  We are a society.  The constitution allows for restrainst to be imposed on individuals for the common good.  The notion that we are in this alone is not acceptable.  We must look out for each other, care for each other and respect each other. Hate speech is none of that.  Again, the issue brought about in the article in the Times spawned by the Canadian incident is how and where to draw the line.

 

Be well. 

Reply #9 Top
One added thought.  The issue is centered around the relative rights of individuals verse the rights of the group. The rights of the individual can be abridged under certain conditions.  The argument is where to draw that line.


What rights of groups?
 
End of quote


Thank God it is a part of our Constitution! No one can then decide that 2 porcupines is a "group". That is really assinine. And borders on Animal Farm.
Reply #10 Top

Many Americans have a warm, fuzzy view of Canada, and have no idea that a totalitarian nation is taking shape, instigated by gay activists and Muslim pressure groups in the name of "tolerance."
End of quote

KFC-

In some regards I agree with your sentiments. On other points, we diverge. A little clarification first;

As your article states, this is being carried out under B.C legislation. This means the case is being pursued in provincial court, not federal. This is the same thing in the U.S when a case is pursued in a particular state because of the specific laws in that state, but don't necessarily exist at the federal level. So if anything you should be arguing against the province of British Columbia, not all of Canada (that would be like me decrying all Americans for embracing the death penalty because it's still practiced in Texas, as a rough example)

With that said, most Canadian provinces do indeed have similar hate-crimes legislation and I do believe there is equivalent legislation on the federal level where this case might also be able to be pursued. With that said;

I do disagree with some of the aspects of hate crime legislation, but overall it is necessary. The real kicker, and a dirty little secret-

It works both ways!

You've stated that this is being carried out by gay activists and muslims.... in reality, much of Canada's hate crime legislation has actually been heavily used by Jewish interests in country many times in the past. They've used this to go after fringe groups, websites and the like all spouting hatred of their religion and culture.

I was raised in a very conservative environment, reading focus on the family as a child (cause it was always in the little stack of magazines mom kept in the living room) and to be fair they did expressly go after gays as an evil of society that could not be tolerated. I say did because it's been years since I've read any of that wonderful mind-control drivel!

At the end of the day, there is no excuse or reason to single out an entire subset of humanity and attempt to make them look less than human. That is the whole underlying purpose of hate crime legislation. We've seen this time and again throughout history.... the justification for genocide and race wars often begins with what appears to be very benign and measured contempt of another group in the media. While the exact flavours and details of how this happens differ slightly, there is always the same basic premise:

1) Begin with intellectuals "raising the flag" about the rising threat of the "insert name here" people. This always has to start out in a very benign and measured manner in order to not scare away the audience. The key is to single out an entire group/culture/religion and to show somehow that this entire group is the source of some major problem that poses a systemic threat to all of society.

2) Over time gradually ramp up the rhetoric, and ensure that the same message and/or talking points are spread and repeated via as many channels as possible. Once you've got a large enough audience with enough exposure to the message, expand on the original base.

3) Once steps 1 and 2 are done, and you've hopefully got some support from legitimate politicians and regular media figures, start openly equating this 'trouble' group with being less than human, or somehow inferior or different in a way that makes them inferior to everyone else.

Once you have done these things, you can do just about anything. Radio stations in Rwanda were regularly calling the Tutsis "cockroaches" that needed to be exterminated. When you can get to this point and repeatedly spout this message... well, the Hutu militias managed to attain a rate of killing that was faster than the Nazis managed in their death camps in WW2.

My problem with the hate crime legislation is where do you distinguish what constitutes a hate crime and how does freedom of speech fit in? You may have the freedom to say whatever you want, but if you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater for fun, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

I believe that due to freedom of speech, people should be allowed to say absolutely anything they want. It's when those words get published and distributed that it becomes another matter entirely

This is where the issue of the internet comes in.... one can say whatever they like and it is their right to do so. And, although it's free for anyone with the internet to go to this persons blog and read what this person has said, this person hasn't technically published or distributed their words.

B'nai brith here in Canada has succesfully used hate crimes legislation to have websites of various anti-semitic groups shut down (they were hosted by an ISP in Canada) which has caused quite some controversy. So the issue is definitely NOT one sided.

In regards to the "totalitarian" state that Canada is becoming, please kindly look in the mirror. With the Military Commissions Act of 2006, U.S citizens can be arrested without being told why they are being arrested. The government can hold you as long as it likes in a military prison and you can be tried by a commission of military officers, with representation by a military officer (no civillian lawyer).

To be arrested and tried under this act, the gov. only needs to say that you are a terrorist. It does not need to provide evidence of this to any separate impartial body. During your trial, the government doesn't even have to show the evidence against you if it says that the evidence would jeopardize national security. So, essentially, you are living in a country that has managed to repeal the magna carta. I think we're a little better off in Canada, thank you very much!

Reply #11 Top
In regards to the "totalitarian" state that Canada is becoming, please kindly look in the mirror. With the Military Commissions Act of 2006, U.S citizens can be arrested without being told why they are being arrested. The government can hold you as long as it likes in a military prison and you can be tried by a commission of military officers, with representation by a military officer (no civillian lawyer).

To be arrested and tried under this act, the gov. only needs to say that you are a terrorist. It does not need to provide evidence of this to any separate impartial body. During your trial, the government doesn't even have to show the evidence against you if it says that the evidence would jeopardize national security. So, essentially, you are living in a country that has managed to repeal the magna carta. I think we're a little better off in Canada, thank you very much!
End of quote


Ugh. What are we becoming in the name of being the world's police force?

/me throws up in his mouth a little.
Reply #12 Top

Mark Steyn, a Canadian journalist ....... is facing charges before British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal. His crime? Spreading "hatred."
End of quote

For the record, Steyn and Maclean's are accused of violating B.C.'s Human Rights Code, whose Section 7(1)(b) reads: "A person must not publish, issue or display ... any statement, publication ... or other notice that is likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt."
End of quote

Mr. Steyn and Maclean's, they are the poster victims of the trend in Canada to suppress the freedoms of speech and press at the whims of special-interest groups.
End of quote

Most Americans are not only unaware of the Steyn show trial but also the many incidents in which Canadians have been hauled before human rights tribunals and charged with hate crimes for merely expressing traditionalist morality in public.
End of quote

Many Americans have a warm, fuzzy view of Canada, and have no idea that a totalitarian nation is taking shape, instigated by gay activists and Muslim pressure groups in the name of "tolerance."
End of quote

As for Canadian mullahs attempting to use the law to gag Mr. Steyn and anyone else who gets in their way, well, that's just not news either in the United States.
End of quote

 What's happening in Canada's hate crime laws is a foretaste of what could very well happen here and sooner rather than later if the Democrats have their way. If Obama is elected, it's a done deal.

Anyway, they've been trying to slip hate crimes legislation through for over a year, but this too is hushed, hushed by the media.

Last July 2007 the Senate bypassed the normal committee process as Ted Kennedy filed the Hate Crimes bill as an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authroisation bill. President Bush said he'd veto it. released a statement saying that if such hate crimes legislation were to reach his desk, his

If it had passed,  this amendment would make hate crimes (a crime in which the victim is intentionally selected based on his or her race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.) a federal offense and it would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes in the U.S. criminal code Title 18.

I don't know about Canada, but this amendment violates both the 1st and 14th Amendments to the US COnstitition by attempting to regulate speech, religious expression, and equal protection under the law for all citizens. 

Besides that, all 50 states already have their own laws to fully prosecute such crimes.

 

Reply #13 Top
It works both ways!
End of quote


No, it only works the way the censors see it. This time they are leaning one way, but when they lean the other, how will you feel? When a hate crime is defined as bad mouthing the PM, is that good? Where do you draw the line? How do you stop the slide down the slippery slope?

The answer is - dont get on the slope. unfortunately for Canada, they are already sliding.
Reply #14 Top

It amazes me that anyone can argue for the necessity of protecting hate speech and further, implied in lulapilgram's comment, that hate speech is part of her religous expression.

Reply #15 Top
In an effort to further the radical homosexual agenda, hate crimes legislation has already been passed in some states.


Just as the individual states, Kennedy's hate-crimes amendment would create a whole new class of federal crimes based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity".

Here's some reasons why such an amendment would be unnecessary.

All violent crimes are hate crimes and it’s already against the law to commit a violent
attack against another person or his/her property. However, “hate crimes” take the
law one step further, adding a separate penalty for the thoughts that allegedly
motivated the action.

FBI statistics show that hate crimes legislation in unnecessary; there is no epidemic
of hate crimes in the United States.

In 2005, out of 862,947 cases of aggravated assault, 177 were motivated by
sexual orientation bias – representing a miniscule 0.02051 percent of all
aggravated assaults in 2005.

Unequal under the Law

This bill makes people “unequal” under the law. A person who assaults a homosexual will be given a harsher penalty than if that same assault was perpetrated on, for example, an elderly person. This creates a two-tiered justice system with second-class victims.

All human life should be valued the same regardless of a person’s race, religion, national origin, etc…

Paves way for religious persecution

Hate crimes laws pave the way to religious persecution through “hate
speech,” in particular for Christians and other faith groups who hold traditional
beliefs on homosexuality. How? The current legislation creates a whole new species of federal crime, based on bias or hate. Within this law, other federal statutes come into play, such as the federal "aiding and abetting" statute which makes someone "inducing" a federal crime as guilty as the one actually perpetrating the crime. It is not impossible that pastors could be arrested for "inducing" someone to commit a hate crime through a sermon on homosexuality.

This bill is a Trojan horse, a trick. Virtually everywhere “hate crimes” laws
have passed, prosecutions for speech have followed. In Sweden, Canada and Great Britain “hate crimes” laws have been used to prosecute Christians speaking their disapproval of homosexual behavior, posing a serious threat to religious liberty and free speech.

Reply #16 Top
It amazes me that anyone can argue for the necessity of protecting hate speech and further, implied in lulapilgram's comment, that hate speech is part of her religous expression.
End of quote


Define Hate speech. Then give examples.
Reply #17 Top

Thank you Dr Guy for the opportunity (and Happy Father's Day to you if it applies!)

Hate speech is generally defined as speech (including print) that incites one group to violent actions against another group. The Supreme Court definition is summarized as "abusive, insulting, intimidating, and harassing speech that at the least fosters hatred and discrimination and at its worst promotes violence and killing."

The American courts usually base decisions on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire as "fighting words." You can read the various definitions at http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-speech?cat=biz-fin

I have already cited numerous examples in my article at http://kupe.joeuser.com/article/314078/Hitler_Goes_to_Heaven (shameless plug) but at the risk of repeating some instances:

Saint John Chrysostom Adversus Judaeos whicj incited a crowd to burn a synagogue the next day and which were called by theologist John Parkes "the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian theologian."

Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies which like the homilies of John Chrysostom formed the theological basis for Nazi anti-Semitism.

Father Charles Coughlin's speech in the Bronx, NY in 1938 "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."

Hitler at the Nuremberg Rallies.

Muslim Mullahs urging the extermination of Israel.

Dr. Paul Cameron (since discredited) at 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference "Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals."

 

 

Reply #18 Top

I could have also cited comments made by the Nation of Islam, which is included in the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of active hate groups in the United States.

Numerous skinhead sites should also be on the list.

How did you feel when Fundamentalist preacher Jon Hagee referred to your religion as "the Great Whore?" I know how I felt when Hagee said of the Holocaust "Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended."

As history has proven over and over again incitement is one step from action.

Reply #19 Top
I believe that due to freedom of speech, people should be allowed to say absolutely anything they want. It's when those words get published and distributed that it becomes another matter entirely
End of quote


Huh? How exactly? This would mean complete suppression of reporting. How can the general public be made aware that some guy's a crackpot, a racist, a demagogue if his words cannot be published by others? I could almost accept that the crackpot himself could be tried for publishing his remarks if they fell into the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" realm (I don't see how publishing anything could fall into that realm), but to try an author or reporter for telling the truth is beyond Orwellian. A free press is essential to liberty, so much so that our Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution.

I believe Artysim is not quite correct about the Patriot Act. We don't have a Gestapo raiding homes in the middle of the night dragging alleged terrorists off to the death camps. That's just so much hype.

The notion that we need a federal law to embellish the punishment for and further deter the minuscule number of "hate crimes" (per the FBI's own statistics) is absurd. Once such a law is passed, there will be a steady expansion of the definition of "hate crime." It will be necessary to do because there will be so little for the act to enforce. Do we really consider our state governments incapable of dealing with such crimes, assuming they need to be treated differently at all? A dead victim is no more dead from a targeted crime than a stray bullet. A harassed or assaulted victim is no more harassed or assaulted, based solely on the assumed thoughts of the perpetrator. Creating special victim classes would appear to me to be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. In my opinion, hate crimes legislation has been motivated by one thing only - securing the loyalty (and votes) of the liberal elites.

And all this apocalyptic talk about Muslim's taking over the world is just so much talk. If any civilization is poised to be the next superpower, it is in the Far East.
Reply #20 Top

In an effort to further the radical homosexual agenda
End of quote

Radical agenda? Yes, the effort to enjoy the same rights and protections as everyone else is indeed radical. Hate crimes legislation do not elevate any particular group over another... if anything, it levels the playing field. As I said earlier, most of the use of the so-called "radical" hate crimes legislation in Canada has been well used by Jewish groups far more than it has by other groups.

If an ISP in your country is hosting a website that advocates the imprisonment or extermination of the Jews (or Muslims or Christians or Hindus etc) would you not want it taken down? Again, this brings in the topic of freedom of speech, which I would like to point to the example I used earlier;

You are in a very crowded theatre, packed full to capacity and just for fun you decide to yell out "FIRE!!!" or some other alarmist proclamation even though you know there is no such danger. You're just doing it for fun to see what happens. Maybe you have another reason... maybe you are friends with the owner of a competing theatre across town. Regardless, you are simply practicing your right to freedom of speech. So you start yelling in a panicked voice and everyone in the theatre panics and rushes to the exits. Several people are very badly injured (or even killed) as they get trampled in the ensuing pandemonium. The theatre company's reputation has been tarnished by the incident (even though they did nothing wrong) All the folks in the audience have had ther night ruined, the theatre company has probably lost a lot of money (folks will be angry and want their money back, again, not the company's fault but they'll still be on the hook anyway)

So all of this harm has come from you simply practicing your legal right to freedom of speech. This illustrates that while you have the right to say absolutely anything you want, you are also responsible for the consequences of those words.

Another prime example is in the business world. If a CEO decides to knowingly lie to the investors about the state of the company (in order to convince them to keep their money invested instead of withdrawing it) he can be brought up on charges and convicted. One argument would be that he was simply practicing his freedom of speech, but the consequences of his words caused extensive harm to his investors and possibly ruined lives, etc.

This applies to everything... you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but you are responsible for those words and the consequences they have.

Larry K is absolutely correct about incitement... it is one step away from action. If you get up on the rooftops and start proclaiming about how one particular group of people (culture, religion, gender, race etc) is the source of all our problems and need to be dealt with, your words are inciting hatred toward that group. No one is questioning your right to freedom of speech in saying those words, but you are responsible for the consequences!

 

Reply #21 Top
How did you feel when Fundamentalist preacher Jon Hagee referred to your religion as "the Great Whore?" I know how I felt when Hagee said of the Holocaust "Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended."
End of quote


Kupe -

I sympathize with your point - my wife is Jewish (by choice) - but "wounded feelings" are not mentioned anywhere in our Constitution. None of us have any right to be spared hurt feelings, anger or any other emotion.
Reply #22 Top

Daiwa

I believe that due to freedom of speech, people should be allowed to say absolutely anything they want. It's when those words get published and distributed that it becomes another matter entirely
End of quote

Huh? How exactly? This would mean complete suppression of reporting. How can the general public be made aware that some guy's a crackpot, a racist, a demagogue if his words cannot be published by others? I could almost accept that the crackpot himself could be tried for publishing his remarks if they fell into the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" realm (I don't see how publishing anything could fall into that realm), but to try an author or reporter for telling the truth is beyond Orwellian. A free press is essential to liberty, so much so that our Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution.
End of quote

My apologies, allow me to clarify!

I intended this statement to be more in the case of say, a radical group that has a website promoting the extermination of a certain culture (or stating that an entire culture has a subversive agenda and needs to be dealt with) This group is entitled to their opinion entirely. Once they start publishing a newsletter calling for the extermination of others and distributing it, now they're on the hook. The point I was trying to make is that websites are a grey area- no one forces you to go to it, nor do you have to pay to go to them (very rarely anyway)

In regards to freedom of the press, context matters This is why I stated earlier that hate crimes legislation and how it fits in with freedom of speech are indeed very controversial and difficult subject. Let's look at 2 examples...

Local newspaper re-prints some comments of crazyman crackpot and his opinions on how a certain group need to be wiped out. While they re-print his words, the article doesn't condone his side and fleshes it out to tell the story of what is going on (this would include comments from other folks, backstory, maybe some nice pictures of his groups compound where they will await the second coming, etc) This does not fall into hate crimes. As you stated, they're just reporting the news.

However

Same local newspaper re-prints crazyman's words, with no context, no explaining the situation or backstory and then says "this guy's right! we DO need to wipe out all the "insert name here" people! If we don't, they're all gonna sneak into our houses in the night and get our kids!!!

This second example does fall into hate crimes legislation. Ann Coulters comments, for example, about how we needed to invade muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their populations to christianity would fall into the category of hate speech, for example!

 

Reply #23 Top
This applies to everything... you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but you are responsible for those words and the consequences they have.
End of quote


I agree with your point with one caveat - speaking the truth, regardless of the consequences, should never be subject to criminal prosecution, nor should accurately reporting the words of others. Both can certainly be subject to civil action, but neither should be subject to criminal prosecution. We don't have to criminalize every aspect of our existence in order for good people to be good.
Reply #24 Top
Same local newspaper re-prints crazyman's words, with no context, no explaining the situation or backstory and then says "this guy's right! we DO need to wipe out all the "insert name here" people! If we don't, they're all gonna sneak into our houses in the night and get our kids!!!

This second example does fall into hate crimes legislation. Ann Coulters comments, for example, about how we needed to invade muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their populations to christianity would fall into the category of hate speech, for example!
End of quote


I disagree. The reader is free to accept such characterizations or not. We are autonomous, after all. And the press has been doing exactly what you cite in the above example for years. Once you decide an Ann Coulter can't speak her mind, where do you stop? Who decides whose opinions, statements and beliefs are acceptable? Who minds the minders?
Reply #25 Top

Actually Daiwa, the person that I was asking, Dr Guy, is a Catholic. But your point is taken.

Mark Steyn, the person whom KFC is defending, advocates genocide. He said about the Muslim population of Bosnia "The Serbs figured that out—as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em."

KFC, do you ever research these articles before repeating them? Not only are writing in support of a man who advocates genocide in Europe, but you were completely wrong about the mainstream media ignoring him when the article was on the front page of the New York Times.