I think that the comment raises a core issue, which is why it is of interest to many even if it wasn't made in any official capacity. If Israel is to be viewed per se as a colonial entity, how is Canada (and all other countries of both Americas colonized by Europeans) any different? It seems to me that a comprehensive philosophical/moral debate concerning Israel/Palestine cannot take place without discussing how it the same as /different than the Americas, the partition of India to create a Muslim Pakistan, among other things. If Israel is illegitimate as a colonial enterprise, how does Canada garner a different characterization?
So if the comment is used to demonize the broader group with whom the commenter is "affiliated," I agree with your take on it. But if it is taken at face value and used to expand the broader debate concerning Israel/Palestine, espeially from a Canadian perspective, it's about time that took place.
I agree, MM. We are a settler state, and in that sense illegitimate, but that's simply a moral position, not a legal one, and not a suggestion that we simply dissolve--ditto Israel.
Canada, NZ, Australia and the US were the only nations to refuse to sign the international Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Four settler states--now three, because Australia fell into line after Labour came to power.
How do states deal with indigeneity? Quite a literature on that already--I did a grad course on that very subject not long ago--but there's no harm reopening the debate.
Shaidle has long expressed her hatred for Canada, and yet she's retained a longstanding ties to mainstream media circles, and is championed by the likes of Mark Steyn, who himself parties at 24 Sussex.
So that's, what, two degrees of separation by a well-known free speech champion who actually has expressed hatred of Canada and the prime minister of our country...and yet the right is consumed with some dork on Facebook.
Funny how Arnie suddenly shut up over at Jay's when you brought that up.
Real funny, eh?
Damn hypocrites.
Is Shaidle doesn't like it here, she should leave. Same goes for Shaban.
But honestly, what Shaban did was really stupid. He's a prominent figure in an organization that purports to reprensent Muslims in Canada.
On the last topic, can you point me to a few good documents dealing the topic of how states should deal with indigeneity?
If Omar Shaban, private citizen, makes that remark, Dawg, nobody give a rat's. Omar Shaban, vice-mucky-muck of an "(u)mbrella organization whose mandate is to identify, articulate, defend and otherwise pursue the interests of the Arab-Canadian community", it's newsworthy and a legitmate target for whatever level of outrage that the respondents care to direct its way. And most people still don't give a rat's.
Shaban is free to express himself and the outraged are free to do the same. Nothing to see here.
Charles,
I'll try to dig up some references--they're more on how states actually deal with indigeneity, and how indigenous peoples deal with the state--not what should happen.
Dawg, I really do believe its Shaban's position that got him in trouble. Imagine if the same sentiments were expressed for example in the same manner by the head of the Canadian Jewish Congress or B'nai Brith? Don't you think the reaction would be similar?
Mordechai:
The difference is this: as soon as the CAF found out about the comment, they issued a strong condemnation of it and cut the fellow loose. That should have been an end of it. But no, we are asked to believe that the veil slipped for a moment instead--that Shaban was indeed speaking for the CAF and its supposed nefarious agenda.
You have mouthbreathers like Arnie Lemaire, for example, using words like "taqqiyah" (strategic lying) to describe what I thought was a prompt and forthright CAF response.
Do you think Babs at the NP would have demanded that the CJC as a representative organization of Jews thank its "benefactors" and stop mouthing off? Unthinkable.
Thanks Dawg but don't go out of your way if this is too much trouble.
How about this? Are there any countries that have implemented solutions you find satisfying? That way I can look it up myself ... I just need a place to start.
Charles:
I'll haul out the reading list for the course if I can find it, but give me a little time.
I can't recall any state doing particularly well on this issue, but a lot of indigenous peoples are making some headway--the Kayapo of the upper Amazon, for example (Terrence Turner is the anthropologist who has published most extensively on this group--you might enjoy "Defiant images: The Kayapo appropriation of video," Anthropology Today, 8(6) 5-16 [1992]), the NZ Maori to some extent, the Greenlanders (who look set for sovereignty at some point). The pan-indigenous networking that helped bring about the Declaration is also noteworthy, and the circumpolar Inuit network.
That's just off the top of my head. In general, states have to be pushed, and some are easier to push than others.
I can't at the moment point to any state in which dominant and subaltern have become full, equal partners.
Here are a couple more articles, though:
Conklin and Graham, "Amazonian Indians and Eco-politics," American Anthropologist, 97(4):695-710 [1995]
Check out:
Niezen, R. "Recognizing Indigenism: Canadian Unity and the International Movement of Indigenous Peoples." Comparative Studies in Society and History 42(1): 119-148 [2000].
Turner, T and V. Fajans-Turner, "Political Innovation and inter-ethnic alliance: Kayapo resistance to the developmentalist state," Anthropology Today, 22(5) 3-10 [2006].
"The difference is this: as soon as the CAF found out about the comment, they issued a strong condemnation of it..."
"...the CAF reacted sharply,..."
Strong? Sharp? Gee, I don't know, Dawg. What they said, according to your link, was: The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) is proud of its Canadian identity and heritage and would like to disassociate itself from recent comments attributed to one of its members.
I hope they managed to get their collective pulse back down to normal after such exertion. I think it is safe to say that your reaction to this affair has been more spirited than that of the CAF to Shaban's remarks.
ferg:
I'm not really sure what you want. The CAF got out a press release on July 1, which was completely unequivocal. Here's the full text:
The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) is proud of its Canadian identity and heritage and would like to disassociate itself from recent comments attributed to one of its members. The comments made are in no way reflective of CAF nor its feelings towards Canada. CAF sent out a Canada Day Greeting to its members and general public on June 30th
2009 and continues to wish all Canadians a Happy Canada Day.
What could be clearer than that?
Yes.
(I also love how Shaidle whines about government sponsorship. Before I take her seriously I'd first like to see the bank receipts where she paid back her Canada Council Grant, with interest, please.)
Trust no one under 30?
Many organizations seem to get into trouble with younger executives lacking experience and maturity who mouth off irresponsibly.
The F$$$ Canada Day post was shameful, unrepresentative of what most of we immigrants or second-generation Canadians truly feel, and just plain stupid insult politics.
But the reaction from the right was equally stupid.
The Arab Federation buried the Canada-hating nitwit in an eyeblink.
Case closed. Or not. It seems the Federation has had a history with individuals making inflammatory statements of a racist or violent nature.
Perhaps, they should revisit how they select executive members to avoid this kind of embarassment in the future.
"What could be clearer than that?"
Well, you asked.
First, they say CAF "would like to disassociate itself from recent comments". Why the hesitation? Why not simply state your disassociation?
Second, they describe the matter as "comments attributed to one of its members". Again, why the hedging? Why is the member nameless? Were the comments made or were they not? Why say "attributed"?
It was an emotionless, run-of-the-mill backside covering exercise, hardly something to be described as "strong" or "sharp".
ferg:
Try being a bit realistic. The comment appeared on a Facebook page July 1. The CAF responded the same day, on a national holiday. Given the time involved, it might not even have had the opportunity to confirm that it was indeed their VP who had authored the comment. But obviously things moved swiftly, because the fellow was shown the door the very next day.
I have some experience of institutions, and when I say "sharp" I mean "sharp." The speed of response here was nothing short of exemplary.
Fergus. On "would like to disassociate itself" vs. "dissociated itself". It strikes me that "would like to" functionally means one of several things in English. The most common are probably (1) we want to do x, but can't; (2) we are doing x, and it is something that we're doing willingly; (3) it is often polite to 'subjunctivize' (e.g., "I would like to introduce you to my friend" while you are doing so); (4) it is what linguists might describe as an 'audible pause' -- that is, the words spoken (or in this case written) do not actually mean anything, but they fill time while we decide what we will say.
My guess is that this is something in between (2) and (3) and (4). Yes, it is possible to interpret this as (1), but part of being a socially successful human being is not interpreting every word or action in the worst possible way. Do you really think that anyone's prose could survive such a parsing?
Surely you're not claiming that speed of response is more important than the content of the message? Even if we grant them the pass you imply we should, they've had two more days to draft a more assertive version and have not done so.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with how the CAF does its business or how it speaks to the media. But part of your post deals with them becoming a target because of their response to this affair and your feelings that such treatment is unjustified. Perhaps that treatment would have been tepid if the CAF had been less hesitant in its phrasing of its disavowal of Shaban's opinions?
Appreciate it Dawg. I have always thought we needed to come to a realistic, and fair agreement with the natives. I have never been clear on exactly what type of agreement they were looking for ... perhaps this will help.
I've now read the full set of links.
I think it also is important to note that the status update in question was a personal Facebook status update--the "speech" in question was "spoken" in the VP's personal capacity and not in his capacity as an officer. No doubt the status update provides a clue as to that individual's political ideas (which may or may not be representative/accurate of his overall position), but that's as far as it goes.
There should be no inherent assumption that what an individual writes in his/her own Facebook page or blog is reflective of that individual's employer or other associated group. Yet that is what's going on in this case. in fact this is scary stuff in terms of how people have jumped on it as necessarily emblematic of the CAF as a whole and despite that organization's same day statement.
"Do you really think that anyone's prose could survive such a parsing?"
Mine apparently didn't.
Parsing is exactly what happens to press releases, written items that have supposedly been edited to reflect precisely what the author intends to submit. Buckets, if we were discussing a verbal quote here, I would give the speaker a great deal more leeway for the reasons you state in your comment. Surely it is not incorrect for written statements to be held to a stricter standard?
Applying those stricter standards, allow me to state that I do not reject the CAF statement, I merely think that it could have been more forthright. And it is my opinion that reaction to a more forthright statement would have been milder.
Parse away.
forthright: "straightforward; not evasive; characterized by candor and directness."
How was the CAS statement not forthright? How could it be more so? You're really reaching for it, ferg.
fergusrush,
Step away from the highly acrimonious partisan context of the Arab/Israeli dispute and think about the broader issues here concerning individual privacy and collective responsibility.
1. Do you really want to be judged by a sole Facebook status update? Kids, especially, have to be careful, as increasingly universities and prospective employers are rummaging around the Internet for this stuff. Is this a good thing?
2. Do you really want employers and organizations policing what individuals do on their own time? Because that's where this is headed--if groups are to be judged by what individuals do in their individual capacity, then their freedom to behave in that individual capacity will end up being curtailed.
This is very scary stuff.
I'd argue that if this individual engages in a debate where the views expressed in the Facebook status update are relevant, then it's fine to call him on that statement. But that's it.
Once again Dawg, I have no idea where you're coming from. Your racially motivated fantasies are more deluded than ever. Omar Shaban wasn't pounced on because he's brown, or Arab, or Vulcan. But because on a day celebrating the creation of the confederation of Canada, a country ranked as one of the highest quality places to live in the known universe, this idiot chose to tell each and every one of us to fuck off.
As for CAF, Omar Shaban is a symptom, not just a sneeze.
Well, CAF has run up a bit of a record and is on various screens after their President called a Cabinet Minister a "professional whore".
MM, I am with you on the possibility that what people write on Facebook pages, blogs, Tweets etc. should be regarded much less critically than, say, organizational manifestos and such like. But it is publication none the less and once something is published it is going to be read and reacted to.
If you say something offensive or dumb you are going to be called on it. Shaban sounded like a dickhead and got whacked. CAF found it had a dickhead on its Executive and, perhaps mindful of the damage its dickhead in chiefs' remarks caused, promptly underbussed him. Good.
Mord, I cannot imagine anyone from the CJC being such an idiot.
As to Kathy, I don't think she has been shy about wanting to emigrate to the US - though I suspect the big O's election may have caused her pause.
Nice evasions, Raphnjay.
1) If Shaban was simply pounced on because he said something offensive, how did his religion and ethnicity get into it? How did it suddenly become all about the CAF, even after that organization responded swiftly?
No, no, his ethnicity had nothing to do with the big noise on the starboard side of the 'sphere. /sarc
2) Why is it OK when Kathy rubbishes the country, but not OK when a pesky brownskin does it? Hmm?
I can't hear you....
Dawg,
You're engaging in a classic strawman argument. You want me to address Kathy Shaidle, immaterial to this conversation, just because I've criticized Shaban's ridiculous statements.
That is a very low-grade argumentative tactic.
Now, now, Raph, don't get all passive-aggressive. You really do need to explain why two similar statements do not offend you similarly. It's not as though you and others don't read Kathy's site, but there hasn't been a whisper of outrage from you lot about her "I hate Canada" comment.
Either you're faking it now, or you're using it as a stick to beat Muslims with. Well, obviously you're doing the latter in any case, but I think you're smart enough to figure out the inconsistency here. Selective outrage, motivated by xenophobia.
PS: Just to save yourself a little public embarrassment, look up "straw man."
Extremists of the supposed left and of the supposed right, extremists of pro- and anti-Islamist lobbies, extremists of pro-Israeli and pro-Hamas group, extremists of pro- and anti-aboriginal groups make inflammatory statements.
They are all inflammatory statements.
People who make inflammatory, insulting statements, are dimwits.
Period.
Skin colour has nothing to do with it. Stupidity, lack of judgment, immatury are widely shared characteristics, and not the preserve of any group.
Dawg,
Don't be pretentious. You've tried to criticize our criticisms of Shaban by pointing to someone irrelevant to the discussion. It's a classic strawman you've built, because you want me to defend a position I haven't taken. It's a position you're alleging I've taken by virtue of my silence on Shaidle. Which is ridiculously illogical. It's like saying that I support China's occupation of Tibet because when I blogged about Iraq I didn't mention them.
And for the record, no, I don't read Kathy's site.
Your argument falls flat, Dawg. Admit it. You could have lamented Shaban's poor choice of words, criticized his flawed technique of trying to bring aboriginal issues to the forefront, and apprteciate Tarek Fatah for "outing" such a person from CAF. But you didn't. Instead you created this fantasy that it's all some kind of plot against brown people. Notwithstanding the fact that Fatah is one of those "pesky brownskins".
On further reflection, perhaps the use of strawman is incorrect here. It's more of a red herring. I seem to be a little rusty on my debating definitions.
Welcome to the real world.
That's really all I have to say about that.
I mean, really. I work for a multi-national, publicly traded corporation, and in my blogging, podcasting, television and radio interviews, I have always had in the back of my mind, that I must be extremely careful how I present myself.
This guy was in a prominent role of an organization that ostensibly represents the interests of Arabs within Canada, and chose to make a comment in extremely poor judgement, and now he's paying a price.
This is one of those life lessons. Period.
You know, Mike, if he were paying the price--public irritation with his rudeness--that would be that. But how quickly things moved to an indictment of the CAF (and by extension Muslims in general). Yet CAF, as I've now noted more than once, moved with amazing swiftness, given that July 1 was a virtual shut-down. They banged out a disclamatory press release, and booted the guy the next day. I mean, what more could you want?
But the right-wing outrage continues. And who is the ringleader? Why, Arnie Lemaire, whose better half, relatively speaking, has just finished stating on her blog (likely read by quite a few more people than Shaban's Facebook page): "I hate Canada."
Oh, the slipping and sliding an evasion when I brought that up! Can you smell hypocrisy here, Mike?
Dawg,
To be honest with you, I'm so tired of the typical political BS. If you want me to acknowledge the stupidity, racism, homophobia, etc. of many conservatives in this country, I will. In the department of being anti-racist/anti-sexist/anti-homophobic, I think my words speak for themselves.
The thing is, there's a limit to my emotional endurance.
Yes, socons in this country hate Canada, and then turn around and bash people who hate Canada.
Yes, socons have a love fetish for police and authority.
Yes, socons think when police beat black people, the black people somehow deserve it.
But we already know that these people are on a hapless cultural crusade to preserve the phantasmic ideal of the Judeo-Christian (White) Culture and Traditional Family Values(tm).
These are people who claim to be in the service of liberty, but feel there rights are being violated in some way by being forced to see two men holding hands on the street. They're fucking crazy. I already know this.
In fact, I'm so tired of all the moral rent-seeking on both the left and the right, I can barely move.
The F??? Canada Day fellow on the other hand was an executive of an organization on the stage of national politics. The Federation was correct to remove a foolish, immature, irresponsible representative. Though, as we all know, this is not the first time the Federation has faced this problem with an executive member using overheated rhetoric.
I mean: please. Fuck Canada Day? On Canada Day, when every Canadian-born and neo-Canadian mom, dad, the kids and the pet dog are off to celebrate? And thousands of aboriginal people, too as we all know, if we have ever turned up at a Canada Day festival. So, he can't get away with misappropriating aboriginal issues for his own pet ideological rants. That was just illegitimate on his part, basically annexing someone else's historical experience for his own misdirected insults. How "imperialist" of him!
Lesson: people should refrain from inflammatory rhetoric. It always blows up in your face.
Dawg,
You see, when I posted my initial comment, I was taking for granted how racist all the socons are. You can just assume that's automatically built-in to everything I say in the future.
socons in this country hate Canada, and then turn around and bash people who hate Canada.
My main point, Mike. Great comments, by the way.
lawlibrarian:
I can find little with which to disagree in your comments, to be honest. Why don't we all accept that a) the fellow was rude (I would feel the same about an atheist disrupting a church service, for example), and b) because of his position, he should have been far more circumspect.
I don't know whether he was sincere about aboriginals; or whether, as Marky Mark astutely suggested, he was drawing a parallel between the situations of aboriginals and Palestinians; or whether Fatah was right about this all being a kind of "shield." In any case, I think we should best hear from aboriginals themselves about this sort of thing.
Are we on the same page here?
Pretty much on the same page.
But I just don't get the blogosphere.
Why do so many people think blogging, especially of the political variety, is an excuse for over-the-top verbosity and exaggeration?
Maybe, socons and lefty wannabes think yelling fire in a crowded theatre has become the only way to gain attention.
Not impressed.
Mike,
Moral rent-seeking? Why does that phrase sound familiar?
Here is a link to Shaban's blog. It seems pretty clear where Shaban stands: just as Israel is Occupied Palestine, Canada is Occupied Canada. I don't think you can extrapolate from him to the CAF, but I'm glad he has introduced the parallel into the discussion, as it has been long overdue.
"How was the CAS statement not forthright? How could it be more so? You're really reaching for it, ferg."
How so? It is a matter of public record that Shaban made the statements; it's all over the web for anyone to see. It's on his Facebook apparently (though I've not looked myself). He defended his remarks and did not back away from them. How, then, is it forthright, direct, to say that statements were "attributed" to him, indicating the presence of some doubt, as opposed to plainly stating the fact that he made them?
Jeebus, ferg, stop being so damned disingenuous. You are well aware that the CAF put out its statement literally within hours of the Facebook posting, on July 1. The fact that it's all over the web now is completely irrelevant.
At that point, probably all they had was a call from the media and a check of the Facebook site. And such sites are not uncommonly faked. Being cautious here was entirely appropriate. But the next day their boy was gone.
There's an implication, from you and some of your political co-religionists, that Shaban was somehow speaking for the CAS and got caught at it. If that's what you really think, tell us. I don't want to make assumptions here.
Dawg,
I think what we’re talking about here is a gaffe, meaning someone said aloud what he really thought and it embarrassed the group that individual was associated with. There is no evidence that the guy spoke for the CAF and, in fact, what you point out is that they distanced themselves from him as quickly as was humanly possible. Now Mr. Shaban (Chaaban?) on his blog said he isn’t sorry and that he meant it and also that he can’t be part of an organization that doesn’t see the parallels among aboriginal Canadians and Palestinians.
“I resigned from CAF because I do not want to be part of an organization that openly refuses to acknowledge Canada's colonial and shameful history.”
Of course if he has a point, his position is more than embarrassing for the Palestinian narrative, which depends to some extent on the singularity of Israel’s alleged colonization of lands that belonged to an indigenous people. He is essentially saying that just as Independence Day in Israel is viewed by Palestinians as Naqba Day, so too should our Canada Day be similarly characterized.
I’ve drawn this parallel in blog comments sections where it tends to be dismissed as a point made by an “apologist” or “shill” for Israel (and far worse). For him to make the point is quite a different matter. But it’s really no different than people on the Palestinian side of the debate supporting their position with things same by some Jewish Israelis such as Benny Morris. What’s happened is that in the increasingly out of control world of the Internet with blogs, tweets and Facebook, everything is magnified and distorted. This is just one individual’s view. As I said above, the bigger and more lasting issues here relate to the tension between individual privacy/freedom of expression and notions of group or collective responsibility and accountability.
Dawg, sorry to pick this nit but I think it is important,
"But how quickly things moved to an indictment of the CAF (and by extension Muslims in general)."
CAF is not a Muslim organization. It is an Arab organization and many of its members, including its President, are Christians.
No implication from me, Dawg: I had never heard of Shaban before this and frankly couldn't care less how he feels about Canada or what position he does, doesn't, or used to hold in the CAF. How they chose to respond is also unimportant to me for that is their affair. For me, this is all just commenting on your post and positing the idea that if their response had been different, the response by others may have been different as well. Nothing more.
It appears that I have got up your nose in this, and for that, I apologize.
Jay:
No harm in picking the nit, but let me pick one back: for too many on your side of the fence, "Muslim" is an ethnic, not a religious, signifier.
Indeed, if we do take what you say on its face, this was more a xenophobic reaction to the Arab ethnicity than a mere anti-Muslim reaction.
Actually, Dawg, as I wrote above, I suspect it was a reaction to a dickhead who happened to be on the Executive of an association the President of which had already demonstrated a propensity in that direction.
As to the Arab/Muslim distinction: this is quite significant within the Muslim Community where differing ethnicities bring different cultural understandings to the table. (Sort of like Irish or Italian Catholics bring their own flavour to the Church.)
I'd be interested to here what people think about this Free Dominion thread
Will I be sick if I click on the link? I just bought pastries from Patisserie la Cigogne (a photo of which is on my Facebook-much safer as a Facebook topic) and I don't want to lose my appetite.
Jay:
Of course there's a distinction. But too few on your side of the aisle are prepared to make it.
But on the main issue, where is the reaction to the she-dickhead that I referenced? So far the folks at your place haven't uttered a peep. Embarrassment?
Passerby, that's different, because one guy from an Arab organization speaking for himself is more important than hundreds of insane right wing people spewing all over Canada with rage, hate, homophobia and a whole wide range of idiocy.
Because they are umm... I don't know, get Raph and Jay to explain it to you, I'm confused by this whole "acceptable Canadians" thing.
I clicked, and now I'm going to be sick.
Actually, Cameron, they are much the same thing save that the Arab guy used to have an Executive position. He had something to lose and lost it.
It's all free speech. Some of it annoying, some offensive, all, in a democracy, permitted.
And yet Jay, I haven't seen you or anyone else from your side of the blurry aisle round on any one of the disgusting scum that you give comfort and succor to....
Why is that Jay?
Or is it that you're too busy calling people cowards etc etc... that must be it, you'll get around to it.. any second now... yep.... in a minute... yep... mb tomorrow eh?
Because Cameron our point is that the "dusgusting scum" should not have their Charter Right to free speech stripped without the full protection of the law.
This has nothing to do with endorsing the content of their speech, only with the fact that a corrupt, deceitful, administrative organization should not be removing Charter Rights.
F*ck Canada Day.
As a 3rd generation Canadian, I say it too.
What's to celebrate with a government like this one.?
And a GG who went along with a bully and never told us why.
And a bunch of white rednecks loaded up on cases of beer driving around in a convertible with music blaring and decorated with Canadian flags.
Jay, did I say "strip" somewhere? Nope.. so take your strawman and... (right.. sorry, back from the brink).
So now that you've dodged are you going to go back and answer my question?
No eh?
Pathetic.
Cameron, work on those reading skills. I answered your question and if you read my blog you'll find I put a lot of daylight between the free speech position and the things which are said.
Oemissions,
Actually Canada Day isn't just a day for rednecks with beer and music. It's more a chance for all people to show some pride of who we are, and where we come from, regardless of where it was originally. Immigrants of all stripes seem to love it. I was working downtown on Wednesday and from my perch above Canadian Place in Vancouver, I'd say the thousands of new and old Canadians had a good time expressing their appreciation for this country.
Canada isn't this current government, or the last one. It is it's people, and all who live within it. So when you condemn Canada with your statement, you condemn us all, the good and the bad, the ugly and the beautiful, the conservative and the liberal, the aboriginal and the European and the African. All of us.
Currie said:
"It's all free speech. Some of it annoying, some offensive, all, in a democracy, permitted."
Especially if you're under observation by the cops, in a cage or herded well away from anyone who might be "offended", right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/2...=th&
oref=slogin
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/n...s/notion/
166939
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2004...ary/
000466.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fre...ree_speech_zone
I'll tell you what Jay, after years of being called names by prats like you I've decided to apply the same rules
I don't find you've done enough daylight putting for my tastes. I require that you denounce the people who's hate speech you are so protective of in a more vociferous and public manner.
Otherwise I'm just going to have to spend all my time calling you a nazi...
"Otherwise I'm just going to have to spend all my time calling you a nazi..."
How exciting for you. You're lucky I'm not the Jackal otherwise I'd be suing you.
If you really, really, want to you can stop by my blog and comment, at random or as the occasion calls, "You're a nazi". The nice part is that I won't have to bother responding, "You're an idiot" because the thing speaks for itself.
Could not agree with you more, Todd. Free Speech should not be caged or, for that matter, pepper sprayed.
Good, Mr. Currie!
So you won't type inanities like "democracy = free speech" ever again . . . .
I have white skin.
I have blue eyes.
I was indoctrinated as a Christian Protestant, but am an athiest, so I can validly assert that believing Jews, Christians, Muslims are utterly stupid as a people and the world would be a better place if they dumped their shitty Moses, Christ and Mohammed -- fuck 'em all. So all you thin-skinned uber-sensitive idiot believers with your Prophets, Messiahs and Messengers shoved up your anus can have an enema.
English is my first language.
I have male genitalia.
I am heterosexual.
I was born in Canada.
I have enjoyed this country to the hilt, and will continue to do so.
I have travelled to many countries of the world, mostly assorted dictatorshits. I have compared their culture to the culture of Canada. With all of Canada's faults, and there are many, the cultures of so many dictatorshits/authoritarian/sultanates/
mullahcracies/etc are nothing more than rusted toilet seats.
The original quote: "The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) is proud of its Canadian identity and heritage and would like to disassociate itself from recent comments attributed to one of its members."
Fergusrush's response: "I hope they managed to get their collective pulse back down to normal after such exertion."
I disagree. The phrase "would like to disassociate itself" is classic legalese which has come to mean something akin to "He sucks. We're not with him."
And I also have to say, in terms of being hung for what you say on Facebook, this is far from the first time similar things have happened.
I'll say it again: never, EVER, say anything on the Internet that you would be uncomfortable saying at full volume in a public place with tape recorders present.
The depth of this feeding frenzy is nonsensical (but, sadly, not without precedent), but I still have to criticize the poor guy for his political judgement in saying what he said.
Kathy Shaidle will never be able to move to the United States legally - because she has lupus - and the US (and indeed most countries) have a strict policy about not allowing people with serious medical issues like that immigrate.
So all her bluster about getting a green card is just bullshit along with all the other bullshit she posts.
Last time I checked - suing people involved spending a lot of money.
It's kind of an empty promise isn't it Jay?
Commenting by HaloScan
