According to this ambivalent article
PEOPLE, go to the movies to SEE a movie, during the MOVIE someone notices a wift of smoke
EVERYONE else says: "SHHHH if you say
anymore it might turn into fire
NOW just watch the movie"
SHHHH
Joan Bryden another MSM Liberal lickspittle posing as 'journalist'
As the article alludes to, there is more than just an abusive quasi judicial para-legal system on trial here, the Canadian media establishment is really on trial.
So far they they have made an abysmal statement as to their partisan collusion... first with CBC reporters scripting questions for Liberal MPs during partisan inquests and now in spinning/ignoring the blatent flaws in a partisan utopian legal icon the CHRC.
I also heard the spin CBC had on the Martin bill and it was despicable how their copy editor eliminated all the background on CHRC abuses which spawned the Martin bill ...leaving the listener to assume Martin is some loose canon loner who came out of the blue with some batty private bill to tamper with "human rights" which only benefits neo Nazis....absolutely dispicable spin....matched by the CP's Bryden smear piece.
Proving again; that Canadians who take all their opinions and information from the Canadian MSM Ottawa establishment are among the least informed and most disinformed people on earth.
We need not only separation of Mosque/Synagogue/Church and state but also media and state.
Islamic harasment against this uk boy who is now refugise in the us. Watch is video.
http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/
You don't be alone.
Against islam we stand !
European Resistance Against Islam ... with LionHeart (UK)
Why hasn't the Conservatives acted? It's a winner for them. Are they like Arafat and the Palestinians, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
A thoughtful article? Well, excellent background and research but the premise seems simple and pathetic; freedom of speech is good, unless you're dealing with potentially violent people. Then you just shut up.
No thanks.
The author sounds soporifically reasonable but is not reasonable. He actually suggests that if good citizens of the nanny state through these badly named commissions bow their heads as dhimmis every time Muslims claim to be mortally offended, this could be a clever way of appeasing Muslims and diverting them from their otherwise violent responses.
Perhaps as an American, he is not cognizant of the fact that the Muslim complainants are not wasting a minute of their precious time, money or hateful energy after scrawling out a single form. It is the defendant who is drained and hounded. The complainant rather than be diverted is gratified and inspired to make more mischief.
Harris does admit that if the government is actually serious about removing all speech that offends Muslims, this may be a problem, but again he implies that the "only" problem will be some loss of free speech in return for community safety and peace.
Someone who has so little understanding of Islam as Harris evinces should not be writing on this topic. There will never be a level of free speech at which Muslims stop being offended until all speech is not just acceptable to Allah but used to worship Allah. It is the religion of escalating threats and demands and the end point is a world caliphate.
Every concession stimulates demands for more concessions. Islam and its adherents can be discouraged only by strength, never weakness.
Once the inevitable larger scale hostilities get under way there may be Western will to do what needs doing which is so unpalatable to us now - deportation of Saudi funded imams who preach treason in Western mosques, curtailment of Muslim immigration to non-Muslim countries etc.
Gagging ourselves now will merely strengthen the enemy and handicap us in the fight of our lives. The irony is that just as in WWII, Western squeamishness about making difficult decisions will result in millions dead whereas a sharp rap on Arab/Muslim heads now for each provocation would have at least a chance of reining in their ambitions. They think twice about taking on a "strong horse" but perceive the West as weak and ripe for the picking.
Pedantic flabby thinking like Harris's contributes to that perception.
I had read a story about an english
officer serving in India in the 1800's
He had come upon a funeral proccession where a man had died
and his body was to be burned
It was customary that the mans WIFE
(living) was to be burned with him
The officer interveened, at which time, one of the RELIGIOUS LEADERS
said: " but it is our custom"
Where upon the officer replied: " It
is our custom to hang men who burn women, now, if you still want to carry out your custom do so and then i will carry out mine" Turns out the custom
is no longer CUSTOMARY
I think kindle has mis-read the article.
It should be noted that Lee Harris is the author of two controversial books:
The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West
and
Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History
.
Speaking of Murdoch, I saw something this morning over on the Richard Dawkins website about how the world's largest online Atheist community has been deleted from Myspace!
Write a hundred times
"'Only' does not mean 'Few'"
I am being driven bananas by this barbarism. The limit was a "historian" writing about Sam Houston wearing "one of the only pair of boots in Texas." Pray, who was wearing the OTHER boot of the "only pair"?
Lee Harris' article in the Weekly Standard is certainly thoughtful, but to my mind it has two main deficiencies.
The first one is the parallel that he draws between 17th century England and the present day. True, in the 17th century, there were theological disputes so bitter that it was thought better to forbid their being discussed. But to equate them with the present day confrontation between western civilisation and Islam mixes apples and oranges. We are not now dealing with arguments about things like transubstantiation - we are concerned with a combined religious and political force of implacable ambition with far more concrete aims than those of 17th century theologians.
The second one is that the 'either/or' conclusion at the end of his article is incomplete. He says that allowing complete freedom of speech will have consequences, which he describes, but he does not also say that clamping down on critics of Islam by enforcing a code of political correctness will also have consequences, nor does he describe them, even thought they are very serious indeed because they are a form of submission to to Islam.
We may, some day, be faced with quite another choice - inconsistent not only with freedom of speech but with freedom of religion - and that is whether to clamp down on Islam. If we eventually conclude that that is necessary, we will of course be problems with the Charter . We may discover that by enacting it we dug ourselves into a pit and that it is difficult to climb out of it.
We are in a situation where free speech needs to be preserved. If it is not preserved, we will eventually find ourselves hauled before one or other of these tribunals and punished for writing posts like this one.
Section 13 should be repealed. It is an instrument of Thought Control and belongs on the statute book of a totalitarian, truly Nazi state. Its existence shames Canada.
Apropos the Lee Harris article, issues about free speech, similar to those that Lee discusses, are also being raised in the Netherlands -
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver....php?
cl=6075305
Commenting by HaloScan
