RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to fly

RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to fly (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to fly (3/25/2010 6:18:36 PM)
Point me to where Coulter ever said "All Muslims are terrorists". I dare ya. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Saying "all Muslims are terrorists", "Jews are thieves and murder Christian babies", and "the Holocaust didn't happen", are actually calls to violence and racial hatred. It's just that in the States, it's accepted. In other places, it isn't. I don't see why it's always Americans that go up in arms over how speech is supposedly restricted elsewhere: if they're happy with their first amendment, why do they give a flying fuck :-) ? Oh, hold on... it's when their Michael Savage and Ann Coulter get their "speech restricted" by evil Canada, France and England that they start whining [:D] .

Elisabella -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:18:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Exactly - if "hate speech" weren't limited to "hating someone's gender, race, or religion" and actually extended to ALL forms of HATE speech, I don't think anyone would support the laws. If it works for you two then feel free. Personally I am glad we have laws against hate speech. Against hate speech based on race/religion or against hate speech in general?

Politesub53 -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:20:03 PM)
The UK rightly has laws on both.

Elisabella -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:21:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Don't try to feed me that garbage, I've seen your best buds bashing Christians, some of them (not you obviously) bashing Jews... Very good point - I for one have never seen anything even remotely resembling "Bible thumping morons" prosecuted as hate speech.

Elisabella -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:22:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The UK rightly has laws on both. So if I were to say "I hate Tony Blair and I think he's a worthless piece of trash" I could be arrested for it in the UK?

slvemike4u -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to fly (3/25/2010 6:23:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Actuall Kittin calls to incite violence,whether racial or otherwise is against the law here.Free speech stops at the point where it's consequences are violent acts. Saying "all Muslims are terrorists", "Jews are thieves and murder Christian babies", and "the Holocaust didn't happen", are actually calls to violence and racial hatred. It's just that in the States, it's accepted. In other places, it isn't. I don't see why it's always Americans that go up in arms over how speech is supposedly restricted elsewhere: if they're happy with their first amendment, why do they give a flying fuck :-) ? Oh, hold on... it's when their Michael Savage and Ann Coulter get their "speech restricted" by evil Canada, France and England that they start whining [:D] . First off I have not commented one way or the other on Canada's or any other countries speech laws.And yes we can agree spouting that bullshit is inciting violence...but to actually prosecute and hope to get a conviction here in the states the call to violence must be a direct call for violence...not so hard to get around those sorts of law....The scum that do this sort of shit do not have to be too smart to skirt around actually violating such porous and vague laws.

Elisabella -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to fly (3/25/2010 6:25:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u First off I have not commented one way or the other on Canada's or any other countries speech laws.And yes we can agree spouting that bullshit is inciting violence...but to actually prosecute and hope to get a conviction here in the states the call to violence must be a direct call for violence...not so hard to get around those sorts of law....The scum that do this sort of shit do not have to be too smart to skirt around actually violating such porous and vague laws. There's a reason that it has to be a direct call for violence - can you imagine how much that law could be abused? If saying "Muslims are terrorists" could be construed as a call for violence, then saying "Obama is a terrorist destroying the fabric of this country" could be construed as an assassination threat.

Sanity -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:25:32 PM)
And I wouldn't want to see it happen. People are just nuts, and need to grow up. Not get so agitated as easily as they do. Learn some tolerance. quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Very good point - I for one have never seen anything even remotely resembling "Bible thumping morons" prosecuted as hate speech.

Elisabella -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity And I wouldn't want to see it happen. People are just nuts, and need to grow up. Not get so agitated as easily as they do. Learn some tolerance. Not even tolerance, I really don't care who hates whom, but to say "it's okay to hate people for politics but not for religion" is ridiculous.

Sanity -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:30:19 PM)
Its alright to have feelings and to talk about them, and I think its more dangerous for the European-style nanny states to try to force people to keep their ideas and emotions bottled up. When you make something illegal then there are certain types who will want to partake of it precisely because it is forbidden and seems exotic. quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity And I wouldn't want to see it happen. People are just nuts, and need to grow up. Not get so agitated as easily as they do. Learn some tolerance. Not even tolerance, I really don't care who hates whom, but to say "it's okay to hate people for politics but not for religion" is ridiculous.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The UK rightly has laws on both. So if I were to say "I hate Tony Blair and I think he's a worthless piece of trash" I could be arrested for it in the UK? Here is the relevant part of the law for you to read. Coulters could be seen as free speech unless the public prosecutor could prove she was trying to stir up racial hatred. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J: Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Elisabella -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Its alright to have feelings and to talk about them, and I think its more dangerous for the European nanny states to try to force people to keep their emotions bottled up. When you make something illegal then there are certain types who will want to partake of it precisely because it is forbidden and seems exotic. This is very true, I know that when I was younger I was very drawn to being offensive because it bugged me so much that I couldn't say it. I think that if these things are brought out in the open, with discourse rather than judgement, people might be willing to see that the race they hate so much isn't all that different from them.

slvemike4u -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to fly (3/25/2010 6:45:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u First off I have not commented one way or the other on Canada's or any other countries speech laws.And yes we can agree spouting that bullshit is inciting violence...but to actually prosecute and hope to get a conviction here in the states the call to violence must be a direct call for violence...not so hard to get around those sorts of law....The scum that do this sort of shit do not have to be too smart to skirt around actually violating such porous and vague laws. There's a reason that it has to be a direct call for violence - can you imagine how much that law could be abused? If saying "Muslims are terrorists" could be construed as a call for violence, then saying "Obama is a terrorist destroying the fabric of this country" could be construed as an assassination threat. Nor did I , in any of my posts,say or even hint that I disagreed with the bar being set so high.As a matter of fact,and this could quite possibly be just me being an American,I happen to agree with the need for a direct and transparent connection between the speech in question and the subsequent violence.

Elisabella -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:45:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Here is the relevant part of the law for you to read. Coulters could be seen as free speech unless the public prosecutor could prove she was trying to stir up racial hatred. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J: Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Thank you for the research, it's appreciated :) I agree with the "threatening" part, but to me it's too open for debate between what's "religious hatred" and what's "antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult, or abuse" and if one is legal and the other isn't I think it'll often boil down to the prejudices of the judge to say if it's okay or not.

LadyEllen -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 6:48:54 PM)
Its not that difficult Elisabella "Islam is wrong and ought to be banned" - is OK "Muslims are bad and ought to be expelled" - is not OK E

RootIsGod666 -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 7:01:38 PM)
Keep in mind that most people would ban just about every part of what most of U/us say and do around here (and in fact have already done so in many places) just because THEY do not agree with it. Letting anyone choose what is good and what is evil will always end with everyone loosing far more than pure words could ever harm someone.

TheHeretic -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 7:07:43 PM)
Damn Canadian fascists. The subjects simply cannot be trusted with freedom, it seems.

slvemike4u -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 7:14:32 PM)
They sure can play hockey though.....fucking Canadians,

TheHeretic -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 7:25:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u They sure can play hockey though.....fucking Canadians, And the Soviets were good at gymnastics. What's your point?

Sanity -> RE: Ann Coulter causes firestorm in Canada by telling Muslim to 'take a camel' as alternative to flying (3/25/2010 7:26:41 PM)
Great Whip snaps! Very astute point, Batman. Keep up the Bat posting, all of Gotham may be in peril. quote: ORIGINAL: RootIsGod666 Keep in mind that most people would ban just about every part of what most of U/us say and do around here (and in fact have already done so in many places) just because THEY do not agree with it. Letting anyone choose what is good and what is evil will always end with everyone loosing far more than pure words could ever harm someone.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875