RK77

I have to disagree with you both.

I have no idea why this Canadian author is not familiar with American hate crime law. His ignorance on this topic makes me suspicious about the accuracy of his statements about Canada and it's law.

Nonetheless, the American Constitution does not need to be abandoned. To suggest that speech should be censored has, if this author is correct catipulted down a slippery slope. Will their next move be to restrict their internet access to ONLY Canadian websites?

American codifies at every turn an basic belief in living together requiring effort and restraint. It actually proscibes that citizenship in THIS nation will not be easy or without challenges. It asks us to learn to be the best of ourselves----but ALWAYS to be ourselves!

Our laws suggest that anyone may think or say what they choose. The line is drawn at ACTING on those hatreds. I think that is just exactly where the line should be drawn.

If you have never had an opportunity to read a primer on how the federal government suggests that hate crimes be evaluated then you might be surprised by the limitations to qualifications as a hate crime.

I can't find my best example of this right now but this is a reasonable primer.

This is written for Asian Pacific citizens but it will give you an idea of what I mean, I hope.

VKMHVM2

That's why what the author of this article is pushing for should properly be called thought crimes. Of course it would be unconstitutional, but then again, so is torture.

__________________
It's All Here!

Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism

"Missing Links" - the 911 film THEY do NOT want you to see!

michelemichele

Thanks (very much) for the pdf, it was excellent.

...But I don't agree with your conclusion here. I think of Holocaust denial as libel: these deniers are insinuating that the people who lost families & friends to concentration camps are lying about it. It's a Jew, after all, it's in their character. Libel should be punishable by law. I mean, if someone calls me a bitch, so what: if I react to that, it's my problem. But if I'd been personally harassed, excluded from jobs and/or advancement by rights I should have earned, had a history of this in my family, had a long extended history of it along with violence against people of my religion, ethnicity and country: it builds up, especially when human nature will always kick around society's most vulnerable.

The Internet at least provides a platform where there can be some dialogue when it becomes apparent people are buying into BS*, but what of the in-the-flesh VKMs who publish material claiming that the Red Cross, say, reported there were no extermination camps, deaths were from disease and (if I remember correctly) 'just a couple of hundred thousand'.

Do you think the publisher of such material should be hit with charges rather than the individual?

It's true that civil and/or criminal prosecution &/or (if all goes well) monetary compensation/conviction doesn't compensate victims emotionally, but on the other hand, it does help the person(s) feel someone is on their side (and on a practical level: they may need that $ to defray medical expenses, and wage losses. How long communal support lasts: I don't know, there's so many varying degrees and extenuating circumstances, I can't generalize. I suspect it lasts only as long as the headlines, but maybe I'm being cynical. I know that the people from Maher's old board who participated in threads about Canadian issues haven't forgotten them.

There's a lot more I could get into, because there are some downsides I've noticed myself (Ontario's Sharia case; Indian protests at Caledonia are two that stand out), but I don't want to wander all the hell over the place in this post. I'd be glad to find links & fill you in, though the best source is gone (word to the wise: always save good threads to text files).

Canada doesn't mete out such sentences on a continual basis: Zundel's case was extreme after he'd racked up a hell of a record.

__________________
(((start the music)))

michelemichele

You're so tortured, poor baby

__________________
(((start the music)))

VKMHVM2

Typhus and starvation caused most of the deaths. Conditions at the slave labor camps deteriorated and there were many outbreaks as the war drew to a close and German infrastructure broke down. The total death count was probably closer to 600,000.

Now Michele, there is no doubt that J-ws have been oppressed over the centuries usually over the actions of a few, pogrom after pogrom in country after country, but what are the odds that exactly 6 million died within a short time period twice in the same century?????? Coincidentally, after both world wars! It's almost like the first attempt didn't gain traction and it had to be accepted in order to conform to the Torah prophecy for the reformation of Israel "You shall return, minus 6 million" so the State of Israel could be founded?

The Original Six Million: A Collection Of 1920s NY-Times Jewish Holocau$t Articles - Forums powered by Reason and Principle

ImusWallower

for the love of all that is good, use a source that is not anti-semitic

__________________
I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when Chrisbb rolls in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung

VKMHVM2

The New York Times is anti-Semitic??????

__________________
It's All Here!

Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism

"Missing Links" - the 911 film THEY do NOT want you to see!

Heretic

Just ut the piece of shit on ignore. He's not going to see reason and never will. He's a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

__________________
"In space no one can hear you scream. in D.C. it won't matter..." -Clinton Resurrection: The Alien Queen lives!

DanS.

The source cited says 5 or 6 million...and it doesn't say they actually died(as far as I know) only that it is asking to help feed the 5 or 6 million that are starving.....Also...so many of the articles don't actually provide any evidence that they came from the new york times...while other articles that report about gas chambers are labled as propaganda by the person posting them

michelemichele

Figures he'd be recycling the same shit spewed on Maher's board.

Books didn't make an impression, going after every spliced & spun sentence didn't work, Circus' precision would only shut him until collective amnesia kicked back in. This won't work either. Nevertheless:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

It isn't about the Jewish Holocaust, but in the documentary, a Red Cross doctor (Gallaird?forget his name) explains why the RC broke their usual non-intervention/apolitical protocols in Rwanda, and he refers specifically to Nazi Germany. The Red Cross knew what Hitler was doing -- everyone knew -- but neither the RC nor the international community did anything about it. The Red Cross wouldn't sit back again, not when their intervention could save lives, so this time they acted in a way they never have before.

Spare us your bullshit, VKM.

__________________
(((start the music)))