no i am not just referring to whats been said in here.
|
|
|
Paris Attack
- Thread starter N3WMAN
- Start date
Ok, just making sure. I didn't want you to be of the opinion that anyone who doesn't openly and publicly protest their government is a supporter of "killing them all" because that would be quite stupid.
such a mindset would indeed be stupid... just like assuming any muslim who does not put his/her life on the line by making him/herself a target in the eyes of extremist is actually supporting the terrorist.
that would be equally stupid.
wouldn't you agree?
Of course.
Maybe you would like to go back and edit some of your pasts posts in which you hold any and all tax payers responsible for the actions of their government. Just saying, I wouldn't want anyone to think you were flip-flopping on an issue. That would undermine your credibility in any argument.
Just some friendly advice.
Maybe you would like to go back and edit some of your pasts posts in which you hold any and all tax payers responsible for the actions of their government. Just saying, I wouldn't want anyone to think you were flip-flopping on an issue. That would undermine your credibility in any argument.
Just some friendly advice.
when i say responsible... i mean we need to do our part in pressuring our governments into acting responsibly.. and not creating terrorism elsewhere on the planet.. at the very least a letter to your local MP is a fair expectation.. after all they are representing us are they not? elected by us.. paid for by us(taxes)...
not exactly asking you to write to ISIS with your name/address etc.. just to your MP/MPP
if we sit on our bum and cry... when said terrorism reaches our land... then we lose the right to B***H about it, since we did absolutely jack all to prevent it, we(individuals) have an opportunity to instruct our SERVANTS(lets face it thats what they are) to refrain from intervention.
Last edited:
you said that not me.
Did I guess right?
i wouldn't know.. i was never elected for office... you need to ask that to someone who has been in such a position.
Ya, your right. We wouldn't want to make conclusions based purely on circumstantial evidence. I will ask.
if you do and manage to get a response... do share.
fo shizzle ma nizzle
Old men executed for raising pigeons. Children executed for watching soccer on TV. There's no reasoning with delusional psychos. Kill 'em all.
Screw the politicians and red tape I say we have a gtam group buy and head over there kick some asc
Last edited:
Assuming there is some truth to those events (I saw the news reports, too) let us now see what happens.
If those actions were performed by criminals in violation of applicable laws then the appropriate authorities in those countries need to track down those responsible, and prosecute and punish them as applicable. That's what would happen here and in any other developed, civilized country.
If the authorities in those countries do NOT take this action against criminal elements in their own country, this is indicative that the governments in those countries are either unwilling or unable to deal with criminals. That's bad (and I've been saying that the situation appears to be this, at a minimum).
On the other hand, if those actions were taken under government authority, then there is a BIG problem, and I don't know of any way of fixing this other than a great big "reset" button.
This is the kind of thing that these countries have to be capable of managing on their own. I'm not convinced that they are.
If criminals like this are allowed to run rampant, then it is likely that so will terrorists, and if those terrorists do something that ticks off the Americans, they're going to have the Americans in there doing something about it to protect their own interests.
Perhaps the Americans are guilty of meddling in international affairs ... but perhaps the question of why they were in there to begin with needs to be asked. The Americans do not meddle (militarily) with the affairs of Canada, the UK, Japan, Australia, etc ... (not in the last few decades, anyhow)
Thats because uk, australia, japan, and even canada are quite often helping in american meddling elsewhere... partners in war crimes unfortunately. ... for example in korea, gulfwar 1, afghanistan, gulfwar 2, libya, and now syria.... and also the economic war on iran... these are just the few in recent memory where we CANADA are helping US.. no wonder they arent wasting their military resources by invading us.
This corruption goes much much deeper I fear... my deepeat fear is I may be right
And the authorities in those countries (iraq/syria) have their hands tied trying to fight groups like isis and alnusra front etc... they do not have the capacity to do police work anymore unfortunately.
This corruption goes much much deeper I fear... my deepeat fear is I may be right
And the authorities in those countries (iraq/syria) have their hands tied trying to fight groups like isis and alnusra front etc... they do not have the capacity to do police work anymore unfortunately.
Last edited:
It looks like we don't have freedom from religion in our religious freedoms.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-trial-a-warning-against-smugness-walkom.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-trial-a-warning-against-smugness-walkom.html
Canadian blasphemy trial a warning against smugness: Walkom
It’s not just Muslim fanatics who treat blasphemy as a crime. So does Canada.
LIFE OF BRIANIn 1980, a theatre in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., was charged with blasphemous libel for showing the Monty Python film, Life of Brian — a spoof on Jesus Christ. Ontario’s then-Conservative attorney general moved swiftly to stay the charge, but the blasphemy law remains, writes Thomas Walkom.
By: Thomas Walkom National Affairs, Published on Fri Jan 16 2015
Many Canadians assume that only Muslim fanatics view blasphemy as a crime.
That assumption was bolstered after last week’s attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by two Islamic terrorists.
The pair said they were avenging what they called Charlie Hebdo’s insults against Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.
What isn’t as well known is that blasphemy is also a crime in Canada. The penalties aren’t as severe as those meted out in, say, Saudi Arabia.
But in Canada, you can still go to jail for up to two years for expressing what theCriminal Code calls blasphemous libel.
At least one person has suffered that fate.
He was a Toronto atheist named Eugene (Ernest) Victor Sterry. In 1927, he was jailed and then deported to England for the offence of insulting Christianity.
Sterry’s particular crime was to call God an “irate Old Party who thunders imprecations” and prefers the smell of roast cutlets to that of boiled cabbage.
He also called God a “frenzied megalomaniac.”
Jeremy Patrick, a law professor now teaching in Australia, tells the tale of the Sterry case in a scholarly article published five years ago by the Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law.
It’s a tale that reminds Canadians not to be too smug.
Blasphemy was first written into Canada’s Criminal Code in 1892. At the time, it was seen as a skilful compromise.
Criticizing religion in a “fair-minded” way that used “decent language” was deemed legal. But using language intended to insult the religious convictions of the majority was not.
Put simply, it was okay to challenge religion as long as the critique was made in a manner that did not offend too many voters.
Sterry’s Christian Inquirer magazine, however, was the Charlie Hebdo of its day. Its aim was not to just to make the point but to attract attention.
To achieve this end, Sterry hand-delivered copies of his tract to senior Ontario officials, including the provincial premier and the local Crown prosecutor.
The response was quick. Sterry was soon under arrest for blasphemous libel.
As Patrick recounts, the case became a cause célèbre across North America — in part because Sterry was defended by one of Canada’s few black lawyers, E. Lionel Cross.
Some Toronto newspapers, such as the Globe (now the Globe and Mail), bayed for Sterry’s blood.
The Star was more circumspect. While it declined to offer an editorial opinion on the case, it did print reports that, in Patrick’s view, favoured the defendant.
Oddly enough, Sterry didn’t try to argue that the blasphemy law was wrong or outdated. Instead, he maintained that he was not insulting Christians when he took on the God of the Old Testament. He was merely insulting Jews.
None of this swayed the prosecutor, the judge or the jury.
The prosecution was particularly incensed by Sterry’s suggestion that God preferred roast cutlets.
“Were the Crown to tolerate and permit such a wicked and profane libel of God to go unnoticed, it would deal a death blow to the state as a Christian state,” the prosecutor said.
The judge told the jury that if they concluded Sterry had written in a manner designed to outrage “all our God-fearing people” then it had no choice but to convict.
The jury took just 25 minutes to find Sterry guilty.
He was sentenced to 60 days in jail and, apparently as part of a plea bargain, deported to the country of his birth, England.
Throughout the provincial government trod carefully. The attorney general confided that he wished the blasphemy charge had never been brought. But given the political sensitivity of the case, he declared himself unwilling to stay the charge.
Over the decades, politicians chose not to eliminate the law. But they did become more adroit at handling it.
In 1980, a theatre in Sault Ste. Marie was charged with blasphemous libel for showing the Monty Python film, Life of Brian — a spoof on Jesus Christ.
Local Crown prosecutors had laid the charge following a complaint by an Anglican vicar.
But Ontario’s then-Conservative attorney general moved swiftly to stay the charge.
The story was buried. The blasphemy law remains.
Thomas Walkom’s column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.
Good researching there!
couple of points:
-only one person has been convicted of religios blasphemy in Canada and that was in 1927.
-the maximum penalty of 2 years in jail is "somewhat" less severe than the punishment of death currently being practiced by Islamic fanatics.
also relevant is Canada's hate crime: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/what-is-a-hate-crime-1.1011612
couple of points:
-only one person has been convicted of religios blasphemy in Canada and that was in 1927.
-the maximum penalty of 2 years in jail is "somewhat" less severe than the punishment of death currently being practiced by Islamic fanatics.
also relevant is Canada's hate crime: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/what-is-a-hate-crime-1.1011612
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|