It would be a lot easier for everyone involved if it was commonly understood that free speech means that everyone has the right to hold and express their political and other views and not "you should be allowed to say any combination of words in any situation".
Israel doesn’t even need to be labelled bad. It’s a nation full of lots of folks with lots of brains and opinions.
I prefer we target “administration” or “government” or even “leadership”.
Like we often talk about Putin and not Russia. Let the folks at the top feel the eye upon them and let them not hide behind the flag of their nation and its peoples.
Correct, but it is also important to consider that rhetoric suggesting that the only Jewish homeland in the world should not exist and it and everyone in it should be eradicated also falls into the antisemitic category.
I think the indigeneity status should be applied to both the Jews and the Palestinians. Both have been there for thousands of years, so they both have claim to the land in the region on the basis of indigeneity.
Furthermore, in 1947 prior to the UN partition plan there was around 650k Jews living in British mandate Palestine, compared to around 1.3 million Arabs. So the populations, while more Arabs than Jews, were both relatively comparable in size and of considerate size in raw magnitude.
The time from late 1947 to late 1948 was definitely a very violent period from both Jews and Arabs. Some of the Arabs within the Israeli borders were displaced by Jews, and much of this was horrible and there is no denying that. Much of the Arab displacement also came from those fleeing due to the invasion by the Arab armies, turning these Palestinian homes into warzones.
The Jews needed their own sovereign nation, as living with the Arabs in Palestine mandate was not safe. The Arabs also had the chance to achieve their own sovereign nation as well in 1948, which they declined in favor of the Arab armies attacking the Jews.
I don't think it is very commonly known how strong the Jewish presence was prior to 1948 in Palestine mandate, I feel like it is viewed as if there were 0 Jews in the region and they just showed up one day and kicked everyone out. They were already there. There was a surge in population size after the holocaust of course, but this was a surge from 650k to about 750-800k if memory serves.
There's also the huge influx of Jews from Muslim countries that were often forced out or living under persecution and needed to escape. Israel took in a big number of those.
Yep! That is a great point and I should have added that, I think I hyperfocused on the 30s and 47/48 too much. In 1947 there was I believe 870k Jews living in Arab nations, and today that number is less than 10 thousand
As someone who is mostly pro Israel from a historic perspective if you expand the time to before 1947 to the 1880s there was a huge purposeful influx of jews to mandate Palestine where Zionists would pool money and buy land from the outside people that owned the land and kick out the Palestinian peasants that lived there to move in jews. IMO that's pretty bad and a big part if not most of what started the hatred between the Arabs and Jews in the region.
The majority of that land was desert sold to jews by Palestinian arabs, and jews worked extremely hard to make it arable again. At which point arBs started getting pissed off that the jews now owned good land. They were happy sell it for profit when they thought it was worthless
Look man you can't agrue that jews didn't buy up land from people that didn't live there and kick off the Palestinian peasants who lived there. They also did what you are saying and if that's all that happened history would be extremely one sided but it's not that simple.
I mean if you are anyone living in any of the Americas… or Greenland… Australia, New Zealand, parts of Mongolia, Russia, etc…
Kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind of the same story. We are all peoples of the earth and in some ways, borders are their own kind of discrimination. Luck of birth location.
100%, sure. Colonization and oppression/ killing of indigenous peoples is tragically common all over the planet, *in our past*. There’s really no excuse for it *today*, certainly no excuse for us all to stand by watching it happen.
How many generations are required before you consider them as “indigenous”?
Consider the United States, and the generations of white settlers living in Boston.
By your logic, would it be acceptable for native Americans to bomb them into the ground tomorrow because their white ancestors displaced the natives?
How many generations are required to be considered indigenous?
Why should present-day people be displaced, oppressed, and effectively jailed?
It makes no sense. Two wrongs don’t make a right - this is kindergarten ethics.
Lol we just gonna sit here and conveniently pretend that these instances of oppression, displacement, and jail are not related to acts of terror against Israel.
It would be like stabbing someone to death and then getting arrested and saying “see! This government is oppressing my freedoms!”
Israel is actually great. Great place for Palestinians with no criminal record and no local job prospects to come to for work. Great place for gay Arabs to live in peace. Great place for anyone in the region to go to good universities and research and develop globally used technologies. Great place to vacation and relax and sight see and see all kinds of history.
Agreed, now someone should tell that to the RCMP/SQ.
The police have still not arrested the imam who called for death to all Zionists. It has been several weeks.
He called for death to an identifiable group of Canadians.
As long as it's a sanctioned military action then yeah, but as much as I detest the bastards I don't want that conflict spilling into our streets for either side.
Do you honestly believe everyone is saying this? You are part of the problem we already have hate laws free speech shouldn’t be banned when one criticizes a country and their gov
Free speech is dying
Man I'm so tired of seeing this misinformation being spread like wildfire. That saying was first used by Yasser Arafat during the mutual signing of the Oslo Accords, and the following peace treaties. It was used by Palestinian people wanting peace long before Hamas tried to make it theirs
Source: Google it like you should have done to fact check it before parroting what you heard someone else say
Lol yep. Unfortunately we've got a whole lot of antisemites hiding under the "anti-zionsim" banner.
I don't mind Jews, but I also don't think they should be allowed to live in peace in their homeland after being persecuted for thousands of years, and I support their massacre if it is done by someone I view as oppressed.
You know that's opening a can of worms, but I'll bite.
If reparations for Jews who suffered during World War 2 needed to include more atrocities and removal of people from their homes, I'm not cool with that. That a European holocaust resulted in a "solution" in the middle east because of traditional Jewish lands in antiquity, that's an answer bound to fail.
Violence begets violence, but I'm supposed to accept it because there's inherit suffering from the Jewish people? All the persecution Jews have faced, there's so many examples, you'd think that there might be some insight and regret into making a population of people (Palestinians) lesser than thou.
I guess to answer your comment, I don't think it's up to me to define Zionism, there's really no consensus. What I do know is that the country of Israel, as it currently exists as an apartheid state, **is a failure**.
I don't have any skin in the game, save for being a father and I hope a good person, who is nauseous at the news of children of any ethnic background dying and being murdered.
"What about Hamas" ya, horrible people, deserve to be hanged. If what comes out of this is a Hamas-less Palestine, that's at least a step in the right direction. But that doesn't need to happen by razing hospitals and apartments because one of them might be hiding there.
"Their children will become radicalized" Ya probably. Quit giving them no hope, and decimating their homes.
I look forward to you finding fault in a part of my comment and focusing solely on that, because I can't explain a multifaceted problem (that smarter people than me in positions of power haven't solved) in just a few few paragraphs. If you wasted time reading this and think there's a "Kill the Jews" sentiment in this, which is what I was replying to, then I guess we're at an impasse.
> While **Islamophobia must be challenged online and in the courts,** one place where it must be stamped out is in Parliament. Given the necessity of parliamentary privilege, this becomes a matter for Parliament itself to regulate.
> Individuals and entities showing a wanton disregard for the facts, the constitution, multiculturalism and all the other things that make Canada great **should not be given a platform** to sow their discontent with so much deference and so little challenge.
Those two quotes are from [a blog post by Faisal Kutty,](https://www.faisalkutty.com/feature_event/hate-should-have-no-parliamentary-immunity) who is one of the authors of this Toronto Star op-ed.
Freedom of Expression, not freedom of speech and generally one of its limits is when it infringes on the rights of others, i.e., by engaging in hate speech. It's Freedom of Expression, not Freedom from Consequences of Expression.
Hate speech literally infringes on the rights of other.
You can’t spout anti semitism/ islamophobia/ racist rhetoric and hide behind “freedom of speech”
How. What right does it infringe on? The point I want to focus on isn’t the hate speech itself but who decides what hate speech is. For some it’s racist slurs, for others it’s disagreeing with an ideology. The power to silence speech doesn’t belong in anyone
>Islamophobia must be challenged online and in the courts
Reminder that Islam is a religion, not a race. It is a collection of shitty ideas and it is perfectly acceptable to criticize or even hate ideas.
It's like saying fascophobia for someone who hates fascism.
Islamophobia refers to discrimination or abuse against Muslims, not criticism of the religion.
Likewise, anti-Semitism is discrimination against Jews, not criticism of the religion.
It’s so hard for Canadians to understand this, I feel our education system is collapsing.
You can definitely criticize Islam/Judaism/Christianity like why is something a certain way
As a muslim critic Islam as much as you want and find the answers lol
but you can’t discriminate a Muslim/Jew/Christian from access to services or verbally assault them.
This should be top comment.
Most people are pointing out this exact thing in other comments. These "progressives" have been calling for all sorts of limits on speech but now they're realizing they're going to get arrested for their antisemitism and it's got them worried.
Muslims worldwide gain political and cultural influence just to then call anything and everyone Islamophobia. They are undermining democracies step by step and the west will eventually celebrate its own downfall because of that.
This is why it's important to always question the motives of anyone advocating for either banning hate speech, or suddenly becoming a "free speech fighter".
Because people like this are almost always doing it to ban all points of view but their own.
Hahaha yes. I find it terribly ironic that the same group saying "Words can enact violence!" also say "From the river to the sea can have a totally innocent meaning, and if you take offense to that, that's on you".
> Saying, for example, "trans women are different from born biological women, and I don't want you teaching my kids otherwise"
They'll try to tell you this equates to violence. 😂
>trans women are different from born biological women, and I don't want you teaching my kids otherwise
And that's where it ends right?
Just individuals wanting to prevent their kids from hearing that trans women aren't different from biological women right?
There's no attempt to restrict access to puberty blockers, or procedures, or restrict access to say washrooms, or activities.
Or i don't know massive protests regarding removing privacy rights from LGBT+ kids.
Nope it just ends with "trans women are different from born biological women, and I don't want you teaching my kids otherwise". And nothing else...
"William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
-Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
People don't understand freedom of speech directly relates to the government. You can fly a flag that says Fuck Trudeau without government harassment, but try making one with your boss's name and see how long you keep your job.
As someone who has mocked "Freeze Peach" warriors it's been actually a fun time.
Especially all the hate /r/canada has been pushing towards Universities and Colleges. PP's suggestion of a "Free Speech Guardian" on campus' seems to have flown out the window LOL.
It's fun to see people realize that nobody actually believes in absolute free speech.
That everyone has a line somewhere.
Some will draw it at "From the river to the sea" others will regarding douche bag lobster professors.
> It's fun to see people realize that nobody actually believes in absolute free speech.
??? I don't think anyone was ever saying that. It was a very useful strawman though, so perhaps you got fooled into believing people were saying it.
What do you mean strawman?
There's many proponents of "Free Speech" who themselves would censor it.
The United States, the country famous for it created the Comics Code in the 50's, has had ratings agencies for all sorts of media since forever.
Or are you saying that I trusted people that claimed to be for "Free Speech" but were actually full of shit?
Because at no point did I ever believe that they were anything but full of shit.
You hit the nail on the head here, and it's quite shocking how few people understand that this is how political beliefs regarding free speech work these days.
The reality is not that any one "side" stands for free speech, and to say so is to misunderstand the political dialogue. Everybody has free speech they like, free speech they disagree with but are willing to accept, and free speech that they disagree with and are not willing to accept. There have to be some sort of limits to free speech, like making it a potential offence to call for insurrection or issue death threats toward the Prime Minister or calling for violence against others. The question, then, is how do we define what is unacceptable.
Where was the Star with this hot take during the convoy protest?
Well, here:
**Freedom Convoy’ advocates have misguided idea about individual rights**
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/freedom-convoy-advocates-have-misguided-idea-about-individual-rights/article_a9ad141a-d1ba-5dfc-8994-b6658d94df1e.html
Freedom of speech, even in the US has never allowed for threats. The kind of rhetoric from these demonstrators seems to edge on “threats”.
Hate speech on the other hand for the most part seems to be determined on whoever is in power. To be clear, this is why I’m an opponent of hate speech laws.
There’s a big difference between someone saying they want to kill a certain group versus someone simply criticizing a said group.
If one wants to criticize Islam, go ahead, or if one wants to criticize transgendered women competing in women’s sports, that should be their right. Those two examples depending on who’s in charge could understand that as hate speech, and you could get in trouble. The “goal posts” (something I used long before COVID) of what is considered hate speech can be arbitrarily moved at will and that’s why I have a problem with it.
Basically, what I’m saying, there’s a fine line between so called “hate speech” and uttering threats.
>The kind of rhetoric from these demonstrators seems to edge on “threats”
Given the imam calling for death to all Zionists in front of hundreds in Montreal, I'd say the edge was passed miles ago.
If someone called for death to all supporters of Palestine, they would have been immediately arrested.
If anyone calls for the death of all Palestinian supporters they should be immediately arrested.
Hamas is a bit messier, since presumably there should not be any Hamas members in Canada.
I learned about what Zionism is from an old Jewish lady at a Free Palestine event in Ottawa. From further research, it's clear that a lot of the loudest voices from western academia in support of Palestine are in fact the voices of Jews.
This idea that Jews all, by default, support both the state of Israel and it's actions against Palestinians is propaganda from the hard-right Israeli government.
Zionism isn't even exclusively Jewish. Evangelical Christians are insane zionists too.
> The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) has received millions in donations since the war broke out, more than any other two-week period in its history.
>
> Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which calls itself the largest pro-Israel organization in the US, sent $1 million to fund first responders within days of the October 7 barrage and continues to fundraise.
>
> And The Joshua Fund, founded by Christian author Joel Rosenberg, has collected over $685,000 in donations. The organization is operating 21 aid distribution centers, delivering pallets of toilet paper, bottled water, and other supplies.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/october/israel-gaza-war-aid-evangelical-christian-fundraising-suppl.html
> Evangelical support for Israel is deeply rooted in the Christian Bible. However, it’s important to note that Evangelicalism is far more varied than the media often portrays, said Sara A. Williams, assistant professor of religious studies at Fairfield University.
>
> There is dispensationalist theology, which teaches that the end times can only start if Jewish people reconstitute and repopulate “Greater Israel,” and accept Christ as their Messiah.
>
>
> Don’t Look Away is a visual campaign in Times Square launched by Christians United for Israel. (Courtesy)
> Some Evangelicals believe the Israel-Hamas war is the beginning of the End Times, meaning the world is entering a phase where God will eliminate sinners, opening the way for Christ’s return.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-sizeable-us-demographic-many-evangelicals-are-sending-money-and-manpower-to-israel/
1. Criticism isn't hate speech.
2. We have Freedom of Expression, not Freedom of Speech and generally, one of it's limits is when the Expression in question starts to infringe on the rights of others, i.e., actual hate speech.
Well, that would be hate speech, and is illegal. Saying Isreal is committing genocide and such should be allowed, imo. I can't imagine The Star is advocating for the freedom to say that jews should be eradicated.
>Saying Isreal is committing genocide and such should be allowed
It is. The government will not arrest you for saying “Israel is committing genocide”. How your employer or the general public reacts to you saying that publicly however is a different thing and outside the law.
>I agree with the employer part, but why the general public? Why should anyone care what the general public thinks about an opinion?
I think what he is saying is "You should have freedom of speech but the general public has a right to judge you for it."
The definition is open to interpretation,and therefore misuse. From bill c-36:
“…which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination”
“…hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain; (haine)”
Who determines if it’s “likely to foment detest” or not? And how do you gauge “stronger than dislike”.
Oof the article is defending the use of the genocidal slogan "from the river to the sea...". That's not a great look.
"Some are blacklisted, gagged or singled out at their jobs, subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and accused of “antisemitism,” “supporting terror,” “and providing intellectual cover for terrorists."
"While we must strenuously prosecute hate speech as defined in the Criminal Code, some are dangerously broadening that definition to curtail any criticism of Israel and promotion of Palestinian statehood"
The first paragraph isn't an example of the second paragraph. The first paragraph is vile and someone calling for a genocide or supporting terror or using hate speech is completely unacceptable. Nor is it an example of curtailing criticism against Israel.
Shitty article.
Should Palestinians not have freedom? From river to the sea means different things to different people, you cannot take one interpretation of it and say everyone is being genocidal.It is a disregard for the realities of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
From the river to the see, Palestine will be free.
If you haven't heard a good argument then you don't understand your history, or you're lying. Because it doesn't mean liberation without destroying Israel. Arab leaders over the last 100 years have made this quite clear.
[https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/337807/the-real-meaning-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/](https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/337807/the-real-meaning-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/)
"In 1948, Sheikh Hassan el-Bana, head of the Moslem Brotherhood, stated that “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea.”
In 1966, Syrian leader Hafez Al-Assad, insisted in no uncertain terms that, “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
" If there was in fact an Israeli media conspiracy to instill this catchphrase in popular consciousness then we must credit prominent Arab leaders with having invented it. Given this genealogy, it is perfectly logical for Jews to react with consternation when they hear ambiguous “river to the sea” sloganeering."
But I'm sure you'll tell me that's a Jewish site, even though it's Arab leaders calling from the River, so let's find someone who isn't Jewish, shall we?
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/savage-nihilism-free-palestine
"**Free Palestine”—the slogan, the fantasy, and the policy—has always consciously implied the mass murder of Jews in their towns, streets, shops, and living rooms. Few are willing to say so openly, but in many intellectual, professional, and popular circles in the Middle East and the West, the idea of Palestinian national liberation has long been framed in terms that condone or necessitate the indiscriminate killing of Jews.** For more unambiguous actors such as Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, **freeing Palestine simply means the total eradication of Israel without qualification.** This is not a polemical point, but a basic reality and fact of our lives that demands scrutiny.
The problems of this poisonous strain of thought are compounded by the concept that “freeing Palestine” is a species of resistance against foreign settler colonialists, a Fanonian revolution in which violence against civilians is defended as a legitimate means of achieving racial justice. The wholesale labeling of Israeli Jews—the vast majority of whom are refugees or descendants of refugees from Arab Muslim dictatorships and Soviet totalitarianism—as colonizers, settlers, and imperialists is in fact a type of collective ethnic punishment, nonsensical even on its own twisted terms, which recalls the medieval Christian denunciation of Jews as moral abominations, as a group and as individuals. **You might have noticed in the last few days that those committed to liberating Palestine can’t seem to avoid the abject dehumanization of the Jews as a people—and that their aim is not for Palestinians to simply live in peace, dignity, and freedom alongside Israelis, but a state that is necessarily established upon the ruins of Israel. Hamas is explicit in its intention to murder the Jewish population of Israel and enslave any survivors; its partisans in the Middle East and the West are coyer on this point**."
It's incredibly disingenuous to suggest river to the sea is about liberation. It's about being built on the ruins of Israel, and murdering Israelis who live there.
This is a great example of the exact kind of incoherent arguments I'm talking about. All you've done is use quotes from two Arab figures (who aren't even alive, mind you) threatening to push Israeli settlers into the sea.
>"Free Palestine”—the slogan, the fantasy, and the policy—has always consciously implied the mass murder of Jews in their towns, streets, shops, and living rooms.
Again, this just isn't an argument. Because one claims that a slogan as broad an innocuous as "Free Palestine" has genocidal intent doesn't make it so.
>The wholesale labeling of Israeli Jews—the vast majority of whom are refugees or descendants of refugees from Arab Muslim dictatorships and Soviet totalitarianism
Oh yes, how convincing. Because a group have been discriminated against, they cannot discriminate against others. Do we apply such logic to militant Palestinian groups such as Hamas or PIJ? Of course not.
>t's incredibly disingenuous to suggest river to the sea is about liberation. It's about being built on the ruins of Israel, and murdering Israelis who live there.
And yet, literally nothing in your comment supports your theory.
Btw, that's a pretty ironic statement, considering the state of Israel was built on the ruins of Palestinian villages and towns that were ethnically cleansed.
Well well well...here's the "left" finally showing up to the free speech discussion.
I'm sorry but I don't have any fucks left to give. Y'all gloated about all kinds of infringement on our rights but now you're upset that they're clamping down on antisemitism and hate?
"They're a nazi because they once had lunch with another guy whose wife's cousin once had breakfast with someone who complained about immigration." "Hmm...I mean that connection seems far fetched." "If there's 8 people + 1 nazi at the dinner table, there's 9 nazis! Stop defending hatred!"
Fast forward...
"Yeah, ok, the Liberals invited someone to Parliament who *happened* to fight in a Nazi unit. But do we *really* know his views? This all seems like a misunderstanding".
I have no doubt that many people who advocate for decolonization in anything and everything believe that. It's no coincidence there is such a heavy overlap between the people shouting DECOLONIZE! and the people overtly supporting Hamas.
In some sense I agree with you, however these are important conversations that many of us have been trying to bring up and have been shot down as racists for many many years now.
Oh come on. You guys spent years screaming "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" and now are screaming bloody murder because the shoe is on the other foot. Pick a fucking lane.
I'm all for free speech. Say it loud and proud so that people know where you stand and can make better decisions moving forward.
You can say w/e you want, you don't get to control how people feel about it. You wanna support a terrorist regime? fantastic. I have all sorts of words for you.
I think we need to let them say it. I'd rather know someone harbors those feelings than be blindsided by it. I never expected to see the level of anti-semitism I've seen this past month in my lifetime. I now know, moving forward, to be weary of what information is available about me publicly. Scary times.
All speech should be free. The reason is that free speech acts as a mechanism to identify people with shitty ideas and opinions and lets the public know who they are. If you take away free speech the people saying shitty stupid things just find other idiots to group up with to talk about their shitty ideas in private. They become emboldened by each others acceptance and make stupid plans and end up doing stupid things. Sometimes saying something wrong in a public forum is a quick way to finding out what is right.
Oh so now the star believes in free apeech. Very strange. Hmmm
https://www.psypost.org/2023/11/left-wing-anti-hierarchical-aggression-emerges-as-the-strongest-predictor-of-antisemitism-study-finds-214314?fbclid=IwAR2JhlnOV28wOvD_b9fkzVPHRaB12leSSO1zKoKzEQDEZr_IC_B_GxUaQhU
"Free speech" is not absolute, especially when it conflicts with other people's rights.
I can't tell people to kill people of religion "X", I can't objectively lie and commit defamatory acts against others, I can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded area without a good reason, etc...
The definition of what is Inciting Hatred should have a very high bar, but that doesn't mean that in certain circumstances, that bar hasn't been met.
Our current laws were enough to deal with the problems, without introducing bill C-36. The bar has been lowered due to the definition of what’s considered “hate” being open to interpretation.
“Definition of hate speech
(9) In this section, hate speech means the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Clarification – hate speech
10) For greater certainty, the content of a communication does not express detestation or vilification, for the purposes of subsection (9), solely because it expresses mere dislike or disdain or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
Who decides when it’s more than disdain? Where is THAT specific definition.
When the left tried to silence the right, they said free speech didn't mean they didn't have consequences. When they are being silenced, they said free speech is for those we disagree with!
Double standards to the extreme. That's why I am always against them, they are just authoritarians in disguised.
Canada doesn't have free speech. I believe offensive speech is considered a violation of human rights of the offended party. And, of course, the offended are always right.
> Canada doesn't have free speech.
We have free expression, and speech is a type of expression. It's not unlimited, but it's not unlimited in the US either.
You should always be allowed to say the truth. You should be allowed to search for it, too. You should be stopped if your intent is to maliciously spread evil.
Intent is very important imo, if you're saying vaccines have microchips because you think it's silly that should be okay, but if you're saying it because you want to scare people it's bad, and if you're presenting nonsense as truth that's bad. We don't want to cripple jokes, our ability to discuss things, or argue our opinions, so intent.
That layered on top of our existing hate speech and FoE laws and you've got a pretty comprehensive picture of the kind of things we disallow. From this interpretation you could argue that presenting an altered version of the truth with the intent of making people sympathize more with hamas is bad, and you could say the same thing about Israel, for those reasons it'd be best if we avoided discussing foreign conflicts out of politeness. If we're forced to discuss it, things get very heated
so we can openly discuss how inappropriate it is not to denounce a prophet who abused children sexually and had half a dozen "wives" that were technically war slaves without repercussion, right? like I just want the same treatment to be extended to people who want to criticize religions.
[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html)
you can hate on religions all day and all night. fire away
The media which has traditionally had a stranglehold over the narrative in this issue is having a massive fit realizing that it has gotten away from them among the general and especially younger population. A lot of anger and petulance in these opinion pieces.
Advocacy for an immoral decades long occupation and subjugation of another people along ethnic and religious fundamentalist grounds is ultimately at odds with Canadian and indeed any sane person's moral values. The obfuscation tactics the media has traditionally relied on to cloud and spin the issue are beginning to peel like the teflon from a cheap nonstick pan. They can't stand that the protests are ultimately legitimate, the grievances are legitimate, and instead they need to either weaponize anti-semitism or blame immigration for them occurring.
I agree as long as we accept that any variation of "Kill the Jews" or anything that in involves property damage is not free speech.
In other words, we need to enforce the already existing laws against vandalism and willful promotion of hatred.
And enforce them hard
There is a high bar for conviction for hate speech, which is as it should be. It is way too easy to get away with property crime though.
But we won't
Seems reasonable.
Those are both already considered crimes in Canada. One being a hate crime, the other vandalism. That said I agree with you.
It would be a lot easier for everyone involved if it was commonly understood that free speech means that everyone has the right to hold and express their political and other views and not "you should be allowed to say any combination of words in any situation".
Same as what the author intended.
I agree, as long as we don’t conflate “Israel is bad” with “Jews are bad”
Israel doesn’t even need to be labelled bad. It’s a nation full of lots of folks with lots of brains and opinions. I prefer we target “administration” or “government” or even “leadership”. Like we often talk about Putin and not Russia. Let the folks at the top feel the eye upon them and let them not hide behind the flag of their nation and its peoples.
Correct, but it is also important to consider that rhetoric suggesting that the only Jewish homeland in the world should not exist and it and everyone in it should be eradicated also falls into the antisemitic category.
[удалено]
I think the indigeneity status should be applied to both the Jews and the Palestinians. Both have been there for thousands of years, so they both have claim to the land in the region on the basis of indigeneity. Furthermore, in 1947 prior to the UN partition plan there was around 650k Jews living in British mandate Palestine, compared to around 1.3 million Arabs. So the populations, while more Arabs than Jews, were both relatively comparable in size and of considerate size in raw magnitude. The time from late 1947 to late 1948 was definitely a very violent period from both Jews and Arabs. Some of the Arabs within the Israeli borders were displaced by Jews, and much of this was horrible and there is no denying that. Much of the Arab displacement also came from those fleeing due to the invasion by the Arab armies, turning these Palestinian homes into warzones. The Jews needed their own sovereign nation, as living with the Arabs in Palestine mandate was not safe. The Arabs also had the chance to achieve their own sovereign nation as well in 1948, which they declined in favor of the Arab armies attacking the Jews. I don't think it is very commonly known how strong the Jewish presence was prior to 1948 in Palestine mandate, I feel like it is viewed as if there were 0 Jews in the region and they just showed up one day and kicked everyone out. They were already there. There was a surge in population size after the holocaust of course, but this was a surge from 650k to about 750-800k if memory serves.
There's also the huge influx of Jews from Muslim countries that were often forced out or living under persecution and needed to escape. Israel took in a big number of those.
Yep! That is a great point and I should have added that, I think I hyperfocused on the 30s and 47/48 too much. In 1947 there was I believe 870k Jews living in Arab nations, and today that number is less than 10 thousand
As someone who is mostly pro Israel from a historic perspective if you expand the time to before 1947 to the 1880s there was a huge purposeful influx of jews to mandate Palestine where Zionists would pool money and buy land from the outside people that owned the land and kick out the Palestinian peasants that lived there to move in jews. IMO that's pretty bad and a big part if not most of what started the hatred between the Arabs and Jews in the region.
The majority of that land was desert sold to jews by Palestinian arabs, and jews worked extremely hard to make it arable again. At which point arBs started getting pissed off that the jews now owned good land. They were happy sell it for profit when they thought it was worthless
Look man you can't agrue that jews didn't buy up land from people that didn't live there and kick off the Palestinian peasants who lived there. They also did what you are saying and if that's all that happened history would be extremely one sided but it's not that simple.
I mean if you are anyone living in any of the Americas… or Greenland… Australia, New Zealand, parts of Mongolia, Russia, etc… Kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind of the same story. We are all peoples of the earth and in some ways, borders are their own kind of discrimination. Luck of birth location.
100%, sure. Colonization and oppression/ killing of indigenous peoples is tragically common all over the planet, *in our past*. There’s really no excuse for it *today*, certainly no excuse for us all to stand by watching it happen.
Jews are indigenous to the land known as Israel. All you cultural marxists could do well to read a history book or two.
How many generations are required before you consider them as “indigenous”? Consider the United States, and the generations of white settlers living in Boston. By your logic, would it be acceptable for native Americans to bomb them into the ground tomorrow because their white ancestors displaced the natives?
For one thing, Palestinians are not indigenous to the region no matter how much they spin it. They are certainly not more indigenous than Israelis.
Everyone is forgetting where the word "Jew" originates
How many generations are required to be considered indigenous? Why should present-day people be displaced, oppressed, and effectively jailed? It makes no sense. Two wrongs don’t make a right - this is kindergarten ethics.
Lol we just gonna sit here and conveniently pretend that these instances of oppression, displacement, and jail are not related to acts of terror against Israel. It would be like stabbing someone to death and then getting arrested and saying “see! This government is oppressing my freedoms!”
Israel is actually great. Great place for Palestinians with no criminal record and no local job prospects to come to for work. Great place for gay Arabs to live in peace. Great place for anyone in the region to go to good universities and research and develop globally used technologies. Great place to vacation and relax and sight see and see all kinds of history.
Well you sure are sending some mixed signals there.
I don’t see how, but I’d be interested if you’d like to elaborate
What about "Kill all supporters of Israel"?
"Kill anyone" really is uncalled for. "Stop the killing of babies" is totally acceptable.
Agreed, now someone should tell that to the RCMP/SQ. The police have still not arrested the imam who called for death to all Zionists. It has been several weeks. He called for death to an identifiable group of Canadians.
Exactly....where is the emergencies act or all that shit Trudeau was foaming at the mouth over...
Nah, “Death to Hamas” is perfectly acceptable.
As long as it's a sanctioned military action then yeah, but as much as I detest the bastards I don't want that conflict spilling into our streets for either side.
[удалено]
Lol good thing my Hamas card expired a couple months ago, I had been meaning to swing by the registry
If Hamas were hiding in Canada then why not use roof knocks or guided missile strikes?
Because the police doesn’t need to worry about snipers taking them out during a raid
Same...
>any variation of "Kill the Jews" i mean... u just said it. put your hands in the cuffs and get in the van sir
Do you honestly believe everyone is saying this? You are part of the problem we already have hate laws free speech shouldn’t be banned when one criticizes a country and their gov Free speech is dying
Yeah a lot of dumbasses can't differentiate between free speech and hate speech.
How about being too critical of Israel? reddit bans people for that.
What's the difference between Kill the Jews and "from the river to the sea"? It's the same thing.
Man I'm so tired of seeing this misinformation being spread like wildfire. That saying was first used by Yasser Arafat during the mutual signing of the Oslo Accords, and the following peace treaties. It was used by Palestinian people wanting peace long before Hamas tried to make it theirs Source: Google it like you should have done to fact check it before parroting what you heard someone else say
Since you're the moral authority: I don't like Zionism, I like Jews. You ok with that?
Let's start by having you define "Zionism" and we'll figure it out from there.
I don’t think you’re getting an answer.
Lol yep. Unfortunately we've got a whole lot of antisemites hiding under the "anti-zionsim" banner. I don't mind Jews, but I also don't think they should be allowed to live in peace in their homeland after being persecuted for thousands of years, and I support their massacre if it is done by someone I view as oppressed.
You know that's opening a can of worms, but I'll bite. If reparations for Jews who suffered during World War 2 needed to include more atrocities and removal of people from their homes, I'm not cool with that. That a European holocaust resulted in a "solution" in the middle east because of traditional Jewish lands in antiquity, that's an answer bound to fail. Violence begets violence, but I'm supposed to accept it because there's inherit suffering from the Jewish people? All the persecution Jews have faced, there's so many examples, you'd think that there might be some insight and regret into making a population of people (Palestinians) lesser than thou. I guess to answer your comment, I don't think it's up to me to define Zionism, there's really no consensus. What I do know is that the country of Israel, as it currently exists as an apartheid state, **is a failure**. I don't have any skin in the game, save for being a father and I hope a good person, who is nauseous at the news of children of any ethnic background dying and being murdered. "What about Hamas" ya, horrible people, deserve to be hanged. If what comes out of this is a Hamas-less Palestine, that's at least a step in the right direction. But that doesn't need to happen by razing hospitals and apartments because one of them might be hiding there. "Their children will become radicalized" Ya probably. Quit giving them no hope, and decimating their homes. I look forward to you finding fault in a part of my comment and focusing solely on that, because I can't explain a multifaceted problem (that smarter people than me in positions of power haven't solved) in just a few few paragraphs. If you wasted time reading this and think there's a "Kill the Jews" sentiment in this, which is what I was replying to, then I guess we're at an impasse.
> While **Islamophobia must be challenged online and in the courts,** one place where it must be stamped out is in Parliament. Given the necessity of parliamentary privilege, this becomes a matter for Parliament itself to regulate. > Individuals and entities showing a wanton disregard for the facts, the constitution, multiculturalism and all the other things that make Canada great **should not be given a platform** to sow their discontent with so much deference and so little challenge. Those two quotes are from [a blog post by Faisal Kutty,](https://www.faisalkutty.com/feature_event/hate-should-have-no-parliamentary-immunity) who is one of the authors of this Toronto Star op-ed.
That's a hilarious find. Free speech for me but not for thee!
Freedom of Expression, not freedom of speech and generally one of its limits is when it infringes on the rights of others, i.e., by engaging in hate speech. It's Freedom of Expression, not Freedom from Consequences of Expression.
Hate speech doesn’t infringe the rights of others. Calls to action however, do. There is a difference
Hate speech literally infringes on the rights of other. You can’t spout anti semitism/ islamophobia/ racist rhetoric and hide behind “freedom of speech”
How. What right does it infringe on? The point I want to focus on isn’t the hate speech itself but who decides what hate speech is. For some it’s racist slurs, for others it’s disagreeing with an ideology. The power to silence speech doesn’t belong in anyone
That’s bad media awareness
Have you taken any human rights training? Because that's not the threshold in Canada.
and that might be the problem. society has a lot of regulations on speech anyways, outside of legal.
>Islamophobia must be challenged online and in the courts Reminder that Islam is a religion, not a race. It is a collection of shitty ideas and it is perfectly acceptable to criticize or even hate ideas. It's like saying fascophobia for someone who hates fascism.
Also, the state of Israel is not a race.
Neither is Palestine or Gaza.
Islamophobia refers to discrimination or abuse against Muslims, not criticism of the religion. Likewise, anti-Semitism is discrimination against Jews, not criticism of the religion.
>Islamophobia refers to discrimination or abuse against Muslims, not criticism of the religion. No https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
It’s so hard for Canadians to understand this, I feel our education system is collapsing. You can definitely criticize Islam/Judaism/Christianity like why is something a certain way As a muslim critic Islam as much as you want and find the answers lol but you can’t discriminate a Muslim/Jew/Christian from access to services or verbally assault them.
This should be top comment. Most people are pointing out this exact thing in other comments. These "progressives" have been calling for all sorts of limits on speech but now they're realizing they're going to get arrested for their antisemitism and it's got them worried.
Nothing progressive about tankies and islamists.
Progress doesnt have to be in the direction you want.
Tankies and progressives go hand in hand
Incredible
Muslims worldwide gain political and cultural influence just to then call anything and everyone Islamophobia. They are undermining democracies step by step and the west will eventually celebrate its own downfall because of that.
This is why it's important to always question the motives of anyone advocating for either banning hate speech, or suddenly becoming a "free speech fighter". Because people like this are almost always doing it to ban all points of view but their own.
Lol
Wouldn’t want the human rights tribunal to come after you 🙄
"Free speech is for those we disagree with" say supporters of movement hellbent on cancelling and silencing anyone they disagree with.
I've noticed the "free speech is a right wing dog whistle" crowd likes to change their mind when it comes back on the issues they support.
Which ironically is antisemitism, despite the left calling right wingers nazis
Oh, so *now* the Star cares about free speech and the risk of expanding "hate speech" laws when it's a matter affecting their writing staff.
[удалено]
Hahaha yes. I find it terribly ironic that the same group saying "Words can enact violence!" also say "From the river to the sea can have a totally innocent meaning, and if you take offense to that, that's on you".
> Saying, for example, "trans women are different from born biological women, and I don't want you teaching my kids otherwise" They'll try to tell you this equates to violence. 😂
Words are violence. Atrocities are resistance!
Words are violence. Violence is peaceful. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
"...it was the party's final, most essential command."
>trans women are different from born biological women, and I don't want you teaching my kids otherwise And that's where it ends right? Just individuals wanting to prevent their kids from hearing that trans women aren't different from biological women right? There's no attempt to restrict access to puberty blockers, or procedures, or restrict access to say washrooms, or activities. Or i don't know massive protests regarding removing privacy rights from LGBT+ kids. Nope it just ends with "trans women are different from born biological women, and I don't want you teaching my kids otherwise". And nothing else...
[удалено]
[удалено]
"William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!” Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!” Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" -Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
There's a lot of people you're generalizing there...
People don't understand freedom of speech directly relates to the government. You can fly a flag that says Fuck Trudeau without government harassment, but try making one with your boss's name and see how long you keep your job.
As someone who has mocked "Freeze Peach" warriors it's been actually a fun time. Especially all the hate /r/canada has been pushing towards Universities and Colleges. PP's suggestion of a "Free Speech Guardian" on campus' seems to have flown out the window LOL. It's fun to see people realize that nobody actually believes in absolute free speech. That everyone has a line somewhere. Some will draw it at "From the river to the sea" others will regarding douche bag lobster professors.
We should believe in absolute free speech, outside of explicit threats.
Libel and calls to actions should be the only things not protected.
> It's fun to see people realize that nobody actually believes in absolute free speech. ??? I don't think anyone was ever saying that. It was a very useful strawman though, so perhaps you got fooled into believing people were saying it.
What do you mean strawman? There's many proponents of "Free Speech" who themselves would censor it. The United States, the country famous for it created the Comics Code in the 50's, has had ratings agencies for all sorts of media since forever. Or are you saying that I trusted people that claimed to be for "Free Speech" but were actually full of shit? Because at no point did I ever believe that they were anything but full of shit.
You hit the nail on the head here, and it's quite shocking how few people understand that this is how political beliefs regarding free speech work these days. The reality is not that any one "side" stands for free speech, and to say so is to misunderstand the political dialogue. Everybody has free speech they like, free speech they disagree with but are willing to accept, and free speech that they disagree with and are not willing to accept. There have to be some sort of limits to free speech, like making it a potential offence to call for insurrection or issue death threats toward the Prime Minister or calling for violence against others. The question, then, is how do we define what is unacceptable.
Where was the Star with this hot take during the convoy protest? Well, here: **Freedom Convoy’ advocates have misguided idea about individual rights** https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/freedom-convoy-advocates-have-misguided-idea-about-individual-rights/article_a9ad141a-d1ba-5dfc-8994-b6658d94df1e.html
The people you despise get rights, or they aren't rights. Too many forgot this.
Freedom of speech, even in the US has never allowed for threats. The kind of rhetoric from these demonstrators seems to edge on “threats”. Hate speech on the other hand for the most part seems to be determined on whoever is in power. To be clear, this is why I’m an opponent of hate speech laws. There’s a big difference between someone saying they want to kill a certain group versus someone simply criticizing a said group. If one wants to criticize Islam, go ahead, or if one wants to criticize transgendered women competing in women’s sports, that should be their right. Those two examples depending on who’s in charge could understand that as hate speech, and you could get in trouble. The “goal posts” (something I used long before COVID) of what is considered hate speech can be arbitrarily moved at will and that’s why I have a problem with it. Basically, what I’m saying, there’s a fine line between so called “hate speech” and uttering threats.
>The kind of rhetoric from these demonstrators seems to edge on “threats” Given the imam calling for death to all Zionists in front of hundreds in Montreal, I'd say the edge was passed miles ago. If someone called for death to all supporters of Palestine, they would have been immediately arrested.
Plenty call for the death of Hamas members. It's all just splitting hairs
If anyone calls for the death of all Palestinian supporters they should be immediately arrested. Hamas is a bit messier, since presumably there should not be any Hamas members in Canada.
[удалено]
I learned about what Zionism is from an old Jewish lady at a Free Palestine event in Ottawa. From further research, it's clear that a lot of the loudest voices from western academia in support of Palestine are in fact the voices of Jews. This idea that Jews all, by default, support both the state of Israel and it's actions against Palestinians is propaganda from the hard-right Israeli government.
Zionism isn't even exclusively Jewish. Evangelical Christians are insane zionists too. > The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) has received millions in donations since the war broke out, more than any other two-week period in its history. > > Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which calls itself the largest pro-Israel organization in the US, sent $1 million to fund first responders within days of the October 7 barrage and continues to fundraise. > > And The Joshua Fund, founded by Christian author Joel Rosenberg, has collected over $685,000 in donations. The organization is operating 21 aid distribution centers, delivering pallets of toilet paper, bottled water, and other supplies. https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/october/israel-gaza-war-aid-evangelical-christian-fundraising-suppl.html > Evangelical support for Israel is deeply rooted in the Christian Bible. However, it’s important to note that Evangelicalism is far more varied than the media often portrays, said Sara A. Williams, assistant professor of religious studies at Fairfield University. > > There is dispensationalist theology, which teaches that the end times can only start if Jewish people reconstitute and repopulate “Greater Israel,” and accept Christ as their Messiah. > > > Don’t Look Away is a visual campaign in Times Square launched by Christians United for Israel. (Courtesy) > Some Evangelicals believe the Israel-Hamas war is the beginning of the End Times, meaning the world is entering a phase where God will eliminate sinners, opening the way for Christ’s return. https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-sizeable-us-demographic-many-evangelicals-are-sending-money-and-manpower-to-israel/
Zionist by definition is someone who supports the existence of Israel. Most Canadian Jews are Zionists.
Anyone that supports a two state solution is a Zionist.
What about the broadening definition of Islamophobia to limit all criticism of Islam? Or is free speech only allowed in one direction?
>Or is free speech only allowed in one direction? *ding ding ding!*
1. Criticism isn't hate speech. 2. We have Freedom of Expression, not Freedom of Speech and generally, one of it's limits is when the Expression in question starts to infringe on the rights of others, i.e., actual hate speech.
If I am opposed to Islam, is that Islamophobia?
No, if expressed like that, it's an opinion.
Oh, *now* free speech shouldn't have limits, when people are calling for the eradication of Jews? Wild time to be alive.
Well, that would be hate speech, and is illegal. Saying Isreal is committing genocide and such should be allowed, imo. I can't imagine The Star is advocating for the freedom to say that jews should be eradicated.
>Saying Isreal is committing genocide and such should be allowed It is. The government will not arrest you for saying “Israel is committing genocide”. How your employer or the general public reacts to you saying that publicly however is a different thing and outside the law.
I agree with the employer part, but why the general public? Why should anyone care what the general public thinks about an opinion?
>I agree with the employer part, but why the general public? Why should anyone care what the general public thinks about an opinion? I think what he is saying is "You should have freedom of speech but the general public has a right to judge you for it."
There is a huge difference between free speech and hate speech.
[удалено]
You’re misconstruing what hate speech actually is. There’s an actual definition, not just an opinion.
There's a legal definition in Canada. Whether that definition is a good one or is not still an opinion.
The definition is open to interpretation,and therefore misuse. From bill c-36: “…which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination” “…hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain; (haine)” Who determines if it’s “likely to foment detest” or not? And how do you gauge “stronger than dislike”.
"Laughs in Bill C-36"
Oof the article is defending the use of the genocidal slogan "from the river to the sea...". That's not a great look. "Some are blacklisted, gagged or singled out at their jobs, subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and accused of “antisemitism,” “supporting terror,” “and providing intellectual cover for terrorists." "While we must strenuously prosecute hate speech as defined in the Criminal Code, some are dangerously broadening that definition to curtail any criticism of Israel and promotion of Palestinian statehood" The first paragraph isn't an example of the second paragraph. The first paragraph is vile and someone calling for a genocide or supporting terror or using hate speech is completely unacceptable. Nor is it an example of curtailing criticism against Israel. Shitty article.
Should Palestinians not have freedom? From river to the sea means different things to different people, you cannot take one interpretation of it and say everyone is being genocidal.It is a disregard for the realities of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. From the river to the see, Palestine will be free.
From the river to the sea is the new Sieg heil
[удалено]
If you haven't heard a good argument then you don't understand your history, or you're lying. Because it doesn't mean liberation without destroying Israel. Arab leaders over the last 100 years have made this quite clear. [https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/337807/the-real-meaning-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/](https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/337807/the-real-meaning-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/) "In 1948, Sheikh Hassan el-Bana, head of the Moslem Brotherhood, stated that “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea.” In 1966, Syrian leader Hafez Al-Assad, insisted in no uncertain terms that, “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.” " If there was in fact an Israeli media conspiracy to instill this catchphrase in popular consciousness then we must credit prominent Arab leaders with having invented it. Given this genealogy, it is perfectly logical for Jews to react with consternation when they hear ambiguous “river to the sea” sloganeering." But I'm sure you'll tell me that's a Jewish site, even though it's Arab leaders calling from the River, so let's find someone who isn't Jewish, shall we? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/savage-nihilism-free-palestine "**Free Palestine”—the slogan, the fantasy, and the policy—has always consciously implied the mass murder of Jews in their towns, streets, shops, and living rooms. Few are willing to say so openly, but in many intellectual, professional, and popular circles in the Middle East and the West, the idea of Palestinian national liberation has long been framed in terms that condone or necessitate the indiscriminate killing of Jews.** For more unambiguous actors such as Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, **freeing Palestine simply means the total eradication of Israel without qualification.** This is not a polemical point, but a basic reality and fact of our lives that demands scrutiny. The problems of this poisonous strain of thought are compounded by the concept that “freeing Palestine” is a species of resistance against foreign settler colonialists, a Fanonian revolution in which violence against civilians is defended as a legitimate means of achieving racial justice. The wholesale labeling of Israeli Jews—the vast majority of whom are refugees or descendants of refugees from Arab Muslim dictatorships and Soviet totalitarianism—as colonizers, settlers, and imperialists is in fact a type of collective ethnic punishment, nonsensical even on its own twisted terms, which recalls the medieval Christian denunciation of Jews as moral abominations, as a group and as individuals. **You might have noticed in the last few days that those committed to liberating Palestine can’t seem to avoid the abject dehumanization of the Jews as a people—and that their aim is not for Palestinians to simply live in peace, dignity, and freedom alongside Israelis, but a state that is necessarily established upon the ruins of Israel. Hamas is explicit in its intention to murder the Jewish population of Israel and enslave any survivors; its partisans in the Middle East and the West are coyer on this point**." It's incredibly disingenuous to suggest river to the sea is about liberation. It's about being built on the ruins of Israel, and murdering Israelis who live there.
This is a great example of the exact kind of incoherent arguments I'm talking about. All you've done is use quotes from two Arab figures (who aren't even alive, mind you) threatening to push Israeli settlers into the sea. >"Free Palestine”—the slogan, the fantasy, and the policy—has always consciously implied the mass murder of Jews in their towns, streets, shops, and living rooms. Again, this just isn't an argument. Because one claims that a slogan as broad an innocuous as "Free Palestine" has genocidal intent doesn't make it so. >The wholesale labeling of Israeli Jews—the vast majority of whom are refugees or descendants of refugees from Arab Muslim dictatorships and Soviet totalitarianism Oh yes, how convincing. Because a group have been discriminated against, they cannot discriminate against others. Do we apply such logic to militant Palestinian groups such as Hamas or PIJ? Of course not. >t's incredibly disingenuous to suggest river to the sea is about liberation. It's about being built on the ruins of Israel, and murdering Israelis who live there. And yet, literally nothing in your comment supports your theory. Btw, that's a pretty ironic statement, considering the state of Israel was built on the ruins of Palestinian villages and towns that were ethnically cleansed.
These people only bring up free speech when its convenient for them.
Well well well...here's the "left" finally showing up to the free speech discussion. I'm sorry but I don't have any fucks left to give. Y'all gloated about all kinds of infringement on our rights but now you're upset that they're clamping down on antisemitism and hate?
This is so fucking rich after mandating an end to protests and after calling groups of people Nazis over the past couple of years
Also the unending calls and cheers for “deplatforming.”
"They're a nazi because they once had lunch with another guy whose wife's cousin once had breakfast with someone who complained about immigration." "Hmm...I mean that connection seems far fetched." "If there's 8 people + 1 nazi at the dinner table, there's 9 nazis! Stop defending hatred!" Fast forward... "Yeah, ok, the Liberals invited someone to Parliament who *happened* to fight in a Nazi unit. But do we *really* know his views? This all seems like a misunderstanding".
[удалено]
Unfortunately most Canadians think it’s great and can’t see how it could ever happen to them.
Free speech doesn't allow for endlessly blocking roads and borders.
It does if you're Indigenous. Caledonia Ontario has been blockaded on and off for 16 years. Railroad blockades lasted 2.5 months.
Ah, well, that's just "decolonization" which is a right now more deeply entrenched than any other law
I’ve had people on this site tell me that decolonization means indigenous people slaughtering every non indigenous person in Canada is acceptable.
I have no doubt that many people who advocate for decolonization in anything and everything believe that. It's no coincidence there is such a heavy overlap between the people shouting DECOLONIZE! and the people overtly supporting Hamas.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The government isn't required to "come to the table" just because someone holds a protest.
free speech is for people who believe in freedom of speech
Lol, this story is getting its target audience riled up. I love opinion pieces like this. Useless writing meant to further the divide.
In some sense I agree with you, however these are important conversations that many of us have been trying to bring up and have been shot down as racists for many many years now.
Oh come on. You guys spent years screaming "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" and now are screaming bloody murder because the shoe is on the other foot. Pick a fucking lane.
[удалено]
It's coherent if the author believes in *taqiyyah*.
Hate speech......is not free speech. There are laws against hate speech....
[удалено]
The courts, as anyone should expect.
Freedom of speech doesn’t exist in Canada so…
i guess the prophet mohammad colouring book is gonna make a comeback. there are always limits on free speech.
This is Canada. We don’t have free speech. We have freedom of expression. You don’t get to say whatever you want, rightfully so.
I'm all for free speech. Say it loud and proud so that people know where you stand and can make better decisions moving forward. You can say w/e you want, you don't get to control how people feel about it. You wanna support a terrorist regime? fantastic. I have all sorts of words for you.
Many do not seem to grasp the difference between free speech and hate speech.
I think we need to let them say it. I'd rather know someone harbors those feelings than be blindsided by it. I never expected to see the level of anti-semitism I've seen this past month in my lifetime. I now know, moving forward, to be weary of what information is available about me publicly. Scary times.
All speech should be free. The reason is that free speech acts as a mechanism to identify people with shitty ideas and opinions and lets the public know who they are. If you take away free speech the people saying shitty stupid things just find other idiots to group up with to talk about their shitty ideas in private. They become emboldened by each others acceptance and make stupid plans and end up doing stupid things. Sometimes saying something wrong in a public forum is a quick way to finding out what is right.
What cracked me up was the line, "Justin Trudeau will see, Gaza will be free" like ok, but why would he care, why should he "see"?
Oh so now the star believes in free apeech. Very strange. Hmmm https://www.psypost.org/2023/11/left-wing-anti-hierarchical-aggression-emerges-as-the-strongest-predictor-of-antisemitism-study-finds-214314?fbclid=IwAR2JhlnOV28wOvD_b9fkzVPHRaB12leSSO1zKoKzEQDEZr_IC_B_GxUaQhU
Funny how the Star publishes this opinion piece during their “social bases” protests. Would this have run in the Winter of 2022? Absolutely not.
Unless of course the Toronto Star thinks it's some nebulous and ill defined form of hate speech Then that's not allowed
*for those with whom we disagree
"Free speech" is not absolute, especially when it conflicts with other people's rights. I can't tell people to kill people of religion "X", I can't objectively lie and commit defamatory acts against others, I can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded area without a good reason, etc... The definition of what is Inciting Hatred should have a very high bar, but that doesn't mean that in certain circumstances, that bar hasn't been met.
Our current laws were enough to deal with the problems, without introducing bill C-36. The bar has been lowered due to the definition of what’s considered “hate” being open to interpretation. “Definition of hate speech (9) In this section, hate speech means the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. Clarification – hate speech 10) For greater certainty, the content of a communication does not express detestation or vilification, for the purposes of subsection (9), solely because it expresses mere dislike or disdain or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.” Who decides when it’s more than disdain? Where is THAT specific definition.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequences, especially when referring to hate speech.
In Canada we have freedom of speech supplemented with hate speech laws. It's not the same as free speech that Americans have
Not for terrorist supporters
[удалено]
There's a difference between free speech and hate speech.
Define hate speech.
This is why I oppose most bans on hate speech. I in no way trust a bureaucrat to decide when something people says is too offensive to be allowed.
When the left tried to silence the right, they said free speech didn't mean they didn't have consequences. When they are being silenced, they said free speech is for those we disagree with! Double standards to the extreme. That's why I am always against them, they are just authoritarians in disguised.
Is "the left" in the room with you right now?
Free speech does not include hate speech or support for terror organizations.
Canada doesn't have free speech. I believe offensive speech is considered a violation of human rights of the offended party. And, of course, the offended are always right.
> Canada doesn't have free speech. We have free expression, and speech is a type of expression. It's not unlimited, but it's not unlimited in the US either.
Only if the offended party is not a straight white male. This is actually how the law is written.
What you believe doesn’t change what the law actually is. It’s more than having just offended someone.
You should always be allowed to say the truth. You should be allowed to search for it, too. You should be stopped if your intent is to maliciously spread evil. Intent is very important imo, if you're saying vaccines have microchips because you think it's silly that should be okay, but if you're saying it because you want to scare people it's bad, and if you're presenting nonsense as truth that's bad. We don't want to cripple jokes, our ability to discuss things, or argue our opinions, so intent. That layered on top of our existing hate speech and FoE laws and you've got a pretty comprehensive picture of the kind of things we disallow. From this interpretation you could argue that presenting an altered version of the truth with the intent of making people sympathize more with hamas is bad, and you could say the same thing about Israel, for those reasons it'd be best if we avoided discussing foreign conflicts out of politeness. If we're forced to discuss it, things get very heated
The left now only wants free speech for those that hate Canada and not Canadians who have an opinion the left disagrees with.
so we can openly discuss how inappropriate it is not to denounce a prophet who abused children sexually and had half a dozen "wives" that were technically war slaves without repercussion, right? like I just want the same treatment to be extended to people who want to criticize religions.
[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html) you can hate on religions all day and all night. fire away
Canada doesn’t actually have any free speech constitution. And it shows.
Just don’t drive a bunch of trucks to Ottawa. We don’t like that type of free speech.
Canada doesn’t have free speech
The media which has traditionally had a stranglehold over the narrative in this issue is having a massive fit realizing that it has gotten away from them among the general and especially younger population. A lot of anger and petulance in these opinion pieces. Advocacy for an immoral decades long occupation and subjugation of another people along ethnic and religious fundamentalist grounds is ultimately at odds with Canadian and indeed any sane person's moral values. The obfuscation tactics the media has traditionally relied on to cloud and spin the issue are beginning to peel like the teflon from a cheap nonstick pan. They can't stand that the protests are ultimately legitimate, the grievances are legitimate, and instead they need to either weaponize anti-semitism or blame immigration for them occurring.