tooner

happy birfdeh!

busy at work st the moment will post later....... ...alright then, LM I wasn't insinuating anything, I merely pointed out that your limits of freedom of speech.....are not the same as the legislation in place in the UK or Canada. I AGREE with you that people should not have the right to say anything they want ( please refer to previous posts for examples), unfortunately people protesting about the involvement of the armed forces in conflicts they don't agree with whilst burning the national flag doesn't make the list....if you think it should, I suggest canvassing your elected official to see if he/she can do anything about it.

thing i worry about is if CH does prove to be out of his depth, by then it may be too late with the team we have......that being said fair enough on your last point.

not really, it's exactly the sort of thing the current hate speech legislation is in place to ward against. it was words over the radio that sparked the massacres, granted the underlying racial tension had existed for long before that it was words that got the ball rolling. Sorry but how is that in context to Europe? which is it parky? context for freedom of speech or context for europe? I realize that the political climate and stability for Rwanda is/was far from where it is in europe, the point I was trying to make was that freedom of speech with no safe guards leaves the doors open for tragedies like the Rwandan genocide, if you prefer we could look at the former Yugoslavia as they happened at the same time, not entirely the same thing because the atrocities were carried out by state sponsored death squads ,but again there the unchecked vilification of minority muslims escalated to the point where neighbour was pitted against neighbour. Not really a fair comparison though because the victims had no recourse to have their greivances heard, and the war ended with new political boundaries being drawn.

not really, it's exactly the sort of thing the current hate speech legislation is in place to ward against. it was words over the radio that sparked the massacres, granted the underlying racial tension had existed for long before that it was words that got the ball rolling.

FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through. I think you may have misread my post (or I wasn't clear in what my point was), freedom of speech with no limits would not have allowed the prosecution of the perpetraitors of the Rwandan genocide. There must be limits on what can be said when the words are used to compell someone/someones to engage in acts that are contrary to the rule of law in a civil society, the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views. no, i think i've read it correctly. my point is freedom of speech within acceptable limits is not freedom of speech at all. thats like saying "you're free to go anywhere in this cell" when you've been locked up. and who decides the limits? another million dollar question indeed! the bit in bold was directed at alex. the rest about the limits is pretty clear I think. I just don't understand why you are advocating the use of speech as it relates to violent revolution(ie contrarian political views), the important bit on the above paragraph is"the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views." Should we as a civil society not protect the ideals and the laws that make up the foundations of the open political climates in our countries?

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference. have you thought that through at all? "advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years." has it ever occured to you that some peoples political aim would be to do either of the things mentioned here? Tbh, i think you'd get locked up if you turned up on your soapbox and started shouting "all Muslims are terrorists" faster than you could say mad mick mcnick! all in the name of "freedom of speech (but lets not hurt anyones feelings eh)" Not saying its right btw. (the Genocide bit) its the law so I'm guessing it was thought through by whoever wrote the law and let me get this right, you're are advocating political change by bloody/violent revolution?

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference. one of which is limits based on showing respect for the flag of the country and those defending it. Those who can't do this can fuck off and if they won't go of their own free will should be banged up until they agree to to. I've made my comments on this and stand by them. I also don't care what you do or don't do in Canada. ...shhhhhhh now, be a good lad the grown-ups are talking

FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through. I think you may have misread my post (or I wasn't clear in what my point was), freedom of speech with no limits would not have allowed the prosecution of the perpetraitors of the Rwandan genocide. There must be limits on what can be said when the words are used to compell someone/someones to engage in acts that are contrary to the rule of law in a civil society, the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views.

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference.

FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell their sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views

get real man, these laws may not restrict ones political views as you say but it sure makes it a criminal offence to express said political views. You may not agree with that and thats your option/choice but at least you have the option/choice to express that. those who have political beliefs which are, shall we say, 'undesirable' do not have that luxury. no it doesn't

Okay, so I've been trying to sort through the hyperbole and rhetoric emanating from all sides in the aftermath of last night's Ann Coulter incendiary non-appearance at the University of Ottawa, and as is so often the case with such chaotic events, it's proving a wee bit difficult to separate the truth from the spin -- and again, that applies to both sides here. I'm still in the process of attempting to figure out what, exactly, happened, but I thought I may as well post what I've been able to confirm so far. First, contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision." Boucher's statements are seemingly at odds with the account provided via twitter by Ezra Levant, who was supposed to appear on stage alongside Coulter. Several hours after the event had been called off, he tweeted that "Cops advised that proceeding with Coulter event in face of protesters would be dangerous to her and crowd," and quoted a Sgt. Dan Beauchamp as saying that shutting down the event was "a public safety issue," as well as an unnamed "police officer" who allegedly said that the OPS "cannot guarantee her safety." He also corrected an early report from Calgary radio host Rob Breakenridge, who tweeted that the speech was kiboshed because of a fire alarm, claiming that "it was the threat of violence, say cops." As for Coulter's claim that the police "had been warning my bodyguard all day that they were putting up [messages] on Facebook: 'Bring rocks, bring sticks, you gotta hurt Ann Coulter tonight, don't let her speak,'" Boucher confirmed that the police were monitoring the situation - although how, exactly, he didn't specify - but was unable to provide any example of such a threat, as he did not have that information, although he assured me that if a complaint were lodged, the police would "surely" investigate, but he didn't know whether or not that had occurred. I haven't been able to turn up any of those alleged threats -- not on Facebook, and not on the unspecified "liberal blogs" that she has since cited as the source, so if anyone can point me to an example, please do so in the comments. And now, the numbers. While there is pretty much universal agreement that event organizer Ashley Scorpio's initial claim of "2,000 violent protesters" is just plain wrong; she seems to have inadvertently mistaken the total number of people waiting outside, many of whom were there to attend the Coulter event, with the number of protesters, which have been variously estimated between a few dozen to 200. In addition to the real-time coverage provided by Colleague Hicks -- whose post-event summary can be found here, and who was tweeting throughout the evening -- here's a rough timeline of how things unfolded, courtesy of someone who was on the scene both outside the venue and inside the room: 6:30: About 400 people in line, which probably grew to about 600+ by 7:00 7:00: Doors still not open, people getting really antsy given poor logistics (more on this later) 7:10 or so: Started letting people in one by one, checking them off on a list 7:30ish: Fire alarm goes off, organizers stop allowing people in. Auditorium was 1/2 full = 200 people, but entire upper part was empty. 200+ seats open 7:45ish - Fire alarm stops, but still no more people get in 8:08 - Ezra comes out and comments about censorship, etc. [Friend] was outside the entire time until they said they weren't letting anyone else in, and said there were about 300-400 people waiting to get in and maybe 20-50 loud protestors. Inside - there were maybe 8 anti-Coulter types, and their big impact was to chant 'Ann go home' for about 45 seconds, which inspired two women in front to start yelling back and challenge them to a slap off. They added: "At no time was there any evidence of physical threat. To the extent that there were safety issues, it was because you had 600 people coming out for a talk and the organizers had absolutely no logistical plan to handle it. People annoyed like they get annoyed waiting to get into a jammed hockey game. But no 'threat' environment. Finally, an observation from a CBC reporter who was in the Foyer while Coulter was being interviewed by CTV's Power Play: At approximately 5:15pm, he overheard a member of her security team tell a Conservative MP that her event "may be cancelled," which would suggest that the decision to do so was already being considered before more than half the crowd had assembled outside the venue -- hopeful speech-goers and protesters alike. Coulter herself, meanwhile, told Cosh that she never actually left the Rideau Club -- where she was the guest of honour at a $250 per head private reception -- for the university. Given the travel times involved, and the 7:30 pm start time, she would likely have had to do so by 7pm at the latest in order to make it in time. So, what does it all mean? Was the cancellation motivated by genuine concern over "violent protesters" or Facebook threats -- or something else? I can't say I've come to any firm conclusion, but given reports that she plans to file a human rights complaint, it seems like it's worth it to keep digging away at the seemingly contradictory accounts of last night's events. I'll update this post with any additional information. I've also sent an email to both Levant and Scorpio asking for more details. source http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/...last-night.html HMMMMMMM.....the plot thickens

the guy from salon is way off base.......he is talking about the government limiting ones political viewpoints, as I understand it the canadian and british hate speech laws are not in place to restrict ones political views (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). Personally I think the guy from the UofO was out of line, Anne Coulter should be encouraged to speak her mind. Reminds me of this saying, "It is better to hold your tougue and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." She is the female equivalent of Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh, she says controversial things to sell books and get in the news. btw.....it was her own security that cancelled the talk not the UofO.

who are the guys doing the commentary?? they sound like a couple of idiots, I swear I heard them compare carroll to shearer.....carroll and alan fucking shearer!!!! one season in the CCC, a couple of games in the PL and he's alan shearer!!!

Guthrie out and BUTT!???! stays on???? cue the manager's interviews

While I haven't seen anything that would get me on the xfiles, I was tree planting in northern BC and two of our crew swear that while they were rolling around at the edge of the lake one night they saw a large cylindrical object with lights along the leading edge. At the time I laughed it off and put it down to long term pesticide exposure from planting, BUT 2 years afterward I was listening to the radio and heard that during that summer the bulkley valley had been the UFO hot-spot in Canada, and I was utterly speechless when they said they had a significant number of sightings the same description...you guessed a large cylindrical object with lights along the leading edge.

If its such a Christian country do you expect them to convert? each to their own, so long as they don't preach to me, understand and stick to what is right and wrong ie the laws of the country and respect others, try to work hard for a living if they are healthy and fit enough, are not here illegally, pay their taxes, speak the language and don't abuse the flag and those who defend it. I've probably missed some things but I'm sure you get the drift. give the Halls and Shepherd their due?......just a guess......

57%-43% possession for us 16 shots (12 on net)...so by all accounts the scunny keeeper is standing on his head

I don't need to. The muslim population of the UK will continue to expand, naturally along with it's influence. So where do YOU think it will all logically end ? Or is your head so deep in the sand, you don't do logic ? Edit. The deluded left wing do gooders will lap up Rown Williams lunacy, they share his naive view of human nature. why exactly don't you need to respond to the links showing you're full of shit? The bit about logic is a bit rich don't you think considering the tenuous grasp you seem to have with rational thought based in fact (not opinion you have lots of those) and for the last time where i hail from geographically has nothing to do with my ability to recognize and call out racist bullshit when I see it.

Don't mean to patronise Andrew, but was chatting about this at work today, it must be something us more racist and xenophobic people can see ie the muslim threat. You do see that we should not be allowed to impose these racist beliefs don't you ? The fact it is happening contantly in every thread we post in, is very disturbing ? Doesn't it tell you something about our diminished reasoning? FYP........

<braces for the inevitable Leazes rebuttal>

a mate of mine dated a friend of Karla Homolka's sister (the one that got killed), so as it happened I was over at the Homolka house swimming in the pool talking with Tammy about the upcoming wedding of her older sister.........crazy huh?

all the comments sound like something anyone might say if they've had a few too many. Does the prince have a drinking problem?

hopes expectations