Just so you know your new layout isn't Blackberry compatible so meh to you:)
18 June 2010 at 06:14
Anonymous said...
"Sending some sort of electronic signals to a website in the United States, where that is legal, does not constitute communication," Fromm said. "Communication is defined as the transfer of ideas between two people."
That is the one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. He pretty much just said exactly, 'Sending a message to another part of the world [and to the entire world as well considering we are dealing with the internet] does not count as communication.' The last statement furthers the idiocy, as he is implying that the man sent the message with the intention of nobody reading nor replying to it.
"In an interview with CBC News in 2007 he said he should be free to share his views without being prosecuted."
That is where things get tough in my opinion. I do not actually know what this man has been saying, but I feel that this final statement is correct to a certain extent. In the United States, this statement is taken too far, allowing people to lie and spread lies as truth in every medium available [see Fox News] and even call for violence as long as said violence does not appear to be imminent. The problem is, how do we decide what point of views are allowed and which ones are not? I feel Canada is doing a good job of this at the moment, but it is all a matter of point of view. I mean, could I one day be prosecuted for arguing that gay marriage is wrong and should be banned? (I don't feel this way at all, it is simply an example.) It is common place these days but in the future it could be seen as a form of hate speech. What other opinions are common place these days and could lead to persecution in the future? A better example might be something I truly believe; that religion teaches immoral ideals such as hatred toward women and homosexuals among many other awful things, so I believe because of this, religion should be banned from being taught to children especially as a substitute for true morals one can learn through science and proper schooling. Does this constitute as hate speech toward religious groups? If it doesn't, could it one day? As I stated, I haven't a clue what exactly the man was saying and I doubt I would agree with it and I probably would find it as something he should be charged with. Clearly I am over-thinking this, but that last statement just makes a lot of sense to me.
Free speech isn't absolute-- anywhere on the planet.
It's the right and the duty of democratically elected representatives in a sovereign nation to determine what limits on speech are in the best interests of the society they represent. If those limits are considered out of step with the thinking of the majority of citizens, a party opposing them will prevail and those limits will be changed. So far, that hasn't been the case and if the numbers on non-whites representing the Conservative party are any indication, the likelihood of it happening in the foreseeable future is about nil.
People like Fromm and nazi followers like Tremaine are dooming themselves to a lifetime of dissatisfaction and chagrin, confronted as they are at every turn with the reality that their socially destructive views will never arouse enough mean-spiritedness among Canadians to make them anything more than a tiny boil on the rump of the body politic, however stridently they attempt to 'awaken' us.
19 June 2010 at 07:07
Terry, Terry, Terry......
Ever consider that it is you, and not, "the Jew" who is author of your own misfortune?
Didn't think so.
Regina man accused of more racist writings Human Rights Commission wants Terry Tremaine charged with contempt Last Updated: Thursday, June 17, 2010 | 5:33 PM CSTA Regina man, fined $4,000 for publishing racist articles, was back in court Thursday accused of violating orders to stop posting hate literature on the internet. Terry Tremaine, who used to work for the University of Saskatchewan as a math lecturer, was the focus of a lengthy investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission which culminated in a 2007 order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. He was found to have violated the rights of Jews and blacks by exposing them, through his online writings, to hatred. Some of his postings referred to Jews as "parasites" and "vermin," and called for the expulsion of Jews and non-white people from Canada, the tribunal ruled. Tremaine was told to "cease the discriminatory practice", according to the Feb. 2, 2007 decision. On Thursday, Daniel Poulin, a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights commission, told a Federal Court judge in Saskatoon that Tremaine did the opposite. "It is our position that Mr Tremaine did not remove the material and, in fact, continued posting after the decision was rendered," Poulin said. The commission is trying get Tremaine charged with contempt. Paul Fromm is with the Canadian Association for Free Expression and has assisted Tremaine with his case. Fromm said internet writings may not fall into the definition of communicating, an essential element of the issue concerning Tremaine. "Sending some sort of electronic signals to a website in the United States, where that is legal, does not constitute communication," Fromm said. "Communication is defined as the transfer of ideas between two people." But Poulin said the only reason people post their opinions online is to communicate their ideas. "It is our position of course that posting material on the internet for everybody to see it, in fact, constitutes communication," Poulin said. "In fact, that is the single most important purpose for posting on the internet, isn't it?" The federal judge who heard the matter said a decision would come next week on whether or not Tremaine should face a charge of contempt. Tremaine is also before the courts in Regina. In January of 2008, police in that city laid a criminal code charge alleging Tremaine used the internet to promote hatred. Tremaine, 61, calls himself a white nationalist. In an interview with CBC News in 2007 he said he should be free to share his views without being prosecuted.
3 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formJust so you know your new layout isn't Blackberry compatible so meh to you:)
18 June 2010 at 06:14
"Sending some sort of electronic signals to a website in the United States, where that is legal, does not constitute communication," Fromm said. "Communication is defined as the transfer of ideas between two people."
That is the one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. He pretty much just said exactly, 'Sending a message to another part of the world [and to the entire world as well considering we are dealing with the internet] does not count as communication.' The last statement furthers the idiocy, as he is implying that the man sent the message with the intention of nobody reading nor replying to it.
"In an interview with CBC News in 2007 he said he should be free to share his views without being prosecuted."
That is where things get tough in my opinion. I do not actually know what this man has been saying, but I feel that this final statement is correct to a certain extent. In the United States, this statement is taken too far, allowing people to lie and spread lies as truth in every medium available [see Fox News] and even call for violence as long as said violence does not appear to be imminent. The problem is, how do we decide what point of views are allowed and which ones are not? I feel Canada is doing a good job of this at the moment, but it is all a matter of point of view. I mean, could I one day be prosecuted for arguing that gay marriage is wrong and should be banned? (I don't feel this way at all, it is simply an example.) It is common place these days but in the future it could be seen as a form of hate speech. What other opinions are common place these days and could lead to persecution in the future? A better example might be something I truly believe; that religion teaches immoral ideals such as hatred toward women and homosexuals among many other awful things, so I believe because of this, religion should be banned from being taught to children especially as a substitute for true morals one can learn through science and proper schooling. Does this constitute as hate speech toward religious groups? If it doesn't, could it one day? As I stated, I haven't a clue what exactly the man was saying and I doubt I would agree with it and I probably would find it as something he should be charged with. Clearly I am over-thinking this, but that last statement just makes a lot of sense to me.
18 June 2010 at 07:49
Free speech isn't absolute-- anywhere on the planet.
It's the right and the duty of democratically elected representatives in a sovereign nation to determine what limits on speech are in the best interests of the society they represent. If those limits are considered out of step with the thinking of the majority of citizens, a party opposing them will prevail and those limits will be changed. So far, that hasn't been the case and if the numbers on non-whites representing the Conservative party are any indication, the likelihood of it happening in the foreseeable future is about nil.
People like Fromm and nazi followers like Tremaine are dooming themselves to a lifetime of dissatisfaction and chagrin, confronted as they are at every turn with the reality that their socially destructive views will never arouse enough mean-spiritedness among Canadians to make them anything more than a tiny boil on the rump of the body politic, however stridently they attempt to 'awaken' us.
19 June 2010 at 07:07