WI Crippler

How exactly is he going to go about making people read his book?

__________________
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."- Reg

roguenuke

Most religions try to "scare" people into believing something. And most religions have fostered some very radical people who harm others because of those beliefs, but it is the radical people that should be held responsible for those actions, not the teachings of those religions. If someone chooses to believe what this guy is saying and harm others based on those opinions, then the guy who is doing the harm is the one who should be held responsible.

bub

yes I know, my answer is a bit radical. But I don't support populism (as a way of influencing people with emotional arguments such as fear), and in my opinion it (populism) should be restricted.

of course he doesn't

In the ECHR, there are exceptions to freedom of speech. Restrictions must have a legitime goal and be necessary and proportional.

"Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". "


According to the jurisprudence (see arrests Refah Partisi), we could restrict the freedom of speech of this guy in order to protect minorities (Muslims in Canada). This is thus a legitime goal.

However, I admit I don't think that it would be necessary (there is no urgent need to prevent anti-Muslim riots in Canada if the book is not banned) nor very efficient. On the contrary it would fuel islamophobic arguments.

Council of Europe - ETS no. 005 - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

So, as there would not be any anti-Muslim riot if the book is published, you are right it should not be censored. However, in my personal opinion, I would not mind if it was, as its content seems particularly bigotted and against the principles of a multicultural society.

__________________
===|:-)

mpg

Yeah, people with controversial political opinons SHOULD be hauled into court.

__________________
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

CoffeeMan

So... that makes it ok for him to have to go to court? Because he says some not so nice things about certain people?

__________________
McCain Palin 08

DivineComedy

Ok, you win, I agree, the Koran should not be published.

“Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: ‘But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)’”

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

bub

lol that was not the answer I expected

I suggest you to read GySgt's thread about Islam, though

Zyphlin

Despite Hautey's predictable response or the guy advocating for the state to ban certain kind of speech, I've yet to see a reason why this guy should be sent to court because he wrote a book.

This would be akin to having the guy that wrote a book on theoritcally assassinating George Bush get drug in on treason charges. Its a book, its speech, and the fact some people on this site that like to talk about "liberty" and "Freedom" and how much Bush has taken it away are so quick to discount those same notions because someone is a "conservative whack job" really tells you what their motives really are.

SgtRock

Well said, thankyou for pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

__________________
The Four Horsemen are drawing nearer.

Argento

Ahh, no. He's made nutty claims in his day but he is far from Ann Coulter. For starters, he's actually funny.

First, he never said he was the first one to play a Madonna song on the radio, he said he was the first one to play a Madonna song on BBC Radio 3 (or so the link says).

Second, being up-to-date on pop culture (i.e., by watching South Park) does not preclude one from being well-read on geopolitics.

Seems to me that whether or not Steyn is taken seriously is not the problem here. The fact that speech the Canadian elite finds undesirable is subject to the regulation of a bureaucratic commission unanswerable to the public is the problem.

What a non-argument. I could just as easily make a stupid statement (say, "apples are actually oranges"), then say "There, I just made a patently false analogy, too," and rest my case on that alone.

Good for you. Steyn never made that argument and I don't see SgtRock making it either (the first instance of the word "evil" in this thread was made by you).

But I am not in the least bit interested in whether or Steyn is right. (For purposes of disclosure, I tend to think he's basically right but overexagerrates the details to draw attention to his cause). The question of whether or not he is right (which can only be determined retrospectively) exists entirely independent of the question of whether or not he is entitled to write, speak, and publish freely.

As a semi-regular Steyn reader, I can say I don't recall him ever saying anything to this effect. But then again the reference is so ludicrously vague it would be almost impossible to look up to dis/prove.

Well, the entire argument against Steyn is what you call populist, rooted in emotions (i.e., Muslims are offended, alienated, and afraid).

And at any rate, why categorically reject fear as a valid motivational tool? Some things are worth being afraid of.

Obviously, or an abomination like the HRC would never have been permitted to stumble into existence. The question is not whether or not the Canadian government is legally entitled to persecute Steyn (they are), but whether or not such persecution is consistent with a free society.

FYI, there are exceptions to free speech in America, too, but a few centuries of jurisprudence has resolved decisively in favor of the speaker.

(A) The book was published more than a year ago to no effect.

(B) What you propose is called the heckler's veto (i.e., "don't do this or we will riot and disrupt things"). It is inarguable anathema to free speech and a free society. That you are actually arguing in favor of it is appalling.

Some of the greatest works of history ever published have been rife with nationalism, contempt for the great "other," and the conviction that one's ideals are superior to all others. Would you people have banned the Song of Roland for its criticism of Islamic imperialism? The Canterbury Tales for its anti-Semitism? The Taming of the Shrew for its chauvinism?

Boo, I say.