Is it "Hate speech" if

Well, the case in question does seem a little bit over the top and I would like to know the full facts behind it, but in principle I am not sure how using a quote matters if the context is right. For example, if I were to quote the leader of the KKK in the context of:

"Whilst I could tell you what I think, I'd rather leave it to GrandDragon Whitey who said [insert quote], much more eloquently than I could have."

Then I don't see how it being a quote gets you any further off the hook.

 

Not at all, it was a religious slur if anything (and I don't see a problem with criticising a way of thinking), anyway he quoted an Iman, and therefore he should have nothing to worry about - at least you'd hope that. Free speech doesn't seem as free these days.

Whilst I think racism is vile, people have the right to think and say what they want - as long as they are not inciting violence.

 

An intresting argument - but one that has been refuted in "Multi-cultural" Britain!

So at first, immmigrant women have as many children as they would in their "home" country - but as they integrate more into the culture and start to take advantage of free health care, education and medicine - then they start to have less children and also realise that they don't have to be "oppressed" by men ...

West Indian and Asian women immigrants and childen of immigrants, have ended up becoming active economic participants in British Society and hence having less children!

 

....and a quick bit of googling reveals that the OP appears to be misleading as to what actually happened

The facts appear to be that Macleans published an article with exerts from Steyns book. The Candian Islamic Council complained that it was anti-Islamic and requested that they be given an equal amount of space to print a rebuttal. When Macleans refused to so, they lodged complaints against Macleans in the Human Rights Commission.

What is true:

- No one is charged with anything - this is a civil complaint and not a criminal matter.

- Its a complaint against the magazine and the editor in chief (not Mark Steyn)

- The complaint is that the article "subjects Muslims to hatred and contempt" and is not specifically about the quote in the OP.

If people want to read up on the REAL story they can do so via google. Here is one article I found:

Source: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071130_111821_7448

 

It's good to see Canada, like the U.S., is ahead of the rest of the world in solving all their domestic problems; ie, poverty, good funding for schools, an even playing field in the NHL, etc. that they now have time to move on to fighting the issues that are threatening the forward progression of our species.

 

Nice try slandering muslims burk.

 

I don't get it. I thought he was talking about Islamic bigotry...what's he got against people named, Frank?

 

I did. Subtlety isn't your forte.

 

Cool, so what part was wrong:

1. Was anyone "charged" with anything as claimed in the original post or was it a civil matter?

2. Was the claim brought against Mark Steyne as claimed in the original post, or was it just the EIC and the magazine?

3. Was it the complaint that specifically mentions the quote or the press release after the complaint that mentions the quote?

It seems you are spinning this way past the actual facts. Its almost like you copied this off some sort of pro-Mark Steyne blog, but I am sure that is unpossible.

 

Seeing as the real facts behind this civil complaint are now in the open, my thoughts on the matter are pretty much as stated in my earlier post. I don't think that the mere fact that you are quoting someone else should "get you off" in relation to what you say, because it completely depends on the context of what was said and how the quote was used.

However, in this particular case, it seems that brining the complaint, if it is mostly based on the quote alone, is pretty ridiculous as I can't really see how that quote, in isolation, is anti-Islamic. Then again, I haven't read the whole article, so maybe the rest of the article was more damning. But, lets not forget, its a civil complaint brought by one organisation against another - no government is bringing this and its not criminal charges. So, in reality, this is not much different from the ridiculousness of a judge suing a dry cleaning company for $64mil to get his pants back. The law allows it and that is the way the justice system works. If your justice system allows you to bring frivalous complaints, then you will get frivalous complaints brought from time to time.

 

I fail to see how an Imam in a scandinavian country is an Islamist. What was this I said about slander?

 

It is Hate speech if you believe preconceived generalizations about any religious group such as the ones you've made, and even more so when you publish them to the general public.

 

Did you say something about Fender and how they're silly while you own a Conklin?

 

Have you read it? It doesn't support what you said in the OP. I would also note that its hard to attack "Freedom of Speech" without there being freedom of speech (in Canada). Finally, when you say "American courts would thru [sic] this out", would they do that before or after they have a hearing? Because, as I am sure you are aware, there had not been a hearing on this matter yet, so how would the Tribunal be in a position to throw it out?

 

I did? I really dig Fender basses though. That might have been a cheap joke I made to a Fender lover dissing Conklin's greatness

That said I've owned a precision which I never should have sold, and more importantly, taste in basses is subjective and as a musician and consumer I have the right to my opinion, it isn't slander as much as it is a personal taste, just like I say bud light tastes like warm piss even cold. While the Imam's words above seriously made me roll my eyes and I must say I don't really agree with his opinion, I don't feel the need to slander him or tag him as extremist because I disagree with his opinion of European demographics.