Thursday, July 05, 2007

WE'RE piously devout; THEY'RE fundamentalist lunatics.


John at Americablog has a profound observation on the (alleged) difference between our religious fundamentalists and their religious fundamentalists (emphasis added):

One man's Islamic fundamentalist is another man's Christian fundamentalist

This photo in today's Washington Post of Islamic fundamentalist students rioting in Pakistan got me thinking about the difference between Islamic radicals and America's religious right. Both want to live in a theocratic state where they can force others to live under their own warped, hate-filled, minority version of an otherwise peaceful mainstream religion. And yes, the Islamic radicals are more violent than our Christian radicals, but only because our Christian radicals know that violence isn't acceptable in America. So they express their violence in their hearts, and their souls, and their politics. But at their core, they're no different. They hate all the same, and they'll happily bash with the power of a club or the power of the state. Both claim to represent the true God, both think they speak for all Muslims and all Christians, and neither does.

Exactly. Our fundamentalists love to sit around, sanctimoniously pointing out how they're not a bunch of raging, violent, hate-filled loons. However, one suspects that's simply because they can't get away with it here, and there would be consequences if they tried. But, every so often, the mask slips and the real extremist emerges and the consequences are ugly indeed.

No, our wingnuts are far more civilized and would never descend into that kind of violent madness. But, deep down, you have to suspect that they'd give it some serious consideration if they thought they could get away with it.

DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: In a funny way, beating up on people using the power of the state is even more insidious than outright violence. If someone hated you so much that they came at you with a baseball bat, you could at least defend yourself in a similar manner, and it might be a fair fight.

But why resort to violence when you can slowly and inexorably grind down those same people with the power of the state? Strip them of their rights, deny them housing based on their skin colour or sexual orientation, make it difficult or impossible for them to get and keep certain jobs, perpetually describe them in public forums as abominations, tell them they can't marry the person of their choice, criminalize their private behaviour, and on and on and depressingly on. And, all the while, defend your actions with flowery phrases like "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression." After all, it allows you to keep your hands clean, doesn't it?

Yeah, that'll work. Violence might give you instant gratification, but there's nothing like slowly and permanently dehumanizing some demographic to give you that all-over warm, fuzzy feeling of religious satisfaction while still letting you attend all the classier dinner parties.

Or letting you hang out over here. Yeah, you can still do that, too.

62 comments:

Greg said...

U.S. wingnuts are contained only by the knowledge that one of their own is Commander in Chief and wields state violence on their behalf. In other words they are just as violent as their Muslim brothers, but the use different tools, in different ways.

Shannon said...

If they thought for a minute that they could purge the US of non-christians and create the theocratic government they've been forging one wingnut at a time for the last few years, there wouldn't be any peace here, either.

The only thing keeping them at bay is the current rule of law. They are most certainly violent, however, in spite of their claims to the contrary. Kopp is a good example, and so is Jeffrey Lundgren, who managed to convince his entire congregation that a couple and their children needed to be put down. That couple and all three of their daughters were lead to a hole dug in the couple's barn, shot in the head and dropped into the hole on top of one another like so much garbage. Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, the Spanish Inquisition, the last 2000 years the christians have built quite a reputation for themselves.

Christian leaders are just as bloodthirsty but more adept at keeping it under control. People like Robertson and (the thankfully now deceased) Falwell don't commit murders themselves, they slyly suggest to their viewers that they ought to rise up themselves and kill people for Jesus.

Non-violent indeed...

Nonny said...

Yeah, that's right: George Bush and Billy Graham are just the same as bin Laden and Ahmadinejad.

And believing this and telling it to yourselves over and over is also a convenient excuse to continue to do what you're doing about Islamist terrorism: saying nothing (unless quickly followed by "but Christian fundies are just as bad"), advocating doing nothing to fight it except to accept the Islamist's terms, parroting the Islamist grip-mongering, and calling those who advocate fighting it "chickenhawks," Zionist stooges, fascists, and bigots.

What a pathetic bunch of losers you all are. Really. What useful idiots -- tools, in every sense of the word.

CC said...

Oh, man ... with that kind of nuanced, right-wing analysis, I can't wait to see how well this comes off.

Seriously, I may need to stock up on beer and Cheetos in a big way.

chris said...

The Church of England weighs in...

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/thomas_sutcliffe/article2730465.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

@#$%^&!!

Ti-Guy said...

And believing this and telling it to yourselves over and over is also a convenient excuse to continue to do what you're doing about Islamist terrorism: saying nothing

That's because we're not stupid, like you. Whatever I say about Islamic terrorism would be a waste of time because I live in country with intelligence and police services who are charged with handling any real threat on my behalf.

Screaming about it incoherently at a bunch of strangers just makes you look bigoted, ignorant and deranged.

Nonny said...

"Screaming about it incoherently at a bunch of strangers just makes you look bigoted, ignorant and deranged."

Whereas screaming about "Christianists" being just the same as Islamist terrorists who fly load passenger jets into office buildings is -- like -- TOTALLY not bigoted ignorant, or deranged.

What a dope you are, Ti-Guy.

And CC, where did I say that my calling you a useful idiot on behalf of Islamists was a "nuanced" argument? I'll tell you what: the DAY you make a nuance argument instead of engaging in snide, invective-filled posturing, I'll give you a "nuanced" response.

Ti-Guy said...

You ridiculous, ignorant, racist fascist. The topic here isn't "islamist terrorism;" you're just bringing it up to accuse people of hypocrisy because that's all you've got...it's all you've ever had, in fact.

Why have you strayed from your wingnut forums? I guess screaming at Canadians indirectly isn't good enough for you, eh?

Nonny said...

Calm down Ti-Guy. Calm down. No need to get so upset just because you've got ... nothing.

And wipe the spittle off your screen.

Nonny said...

"I live in country with intelligence and police services who are charged with handling any real threat on my behalf," says the tough-guy.

You forgot to add one important thing to your statement. Here's what you meant to say:

"I live in country with intelligence, police services, and a neighboring ally who are charged with handling any real threat on my behalf.

CC said...

nonny:

Either address the issue I raised, or piss off. Your annoying talent for constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject is getting tiresome.

Grog said...

Sez "Nonny":

Whereas screaming about "Christianists" being just the same as Islamist terrorists who fly load passenger jets into office buildings is -- like -- TOTALLY not bigoted ignorant, or deranged.

Well, let's see we have all sorts of lovely incidents - Christianists shooting doctors to death, bombing medical facilities, and - in the case of GWB - invading foreign countries on some foolish idea of a crusade.

Yes, let's talk about "moral equivalence" here...

Ti-Guy said...

and a neighboring ally who are charged with handling any real threat on my behalf.

Yeah, right. Same old myths. How did all that prevent a major terrorist attack from occurring only nine hours from where I live and which required the panicked diversion of thousands of flights to land here when threats hadn't been properly assessed? How did all that prevent a Canadian citizen from being rendered and tortured and which ended up costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars?

Stop trying to "protect" us. Never have, never will.

rabbit said...

Your "deep afterthoughts" are interesting. I don't know if it is actually happening, or if I am more sensitized to it, but I see ever more people on the left willing to dismiss fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression.

They view such rights not as critical tools in the fight for justice, but rather tools for oppression, and seem quite willing to jettison them.

That would be foolish. Once you've denied your opponents right to speak, who is going to support your right to speak when the political winds shift?

Nonny said...

CC,

You said, "Either address the issue I raised, or piss off."

Excuse me? Your post directly compares Christian fundamentalism to Islamic fundamentalism. The lodestar of Islamic fundamentalism is terrorism. You even allude to it: "No, our wingnuts are far more civilized and would never descend into that kind of violent madness. But, deep down, you have to suspect that they'd give it some serious consideration if they thought they could get away with it."

Really. What on earth are you talking about? My first post was exactly on point. I called your comparison idiotic. It was and it is.

Nonny said...

That was some Canadian citizen that we sent back to his native Syria, wasn't it, Ti-Guy? A great hero of yours? Complain to your own government for not wanting to re-admit such a dual citizen. Complain to your own government for having such a dual citizen in the first place. Poor victimized Canada. Bad ol' United States for not wanting your garbage -- your protector ... but not needed because everybody loves Canadians. Everybody. Even the Syrian dual citizens. Who needs a military when everybody just loves you. The UN ... and you ... say so.

Take care of your own house, if you don't like it. If you cannot, then tough titties. The grown-ups have work to do.

CC said...

nonny writes:

"That was some Canadian citizen that we sent back to his native Syria, wasn't it, Ti-Guy? A great hero of yours? Complain to your own government for not wanting to re-admit such a dual citizen."

That's it, Nonny, you're out of here. Anyone who tries to minimize the deportation and torture of a Canadian citizen by pointing out that he's only a dual citizen has lost any right to post here.

Asshole.

Adam C said...

Rabbit, unless you see the following:

Strip them of their rights, deny them housing based on their skin colour or sexual orientation, make it difficult or impossible for them to get and keep certain jobs, ... tell them they can't marry the person of their choice, criminalize their private behaviour

as "freedom of expression", I think you've misinterpreted the afterthoughts...

Ti-Guy said...

Anyone who tries to minimize the deportation and torture of a Canadian citizen by pointing out that he's only a dual citizen has lost any right to post here.

And Nonny lied about it, anyway:

Complain to your own government for not wanting to re-admit such a dual citizen.

There was no opportunity to re-admit Maher Arar. He wasn't sent back to Canada..he was sent to Syria...as the Arar Commission revealed, the US didn't want to send him back because the RCMP didn't have enough evidence to detain him in Canada.

That's what the US should have done in the first place. If Arar had posed any real security threat, he would have been our problem.

Of course, this is the brain-trust that led the US into an illegal/immoral invasion, and which thinks torture is a useful interrogation technique, so what can you expect?

Ti-Guy said...

but I see ever more people on the left willing to dismiss fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression....

Where do they get this? Why do these people confuse the freedom of expression others have to condemn hateful, anti-democratic and potentially (and in many cases, actual) violent religious fundamentalism with the denial of freedom of expression?

I know "rabbit" is only a troll (I've seen his/her pellets all over a few progressive blogs and he/she has fraudulently claimed to be a 'liberal'), but it never ceases to amaze me that people still make this assertion.

Rabbit, you know you're lying, right?

Anonymous said...

If it was all America's fault that Arar was sent to Syria instead of Canada, then why did the Canadian government apologize to him and pay him $10.5 million?

Because your government is just so darn good? Or because they knew where the US would send him -- and have every right to send him -- if they didn't say to the US, "Yes. Let us have him back."

IkeofMarch said...

anon: Did I miss the part where someone said "it was all America's fault"? Or is your question just a way of diverting the discussion?

Anonymous said...

See Ti-Guy, above:

"There was no opportunity to re-admit Maher Arar."

All Canada had to do was ask. They didn't.

IkeofMarch said...

So that's it? You go from that statement to "it was all America's fault"? I don't think that's a fair representation of what ti-guy said.

Anonymous said...

It's fair.

rabbit said...

Ti-guy:

We all wait for the day that your posts do not contain a personal attack.

I consider myself a classic liberal, which is quite different from a progressive liberal (which is what people usually mean these days by a liberal), and certainly different than a true conservative.

I would respond to your response to my comments on freedom of expression, but I found it a bit incoherent. I'm not sure what you were trying to say.

Ti-Guy said...

then why did the Canadian government apologize to him and pay him $10.5 million?

Because the RCMP shared information it had on Arar that baselessly incriminated him. It was on that basis that the US deported him to Syria. That was Canada's fault.

All Canada had to do was ask. They didn't.

The US didn't alert Canada that it had Arar in custody and was deporting him to Syria. He was gone before anyone in Canada could act officially on this.

Now, maybe something else went wrong in Canada, but since the US declined to participate in the Commission, we may never know.

You might try reading up on this, as you appear completely unfamiliar with the case.

Ti-Guy said...

We all wait for the day that your posts do not contain a personal attack.

You'll be waiting a long time, fraud.

Respond substantively to the critique I made of your baseless assertion that condemning religious fundamentalism constitutes abridging freedom of expression, or don't engage me at all.

rabbit said...

Ti-Guy:

I totally miss the points of your insults. Do you think you are going to offend or rile me? Fat chance. Do you think it makes you more convincing? Nope, quite the opposite.

My remarks about freedom of speech referred to CC's comments at the very end, where he referred to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" as flowerly phrases used to hide people's insidious agendas. To me they are far more than that. They are the bedrock of liberty, and should not be dismissed so lightly even when you loath what some people have to say.

CC said...

rabbit:

Freedom of speech is not absolute, and you know it. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. If you say or print defamatory accusations about someone, you can be sued for libel or slander. And so on and so on.

Everyone understands that and accepts it, yet numerous religious whackjobs continually invoke that "freedom" to say defamatory things about entire demographics.

Knock it off. Your claim is nonsense, and everyone here knows it.

Ti-Guy said...

My remarks about freedom of speech referred to CC's comments at the very end, where he referred to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" as flowerly phrases used to hide people's insidious agendas.

That's still freedom of expression, and no amount of wriggling from a fraud is going to change that.

Again, I repeat: "Why do these people confuse the freedom of expression others have to condemn hateful, anti-democratic and potentially (and in many cases, actual) violent religious fundamentalism with the denial of freedom of expression?"

People can say all they want until they break the law (and in Canada, freedom of expression is circumscribed by limitations that have been judged by the highest court in the land to be reasonable in a free and democratic society). If you don't live in Canada or you believe in free speech absolutism, don't bother arguing this with me.

rabbit said...

CC:

If you wish for me to knock it off, you can always remove or disallow my postings. That is your right.

It is certainly true that freedom of speech is not an absolute. Few claim it should be.

The question becomes one of where we should set the boundaries.

I believe that restrictions on speech should be as few as possible. Certainly speech which is merely offensive should never be restricted - after all, the suggestion that a black man should have the right to marry a white women was once considered highly offensive in many parts of the world. What is offensive today may be tomorrow's accepted wisdom.

In regards to offense against an entire demographics, I see no reason why there should be different rules for offending an individual or a group. But in any case, consider the following statement:


So they express their violence in their hearts, and their souls, and their politics. But at their core, they're no different. They hate all the same, and they'll happily bash with the power of a club or the power of the state.


I think one could argue that the above is expressing hatred, and is rather defamatatory, towards an entire religious group. Certainly a good lawyer could make the case.

I think we can both agree, however, that such speech should not be restricted.

Restricting freedom of speech is always a two-edged sword. It is wildy optimistic to believe that the such laws will silence your political opponents, but never be used to silence yourself.

Anonymous said...

"The US didn't alert Canada that it had Arar in custody."

From the CBC: "Canada's spy agency wasn't aware the United States planned to arrest and deport Maher Arar to Syria, says a classified review that clears the country's intelligence service of wrongdoing in the case.

You're welcome.
"But the report from the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which oversees the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, says it can't determine whether information CSIS gathered before Arar's arrest pointed American authorities in his direction."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/09/14/arar040914.html

So, while it seem the CSIS didn't know of the arrest, it is less clear that the RCMP didn't know. Why should the Canadian intelligence service be contacted concerning a law enforcement action anyway? I wouldn't expect the CIA to be notified by the RCMP if they arrested a US citizen in Canada who was suspected of terrorist connections. The RCMP would contact US law enforcement -- the FBI. It is the RCMP that the US authorities would have contacted. I know of nothing that says they weren't, and I would be surprised if they weren't.

What I do know is that Canada paid Arar a lot of scratch, saying they were wrong about the evidence against him, but the US still has him on their terrorist watch list. So, Canada seems to have been right in the first place: Arar is bad news.

The whole story smells bad. It seems likely that he is guilty of collaborating with terrorists but all the evidence cannot be released for various national security reasons. The RCMP screwed up (from a political standpoint) by not asking for him back. They knew he was bad news, they just lacked the hard evidence to hold him, much less charge him. They opted to kick the can to the US, who didn't want him either. The US considered it a favor to Canada to get rid of him. The US had the right to deport him. How convenient for all concerned the dope had two passports. And it's much more convenient to say, "Sorry, we screwed up on the evidence. Our bad," rather than, "Sorry, we knew you'd be sent to Syria despite having only circumstantial and top-secret evidence against you. Yeah, we're meanies just like the bad ol' US. But here's $10.5 million samolians for your trouble." I know which reason makes sense, and it isn't "Our evidence was bad and the US is lying about its evidence." Ask yourself this: If the US has the same "bad" evidence that Canada now claims it had, why wouldn't the US just say, "Don't blame us, blame Canada! We just used their evidence and deported him to his native Syria, a country of which he is a citizen.

Instead, the US is saying nothing regarding the reason they didn't deport him to Canada, but only says their evidence against him still stands. It sounds to me as if the US is taking a bit of a fall for its ally.

The Seer said...

CC:

I feel I must again correct you and your minions.

The right you breached is not the Christianists' freedom of speech; you breached the right of the Christianists, BT's & c to make you listen!

The right to make everyone else listen may not be express in the Bible or the Charter but it is implied by the rightousness of the Christianist, BT cause.

Ti-Guy said...

Instead, the US is saying nothing regarding the reason they didn't deport him to Canada, but only says their evidence against him still stands. It sounds to me as if the US is taking a bit of a fall for its ally.

Whatever, wingnut. Wipe off that keyboard and go sell your masturbatory fantasies to the RCMP/CSIS and the FBI/CIA and Homeland Security and various parliamentary and congressional committees if you think they're so credible. Make sure you bring along compelling evidence...and no, the tissues don't count.

Ti-Guy said...

I think one could argue that the above is expressing hatred, and is rather defamatatory, towards an entire religious group. Certainly a good lawyer could make the case.

One could argue it I suppose...Why don't you actually try?

Ah, the wriggling fraud...trying to recast the condemnation of hate (and potential or actual violence) into an expression of hate, all with the purpose of eliminating any real difference between the two.

You're a very sophisticated liar, rabbit. Richard Evans could take lessons from you.

Ti-Guy said...

The right you breached is not the Christianists' freedom of speech; you breached the right of the Christianists, BT's & c to make you listen!

Very astute observation, Seer. I'd dearly love to use a similar logic against them, but my brain just doesn't work that way.

I guess you have to be possessed or something.

CC said...

the seer writes:

"The right to make everyone else listen may not be express in the Bible or the Charter but it is implied by the rightousness of the Christianist, BT cause."

Actually, this is an astute observation, that I plan on returning to in a future post.

rabbit said...

Ti-Guy:

Thus you see the problem with hate laws. If you believe that a certain group - conservative Christians, for example - is guilty of hate, and you condemn them for it, you yourself appear guilty of hate against that group.

You may differentiate between hate and the condemnation of hate, but it's not clear that crown prosecutors do, particularly if they don't like your politics.

It makes every outspoken person a potential criminal.

Ti-Guy said...

Thus you see the problem with hate laws. If you believe that a certain group - conservative Christians, for example - is guilty of hate, and you condemn them for it, you yourself appear guilty of hate against that group..

They may be guilty of hate, but as long as they don't break the law, I really don't care. They still deserve condemnation for it and no amount of fraudulent wriggling is going to change that.

As for my guilt, go peddle your nonsense somewhere else. I'm a progressive person of faith and that kind of sophistry is risible.

Anyway, you're not only a fraud, rabbit...but you're incredibly stupid. I wish I knew who you were sock-puppeting. This all sounds so familiar...

rabbit said...

Ti-Guy:

You did read my post didn't you?

I spoke solely about the importance of having as much freedom of expression as is possible, and how that right should never be dismissed lightly.

My examples were to demonstrate that people who support restrictions on speech - particularly hate speech - are shooting themselves in the foot. It's as if they are going after their opponents by removing all the oxygen in the air, without worrying about how they themselves will breath.

But I enjoyed your insults.

Grog said...

Rabbit:

Have you actually read the criminal code sections on hate crimes??? (and actually tried to comprehend them...)

If you had, you would have long ago figured out that what you claim could be argued as 'hate speech' doesn't qualify.

Like most of the right wingnut crowd, you run around claiming that a law means something when you've never actually tried to understand it.

rabbit said...

Grog:

I didn't know opposition to hate crime laws was a right-wing position.

True, the hate crime laws in Canada are quite limited. But they are under constant pressure to be expanded in scope, and the hate crime laws in some countries - Germany is an example - are draconian.

I notice also that people are getting dragged in front of Human Rights Boards for simple speech. The Bishop of Calgary is a good example, when he spoke out against gay marriage. Even when nothing comes of it, such actions suppress free speech.

And Grog, knock off the personal comments.

CC said...

rabbit wrote:

"The Bishop of Calgary is a good example, when he spoke out against gay marriage. Even when nothing comes of it, such actions suppress free speech."

Don't be so embarrassingly ignorant, rabbit. Henry did not simply "speak out against gay marriage," which would have been perfectly acceptable.

Instead, as you can read here,

"Bishop Fred Henry is refusing to take back comments he made comparing homosexuality to prostitution and adultery, after two people lodged human rights complaints against him."

I'm hoping, rabbit, that you can appreciate the difference between what you wrote and what actually happened.

rabbit said...

It's true that Biship Henry didn't just speak out against gay marriage - at the same time he denounced homosexuality as a sin, and compared it to other things he considered a sin.

But so what? He's a high-ranking Catholic priest. Can a priest not publically denounce things he considers a sin? Not only should he have the right to do so, as a Catholic priest some would say he has a duty.

I don't agree with him, but he should have the right to speak his conscience, matter how much it offends some people. It's not Bishop Henry's job to only say things that please people, and it's a weak society that can't tolerate offensive speech.

CC said...

OK, rabbit, let me see if I understand this correctly.

When a Catholic bishop describes gays as being equivalent to criminals, that's cool because society should be able to handle offensive speech.

On the other hand, when I describe Canada's Right as a bunch of ignorant, dumbass motherfuckers, then I'm overgeneralizing irresponsibly and that only proves how I'm an angry, unhinged, deranged moonbat who's not worth arguing with. Or so I've been told.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

CC said...

By the way, rabbit, you do realize that you just got your ass handed to you on a platter, right?

Originally, you claimed that charging Henry with hate speech was unreasonable because Henry had only "spoken out against gay marriage." When I pointed out how you were full of shit on that claim and that Henry had actually made offensive and insulting statements against gays in general, you simply redefined the problem.

At this point, there's really no value in continuing this discussion with you. You're welcome to hang out here as long as you want. But at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that you just got your ass whipped in this debate, OK?

rabbit said...

CC:


I describe Canada's Right as a bunch of ignorant, dumbass motherfuckers, then I'm overgeneralizing irresponsibly and that only proves how I'm an angry, unhinged, deranged moonbat who's not worth arguing with.


1. I never said the above in any post here today. I did say that both you and Bishop Henry have made remarks that are highly offensive to certain groups of people.

2. Both you and Bishop Henry have another thing in common - you both should have the freedom to say these things.

3. I did not mention Henry denouncing homosexuality because it was all part of his denouncing gay marriage. What's more, it makes no difference at all. He should have the right to do both.

4. So far as who "won the debate", that could only be judged by someone who's mind wasn't made up on the subject before the debate. I doubt many - or any - such people were reading this blog.

5. Debates do not go to those who hurl the most insults. Rather the opposite.

Ti-Guy said...

This never has been a debate. It's just you 'tarding up a discussion with your woeful ignorance.

I never got a response to my original question. Just a lot of bafflegab from a wriggling fraud, who...God almighty..is whining now.

pretty shaved ape said...

Form an article I wrote way back here. Some of Bishop Fred's own words. It should also be noted that Bigot, er, Bishop Fred was making every effort to use his position to influence the political lives of not only his flock but of the nation at large, in contravention to the rules governing tax exempt status for "charitable" institutions.

"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

Now if a spangly gowned creep like Fred Henry expects to have and use a set of freedoms, he and his pals can hardly weep when his opponents, detractors and other rational folk exercise their very own freedoms of speech and haul his ass in front of the human rights commission. If this country were to approach a ghastly, pious shite spitter like Henry by the letter of the law, he would be free enough to bark his spite and ignorance. But his church would be filing its taxes and paying its way.

Adam C said...

Nonny;

When you don't know anything about what you're talking about, maybe you should sfu instead of pretending. We appreciate you trying to do some research, but you're still about five years behind.

The Mounties don't decide who gets to come into the country, and neither does CSIS. Neither of them were 'asked to re-admit him' for this rather obvious reason. The Canadian government didn't know he'd been arrested, the Canadian embassy didn't know he'd been arrested, and they're the people who should have been informed - by the US.

Arar did not have two passports. He had a Canadian passport. When you're born in Syria, you are a Syrian citizen for life. You don't get to renounce it - that's just how the Syrian system works.

And don't even try to sell us this bullshit about "he's probably guilty" because of "secret evidence". That's what got you banned again, Jinx. If you have evidence against someone, you put them on trial. If your evidence consists of "he bought a house from a guy whose wife's brother's roommate knows a guy that's on a watch list", then, evidently, you send him to Syria to be tortured.

And you lie, and say your evidence is good but can never be revealed.

Scotian said...

Oh good grief rabbit, you can't be that illiterate so you are clearly pretending to miss it or worse, your blind spots thanks to your own biases are so pronounced they are preventing you from seeing it. As CC pointed out, the reason that Henry was accused with hate speech was for having "spoken out against gay marriage." according to your first statement. Then you came back and said that "I did not mention Henry denouncing homosexuality because it was all part of his denouncing gay marriage. What's more, it makes no difference at all. He should have the right to do both." despite it being the reason that Henry was acused and not Gay Marriage as you initially argued/claimed. Therefore you redefined the reason why you were claiming Henry was acused with hate speech after your first definition was shown to be false. Therefore by that redefinition AND by the fact you were deliberately pretending you were doing no such thing you completely toasted yourself yet again. Therefore CC by the standards of those that actually stick with their original definitions (and if it is shown that there is a factual error in them or the premises they rest upon it is acknowledged as such) when engaging in debate (which is at heart what is going on here) CC clearly won and did so decisively. The fact that you continue to try and claim otherwise despite the evidence to the contrary shows either incredible stupidity or incredible deception either knowingly or unknowingly (as in that blind spot I mentioned earlier, in cases like that a person believes they are telling the truth when though they really aren't...a common problem among the new NA conservative movement I might add).

One of the trademark signatures of the religious right in America is the incessant inability to admit mistake/error and to therefore move the goalposts whenever the initial goal/challenge is met. That is inherently and fundamentally dishonest and makes trying to argue/debate/discuss anything of significance/seriousness a total waste of time beyond finding out how that person is programmed. Because that is what it is. They are programmed by their ideology and all too often have religious zealotry mixed in with it creating a very powerful and very dangerous mental programming, if you do not share that programming you are no longer "one of us" (as in a fellow American our in our case Canadian) but "the enemy" to be opposed. Opposed by forcing the core programming onto everyone else to create the desired perfect/grand society via changing the laws upon which we govern ourselves to accomplish that purpose by making anything that impedes that goal illegal. It is these underlying patterns that cause me to act in opposition to the modern conservative movement, and I am old enough to recall that the main source of this sort of programming (generally minus the religious component though) when I was still growing up was in the left side of our political dynamic. I opposed the extremes of the left whenever I encountered it then and tried to point it out to others on the left that were excusing it in the name of "the greater good" (same as movement conservatives in both countries do, the fact that it is seen as a different greater good in each's eyes does not alter that both are true from each side's perspective) or simply could not see it. These days I find that almost all of this kind of programmed thinking where politics and how the nation/world should be governed comes from the right, and the religious component and the way it is used gives me significantly greater cause for alarm than the left's did way back when.

Humanity has shed more blood in it's lifetime in the name of God than for all other reasons combined, and religious wars/conflicts have tended to breed some of the worst atrocities too. This fact though appears lost on those that would have us tread down that same tired path yet again instead of allowing us all to connect with our spiritual natures in our own way (so long as no one else is being harmed in the process that is, and I mean direct harm at that no arguing by indirect means) or not as it occurs and with the freedom to do so. This is why so many of us fight the religious right so fiercely, and incidentally, as to why many of us fight them more than Islamic extremists is because of the two the Christian ones are the more dangerous to us and out societies. Why and how could that be I expect some on the right would cry out, simple, here's the answer. The Islamic terrorists are not the ones trying to redefine our legal codes within our country; they aren't the ones more likely to take away our freedoms, no that comes from the Christian extremists. The Islamic terrorists are mainly interested in removing western influence from their region (of which Israel is clearly considered a part) and are using the tactics of the weak against the strong to do so with, which includes guerrilla and unfortunately all too often terrorist attack strategies. Which means I may get killed by a bomb of theirs, but that threat is more easily guarded against than is the one to our fundamental legal structure. Which is also why Harper's clear belief in culture war politics (which is firmly rooted in the religious right of America) indicates a very scary mindset for those of us that do not believe *ANY* religious faith has the right to force their particular set of beliefs on others (or even be able to compell belief at all for that matter), nor in public places have the right to incite hatred and fear of other groups and cloak it in relgion's guise. Disagree with them sure, think they are wrongheaded and say so, sure, but hatred and dehumanization is another thing altogether.

I am far from being a secular person rabbit, I am in fact a very spiritual person that was raised RC and spent nearly a decade of my childhood as an alter boy. Do *NOT* come back and try to tell me that I hate religion or Faith or Christians, I do not. I do hate the vile acts that are done in their names (this is all religious Faiths, not just Christian) though by zealots/fanatics/extremists and for that I make no apologies whatsoever.

Ti-Guy said...

"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

PSA...I wrote Bishop Henry at that time to express my shock that he was requesting that the power of the State (the thing that is Caesar's) be used to persecute people. The response I got was "Take it up with the Holy Spirit!"

...???

The Catholic hierarchy is nuts. Bishop Henry is nuts. Pope Ratzinger is nuts. They're all nuts. Every single last one of these virgins in dresses is nuts.

rabbit said...

PSA:

Hauling Henry up in front of a Human Rights Commission was not exercising anyone's right to free speech. It was an attempt to shut him up.

There is a simple test for those who claim to support free speech. Do they do so even for opinions and people they loath? Do they do so even for people who are trying to take away their own rights?

And Scotian - try to keep it under a thousand words. I can't read all that.

Bernadet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bernadet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ti-Guy said...

And Scotian - try to keep it under a thousand words. I can't read all that.

Heh. What a fucking cunt you are. rabbit. A total scum-sucking douche-bag. A "cum-guzzling monster-twat" as our friends at Sadly No describe.

Go and fuck yourself, you fucking asshole.

Scotian said...

rabbit:

Well that is your deficiency/problem, not mine. Everyone else seems capable of reading what I write, so I guess that shows your literary skills are substandard to the average/norm around here. Are you really sure that is what you want to be telling everyone as you are with this request? If you are going to try and debate others rabbit it would help if your reading skills were sufficient to the task instead of expecting others to simplify/dumb it down for you like some poor illiterate person would require.

Bernadet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pretty shaved ape said...

"Hauling Henry up in front of a Human Rights Commission was not exercising anyone's right to free speech. It was an attempt to shut him up."

Well that's what we call a big steaming pile of bullshit. The human rights commission doesn't just go out a-hunting for people to pester. Cases are brought before the commission by individuals and groups. By your very own retarded definition:

"There is a simple test for those who claim to support free speech. Do they do so even for opinions and people they loath? Do they do so even for people who are trying to take away their own rights?"

dragging Henry into the dock is the very essence of free speech. Hell, even if it was an effort to silence him, it was free speech, right Rabbit? Or does the free speech of the citizenry stop abruptly at the hem of the man in the ludicrous gown?

The difference between Bishop Freddy and the average punter is that the Bishop speaks from both authority and privilege. He speaks from the authority of his position within the church. He speaks from that authority under the privilege of a law that allows said church tax exempt status. That law also binds and restricts the speech that Henry is allowed to engage in from his lofty position among the mystic class. He clearly breached that law.

Rabbit, might I suggest you go away and untangle your double standards and give some actual thought to things before you post? You are embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous said...

Ti-Guy, on the other hand, is seemingly incapable of feeling embarrassed. Incapable of much, really, except feeling very, very angry.

Grog said...

Hauling Henry up in front of a Human Rights Commission was not exercising anyone's right to free speech. It was an attempt to shut him up.

There is a simple test for those who claim to support free speech. Do they do so even for opinions and people they loath? Do they do so even for people who are trying to take away their own rights?


Rabbit - Bigot..er..Bishop Henry has a long track record in Calgary of spewing some pretty awful things in his "opinions" on GLBT issues.

He opened his own little world of hurt by calling for the government to use its coercive power to curtail gay equality rights in Canada. (here's the original letter) His backpedalling sophistry seemed to convince the parties involved that he meant something less objectionable by his phrases. I'm less convinced, based on this interview he gave, and a propensity for quoting "studies" that are somewhat less than reliable on subjects such as homosexuality.

Do I agree that Henry has a right to his opinions? Yes. Do I believe that as a public figure his "opinions" should not be subject to challenge? No - and especially not when he uses his position to publicize those opinions.

Do I accept Bishop Henry's case as an example of "freedom of speech/religion" being "stifled"? Most emphatically NO.

...oh yes ... and bitching about Canada's hate crime laws is a classic right-wingnut position. (Funny how they seem to think that it's okay marginalize GLBT people, while protecting religious and ethnic minorities from hate crimes is 'good')