????
You're getting nonsensical. I'll stick with Canada's view of that ridiculous report.
Denying Holocaust Will be Illegal
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
- Status
You're getting nonsensical. I'll stick with Canada's view of that ridiculous report.
Still waiting for any evidence that Israel did it or the reason. But of course you don't need evidence to spew your bile (except when you demand the ICC tell you when it's okay to condemn Hamas).
Other than the Palestinian and Arab leadership were clear that their goal was to eliminate the Jewish presence? Jordan was more practical in that despite their rhetoric, they were mainly focussed on stealing the Arab part of Partition and any other land they could grab. For some reason I don't ever see you discuss how the Hashemite Kingdom could have easily declared a Palestinian state in 1948 but instead they kept it for themselves (even the PLO went to war with Jordan though you don't care what Palestinians have to say).
Again. Don't admit that you mourn with the terrorists the survival of the Palestinian Jews. It's wrong and makes every one of your posts on the subject a hateful garbage. I'm just trying to help you.
God is not a real estate agent and you are not the chosen people. All people are equal, aside from the ones who think they are more equal.
Don't conflate the views of Trudeau with the views of Canada.
Change is happening and you're on the side of apartheid and racism.
New Campaign Brings Canadians Together Against Apartheid in Israel
For Immediate Release March 21, 2022 - Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) Canada launched a new national campaign this morning, Together Against Apartheid, aimed at educating and empowering people across the country to end Israel’s oppression against Palestinians. With last month’s report from Amnes
www.ijvcanada.org
Right, so you have some positions - aka opinions.
Opinions may or may not be true. You have an opinion on the holocaust, and you have an opinion on others that hold different positions on the holocaust.
Since your opinions are right, you apparently want to make other opinions illegal. You want to use government's coercive monopoly on legal use of force to implement the silencing of opinions that you disagree with.
That is what it boils down to.
which post?
Sorry, but yes, you do have to play my "bullshit games", if that is what you call evidence and logic.
LOL.
" Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
This pretty much sums it up:
" Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition.
To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
" Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition.
To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
????
What are you rambling about?
p.s. My people come from Ireland and England. The English side may have viewed themselves as gods chosen people though.
Or that of pretty much every western nation.
Guess just like with your human rights groups, democratically elected leadership only counts if they match your obsession. I'd say that me agreeing with most rights respecting Western democracies is far better than you trying to justify killing of Jews if they happen to step on land Palestinians claim.
Another person who dislikes democracy if people they don't like get elected.
Still waiting for either you or Jack to back your assertions that this potential law will prevent research.
You were going on about America's greatest ally and so I replied God is not a real estate agent and nobody has a god given right to Palestine/Israel.
What is research? Could it involve questioning something and looking for answers or forming a hypothesis which can then be proven correct or incorrect?
Asking questions that go against the approved narrative will be a crime.
Ironic you were whining about democracy prior to that?
I think I'll save a link for this post so that when the liberals come around and agree to boycott Israel for apartheid you'll remember your words and support boycotts and sanctions.
The greens and NDP are there already.
Liberals next.
Stop Selling Arms until Illegal Occupation Ends.
Tell Justin Trudeau to stop the selling of arms to Israel until the end of the illegal occupation.
www.ndp.ca
I don't have an opinion on the Holocaust. It happened, just like I don't have an opinion on whether the sun rose this morning. It is a fact, not an opinion.
I do have an opinion on what to do with people who try to sow doubt regarding the Holocaust by denying it happened for the sole purpose of fomenting anti-Semitism.
LoL! I also don't celebrate the Lillehammer Afair nor the "incident " involving HMCS Trentonian and two other ships during Operation Pluto that was covered up or the attack on the Canadian troops in Afghanistan by the American plane. But, you go ahead.
- Status
