No need to crap story
Bolded takes you to the link on CBC where he was charged with uttering threats.
No mention of that at all. Facts missing.
Speech Police: Canada hiring 55 people to monitor 'hate speech' - Red Alert Politics
Montreal police charge Kirkland man accused of online hate speech targeting Muslims - Montreal - CBC News
Actually the part of the story that I was concerned about is your government hiring people to decide what is hateful. 1984.
Uttering threats is legal in the US
Did your hear Madonna?
When you're actually capable of addressing something, YOU let ME know.Of course, a source you don't accept. When you have something besides attacking the messenger let me know.
When you're actually capable of addressing something, YOU let ME know.
Do you support and defend Muslim hate speech as well?
Your source couldn't even provide the fact that threats were made (allegedly), nor could it provide a name for the (alleged) culprit.What does that have to do with your unfounded criticism of the source? Try a little harder not to offend people.
Your source couldn't even provide the fact that threats were made (allegedly), nor could it provide a name for the (alleged) culprit.
It is classified as "moderately trustworthy" for accuracy of information but is also known for spreading its own bias in wording and reporting.
In other words an opinionated blog-like publication the likes of which (right, left, centre or pastafarian) I never give a hoot about.
THAT'S what this has to do with everything.
Considering your propensity for using the likes of these as well as using "rags" that go all all the way to telling outright lies and spreading exactly th kind of hate that is the topic here, quit whining about your "sources" being constantly treated with the disdain they deserve.
You have so far provided not a single piece of factual information on the actual occurrence, let alone any substantiation to speak of.
And if you want to tell others here how to be, remember that charity begins at home, in this case perhaps with you trying to be a little less dishonest (Quebec mosque shooting thread is all one need refer to).
Exactly!!!That's not proof, that's not even anything. Just dismissive, baseless namecalling that is NOT AN ARGUMENT nor is it a contribution in any way.
Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
no thanks, reputable outlets being preferred.
making online threats the way Antonio Padula did is not to be taken lightly, especially since that's what the Quebec shooter did as well before carrying the threats out.
Of course, a source you don't accept. When you have something besides attacking the messenger let me know.
When the House of Commons returns next week, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s M-103, which has the unobjectionable title of “Systemic racism and religious discrimination,” will be somewhere on the order paper and up for a vote.
It calls on the Heritage Committee to commence a study on eliminating Islamophobia. The study could then recommend laws to pursue this nebulous goal. If they do, there’s a good chance they’ll be dragnet laws that criminalize anyone who dares stand up to the many unsavoury parts of orthodox Islam.
..denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act ..
Canada’s so-called anti-Islamophobia motion is nothing but trouble | Furey | Can
I'll not give silliness of this kind any consideration.Did it happen in Quebec? That is one fact. Anything else?
Be careful, you might soon be guilty of Mooslum Crimes in Canada.
I'll not give silliness of this kind any consideration.
If you're incapable of debating, don't.
There is a huge difference between Islamaphobia and "anything deemed offensive."
Do you want to try and pose your silly crybully loaded question to me?
What is 'Muslim hate speech'? Are you really willing to go down this road? Because it ends up at Charlie Hebdo: anyone who criticizes the prophet must be dealt with.
Actually the part of the story that I was concerned about is your government hiring people to decide what is hateful. 1984.
Montreal police charge Kirkland man accused of online hate speech targeting Muslims - Montreal - CBC NewsMontreal police Chief Philippe Pichet said Tuesday that since Sunday night's attack at a Quebec City mosque, there has been a spike in reports of hate-related comments.
The force is hiring 55 people whose jobs will include monitoring social media sites for hate speech.
BS article got that wrong as well, claiming it was the Canadian govt was hiring when actually it was the SPVM who were hiring the 55 people who as part of their job (note not the sole purpose of their job) to monitor social media.
Montreal police charge Kirkland man accused of online hate speech targeting Muslims - Montreal - CBC News
When you consider the fact that social media is being used by individuals and groups to attract members to terrorists orginizations and that several Quebecers have left for the middle east to join ISIS this isnt a bad thing.
Muslims in the West are not the victims. The quicker you realize that, the better.
Absolutely irrelevant to his post. However, if you don't like what he wrote but can't refute any of it, might as well toss out an irrelevant non sequitur.
Thanks for telling me. Next.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?