if i haven't been clear - and i think i have been - i have absolutely no opposition to gmos, and in fact tend to get rather snotty with people that think they pose some kind of threat. there is no logical reason to think they might, and the science is crystal clear that they don't.
if you want to have your food labelled, i don't have any particular opposition to this, but it's not something i'd think twice about. and, it's not my issue to fight.
to the contrary, i'm likely to get rather squeamish when i hear people repeating the same scaremongering, anti-science nonsense.
that said, i'm not happy about patenting grains, either. but, that's a separate issue than the safety concerns, which are as specious as anything you hear coming from anti-vaxxers.
Monday, March 26, 2018
"alleged incident of Qur'an-ripping"
it's all right-wing tory media, to this point, that's pushing this - media with very conservative perspectives. more balanced media sources haven't picked up on this, yet.
but, the language is highly concerning: as though disrespecting the koran is now being treated as a crime. is this where the conservatives are leading us?
i'm not there, yet. and, i'm trying not to kneejerk to the media coverage - i'm trying not to get alarmist. but, if this turns into something, we're going to have to organize a national day of koran ripping, in protest.
free speech is fundamental to a free society. it's one thing when it's just some religious people in a mosque or a church yelling at each other; it's another when the cops get involved.
nobody would think twice about it if they were ripping pages out of a bible....which is how it should be...
it's all right-wing tory media, to this point, that's pushing this - media with very conservative perspectives. more balanced media sources haven't picked up on this, yet.
but, the language is highly concerning: as though disrespecting the koran is now being treated as a crime. is this where the conservatives are leading us?
i'm not there, yet. and, i'm trying not to kneejerk to the media coverage - i'm trying not to get alarmist. but, if this turns into something, we're going to have to organize a national day of koran ripping, in protest.
free speech is fundamental to a free society. it's one thing when it's just some religious people in a mosque or a church yelling at each other; it's another when the cops get involved.
nobody would think twice about it if they were ripping pages out of a bible....which is how it should be...
no, navdeep.
the charter doesn't say you have the right to worship without criticism from private citizens. the freedom of assembly applies in this situation, not the right to religious freedom - and it applies equally to both parties. most importantly is the right to free expression, which is what the charter truly upholds, here.
this is a common mistake made by people without legal backgrounds.
what it says is that the state can't discriminate against people on the basis of religion.
somebody needs to give navdeep a crash course in constitutional law, clearly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-police-incidents-islamic-centres-hate-motivated-mischief-mosques-1.4592993
the charter doesn't say you have the right to worship without criticism from private citizens. the freedom of assembly applies in this situation, not the right to religious freedom - and it applies equally to both parties. most importantly is the right to free expression, which is what the charter truly upholds, here.
this is a common mistake made by people without legal backgrounds.
what it says is that the state can't discriminate against people on the basis of religion.
somebody needs to give navdeep a crash course in constitutional law, clearly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-police-incidents-islamic-centres-hate-motivated-mischief-mosques-1.4592993
two minutes of googling presents this, but it seems to be at some kind of an official event.
surely somebody has a picture of them. i don't mean in the act, i just mean at all.
here's the thing: when somebody frequently has sex for money over decades, it's easy to believe they would claim they had sex...for money. which isn't to say that she's lying, exactly, so much as it is to say that a prudent individual would require independent verification before taking her seriously, because who knows, really?
i'm just saying it's fishy. i have no idea. and i ultimately don't care.
surely somebody has a picture of them. i don't mean in the act, i just mean at all.
here's the thing: when somebody frequently has sex for money over decades, it's easy to believe they would claim they had sex...for money. which isn't to say that she's lying, exactly, so much as it is to say that a prudent individual would require independent verification before taking her seriously, because who knows, really?
i'm just saying it's fishy. i have no idea. and i ultimately don't care.
this is embarrassing.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/anti-islamic-pamphleteer-gets-nine-months-for-promoting-hate-but-can-still-hand-out-flyers/article17760151/
i mean, the court got it right in throwing out the charges (minus time served - which he should have been compensated for), but to think they locked him up for nine months for free speech is outrageous...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/anti-islamic-pamphleteer-gets-nine-months-for-promoting-hate-but-can-still-hand-out-flyers/article17760151/
i mean, the court got it right in throwing out the charges (minus time served - which he should have been compensated for), but to think they locked him up for nine months for free speech is outrageous...
could you imagine a dystopian future where the left leads the fight against pamphleteering?
that wouldn't be a left at all - that would be an authoritarian right. no left worth calling itself such would support any legal action against pamphleteering whatsoever.
i'm not being alarmist, or perhaps i'm being proactively alarmist; i understand that the police need to investigate a complaint, and i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be doing so.
but, the police should be coming back to the mosque with some stern words about freedom of expression - and a clear explanation that this type of behaviour is constitutionally protected in this country.
that wouldn't be a left at all - that would be an authoritarian right. no left worth calling itself such would support any legal action against pamphleteering whatsoever.
i'm not being alarmist, or perhaps i'm being proactively alarmist; i understand that the police need to investigate a complaint, and i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be doing so.
but, the police should be coming back to the mosque with some stern words about freedom of expression - and a clear explanation that this type of behaviour is constitutionally protected in this country.
"possible mischief with a hate bias"
what?
you can't arrest people for pamphleteering.
ever.
no exceptions.
and, canadians need to freak out if this ever starts happening.
islam must find a way to adjust to a free society; i'm not throwing away freedom of speech because some people find it upsetting.
right now, all i see is some police carrying out a report. they have a responsibility to the community to do this, on request. but, civil liberties groups need to be on stand by to mobilize against a possible assault on free expression, here.
what?
you can't arrest people for pamphleteering.
ever.
no exceptions.
and, canadians need to freak out if this ever starts happening.
islam must find a way to adjust to a free society; i'm not throwing away freedom of speech because some people find it upsetting.
right now, all i see is some police carrying out a report. they have a responsibility to the community to do this, on request. but, civil liberties groups need to be on stand by to mobilize against a possible assault on free expression, here.
i might suggest a more productive use of her time, but i'm going to freak out if somebody gets charged for desecrating the koran in canada.
that's not a 'hate crime'. that's the literal definition of free speech.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4103314/peel-police-investigating-hate-motivated-incident-islamic-centre/
that's not a 'hate crime'. that's the literal definition of free speech.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4103314/peel-police-investigating-hate-motivated-incident-islamic-centre/
again: the idea that the liberals were going to walk into the next election with 50% support was always absurd.
so long as they are polling in the 40+% range, they're outperforming realistic expectations.
they're not going to get more than 40% of the vote; don't imagine they are.
they will get somewhere in the mid to high 30s; that's a more realistic goal.
few people expected them to win a majority, in the first place, and they should probably not expect to hold on to it, either - unless they can sweep quebec. that's their only serious chance of holding on...
a realistic expectation is that they're going to lose seats in the east, in alberta and probably also in ontario. the only place for growth is quebec.
but, i would welcome a coalition government; it's what i wanted in the first place.
so long as they are polling in the 40+% range, they're outperforming realistic expectations.
they're not going to get more than 40% of the vote; don't imagine they are.
they will get somewhere in the mid to high 30s; that's a more realistic goal.
few people expected them to win a majority, in the first place, and they should probably not expect to hold on to it, either - unless they can sweep quebec. that's their only serious chance of holding on...
a realistic expectation is that they're going to lose seats in the east, in alberta and probably also in ontario. the only place for growth is quebec.
but, i would welcome a coalition government; it's what i wanted in the first place.
the vikings were really remarkably successful, weren't they?
maybe, a little too successful, if you see what i mean.
there's a developing understanding that the viking attack on europe was a reaction to the advance of christianization, and that the historical sources (written almost entirely by the church...) just kind of "forgot" to record that fact. but, you have to understand that the scale of devastation that the spread of christianity brought to northern europe was many times worse than anything the vikings produced. charlemagne literally slaughtered entire castes of people. again: the records are poor, but it could have been in the hundreds of thousands, in an era where the population was much, much lower than today.
if you're standing in denmark, and you're watching what's happening directly to your south, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want to respond. and, the culture to the north was shared, so the danes were capable of a call to arms.
again: this much is developing scholarship. i'm not making this up. this is not novel.
what i'm willing to put forward is the idea that they may have even been interpreted as liberators by a european population that was struggling against colonization by the roman/christian church. the vikings very specifically targeted the christians, pretty much everywhere they went, which is why the texts, written by monks, demonized them so terribly. and, sure - they burnt down a fair number of churches. the traditional explanation was that they were pillaging, although, as mentioned, this is evolving to the idea that the vikings were carrying out what they saw as acts of self-defense.
but, there are these reports of continuing odinism deep in england and france well into the enlightenment. the old religion really went underground. as far as anybody knows, it eventually disappeared; at the least, if they're still out there, it would be useful for them to inform the views of these "neo-pagans" that have as much in common with the indigenous european religions as harry potter - the old religion is lost to history. but, we know damned well that it survived way, way longer than history officially records.
and, even if the western europe of the time was pious to the church, what allegiance ought it have had to these frankish warlords, that ruled through tyranny and heavy taxation, as they put in motion the beginnings of feudalism? at least the vikings believed in democracy.
it's just hard to read the history critically without coming to the conclusion that there were substantive parts of these populations that helped the invasions. the timelines are incredible: paris conquered as quickly as it took to sail up the seine. how does that happen without local support?
but, the idea is taboo.
i would request that more serious historians look into this more carefully.
maybe, a little too successful, if you see what i mean.
there's a developing understanding that the viking attack on europe was a reaction to the advance of christianization, and that the historical sources (written almost entirely by the church...) just kind of "forgot" to record that fact. but, you have to understand that the scale of devastation that the spread of christianity brought to northern europe was many times worse than anything the vikings produced. charlemagne literally slaughtered entire castes of people. again: the records are poor, but it could have been in the hundreds of thousands, in an era where the population was much, much lower than today.
if you're standing in denmark, and you're watching what's happening directly to your south, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want to respond. and, the culture to the north was shared, so the danes were capable of a call to arms.
again: this much is developing scholarship. i'm not making this up. this is not novel.
what i'm willing to put forward is the idea that they may have even been interpreted as liberators by a european population that was struggling against colonization by the roman/christian church. the vikings very specifically targeted the christians, pretty much everywhere they went, which is why the texts, written by monks, demonized them so terribly. and, sure - they burnt down a fair number of churches. the traditional explanation was that they were pillaging, although, as mentioned, this is evolving to the idea that the vikings were carrying out what they saw as acts of self-defense.
but, there are these reports of continuing odinism deep in england and france well into the enlightenment. the old religion really went underground. as far as anybody knows, it eventually disappeared; at the least, if they're still out there, it would be useful for them to inform the views of these "neo-pagans" that have as much in common with the indigenous european religions as harry potter - the old religion is lost to history. but, we know damned well that it survived way, way longer than history officially records.
and, even if the western europe of the time was pious to the church, what allegiance ought it have had to these frankish warlords, that ruled through tyranny and heavy taxation, as they put in motion the beginnings of feudalism? at least the vikings believed in democracy.
it's just hard to read the history critically without coming to the conclusion that there were substantive parts of these populations that helped the invasions. the timelines are incredible: paris conquered as quickly as it took to sail up the seine. how does that happen without local support?
but, the idea is taboo.
i would request that more serious historians look into this more carefully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)