This is pretty much where I find my thoughts to lie. It seems disingenuous of this writer to speak about democracy, when one of the first tenets of democracy is freedom of speech. Honestly, the court system should be a last resort for any situation, and this hardly seems all that bad.
Aldebaran, I understand your sentiment and agree for the most part, except about the invitation or provocation to steal the car. Respect for property rights is also a major tenet of most free democracies, and it should not matter what the situation is, people should never take what isn’t theirs. If that is a real law in Belgium, it’s a pretty stupid law.
As we all recall, the Nazis used suicide attacks to retaliate when the significantly more powerful, technologically advanced, and better equipped Jewish military assassinated German leaders. And lets not forget those images of rock-throwing Nazis pelting the armored halftracks the Jews used to demolish German leaders’ “secret headquarters” in residential neighborhoods… It was damn sneaky of them to disguise their terrorist lairs as community centers. Let’s also remember how the Jews used to harrass law abiding Nazis on the streets of certain parts of town, demanding to see their work-permits at traffic checkpoints.
Uh binary boy … what does your comment have to do with the author’s point?
His point, agree or disagree, is that radical Islamists have generalized a dislike of Israel into a general hatred of (and attacks upon) Jews, and that modern Jew hating is often couched in the cloak of defending Palestinian rights. (Sometimes to the ludicrous and insulting point of making comparisons between the situation between Jews and Palestinian Arabs today with HaShoah.) His point is quite debatable and has indeed been debated here on several occassions but has little to do with the methods used or whether other similarities exist or do not.
To the issue of the op: would this kind of disruption be prosecuted (not as hate speech but as a public disruption) if it was not politically charged? Laws should not be selectively enforced. If yes, then yes they should be prosecuted; if no, then not. The context of antisemitic acts elsewhere in Canada or whether or not the presenters engage in consensual intercourse with each other should be irrelevant.
For the record, a friend asked me to avoid “Jew” due to negative connotations. I was sort of :rolleyes: at first, but it occured to me he might have a point, so acquised for the sake of argument.
The speech was certainly hateful but according to Grey’s quote of section 319, the matter is debatable as far as the law is concerned. The prosecution would have to prove that their words were likely to “lead to a breach of the peace,” which, on the face of it, seems difficult to me. On the other hand, the men’s actions were obviously disruptive so being charged with disorderly conduct seems reasonable. I doubt this would have received the attention it did if it wasn’t politically charged, but I think they would have been prosecuted anyway.
Here in Northern Virginia, in all three major local jurisdictions, it is a violation of the public peace to call anyone a “fucking” anything, in any audible tone of voice.
Call a cop, have them served with a warrant to appear in court for the misdemeanor, and have them escorted off the premises, by the officer. Leave the whole race issue out of it. If they resist, they have committed yet another misdemeanor, and will likely learn the local definition of “reasonable force.” (It does include the use of a big black club.)’
DSeid,
The article seems to avoid giving any information on what The Second Catastrophe is about, or any explanation on what the “rhetorical questions” asked by the hecklers happened to be. It gives all appearances that this inoffensive author of a totally benign literary masterpiece was randomly chosen on the basis of being jewish and publically harrassed by two trouble making anti-semites. No agenda, no deeper motivations… just some bored guys going “Hey, Dwayne, there’s a’be a Jew-boy speakin’… let do some funnin’ with 'im”.
We have one individual comparing a class of people to Nazis.
We have two individuals of that class responding the first individual’s comparison.
This is inexplicably couched as two individuals attacking the first as a member of a class, for no apparent reason.
That is not what I meant.
I meant: If you leave such a property unattended like it is described it was, you provoke people to take advantage of the occasion you give them.
= you provoke potential criminals to commit a crime they would not commit if you did not provoke them on purpose = with the aim to come to that result.
About that law in Belgium. Yes it certainly is a stupid law since it places the responsibility for crimes by the potential victim.
Yet it seems to be indeed forbidden to let a car unlocked when unattended. You get a ticket for that. (You may also not let a cabrio with its roof open when you leave, for the same reason)
Salaam. A
For Grey: I informed myself with someone who should know this because it is his job to know it… So yes, I’m sorry but… …
at first, but it occured to me he might have a point, so acquised for the sake of argument.
…