Oakville Author beaten for insulting Islam.

[OpenGambit]

Forum Sponsor

It's funny you make this comment here. Where were you when another poster wrote about spraying gravel all over a car because of a dispute over driving skills and a near collision?

Understanding how someone might be angered and provoked into wanting to commit violence is not the same as saying that committing the violence was justified and acceptable. This applies whether it be about the pair that laid a beating on this "journalist" for his provocative writing about Islam, or whether it be about a fool who goes and sprays gravel all over the parked car of someone whose driving he didn't appreciate.

You are comparing vandalism as retailation for dangerous behaviour that endangered his person...

To violence in response to speech...

They are nothing alike... at all.

lets see... potential bodily harm vs no bodily harm
Behaviour fundamental to a free and democractic society... and.. driving..

 

[mmmnaked]

It's funny you make this comment here. Where were you when another poster wrote about spraying gravel all over a car because of a dispute over driving skills and a near collision?

Understanding how someone might be angered and provoked into wanting to commit violence is not the same as saying that committing the violence was justified and acceptable. This applies whether it be about the pair that laid a beating on this "journalist" for his provocative writing about Islam, or whether it be about a fool who goes and sprays gravel all over the parked car of someone whose driving he didn't appreciate.

Really? You're comparing assault (potentially murder) to vandalizing someones car?

 

[turbodish]

You are comparing vandalism as retailation for dangerous behaviour that endangered his person...

To violence in response to speech...

They are nothing alike... at all.

lets see... potential bodily harm vs no bodily harm
Behaviour fundamental to a free and democractic society... and.. driving..

What's nothing alike in the two incidents are the triggers behind the violence in each case. The cell phone driver messed up and potentially endangered a rider, sure, but nothing suggests that she INTENDED to endanger him. It seems the rider was more peeved that she didn't show sufficient contrition when confronted over the non-collision.

Contrast that with a writer who wrote material with deliberate intent to inflame public opinion. If anyone was "deserving" of a beat-down, whether to person or property, who do you think would be the better target? One who offends by error or carelessness? Or one who deliberately goes out to offend?

Regardless, what you are suggesting is that taking matters into your own hands and vandalizing someone's car, house, boat, etc is somehow acceptable if you have what you consider to be a sufficient grievance against them.

How is this really any different from taking matters into your own hands and "vandalizing" someone's physical person for what you consider to be a sufficient grievance against them?

Would it have been more acceptable to you if the two had thrown rocks through the writer's windows? Maybe firebombed his car? Trashed his laptop on which he wrote the offending article?

All are expressions of violence without lawful justification, and all share the same unjustifiable mindset. Only the specific targets are different.

 

[OpenGambit]

What you are suggesting is that taking matters into your own hands and vandalizing someone's car, house, boat, etc is somehow acceptable if you have what you consider to be a sufficient grievance against them.

How is this really any different from taking matters into your own hands and "vandalizing" someone's physical person for what you consider to be a sufficient grievance against them?

Would it have been more acceptable to you if the two had thrown rocks through the writer's windows? Maybe firebombed his car? Trashed his laptop on which he wrote the offending article?

All are expressions of violence without lawful justification, and all share the same unjustifiable mindset. Only the specific targets are different.

Feel free to point out where I said that it was acceptable.

I am pointing out that its asinine that you actually consider these 2 as being comparable, and really just insulting to both free speech and security of the person. Just because you can stretch some vocabulary doesn't mean that they are remotely the same. Vandalism of the person? Do you even listen to yourself?

My views are clear on this thread, don't try to suggest to me whats acceptable and whats not.
the only thing those 2 instances share is that they are not lawful. but the rights at stake as well as the cupability of the offence is completely different.

If you think even for a second that vandalism is on the same level as assault causing bodily harm, you should get your head examined.

 

[turbodish]

Feel free to point out where I said that it was acceptable.
...
My views are clear on this thread, don't try to suggest to me whats acceptable and whats not.

I don't see a whole lot of denunciation in this response of yours to the act of vandalism in the other thread.

I personally think it was rather restrained.

Rather "restrained" was it? Again, hardly a statement of denunciation, and a certainly a hint of suggestion that you may have been accepting of more than was done.

but the rights at stake as well as the cupability of the offence is completely different.

If you think even for a second that vandalism is on the same level as assault causing bodily harm, you should get your head examined.

Seems to me the cell-phone driver had rights too. In any case I place both incidents on the same level in that neither is acceptable as an expression of anger or a measure of retaliation, regardless of provocation in each instance. That is the extent of the "equality " I place on them. You seem to be wishy-washy on that.

 

[OpenGambit]

I don't see a whole lot of denunciation in this response of yours to the act of vandalism in the other thread.

Rather "restrained" was it? Again, hardly a statement of denunciation, and a certainly a hint of suggestion that you may have been accepting of more than was done.


Seems to me the cell-phone driver had rights too. In any case I place both incidents on the same level in that neither is acceptable as an expression of anger or a measure of retaliation, regardless of provocation in each instance. That is the extent of the "equality " I place on them. You seem to be wishy-washy on that.

Unlike you, I save my indignation for real criminals. I also don't consider it my responsibilty, or anyone elses, to pass judgement on other people's behavior on this forum just to make someone feel bad about themselves. Pebbles on a car is hardly worth getting riled up over. its called priorities and common sense, just because you can make something sound really bad with a half decent vocabulary doesn't change the underlying facts.

Gee, vandalism vs using violence to suppress a fundamental tenet of democracy... yeah, not a hard choice.

I simply pointed out that you made a bad analogy between 2 offences that are completely different.
The fact that I don't go on every thread and tell people how they are immoral sinners doesn't change the fact that your analogy is really just horrible.

I don't think vandalism is a big deal. its a small summary offence, whoop. But the fact that I didn't get up in arms about it doesn't mean I think its a good idea thats acceptable.

Its ok though because regardless of your logical gymastics. The fact remains that if both cases went to court you would see a night and day difference in the sentence, and that more than supports my view that one offence is far more culpable than the other.

 

[turbodish]

Unlike you, I save my indignation for real criminals. I also don't consider it my responsibilty, or anyone elses, to pass judgement on other people's behavior on this forum just to make someone feel bad about themselves. Pebbles on a car is hardly worth getting riled up over. its called priorities and common sense, just because you can make something sound really bad with a half decent vocabulary doesn't change the underlying facts.

Where is YOUR car parked? Or YOUR bike? Would you be riled up in the morning if someone were to have deliberately damaged either for whatever reason, or would you just slough it off as not being worth being indignant over?? Would you consider the damage to be a criminal invasion fo your space, or just an "oh well nothing to worry about"?

 

[OpenGambit]

Where is YOUR car parked? Or YOUR bike? Would you be riled up in the morning if someone were to have deliberately damaged either for whatever reason, or would you just slough it off as not being worth being indignant over?? Would you consider the damage to be a criminal invasion fo your space, or just an "oh well nothing to worry about"?

I would absolutely slough it off as not worth being indignant over. I have done it before. I have priorities.

However, this is by far the most disgusting view I have seen on this forum and I was suprised it was posted by you. But let me remind you that millions of people in the world have fought and died for the right to speak freely. Millions more have been murdered for doing so. You equate the victims of tyranny and oppression to what.. rocks on a car?

Even right now we have people who are overseas who are fighting to protect the fundamental human rights of people. And you come here and equate vandalizing a car to the suppression of free speech with violence? That is an affront to the sacrifices that so many have made for democracy and freedom. You trivalize them all.

Not every crime is equalivant. Maybe you should really take a look at your moral compass. I am done here.

 

[turbodish]

I would absolutely slough it off as not worth being indignant over. I have done it before. I have priorities.

However, this is by far the most disgusting view I have seen on this forum and I was suprised it was posted by you. But let me remind you that Millions of people in the world have fought and died for the right to speak freely. Millions more have been murdered for doing so.

Even right now we have people who are overseas who are fighting to protect the fundamental human rights of people. And you come here and equate vandalizing a car to the suppression of free speech with violence? That is an affront to the sacrifices that so many have made for democracy and freedom. You trivalize them all.

Not every crime is equalivant. Maybe you should really take a look at your moral compass. I am done here.

I don't think either is acceptable, neither violence against the person or violence against property, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter that violence was done against the writer because of what he wrote - what matters is that violence was wrongly done against him regardless of reason. Same goes for the cell-phone driver. I'm not equating the comparative severity of the attacks, only the fact that both are wrong. To say that one is somehow "more" wrong than the other is akin to saying that one is more acceptable than the other. Both are wrong, both are criminal, period. Once that is settled, differences in severity or offence against society can be settled through sentencing.

Whether it stems from someone practicing a Charter right or not makes no difference as to the acceptability of using violence to settle a score or to intimidate. Would it be any more acceptable to beat someone up or damage their property because you didn't like the colour of their hat? Regardless of motivation, it is a form of terrorism whether that violence is directed at a person or their property. Neither should be considered acceptable, and certainly neither should be openly or tacitly applauded or condoned, as some here have been most eagerly doing in doing with their attaboys or even just their simple suggestion that a given act was "restrained".

 

[twinn]

I love the assumption that the writer of the book was clearly trying to inflame another ethnic/religous group.

Why is that material at all to the facts?

Writer has right under our charter to speak and express opinon freely-- regardless of weither we agree with it or not.

Turbo, you are on the wrong side of this one, and im suprised as well by your stand on the subject.

In previous threads you mentioned the virtues of not getting involved in cases of personal property theft, even within your own home and citied personal saftey as justification. Now you are saying both property/personal crime are one in the same?

 

[OpenGambit]

I don't think either is acceptable, neither violence against the person or violence against property, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter that violence was done against the writer because of what he wrote - what matters is that violence was wrongly done against him regardless of reason. Same goes for the cell-phone driver. I'm not equating the comparative severity of the attacks, only the fact that both are wrong. To say that one is somehow "more" wrong than the other is akin to saying that one is more acceptable than the other. Both are wrong, both are criminal, period. Once that is settled, differences in severity or offence against society can be settled through sentencing.

Whether it stems from someone practicing a Charter right or not makes no difference as to the acceptability of using violence to settle a score or to intimidate. Would it be any more acceptable to beat someone up or damage their property because you didn't like the colour of their hat? Regardless of motivation, it is a form of terrorism whether that violence is directed at a person or their property. Neither should be considered acceptable, and certainly neither should be openly or tacitly applauded or condoned, as some here have been most eagerly doing in doing with their attaboys or even just their simple suggestion that a given act was "restrained".

Shooting rocks on a car is terrorism... I didn't think you could outdo your last series of posts with trivalizing human rights and the violations of those rights that people around the world face every day. But I have been proven wrong. You disgust me.

You trivalize freedom of speech, terrorism, the fundamental rights of human beings, the lives of both heros and innocents, the grief of their families, the fear that so many people live with every day. You disrepect anyone here who lost a relative because they believed that freedom and democracy were ideals worth dying for. All that... just so you can can be "right" about some BS rocks on a car.

You disgust me.

 

[turbodish]

Shooting rocks on a car is terrorism... I didn't think you could outdo your last series of posts with trivalizing human rights and the violations of those rights that people around the world face every day. But I have been proven wrong. You disgust me.

A form of terrorism.... there are many forms of lesser or greater terrorism, each with different goals, personal, political, or non-political, and lesser and greater degrees of such within the various taxonomies of terrorist form. The beat-down was a minor form of terrorism even if it didn't involve the explosives or mass casualties. Saying that doesn't trivialize or diminish the significance or outcome of big-T Terrorist acts like 9/11.

Anyways, be disgusted all you want. I get disgusted when people tacitly or openly condone or accept vandalism against the property of others as a means of retribution, especially for offence caused by an unintentional act.

The thugs-R-us vigilante mentality is unacceptable regardless of target, regardless of rationalization, regardless of "justification"..

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I can't believe some of the attitudes in this thread basically justifying violence as a response to opinion.

The author, under freedom of speech, is allowed to write what he did unless it incites hate. If Muslims feel his literature is hate literature, then attack him through the proper channels under those terms, not with violence. There is no freedom from being offended. If you simply don't like what someone says, then don't read it - and definitely don't promote it by making it a news story.

For those in this thread who justify violence as a proper response to being offended -- careful what you wish for -- one day your opinion might offend someone who will also resort to violence. Or perhaps you want to live in a society where one has to walk on pins and needles out of fear of offending someone?

Who said that it was justified?

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

Who said that it was justified?

You somewhat implied it to begin with by suggesting the author did something wrong and suggesting this consequence should be expected even in a country such as ours where freedom of speech is highly regarded. Why should he expect this consequence in Canada? No one has a freedom to not be offended, but there are laws against beating people. Way to blame the victim Rob.

Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence. Unfortunately, sometimes consequences come in the form of criminals.

Another one suggesting the author did something to deserve this:

This post better be directed to the writer of the book.

And another one suggesting the author was wrong... and once again, no one has the freedom to not be offended. Until this guy's book is deemed hate literature, there is nothing wrong with publishing what he did:

Well reading more about his bio and his book, he did deserve a beating. But sometimes I go thru my day and want to hit several people and can't do it because I know that is not the right thing.

But 2 wrongs don't make a right, so I'm gonna have to put the blame on both of them.

They both need a public medieval floggin'

And Finally, one more that suggested the author had it coming although he did absolutely nothing illegal:

I first felt bad about what I had read. And then after reading the section that turbodish posted I don't even care. There wasn't even a ****-hair of accuracy in that clip from the book. So obviously the only goal of the author was to hate/slander. What goes around comes around.

The way I see it the author did nothing wrong. We have the right to form our own opinions and to express them. No one should have to expect violent consequences over their opinion.

 

[Freestyle72]

The way I see it the author did nothing wrong. We have the right to form our own opinions and to express them. No one should have to expect violent consequences over their opinion.

The point is all the author wanted to do was ridicule a group of people over the actions of a few. When you publish something like that you know the only goal of the article is to incite rage. Because by the level of language used it certainly wasn't to educate or inform. So when you go out of the way to "hate" or piss people off. Expect them to react accordingly. I am not going to go to a rough area of town and start yelling racial slurs in the name of free speach and expect not to get the *** whooping of my life time. When you publish stuff like this you bring the rough part of town to whereever you are.

 

[nobbie48]

true!

That book seem to be written in a very comical tone. Its not very hard to ignore

When I read the clip posted by Turbodish it reminded me of a typical Seinfeld type stand up comic routine. I guess putting it in writing had its downsides.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You somewhat implied it to begin with by suggesting the author did something wrong and suggesting this consequence should be expected even in a country such as ours where freedom of speech is highly regarded. Why should he expect this consequence in Canada? No one has a freedom to not be offended, but there are laws against beating people. Way to blame the victim Rob.



Another one suggesting the author did something to deserve this:


And another one suggesting the author was wrong... and once again, no one has the freedom to not be offended. Until this guy's book is deemed hate literature, there is nothing wrong with publishing what he did:


And Finally, one more that suggested the author had it coming although he did absolutely nothing illegal:


The way I see it the author did nothing wrong. We have the right to form our own opinions and to express them. No one should have to expect violent consequences over their opinion.

None of those statements indicate that it's OK to use violence, but rather that it's not unexpected. There is a huge difference, between the two. If you set out to provoke someone, don't be surprised when you succeed.

 

[soto]

The way I see it the author did nothing wrong.

You mean nothing "illegal".

I'm tired of people being douchies just because they feel it is within their rights to do so. They are a more relevant problem to my life than the extremists at the moment.

 

[invictus43]

You mean nothing "illegal".

I'm tired of people being douchies just because they feel it is within their rights to do so. They are a more relevant problem to my life than the extremists at the moment.

Well this is it. You can go to the Woodbridge Social Club and yell out "All WOPs **** their mothers!" and you're perfectly within your legal right to do so. However, I can imagine you would get some physical reaction and really, is it unexpected? But it's not legal. Let's not paint an entire religion or culture with the same brush..there are odd people everywhere..

 

[TimC]

Shooting rocks on a car is terrorism... I didn't think you could outdo your last series of posts with trivalizing human rights and the violations of those rights that people around the world face every day. But I have been proven wrong. You disgust me.

You trivalize freedom of speech, terrorism, the fundamental rights of human beings, the lives of both heros and innocents, the grief of their families, the fear that so many people live with every day. You disrepect anyone here who lost a relative because they believed that freedom and democracy were ideals worth dying for. All that... just so you can can be "right" about some BS rocks on a car.

You disgust me.

ohh....getting with the programme I see

Forum Sponsor