Democrats and free speech

[Irish Ranger]

Democrats support free speech - as long as you say what they want to hear.
Dare to express an opinion they don't like and mobs of them will disrupt your gathering
and shout you down with loud speakers. Or riot in the streets, vandalize your property,
burn your building and loot your business. And if you even try to object, they immediately smear you
for being a racist, fascist right wing conspirator.

Irish Mike

[Dutch]

Not all of them. This is a new breed of leftist they're churning out of
universities these days. You can't say anything controversial without
sending them into an apoplectic fit.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 3:13:08 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> Irish Ranger wrote:
> > Democrats support free speech - as long as you say what they want to hear.
> > Dare to express an opinion they don't like and mobs of them will disrupt your gathering
> > and shout you down with loud speakers. Or riot in the streets, vandalize your property,
> > burn your building and loot your business. And if you even try to object, they immediately smear you
> > for being a racist, fascist right wing conspirator.
> >
> > Irish Mike
> >
>

~ Not all of them. This is a new breed of leftist they're churning out of

> universities these days. You can't say anything controversial without
> sending them into an apoplectic fit.

You don't seem too concerned about freedom of speech in ypur own country.

[risky biz]

This is Irish Mike-brand nonsense. Trump could have attended his scheduled event with no problem. The Chicago police advised him personally of exactly that. NO suppression of freedom of speech. Why do you want to suppress free assembly?

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 6:39:33 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:


>
> This is Irish Mike-brand nonsense. Trump could have attended his scheduled event with no problem. The Chicago police advised him personally of exactly that. NO suppression of freedom of speech. Why do you want to suppress free assembly?

Are you kidding, Risky? If the rally had proceeded, with insufficient security like in the beginning, there was going to be a full scale riot, not just a few punches thrown. You don't think so?

[Dutch]

Ernst Zundel? rotfl! One holocaust denier in the 1980s was prosecuted
for inciting hatred. And he did A LOT more than simply deny the
holocaust. Compare that with people being flogged and beheaded regularly
for speaking the truth in Islamic controlled territory.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:nc7ve6$dn0$1...@dont-email.me...

But you don't generalize.

[Dutch]

That wasn't a generalization.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:38:47 PM UTC-7, Clave wrote:

>
> But you don't generalize.

How can you lecture anyone when apparently you have just discovered they make combo ATM/Mastercards/debit? Proving that you really do never leave your computer screen. What a fucking idiot.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Some cards can function as either. I have one like that."
-- Captain Clave Obvious - March 14, 2016 on RGP

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:50:04 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:


>
> That wasn't a generalization.

Hey Dutch, did you hear of the brand new invention, a debit/Mastercard? Seriously, brand new, ask Clave. Go ahead, ask him.

What will they think of next? A Visa debit card? Wow, what times we live in.

[Dutch]

No, I hadn't heard of it, apparently it's a brand new thing. I don't
even have a "tap" card.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:nc829o$jod$2...@dont-email.me...

And "dutch" officially joins the Pop-Tard/fffuckhead manbaby club.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:58:35 PM UTC-7, Clave wrote:



>
> And "dutch" officially joins the Pop-Tard/fffuckhead manbaby club.

Well what got into you earlier? What came over you? Care to explain how you could explain anything so obvious? Were you on dope, dope? You said you have a Mastercard/debit card as if it was a shocking revelation. You had ONE! So fucking what. Big fucking deal. Didn't you think I was going to be hot on your ass for saying something so stupid? This one took the cake, numbnuts. The dumbest Clavism ever.

[Dutch]

seek help

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 11:21:10 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:


>
> seek help


There should be an 800 number on the back of his MC/debit card.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:nc89ek$4eh$1...@dont-email.me...

Wow -- did you think of that all by yourself? In all of Usenet I've never
seen anyone say anything that clever before*.

--

*At least when they were trying to flame someone for being unoriginal.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-7, Clave wrote:


>
> Wow -- did you think of that all by yourself? In all of Usenet I've never
> seen anyone say anything that clever before*.
>

I'll tellya what, numbnuts, I haven't seen anything like your creditcard comments since Pepe left the group. And I mean that.

[Dutch]

Is that what you were doing? I thought you were just being a dick, as usual.

[risky biz]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:30:14 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> risky biz wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 3:13:08 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> Irish Ranger wrote:
> >>> Democrats support free speech - as long as you say what they want to hear.
> >>> Dare to express an opinion they don't like and mobs of them will disrupt your gathering
> >>> and shout you down with loud speakers. Or riot in the streets, vandalize your property,
> >>> burn your building and loot your business. And if you even try to object, they immediately smear you
> >>> for being a racist, fascist right wing conspirator.
> >>>
> >>> Irish Mike
> >>>
> >>
> > ~ Not all of them. This is a new breed of leftist they're churning out of
> >> universities these days. You can't say anything controversial without
> >> sending them into an apoplectic fit.
> >
> > You don't seem too concerned about freedom of speech in ypur own country.
>
> Ernst Zundel? rotfl! One holocaust denier in the 1980s was prosecuted
> for inciting hatred. And he did A LOT more than simply deny the
> holocaust.

Are you saying that Salman Rushdie has a "right" to insult and disparage 2 billion people and get government protection when some of them express a desire to kill him but Ernst Zundel has no right to NOT be imprisoned by the government when he says something which offends people other than Muslims?

The subject of what I was discussing was freedom of speech, not what an offensive person you consider Ernst Zundel to be.

Have you considered that maybe Ayatollah Khomeini wouldn't have decreed his death if a government had arrested and imprisoned Salman Rushdie for his speech or is that only somethibg for people that you don't like rather than like?

~Compare that with people being flogged and beheaded regularly

> for speaking the truth in Islamic controlled territory.

People are not flogged and beheaded regularly in Islamic controlled territory. That is the case in Saudi Arabia and ISIS-controlled territory and some areas of Pakistan and others but in probably 98% of the population of Islamic societies that doesn't happen. You may want it to seem that way but we already know that you're a liar and propagandist.

[risky biz]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:50:04 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

~ That wasn't a generalization.

You're a dishonest, reprehensible thing.

[risky biz]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:38:47 PM UTC-7, Clave wrote:

In another thread he's bleating that he doesn't generalize and smear and is complainig that I won't accept that he doesn't. E-e-e-u-www!

[risky biz]

"insufficient security"? Oh, nonsense. There were 200 policemen there before he cancelled and the police brought 100 more when they heard rumors that he might cancel. The police never advised Trump to cancel his appearance as he's trying to make it sound. He's playing the media like a violin just as he has for quite a while now.

[risky biz]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 6:44:37 PM UTC-7, popinjay wrote:

And don't let yourself be misled by the selective media video. They typically show only the most sensational parts of any event.

"Kevin Booker, chief of the university police, said in a statement that "the vast majority of attendees at today's events exercised their Constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly peacefully."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/11/trump-cancels-chicago-rally-over-security-concerns/

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:30:14 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> risky biz wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 3:13:08 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>> Irish Ranger wrote:
>>>>> Democrats support free speech - as long as you say what they want to hear.
>>>>> Dare to express an opinion they don't like and mobs of them will disrupt your gathering
>>>>> and shout you down with loud speakers. Or riot in the streets, vandalize your property,
>>>>> burn your building and loot your business. And if you even try to object, they immediately smear you
>>>>> for being a racist, fascist right wing conspirator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irish Mike
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> ~ Not all of them. This is a new breed of leftist they're churning out of
>>>> universities these days. You can't say anything controversial without
>>>> sending them into an apoplectic fit.
>>>
>>> You don't seem too concerned about freedom of speech in ypur own country.
>>
>> Ernst Zundel? rotfl! One holocaust denier in the 1980s was prosecuted
>> for inciting hatred. And he did A LOT more than simply deny the
>> holocaust.
>
> Are you saying that Salman Rushdie has a "right" to insult and disparage 2 billion people

Yes, he has a right to freedom of speech. Muslims choose to believe that
anyone who portrays the Prophet in an unflattering way should suffer the
death penalty. That's their hangup, not his. The Islamic world needs to
realize that they have no jurisdiction over people outside the countries
they rule with their theocratic totalitarianism.

> and get government protection when some of them express a desire to
kill him

Fuck government protection, I don't give a shit about that, but it was
much more serious than "some of them expressing a desire", it was a
fatwa issued from the highest level.

> but Ernst Zundel has no right to NOT be imprisoned by the government when he says something which offends people other than Muslims?

I told you, I didn't think Zundel should be prosecuted, and as Bill
pointed out in Canada the human rights complaint against him was dropped.

>
> The subject of what I was discussing was freedom of speech, not what an offensive person you consider Ernst Zundel to be.

I merely informed you that Zundel did much more than express an opinion
about the holocaust.

> Have you considered that maybe Ayatollah Khomeini wouldn't have decreed his death if a government had arrested and imprisoned Salman Rushdie for his speech or is that only somethibg for people that you don't like rather than like?

Really? Is that what you think should happen to authors and cartoonists
who satirize Mohammad? Which dictate of Shari'a Law will you capitulate
to next?

>
> ~Compare that with people being flogged and beheaded regularly
>> for speaking the truth in Islamic controlled territory.
>
> People are not flogged and beheaded regularly in Islamic controlled territory. That is the case in Saudi Arabia and ISIS-controlled territory and some areas of Pakistan and others

which is a lot of "Islamic controlled territory" which is what I said.

> but in probably 98% of the population of Islamic societies that doesn't happen.

You made that statistic up.

> You may want it to seem that way but we already know that you're a
liar and propagandist.

Nobody should have any concern about moderate Muslim countries where
citizens have human rights, I don't.

[BillB]

On 15/03/2016 11:53 AM, Dutch wrote:

> I told you, I didn't think Zundel should be prosecuted, and as Bill
> pointed out in Canada the human rights complaint against him was dropped.

No, that's not what I said. I said the Mickey Mouse human rights
complaint was lodged against *Steyn*.

Zundel was charged criminally, and subsequently acquitted by the Supreme
Court of Canada on the basis of s.2 of the Charter of Rights (the one
you don't believe in).

Please don't paraphrase me, as it is clear you only understand a tiny
percentage of what I write.

[Dutch]

BillB wrote:
> On 15/03/2016 11:53 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> I told you, I didn't think Zundel should be prosecuted, and as Bill
>> pointed out in Canada the human rights complaint against him was dropped.
>
> No, that's not what I said. I said the Mickey Mouse human rights
> complaint was lodged against *Steyn*.

Right, sorry, my bad.

> Zundel was charged criminally, and subsequently acquitted by the Supreme
> Court of Canada on the basis of s.2 of the Charter of Rights (the one
> you don't believe in).

Which Sec Two right do you imagine that I do not support, freedom of
expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief,
freedom of peaceful assembly, or freedom of association?

I support all of them, however I am also aware that many new immigrants
to this country may come from places where these freedoms are totally
unfamiliar and I think it behooves us to ensure that they learn to adopt
and abide by them.

> Please don't paraphrase me, as it is clear you only understand a tiny
> percentage of what I write.

Good to have you back, I missed your patented self-flattery.

[risky biz]

Your equations are:

fatwa from Muslim = denial of freedon of speech, lionize the speaker

government imprisonment = different, nothing to be overly concerned about, just issue mealy-mouthed protestations that ypu support freedom of speech while disparaging the victim of the government

With friends like you freedomn of speech might as well pack it's bags and catch the next train.

> > but Ernst Zundel has no right to NOT be imprisoned by the government when he says something which offends people other than Muslims?
>
> I told you, I didn't think Zundel should be prosecuted, and as Bill
> pointed out in Canada the human rights complaint against him was dropped.

You got that all wrong but, in any case, the government hounded him out of the country to make him accessible to imprisonment in Germany which is completely different fromn the manner in which Salman Rushdie is treated, the direct opposite, in fact.

"On February 5, 2003, Ernst Zündel was detained by local police in the U.S. and deported to Canada, where he was detained for two years on a Security Certificate for being a foreign national considered a threat to national security pending a court decision on the validity of the certificate. Once the certificate was upheld, he was deported to Germany and tried in the state court of Mannheim on outstanding charges of incitement of Holocaust denial dating from the early 1990s. On February 15, 2007, he was convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years in prison."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel

"charges of incitement of Holocaust denial".

In any case, if you really think everyone is entitled to free speech why do you keep including mini-editorials discussing aspects about him that most people wouldn't like. Your 'free speech' act is very thin.

> > The subject of what I was discussing was freedom of speech, not what an offensive person you consider Ernst Zundel to be.
>
> I merely informed you that Zundel did much more than express an opinion
> about the holocaust.

What does that have to do with freedom of speech. Why did you bring it up rather than discuss freedom of speech?

> > Have you considered that maybe Ayatollah Khomeini wouldn't have decreed his death if a government had arrested and imprisoned Salman Rushdie for his speech or is that only somethibg for people that you don't like rather than like?
>
> Really? Is that what you think should happen to authors and cartoonists
> who satirize Mohammad? Which dictate of Shari'a Law will you capitulate
> to next?

No, I don't. YOU are the one who couldn't care less if freedom of speech is repressed by the government. I'M THE ONE who supports the right of freedom of speech for both of them. You care so little about freedom of speech that you managed to not even be aware of a gross violation of the principle of freedom of speech BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT yet you were quite able to natter on and on for weeks and weeks to lionize someone who slanders and disparages Muslims.

> > ~Compare that with people being flogged and beheaded regularly
> >> for speaking the truth in Islamic controlled territory.
> >

~ ~ People are not flogged and beheaded regularly in Islamic controlled territory. That is the case in Saudi Arabia and ISIS-controlled territory and some areas of Pakistan and others

>
> which is a lot of "Islamic controlled territory" which is what I said.

You could have truthfullky said in small geographical areas controlled by some Muslims which include a very small percentage of the world's Muslim population but of course that wouldn't have smeared every Muslimn in the world which is exactly your objective is.

> > but in probably 98% of the population of Islamic societies that doesn't happen.
>
> You made that statistic up.

It's pretty accurate. That's the point. What you said is wildly and extravagantly inaccurate, which is also the point.

> > You may want it to seem that way but we already know that you're a
> liar and propagandist.
>

~ Nobody should have any concern about moderate Muslim countries where

> citizens have human rights, I don't.

You obviously don't have the slightest concern or respect for any Muslim in the world. That's why you keep implying that the worst behavior of any Muslim is the responsibility of every Muslim and why you continually portray every Muslim in terms of only the worst among them.

In the last four days or so you have repeatedly held up ISIS as representative of Muslims in general. This is egregiously and spectacularly dishonest given that it's estimated 70% of the Muslims in territory controlled by ISIS have fled their rule. That's towering hypocrisy and dishonesty.

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:

[..]

>>>>> You don't seem too concerned about freedom of speech in ypur own
country.
>>>>
>>>> Ernst Zundel? rotfl! One holocaust denier in the 1980s was prosecuted
>>>> for inciting hatred. And he did A LOT more than simply deny the
>>>> holocaust.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that Salman Rushdie has a "right" to insult and
disparage 2 billion people
>>
>> Yes, he has a right to freedom of speech. Muslims choose to believe that
>> anyone who portrays the Prophet in an unflattering way should suffer the
>> death penalty. That's their hangup, not his. The Islamic world needs to
>> realize that they have no jurisdiction over people outside the countries
>> they rule with their theocratic totalitarianism.
>>
>> > and get government protection when some of them express a desire to
>> kill him
>>
>> Fuck government protection, I don't give a shit about that, but it was
>> much more serious than "some of them expressing a desire", it was a
>> fatwa issued from the highest level.
>
> Your equations are:
>
> fatwa from Muslim = denial of freedon of speech, lionize the speaker

It is the death penalty for writing a book, which acts as a direct
deterrent to free speech. This is undeniable.

> government imprisonment = different, nothing to be overly concerned
about, just issue mealy-mouthed protestations that ypu support freedom
of speech while disparaging the victim of the government

Another ridiculous equivalence. I did NOT support the imprisonment of
Zundel, however there is no comparison between the two people. Zundel
has spent his entire life trying to resurrect Nazism, arguably the most
brutal, horrible political movement in human history. Rushdie wrote a
fantasy novel which some people think disparages a long dead religious
figure.

> With friends like you freedomn of speech might as well pack it's bags
and catch the next train.

You're fucking delusional. You can't call yourself a proponent of free
speech unless you are willing to protect speech you don't like. This is
basic. You can barely restrain yourself from cheering for the fatwa
against Rushdie to be carried out. You don't support the right of people
to satirize Islamic icons. You are a fraud.

>>> but Ernst Zundel has no right to NOT be imprisoned by the
government when he says something which offends people other than Muslims?
>>
>> I told you, I didn't think Zundel should be prosecuted, and as Bill
>> pointed out in Canada the human rights complaint against him was
dropped.
>
> You got that all wrong but, in any case, the government hounded him
out of the country to make him accessible to imprisonment in Germany
which is completely different fromn the manner in which Salman Rushdie
is treated, the direct opposite, in fact.

There is ZERO similarity between the two cases. Muslim CHOOSE to take
offense at the depictions in The Satanic Verses, he does not promote
hate in any way. Zundel advocates the elimination of the Jews.

>
> "On February 5, 2003, Ernst Zündel was detained by local police in
the U.S. and deported to Canada, where he was detained for two years on
a Security Certificate for being a foreign national considered a threat
to national security pending a court decision on the validity of the
certificate. Once the certificate was upheld, he was deported to Germany
and tried in the state court of Mannheim on outstanding charges of
incitement of Holocaust denial dating from the early 1990s. On February
15, 2007, he was convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five
years in prison."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel
>
> "charges of incitement of Holocaust denial".

Right, that's a crime in Germany.

> In any case, if you really think everyone is entitled to free speech
why do you keep including mini-editorials discussing aspects about him
that most people wouldn't like. Your 'free speech' act is very thin.

Pure Bullshit. I am free to dislike and condemn Zundel and the hatred he
preaches, just as you are free to dislike The Satanic Verses although I
doubt you've read it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't stand behind his
freedom to speak.

>
>>> The subject of what I was discussing was freedom of speech, not
what an offensive person you consider Ernst Zundel to be.
>>
>> I merely informed you that Zundel did much more than express an opinion
>> about the holocaust.
>
> What does that have to do with freedom of speech. Why did you bring
it up rather than discuss freedom of speech?

Fuck off, stop trying to create diversions. I support Zundel's freedom
of speech, I do not endorse his imprisonment. You as much as said you'd
like to see Rushdie jailed and you certainly do not want to see him
protected from death threats. UK taxpayers, pffffft

>
>>> Have you considered that maybe Ayatollah Khomeini wouldn't have
decreed his death if a government had arrested and imprisoned Salman
Rushdie for his speech or is that only somethibg for people that you
don't like rather than like?
>>
>> Really? Is that what you think should happen to authors and cartoonists
>> who satirize Mohammad? Which dictate of Shari'a Law will you capitulate
>> to next?
>
> No, I don't.

You objected strongly when Rushdie was protected from a death sentence
by Islamists.

>
YOU are the one who couldn't care less if freedom of speech is
repressed by the government. I'M THE ONE who supports the right of
freedom of speech for both of them. You care so little about freedom of
speech that you managed to not even be aware of a gross violation of the
principle of freedom of speech BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT yet you were quite
able to natter on and on for weeks and weeks to lionize someone who
slanders and disparages Muslims.

That is horseshit. There is ZERO similarity between Zundel and Rushdie.
Zundel preaches hate and the elimination of an entire race. Rushdie
wrote a fiction fantasy which satirized Mohammed. He preached NO hate
and advocated NO harm to Muslims.

You are a pathetic asshole.

>
>>> ~Compare that with people being flogged and beheaded regularly
>>>> for speaking the truth in Islamic controlled territory.
>>>
> ~ ~ People are not flogged and beheaded regularly in Islamic
controlled territory. That is the case in Saudi Arabia and
ISIS-controlled territory and some areas of Pakistan and others
>>
>> which is a lot of "Islamic controlled territory" which is what I said.
>
> You could have truthfullky said in small geographical areas
controlled by some Muslims which include a very small percentage of the
world's Muslim population

I don't see it that way. The areas are not that small and the percentage
of Muslims who at least support repressive laws is not that smalls.
Polls show this.

> but of course that wouldn't have smeared every Muslimn in the world
which is exactly your objective is.

Nope, that's your hangup.

>
>>> but in probably 98% of the population of Islamic societies that
doesn't happen.
>>
>> You made that statistic up.
>
> It's pretty accurate. That's the point. What you said is wildly and
extravagantly inaccurate, which is also the point.

You have no idea if its accurate.

>
>>> You may want it to seem that way but we already know that you're a
>> liar and propagandist.
>>
> ~ Nobody should have any concern about moderate Muslim countries where
>> citizens have human rights, I don't.
>
> You obviously don't have the slightest concern or respect for any
Muslim in the world.

That's your strawman.

> That's why you keep implying that the worst behavior of any Muslim is
the responsibility of every Muslim and why you continually portray every
Muslim in terms of only the worst among them.

Nope, never did that.

> In the last four days or so you have repeatedly held up ISIS as
representative of Muslims in general.

Nope, didn't happen.

This is egregiously and spectacularly dishonest given that it's
estimated 70% of the Muslims in territory controlled by ISIS have fled
their rule. That's towering hypocrisy and dishonesty.

You're just lying. You described yourself perfectly with your explosion
post. You've come completely unglued. And you're no supporter of free
speech.

[fffurken]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:45:52 PM UTC, Dutch wrote:

> I support all of them, however I am also aware that many new immigrants
> to this country may come from places where these freedoms are totally
> unfamiliar and I think it behooves us to ensure that they learn to adopt
> and abide by them.

Good luck with that - http://i.imgur.com/9BxsScu.jpg

[fffurken]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:17:14 AM UTC, Dutch wrote:

> You objected strongly when Rushdie was protected from a death sentence
> by Islamists.

It wasn't just any old Islamist shitbag who issued the "fatwa" against Rushdie, it was the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy

Also I think you're walking into a "meme" here, I think the meme is that freedom of speech can only be restricted by government therefore that which isn't restricted by government, such as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, isn't free speech. Never underestimate the stupidity of Muslims or their leftist useful idiot cohorts.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 6:17:14 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

<more bullshit, slander, and bullshit>

Objecting to taxpayers having to provide a 24 hour armed guard for someone for years is not objecting to their self-protection. It's objecting to who's paying for it. That couldn't be more blatantly obvious but you can't argue a point without misrepresenting what I say just like you misrepresent every Muslim on earth. I also unequivocally support Salman Rushdie's right to write whatever he wants just as I do anyone else's. I never said otherwise.

And I don't have to supress my low opinion of anyone just because you want to portray their ethnic scapegoating as some kind of heroic deed when it's the opposite. For Christ's sake- the asshole is peddling anti-Muslim hate from the medieval period and you're trying to portray it as enlightenment literature. It was intended to insult, disparage, and demonize Muslims because he knew that would delight bigoted "Westerners".

None of that has anything to do with my low opinion of Ernst Zundel, either, but the two of them are very similar- peddlers of hate for profit.

When are you going to come out of the closet like 'seymore' and 'furkedon' have? You three could form a worldbeating political movement. Bwa-ha-ha.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:29:11 PM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:

<more neo-nazism>

When someone looks at you they probably wonder why you attract flies until they get close enough to smell you.

[fffurken]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:45:27 AM UTC, risky biz wrote:

> When are you going to come out of the closet like 'seymore' and 'furkedon' have?

lol Guilty until proven innocent

[fffurken]

Stop wasting bandwidth

[risky biz]

"so what if they think Merkheil is the worst chancellor in German history" "at least Hitler wasn't a TRAITOR"
'furkedon' 3/15/16 'furkedon's' beloved German anti-immigrant political party' thread

~ "Judea Declares War on Germany"
How did that work out?

Why don't you elaborate how that worked out, 'seymore'?

And why shouldn't the Jews have declared war on Germany since Germany had declared war on them years earlier? Is that against your personal rules?
Seymore4Head 3/10/16 'New cultural practices coming to Germany' thread

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 6:17:14 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
> <more bullshit, slander, and bullshit>
>
> Objecting to taxpayers having to provide a 24 hour armed guard for
someone for years is not objecting to their self-protection. It's
objecting to who's paying for it.

Bullshit, why should you care who pays for it as long as it isn't you?
It's none of your business. The UK values the ability of their authors
to write freely without fear of intimidation.

> That couldn't be more blatantly obvious but you can't argue a point
without misrepresenting what I say just like you misrepresent every
Muslim on earth. I also unequivocally support Salman Rushdie's right to
write whatever he wants just as I do anyone else's. I never said otherwise.

More bullshit, empty lip service. Ever heard this? "I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You not only wouldn't defend his right to free speech to the death, you
wouldn't cross the street. You throw a fit when the government of his
own country defends him against deranged theocratic thugs who are trying
to silence him.

> And I don't have to supress my low opinion of anyone just because you
want to portray their ethnic scapegoating as some kind of heroic deed
when it's the opposite. For Christ's sake- the asshole is peddling
anti-Muslim hate from the medieval period and you're trying to portray
it as enlightenment literature. It was intended to insult, disparage,
and demonize Muslims because he knew that would delight bigoted
"Westerners".

I don't care what your opinion of the book is. You probably haven't read
it. I thought it was brilliant, but the point is authors have a right to
write books without fearing for their lives. That is the foundation of
western society.

The only thing dangerous about that fictional novel was the ridiculous
overreaction by Islamic murderers.

> None of that has anything to do with my low opinion of Ernst Zundel,
either, but the two of them are very similar- peddlers of hate for profit.

Absolute nonsense. Rushdie's book was a parody at worst, it had literary
merit and did not call for any violence against anyone. Zundel preaches
ethnic cleansing of the Jews with his nazi garbage.

That is the basest, most despicable equivalence I've ever see here.

>
> When are you going to come out of the closet like 'seymore' and
'furkedon' have? You three could form a worldbeating political movement.
Bwa-ha-ha.

I've done nothing by try to give my honest opinions. I am a liberal who
believes in free speech, free from government suppression and free from
suppression by intimidation by violence.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:41:52 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> risky biz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 6:17:14 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >
> > <more bullshit, slander, and bullshit>
> >
> > Objecting to taxpayers having to provide a 24 hour armed guard for
> someone for years is not objecting to their self-protection. It's
> objecting to who's paying for it.
>
> Bullshit, why should you care who pays for it as long as it isn't you?
> It's none of your business. The UK values the ability of their authors
> to write freely without fear of intimidation.

'The UK is paying for it, not you.' What a numbskull. Are you capable of conversation that doesn't reduce everything to a four-year-old level?

> > That couldn't be more blatantly obvious but you can't argue a point
> without misrepresenting what I say just like you misrepresent every
> Muslim on earth. I also unequivocally support Salman Rushdie's right to
> write whatever he wants just as I do anyone else's. I never said otherwise.
>
> More bullshit, empty lip service. Ever heard this? "I disapprove of what
> you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
> You not only wouldn't defend his right to free speech to the death, you
> wouldn't cross the street. You throw a fit when the government of his
> own country defends him against deranged theocratic thugs who are trying
> to silence him.

Do mean how you are defendibg Ernst Zundel's freedom of speech IN YOUR COUNTRY? Let me knopw if I didn't get the quote right: "I'm not going to lose any sleep over it." Is that pretty accurate? What a sloppy hypocrite.

> > And I don't have to supress my low opinion of anyone just because you
> want to portray their ethnic scapegoating as some kind of heroic deed
> when it's the opposite. For Christ's sake- the asshole is peddling
> anti-Muslim hate from the medieval period and you're trying to portray
> it as enlightenment literature. It was intended to insult, disparage,
> and demonize Muslims because he knew that would delight bigoted
> "Westerners".
>
> I don't care what your opinion of the book is. You probably haven't read
> it. I thought it was brilliant, but the point is authors have a right to
> write books without fearing for their lives. That is the foundation of
> western society.

Unless they're Ernst Zundel, who you don't happen to like, and who you wouldn't bother to lose any sleep over. I guess, for you, "western society" is whatever your current superficial likes and dislikes are.

> The only thing dangerous about that fictional novel was the ridiculous
> overreaction by Islamic murderers.
>
> > None of that has anything to do with my low opinion of Ernst Zundel,
> either, but the two of them are very similar- peddlers of hate for profit.
>
> Absolute nonsense. Rushdie's book was a parody at worst, it had literary
> merit and did not call for any violence against anyone. Zundel preaches
> ethnic cleansing of the Jews with his nazi garbage.

It's interesting that Rushdie portrayed Muhammad with a medieval anti-Muslim name that equated him with Satan as the God on earth worshipped by Muslims and that the Nazis portrayed the Jews in a very similar manner. It's also interesting that someone like you who portrays himself as a modern liberal seems to have the greatest facility in accepting medieval religious hate terminology and themes.

Also, you sure know a lot about Ernst Zundel's writings for someone who never heard of him two minutes ago.

> That is the basest, most despicable equivalence I've ever see here.
>
> >
> > When are you going to come out of the closet like 'seymore' and
> 'furkedon' have? You three could form a worldbeating political movement.
> Bwa-ha-ha.
>
> I've done nothing by try to give my honest opinions. I am a liberal who
> believes in free speech, free from government suppression and free from
> suppression by intimidation by violence.

Unless the speaker happens to be someone you don't like. Now THAT'S liberalism.

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:41:52 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> risky biz wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 6:17:14 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> >
>> > <more bullshit, slander, and bullshit>
>> >
>> > Objecting to taxpayers having to provide a 24 hour armed guard for
>> someone for years is not objecting to their self-protection. It's
>> objecting to who's paying for it.
>>
>> Bullshit, why should you care who pays for it as long as it isn't you?
>> It's none of your business. The UK values the ability of their authors
>> to write freely without fear of intimidation.
>
> 'The UK is paying for it, not you.' What a numbskull. Are you capable
of conversation that doesn't reduce everything to a four-year-old level?

That's a novel approach. When you can't refute a statement just make up
some random insult.

>> > That couldn't be more blatantly obvious but you can't argue a point
>> without misrepresenting what I say just like you misrepresent every
>> Muslim on earth. I also unequivocally support Salman Rushdie's right to
>> write whatever he wants just as I do anyone else's. I never said
otherwise.
>>
>> More bullshit, empty lip service. Ever heard this? "I disapprove of what
>> you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
>> You not only wouldn't defend his right to free speech to the death, you
>> wouldn't cross the street. You throw a fit when the government of his
>> own country defends him against deranged theocratic thugs who are trying
>> to silence him.
>
> Do mean how you are defendibg Ernst Zundel's freedom of speech IN
YOUR COUNTRY? Let me knopw if I didn't get the quote right: "I'm not
going to lose any sleep over it." Is that pretty accurate? What a sloppy
hypocrite.

I did, I opposed on principle the jailing of Ernst Zundel for his
opinions and still do. What more do you want? Am I disturbed that he did
time in a German jail? No, I don't care. He wants to exterminate the
Jews. Rushdie told an allegorical tale. HUGE difference.

>
>> > And I don't have to supress my low opinion of anyone just
because you
>> want to portray their ethnic scapegoating as some kind of heroic deed
>> when it's the opposite. For Christ's sake- the asshole is peddling
>> anti-Muslim hate from the medieval period and you're trying to portray
>> it as enlightenment literature. It was intended to insult, disparage,
>> and demonize Muslims because he knew that would delight bigoted
>> "Westerners".
>>
>> I don't care what your opinion of the book is. You probably haven't read
>> it. I thought it was brilliant, but the point is authors have a right to
>> write books without fearing for their lives. That is the foundation of
>> western society.
>
> Unless they're Ernst Zundel, who you don't happen to like, and who
you wouldn't bother to lose any sleep over. I guess, for you, "western
society" is whatever your current superficial likes and dislikes are.

Yes, I am against promoting the extermination of an entire race and I am
against murdering people for writing books. That's pretty well in line
with western liberal values.

>
>> The only thing dangerous about that fictional novel was the ridiculous
>> overreaction by Islamic murderers.
>>
>> > None of that has anything to do with my low opinion of Ernst Zundel,
>> either, but the two of them are very similar- peddlers of hate for
profit.
>>
>> Absolute nonsense. Rushdie's book was a parody at worst, it had literary
>> merit and did not call for any violence against anyone. Zundel preaches
>> ethnic cleansing of the Jews with his nazi garbage.
>
> It's interesting that Rushdie portrayed Muhammad with a medieval
anti-Muslim name that equated him with Satan as the God on earth
worshipped by Muslims and that the Nazis portrayed the Jews in a very
similar manner. It's also interesting that someone like you who portrays
himself as a modern liberal seems to have the greatest facility in
accepting medieval religious hate terminology and themes.

Parodying a medieval figure is not the same as calling for the death of
actual living human beings. And by the way, that medieval figure
instructed his followers in his Holy Book to kill the unbelievers
wherever you find them, if that's not a satanic message I don't know
what is. And the history of the spread of Islam bears out that followers
took this instruction seriously.

> Also, you sure know a lot about Ernst Zundel's writings for someone
who never heard of him two minutes ago.

LOL, it was a highly publicized case in Canada at the time. I don't
remember much of the details at all.

>
>> That is the basest, most despicable equivalence I've ever see here.
>>
>> >
>> > When are you going to come out of the closet like 'seymore' and
>> 'furkedon' have? You three could form a worldbeating political movement.
>> Bwa-ha-ha.
>>
>> I've done nothing by try to give my honest opinions. I am a liberal who
>> believes in free speech, free from government suppression and free from
>> suppression by intimidation by violence.
>
> Unless the speaker happens to be someone you don't like. Now THAT'S
liberalism.

That's you. I support both Rushide and Zundel's right to free speech. If
people were trying to kill Zundel for his beliefs I would have no
problem supporting his protection. Jewish radicals torched his house (I
just read that), they should have gone to prison. Even though he only
wanted them all dead. Rushdie holds no animosity towards Muslims, he is
an author and a reformer.

You seem to have a lot of difficulty differentiating between have
respect for people and their rights and having respect for beliefs.

You should take Johann Hari's quote to heart..

“I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs.”

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 12:45:23 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> risky biz wrote:

> I did, I opposed on principle the jailing of Ernst Zundel for his
> opinions and still do. What more do you want? Am I disturbed that he did
> time in a German jail? No, I don't care.

What a stalwart supporter of freedom of speech. You support freedomn of speech but you're not going to lose any sleep over a government trampling on someone's freedom of speech unless you particularly like them.

~He wants to exterminate the

> Jews. Rushdie told an allegorical tale. HUGE difference.

First of all- I don't think you know anything at all about what Zundel "wants to do" given that you didn't even know who he was two minutes ago. Just for the record. All I personally know is that he was reported to have disputed the historical accuracy of the holocaust and authored a book which appeared to praise Adolph Hitler. We have people right here in this newgroup whom you treat like fellow travelers whom also praise Hitler. Yopu don't seem to have a problem with them.

Puttinbg that aside, explain what that has to do with their freedomn of speech. Zundel was deprived of his freedom of speech by a government. Rushdie was never deprived of his freedom of speech but you're going batshit crazy about his imaginary loss of freedom of speech.

> >> > And I don't have to supress my low opinion of anyone just
> because you
> >> want to portray their ethnic scapegoating as some kind of heroic deed
> >> when it's the opposite. For Christ's sake- the asshole is peddling
> >> anti-Muslim hate from the medieval period and you're trying to portray
> >> it as enlightenment literature. It was intended to insult, disparage,
> >> and demonize Muslims because he knew that would delight bigoted
> >> "Westerners".
> >>
> >> I don't care what your opinion of the book is. You probably haven't read
> >> it. I thought it was brilliant, but the point is authors have a right to
> >> write books without fearing for their lives. That is the foundation of
> >> western society.
> >
> > Unless they're Ernst Zundel, who you don't happen to like, and who
> you wouldn't bother to lose any sleep over. I guess, for you, "western
> society" is whatever your current superficial likes and dislikes are.
>
> Yes, I am against promoting the extermination of an entire race and I am
> against murdering people for writing books. That's pretty well in line
> with western liberal values.

Do you have some believable reference which establishes that Ernst Zundel advocated the extermination of an entire race or is this just another of those things you just magically fabricate?

Interestingly, it was YOU who expressed the hope that "we" didn't have to kill every male Muslim so that Muslim women would no longer be forced to wear niqab, which, just as interestingly, most of them don't and you never provided any reliable evidence that the ones who do don't choose to of their own volition.

So, it's quite reasonable to conclude that you advocated the extermination of an entire religious group of numerous races. Unless you've developed some magical means of killing every male of that religious group without harming the females.

This is modern-era "liberalism".

> >> The only thing dangerous about that fictional novel was the ridiculous
> >> overreaction by Islamic murderers.
> >>
> >> > None of that has anything to do with my low opinion of Ernst Zundel,
> >> either, but the two of them are very similar- peddlers of hate for
> profit.
> >>
> >> Absolute nonsense. Rushdie's book was a parody at worst, it had literary
> >> merit and did not call for any violence against anyone. Zundel preaches
> >> ethnic cleansing of the Jews with his nazi garbage.

It's about time you started providing some evidence that all these things you're saying about Ernnst Zundel have some actual basis in truth. I've become quite familiar with your spastic mouth and it's particularly suspicious when you say lots of knowledgeable things about someone whom you admitted two minutes ago you knew NOTHING about.

In any case- what somneone writes has absolutely ZERO to do with their freedom of speech to write it.

> > It's interesting that Rushdie portrayed Muhammad with a medieval
> anti-Muslim name that equated him with Satan as the God on earth
> worshipped by Muslims and that the Nazis portrayed the Jews in a very
> similar manner. It's also interesting that someone like you who portrays
> himself as a modern liberal seems to have the greatest facility in
> accepting medieval religious hate terminology and themes.
>
> Parodying a medieval figure is not the same as calling for the death of
> actual living human beings. And by the way, that medieval figure
> instructed his followers in his Holy Book to kill the unbelievers
> wherever you find them, if that's not a satanic message I don't know
> what is. And the history of the spread of Islam bears out that followers
> took this instruction seriously.
>
> > Also, you sure know a lot about Ernst Zundel's writings for someone
> who never heard of him two minutes ago.
>

~ LOL, it was a highly publicized case in Canada at the time. I don't

> remember much of the details at all.

Here's the 'dutch' magic at work. First he never heard of Zundel. Now "it was a highly publicized case and he "doesn't remember much of the details" (about the highly publicized person he never heard of). What a four-year-old.

> >> That is the basest, most despicable equivalence I've ever see here.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > When are you going to come out of the closet like 'seymore' and
> >> 'furkedon' have? You three could form a worldbeating political movement.
> >> Bwa-ha-ha.
> >>
> >> I've done nothing by try to give my honest opinions. I am a liberal who
> >> believes in free speech, free from government suppression and free from
> >> suppression by intimidation by violence.
> >
> > Unless the speaker happens to be someone you don't like. Now THAT'S
> liberalism.
>

~ Rushdie holds no animosity towards Muslims, he is

> an author and a reformer.

Your definition of "reform" is dredging up medieval, bigoted slanders and aspersions against Muslims with the objective of delighting racial and cultural bigots of the modern era? Rushdie is certainly entitled to be what he is and write what he wants but there is no obligation that I must respect such a disgusting human being. The same applies to Zundel. For me, I mean. For you, the imaginary repression of his freedom of speech is a cause celebre and the government's actual repression of Zundel's freedom of speech is nothibg to lose sleep over.

It all gets back to the basic reality- you don't give a shit about freedom of speech. All you're interested in doing is lionizing someone who disparages and slanders a religious group, a religious group which has recently had hundreds of thousands of it's innocent co-religionists murdered for no substantive reason by what you've described as "enlightened Western civilization". This isn't the first time humanity has witnessed sonething similar and your criticisms of Ernst Zundel are the highest of hypocrisies.

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 12:45:23 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> risky biz wrote:
>
>> I did, I opposed on principle the jailing of Ernst Zundel for his
>> opinions and still do. What more do you want? Am I disturbed that he did
>> time in a German jail? No, I don't care.
>
> What a stalwart supporter of freedom of speech.

Yes, I know.

> You support freedomn of speech but you're not going to lose any sleep
over a government trampling on someone's freedom of speech unless you
particularly like them.

As I said earlier, as you know, freedom of speech is not an absolute
right. In the context of Germany it is not unreasonable that they think
it is a danger to their society to deny the holocaust. That is their
law. He knows this. He received a fair trial and a was convicted. This
is in no way comparable to being summarily sentenced to death for
writing words people find offensive but which threatens no harm to
anyone. You're waving your arms madly to distract from your callous
refusal to give at least moral support to Rushdie.

I'm not going to explain that again. If you continue to make an issue of
it then you are an idiot.

>
> ~He wants to exterminate the
>> Jews. Rushdie told an allegorical tale. HUGE difference.
>
> First of all- I don't think you know anything at all about what
Zundel "wants to do" given that you didn't even know who he was two
minutes ago.

What are you babbling about now? A minute ago you said it was suspicious
that I knew so much about Zundel and now you're saying I didn't know who
he was two minutes ago. Could you please try to get your own bullshit
straight.

>Just for the record. All I personally know is that he was reported to
have disputed the historical accuracy of the holocaust and authored a
book which appeared to praise Adolph Hitler. We have people right here
in this newgroup whom you treat like fellow travelers whom also praise
Hitler. Yopu don't seem to have a problem with them.

Zundel's trials were in the news a lot here in the Eighties.

> Puttinbg that aside, explain what that has to do with their freedomn
of speech. Zundel was deprived of his freedom of speech by a government.

No he wasn't. He was put in jail for breaking the law. He is still free
to speak.

> Rushdie was never deprived of his freedom of speech but you're going
batshit crazy about his imaginary loss of freedom of speech.

That's because he was protected by the British Police. Without that he
most likely would have lost his freedom of speech along with his life.

I thought it didn't matter. Now you want evidence? He is a huge fan of
Hitler, doesn't that tell you?

> Interestingly, it was YOU who expressed the hope that "we" didn't
have to kill every male Muslim so that Muslim women would no longer be
forced to wear niqab,

Forcing women to wear that garment is symbolic of extreme curtailing of
human rights which is symbolic of groups like The Islamic State. Groups
like that must be destroyed. I sincerely hope the west (Trump) doesn't
finally nuke the whole area.

> which, just as interestingly, most of them don't

That's not interesting at all. Islam is not a monolithic phenomenon,
I've said that all along.

> and you never provided any reliable evidence that the ones who do
don't choose to of their own volition.

So are you telling me that you don't believe there are parts of the
Islamic world, entire counties and large parts of others where women are
forced to wear them?

> So, it's quite reasonable to conclude that you advocated the
extermination of an entire religious group of numerous races. Unless
you've developed some magical means of killing every male of that
religious group without harming the females.

You find that reasonable do you?

> This is modern-era "liberalism".

Advocating for individual human freedom is classic liberalism. Modern
era (regressive) liberalism is to vigorously deny that individual
freedoms are being repressed when doing so might offend some Muslim or
other.

>
>> >> The only thing dangerous about that fictional novel was the
ridiculous
>> >> overreaction by Islamic murderers.
>> >>
>> >> > None of that has anything to do with my low opinion of
Ernst Zundel,
>> >> either, but the two of them are very similar- peddlers of hate for
>> profit.
>> >>
>> >> Absolute nonsense. Rushdie's book was a parody at worst, it had
literary
>> >> merit and did not call for any violence against anyone. Zundel
preaches
>> >> ethnic cleansing of the Jews with his nazi garbage.
>
> It's about time you started providing some evidence that all these
things you're saying about Ernnst Zundel have some actual basis in
truth. I've become quite familiar with your spastic mouth and it's
particularly suspicious when you say lots of knowledgeable things about
someone whom you admitted two minutes ago you knew NOTHING about.
>
> In any case- what somneone writes has absolutely ZERO to do with
their freedom of speech to write it.

That is patently false. Another symptom of the regressive nitwit, all
things are the same as other things, all religions are the same, all
speech is the same.

>> > It's interesting that Rushdie portrayed Muhammad with a medieval
>> anti-Muslim name that equated him with Satan as the God on earth
>> worshipped by Muslims and that the Nazis portrayed the Jews in a very
>> similar manner. It's also interesting that someone like you who portrays
>> himself as a modern liberal seems to have the greatest facility in
>> accepting medieval religious hate terminology and themes.
>>
>> Parodying a medieval figure is not the same as calling for the death of
>> actual living human beings. And by the way, that medieval figure
>> instructed his followers in his Holy Book to kill the unbelievers
>> wherever you find them, if that's not a satanic message I don't know
>> what is. And the history of the spread of Islam bears out that followers
>> took this instruction seriously.
>>
>> > Also, you sure know a lot about Ernst Zundel's writings for someone
>> who never heard of him two minutes ago.

LOL

> ~ LOL, it was a highly publicized case in Canada at the time. I don't
>> remember much of the details at all.
>
> Here's the 'dutch' magic at work. First he never heard of Zundel.

Lie

> Now "it was a highly publicized case

True

> and he "doesn't remember much of the details" (about the highly
publicized person he never heard of).

It was 20 years ago.

> What a four-year-old.

Arms waving desperately... I'm winning! I'm winning! see see I called
him a toddler, aren't I clever?

>
>> >> That is the basest, most despicable equivalence I've ever see here.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > When are you going to come out of the closet like 'seymore' and
>> >> 'furkedon' have? You three could form a worldbeating political
movement.
>> >> Bwa-ha-ha.
>> >>
>> >> I've done nothing by try to give my honest opinions. I am a
liberal who
>> >> believes in free speech, free from government suppression and
free from
>> >> suppression by intimidation by violence.
>> >
>> > Unless the speaker happens to be someone you don't like. Now THAT'S
>> liberalism.
>>
> ~ Rushdie holds no animosity towards Muslims, he is
>> an author and a reformer.
>
> Your definition of "reform" is dredging up medieval, bigoted slanders
and aspersions against Muslims

Nope, there were no slanders or aspersions against Muslims in that book.
Did you read it? I did.

> with the objective of delighting racial and cultural bigots of the
modern era?

You have no idea what his motives were.

> Rushdie is certainly entitled to be what he is and write what he
wants but there is no obligation that I must respect such a disgusting
human being.

Nobody cares who you respect, least of all me. He apologized to Muslims
and in exchange was told that the fatwa was irrevocable. And by the way
giving someone a death sentence without allowing them to confront their
accusers violates Shari'a Law.

> The same applies to Zundel. For me, I mean. For you, the imaginary
repression of his freedom of speech is a cause celebre and the
government's actual repression of Zundel's freedom of speech is nothibg
to lose sleep over.

Already answered elsewhere.

> It all gets back to the basic reality- you don't give a shit about
freedom of speech.

False.

> All you're interested in doing is lionizing someone who disparages
and slanders a religious group

Criticism of religion is legitimate and necessary for human progress.
Threats of violence to suppress that criticism must be vigorously opposed.

> a religious group which has recently had hundreds of thousands of
it's innocent co-religionists murdered for no substantive reason by what
you've described as "enlightened Western civilization". This isn't the
first time humanity has witnessed sonething similar and your criticisms
of Ernst Zundel are the highest of hypocrisies.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You're an idiot.

[risky biz]

Stick a fork in yourself. You're done.

[Dutch]

> Sorry for wasting your time, I see now that you were right all along.

Fixed your post.

[risky biz]

> > Stick a fork in yourself. You're done.
>

> I don't have any sharp forks. Is a dull fork OK?

Sure. What's the difference?