# Canadian Customs In Action



## William Joyce

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4127


----------



## Isaac Brock

Makes sense to me.  Go Canadian Customs!


----------



## William Joyce

I'll send them over to your house see if any of your books are "illegal."  What's your address?


----------



## Isaac Brock

They can go right ahead.  I'm pretty sure, i'm in the clear.


----------



## wolvie20m

Well good news Joycie we live in America not canada, you know what I find funny though, whats gonna happen when these liberals go to Canada and got all kinds of stuff like this.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Enshrined absolute freedom of speach is not found in Canada.  Hate speach is not protected under our consitution, unlike in the States which values free speech no matter what.  

If people have a problem with that, well don't come to Canada!


----------



## Merlin1047

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Enshrined absolute freedom of speach is not found in Canada.  Hate speach is not protected under our consitution, unlike in the States which values free speech no matter what.
> 
> If people have a problem with that, well don't come to Canada!



I'm surprised at you Isaac.

What do you find so hateful about this particular book?

And why do you seem to think that your government has a right to decide which speech is acceptable and which is not?

And why are you unable to see the seeds of totalitarianism contained in this policy?

Must be gettin cold up there.  Appears to me that your brain is starting to freeze over just a bit.  Migh want to throw another bearskin on the igloo floor.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> I'm surprised at you Isaac.
> 
> What do you find so hateful about this particular book?
> 
> And why do you seem to think that your government has a right to decide which speech is acceptable and which is not?
> 
> And why are you unable to see the seeds of totalitarianism contained in this policy?
> 
> Must be gettin cold up there.  Appears to me that your brain is starting to freeze over just a bit.  Migh want to throw another bearskin on the igloo floor.



Speech that is meant to incite violence in banned in Canada.  Simple as that. Doesn't matter if it's against Whites, Blacks, Jews, Christians, Gays, Straights etc.


----------



## MrMarbles

It's a lot like the Patriot act. It is designed to protect you at some costs to your rights. You have a right to your opinion, you have the right to speak your opinion, except when it is used to insight violence.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Actually that is a very good example.

Where the Patriot acts gives protection at the cost of privacy.
Our hate speach laws give protection at the cost free speech.

If not being allowed to speakout violently against cultural/relgious groups at large is the price I pay for multiculturalism with less violence.  So be it.


----------



## theim

Whatever. I'd rather have Ashcroft look at my e-mail after I check out "The Anarchist's Cookbook" and a book on popular tourist stops (maybe he can delete those 42 penis enlargement offers a day) that have the government regulating what I can say.

First they tell you what to think.
Then they tell you what to say.
Then they tell you what to do.


----------



## Isaac Brock

theim said:
			
		

> Whatever. I'd rather have Ashcroft look at my e-mail after I check out "The Anarchist's Cookbook" and a book on popular tourist stops (maybe he can delete those 42 penis enlargement offers a day) that have the government regulating what I can say.
> 
> First they tell you what to think.
> Then they tell you what to say.
> Then they tell you what to do.



Well you like Big Brother, we like Censorship.  Different values I guess.  

I guess I can't see the big deal in not allowing a racist to preach violence, but hey, that's why I'm Canadian and not living down south.


----------



## MrMarbles

theim said:
			
		

> Whatever. I'd rather have Ashcroft look at my e-mail after I check out "The Anarchist's Cookbook" and a book on popular tourist stops (maybe he can delete those 42 penis enlargement offers a day) that have the government regulating what I can say.
> 
> First they tell you what to think.
> Then they tell you what to say.
> Then they tell you what to do.



Isn't that exactly what the the Patriot act does?

If you want free speech thats fine. We just don't want the KKK to sit in the middle of the street and tell people to kill black people. If you want your gov't to do whatever it wants to you, fine, but there is a big difference.


----------



## MrMarbles

theim said:
			
		

> Whatever. I'd rather have Ashcroft look at my e-mail after I check out "The Anarchist's Cookbook" and a book on popular tourist stops (maybe he can delete those 42 penis enlargement offers a day) that have the government regulating what I can say.
> 
> First they tell you what to think.
> Then they tell you what to say.
> Then they tell you what to do.



Help! Help! I'm being repressed!


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Enshrined absolute freedom of speach is not found in Canada.  Hate speach is not protected under our consitution, unlike in the States which values free speech no matter what.
> 
> If people have a problem with that, well don't come to Canada!



From what I could gather, after reading snipettes from the book, it did not seem to contain hate speech. I could have missed something though.


----------



## Said1

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> If you want free speech thats fine. We just don't want the KKK to sit in the middle of the street and tell people to kill black people.



Ever been North of Calgary, white only territory.


----------



## MrMarbles

Said1 said:
			
		

> Ever been North of Calgary, white only territory.



I've been to Camrose. Does that count?


----------



## Merlin1047

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> It's a lot like the Patriot act. It is designed to protect you at some costs to your rights. You have a right to your opinion, you have the right to speak your opinion, except when it is used to insight violence.



Shifting the argument to the Patriot act does not address the issue.  First, you are wrong about the effect of the Patriot act, but that is not the topic under discussion.

So you are both telling me that you believe that it is the function of your government to decide which speech is acceptable and which is not.  Have I got that right?


----------



## Merlin1047

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Speech that is meant to incite violence in banned in Canada.  Simple as that. Doesn't matter if it's against Whites, Blacks, Jews, Christians, Gays, Straights etc.



That's not an answer.  You cannot justify something with the statement that "that's just the way it is".

If you can't do any better than that, it must be due to the fact that the evidence does not support your view because I know that otherwise you're smart enough to come up with rationale far less lame than that which you have presented so far.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> That's not an answer.  You cannot justify something with the statement that "that's just the way it is".
> 
> If you can't do any better than that, it must be due to the fact that the evidence does not support your view because I know that otherwise you're smart enough to come up with rationale far less lame than that which you have presented so far.



It's the answer, it's not the answer you like, but it is the answer

Your country allows your privacy to be superceded in the name of security.  Why do you let privacy be interfered with by the government?  You couldn't get away with the privacy breaches in the Patriot Act in Canada.  Does that mean its wrong, maybe in Canada, but that's how you choose to keep yourself secure, so be it.  Who am I to judge.

Canada is a multicultural country.  If we allowed hate speach to incite various groups against eachother, our country's stability would shot.  I recall Germany did the same thing after the war and it has worked as well.  It's a small price to pay for my family, neighbours and my own security.

If not allowing a few biggots to incite the masses is the price I pay, I'll pay it double anyday.  Plus, our constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) can be changed democratically with due process, if for some reason, some day Canada decides we want people preaching hate to the masses.  I hope that day never comes.


----------



## Merlin1047

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> It's the answer, it's not the answer you like, but it is the answer



Nope, it's a reason, it's not an answer.  But if you're happy with it, it's your country and I guess that's all that matters.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Nope, it's a reason, it's not an answer.  But if you're happy with it, it's your country and I guess that's all that matters.



Well I don't know what you're looking for in an answer, other than perspective.  So fair enough, that's my "reason".


----------



## MrMarbles

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Nope, it's a reason, it's not an answer.  But if you're happy with it, it's your country and I guess that's all that matters.



What type of 'answer' are you looking for? The reason we have this law is to protect us. If you don't like, tough, don't come on over then.


----------



## Merlin1047

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> What type of 'answer' are you looking for? The reason we have this law is to protect us. If you don't like, tough, don't come on over then.



Sounds like a good idea to me.  Let me know if you ever come south.  I think I may be able to arrange an "escort" of state troopers for you.


P.S.  Bring bail money - you'll need it.


----------



## MrMarbles

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Sounds like a good idea to me.  Let me know if you ever come south.  I think I may be able to arrange an "escort" of state troopers for you.
> 
> 
> P.S.  Bring bail money - you'll need it.



Shucks, i missed out, i was just there a month ago.


----------



## theim

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> It's the answer, it's not the answer you like, but it is the answer
> 
> Your country allows your privacy to be superceded in the name of security.  Why do you let privacy be interfered with by the government?  You couldn't get away with the privacy breaches in the Patriot Act in Canada.  Does that mean its wrong, maybe in Canada, but that's how you choose to keep yourself secure, so be it.  Who am I to judge.
> 
> Canada is a multicultural country.  If we allowed hate speach to incite various groups against eachother, our country's stability would shot.  I recall Germany did the same thing after the war and it has worked as well.  It's a small price to pay for my family, neighbours and my own security.
> 
> If not allowing a few biggots to incite the masses is the price I pay, I'll pay it double anyday.  Plus, our constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) can be changed democratically with due process, if for some reason, some day Canada decides we want people preaching hate to the masses.  I hope that day never comes.



Firstly, the Patriot Act is not a gross invasion of privacy. No governemtnt G-man can just barge into your home anytime he wishes.

The USA is a multi-cultural country. We have free speech, all kinds are perfectly legal. Our nation has not become destabilized in any way.


----------



## Isaac Brock

theim said:
			
		

> Firstly, the Patriot Act is not a gross invasion of privacy. No governemtnt G-man can just barge into your home anytime he wishes.
> 
> The USA is a multi-cultural country. We have free speech, all kinds are perfectly legal. Our nation has not become destabilized in any way.



I'm not terribly sure if all our citizens would agree about your assessment of the Patriot act.  Though from what I gather from you, you are saying that only a small portion of the American population have to fear the "G-man" invading their privacy and I think that's fair.  However, only a small portion of Canadians have to worry about no be able to preach hate.  So the same is true on both sides of the borders.


----------



## MrMarbles

theim said:
			
		

> Firstly, the Patriot Act is not a gross invasion of privacy. No governemtnt G-man can just barge into your home anytime he wishes.




And it's the same with our hate laws. No G-man is going to bust down me door and arrest me for reading the Saturday comics. They are laws that restrict our rights in order to protect us. Like the law against murder. You guys do have laws against murder, right?


----------



## Isaac Brock

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> And it's the same with our hate laws. No G-man is going to bust down me door and arrest me for reading the Saturday comics. They are laws that restrict our rights in order to protect us. Like the law against murder. You guys do have laws against murder, right?



What about "For Better or for Worse"?  That's pretty edgy


----------



## theim

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> They are laws that restrict our rights in order to protect us.



just ponder that phrase for a second.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Enshrined absolute freedom of speach is not found in Canada.  Hate speach is not protected under our consitution, unlike in the States which values free speech no matter what.
> 
> If people have a problem with that, well don't come to Canada!



This is censorship.  It's disgusting.


----------



## Said1

The article Nato posted was pretty hateful, I guess there are exceptions.


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> This is censorship.  It's disgusting.



If you are not out to insight violence, then you have nothing to worry about. Those who wish ill-affects on others are the only ones who should worry, do you worry?


----------



## theim

So Marbles how can you say all that stuff and then go and blast the Patriot Act?

Am I to assume you thinks its A OK for the Government to control what kind of books you are allowed to read but they shouldn't be allowed to check emails and phone conversations of possible terrorists?


----------



## Isaac Brock

I re-iterate.



			
				Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> It's the answer, it's not the answer you like, but it is the answer
> 
> Your country allows your privacy to be superceded in the name of security.  Why do you let privacy be interfered with by the government?  You couldn't get away with the privacy breaches in the Patriot Act in Canada.  Does that mean its wrong, maybe in Canada, but that's how you choose to keep yourself secure, so be it.  Who am I to judge.
> 
> Canada is a multicultural country.  If we allowed hate speach to incite various groups against eachother, our country's stability would shot.  I recall Germany did the same thing after the war and it has worked as well.  It's a small price to pay for my family, neighbours and my own security.
> 
> If not allowing a few biggots to incite the masses is the price I pay, I'll pay it double anyday.  Plus, our constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) can be changed democratically with due process, if for some reason, some day Canada decides we want people preaching hate to the masses.  I hope that day never comes.



May I also point out that free speech in the United States has limitations to its freedom of speech such as the Miller Test when it comes to obscenity (in Canada we do not), using fighting words and matters relating to public safety.    These limitations were based on democratic consensus for what appear to be very reasonable principles.


----------



## Isaac Brock

theim said:
			
		

> So Marbles how can you say all that stuff and then go and blast the Patriot Act?
> 
> Am I to assume you thinks its A OK for the Government to control what kind of books you are allowed to read but they shouldn't be allowed to check emails and phone conversations of possible terrorists?



I think you're missing the point.  Myself and assumingly, Marbles aren't blasting the Patriot Act.  The point is that Act is based on an ideal which contrevenes your right to privacy in order to provide security.  We're not disgreeing with you implementing the law.  The US values its security and in these times its a perfectly reasonable ideal.   In addition, it was a democratically instituted limitation.  Most people won't even notice the limitation.

Sound familar?  Well, maybe that's the point.


----------



## MrMarbles

theim said:
			
		

> So Marbles how can you say all that stuff and then go and blast the Patriot Act?
> 
> Am I to assume you thinks its A OK for the Government to control what kind of books you are allowed to read but they shouldn't be allowed to check emails and phone conversations of possible terrorists?



I'm not attacking it, i'm comparing. They are the same thing. Laws design to protect us at the cost of some liberties.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> I'm not attacking it, i'm comparing. They are the same thing. Laws design to protect us at the cost of some liberties.



They're not the same thing. One is an attempt at thought control and information hiding. The other is just a monitor of communications.


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> They're not the same thing. One is an attempt at thought control and information hiding. The other is just a monitor of communications.



Also known as a reasonable restriction of your privacy.  They are indeed the same thing


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Also known as a reasonable restriction of your privacy.  They are indeed the same thing



No they are not.  You are still free to do as you please while being monitored.  You can still shoot up, masturbate, sue fast food companies, villainize wal-mart, demonize republicans, whine about the succes of others, inflame envy, sew division, etc.. knock yourself out.  You are still free.


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No they are not.  You are still free to do as you please while being monitored.  You can still shoot up, masturbate, sue fast food companies, villainize wal-mart, demonize republicans, whine about the succes of others, inflame envy, sew division, etc.. knock yourself out.  You are still free.



The patriot act allows your gov't the right to invade your privcy. A invasion of your personal rights. It goes into your home and watches you shoot up, masterbate and knbock yourself out. Our speech laws keep you from publicly advocating hate and violence. They are different in that respect, but the same as they take some of your rights away.



> Well, the USA Patriot Act, for one thing. Although it passed in Congress almost without dissent in the aftermath of Sept. 11, it's suddenly being revisited, and this time around some of the folks holding opinions have actually read the thing. Among its detractors are 152 communities, including several major cities and three states, that have now passed resolutions denouncing the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties. More than one member of Congress has introduced legislation taking the teeth out of its most invasive provisions. And in a huge shock to the Justice Department, in July the so-called "Otter Amendment"&#8212;which de-funded the act's "sneak-and-peek" provision&#8212;passed in the House by a vote of 309-118. Introduced by a conservative Republican congressman from Idaho, C.L. "Butch" Otter, the amendment revealed the extent to which the Patriot Act engenders jitters across the political spectrum. Then there are the lawsuits, including one filed recently by the ACLU, urging the court to invalidate provisions of the act that threaten privacy or due process. All these reforms are wending their way through the system and the national consciousness as Americans start to take a sober second look at what the act really unleashed.



http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No they are not.  You are still free to do as you please while being monitored.  You can still shoot up, masturbate, sue fast food companies, villainize wal-mart, demonize republicans, whine about the succes of others, inflame envy, sew division, etc.. knock yourself out.  You are still free.



You hate say you hate jews, you don't like blacks, whites smell, asians control the media to your hearts content in Canada.  Racists cannot advocate displacement, mistreament or or violence to them in a private or public forum.  How is that not free?


----------



## theim

The basic principle: If the Government can take away your right to say something, anything, then what is to stop them from potentially taking away the right to say other things? What happens when someone decides a priest in church who says "homosexuality is a sin" is inciting hatred? What happens if a muslim says that a guy who says "Jihadist muslims are evil" is inciting hatred? I am not familiar with Canadian law. Where is the line drawn?


----------



## theim

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> The patriot act allows your gov't the right to invade your privcy. A invasion of your personal rights. It goes into your home and watches you shoot up, masterbate and knbock yourself out. Our speech laws keep you from publicly advocating hate and violence. They are different in that respect, but the same as they take some of your rights away.
> 
> 
> 
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/



Oh, and actually read the Patriot Act, please. No G-man can just watch you because he feels like it. No one has had their rights taken away by the Patriot Act, except local terror cells of course.


----------



## Said1

theim said:
			
		

> I am not familiar with Canadian law. Where is the line drawn?




Honestly, I don't really know. This guy was fingered because he is a Zendle supporter, although I didn't find the material confiscated that questionable, I think they're making an example of him.

Are there absolutely no hate laws in the US at all?


----------



## MrMarbles

theim said:
			
		

> Oh, and actually read the Patriot Act, please. No G-man can just watch you because he feels like it. No one has had their rights taken away by the Patriot Act, except local terror cells of course.



But they could, and how will you know? The Patriot Act protects them. They are allowed to watch you without anyone knowing. What is there to stop them from going further?


----------



## theim

Said1 said:
			
		

> Honestly, I don't really know. This guy was fingered because he is a Zendle supporter, although I didn't find the material confiscated that questionable, I think they're making an example of him.
> 
> Are there absolutely no hate laws in the US at all?



Actually...no, at least not to my knowledge. Not on the federal level anyway. I think some states have passed Hate Crime legislation, which adds penalties onto a sentence if your motivation was to attack someone because of their race. But these are controversial because many percieve the motivation element as a type of "thoughtcrime".


----------



## theim

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> But they could, and how will you know? The Patriot Act protects them. They are allowed to watch you without anyone knowing. What is there to stop them from going further?



just read it.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> Honestly, I don't really know. This guy was fingered because he is a Zendle supporter, although I didn't find the material confiscated that questionable, I think they're making an example of him.
> 
> Are there absolutely no hate laws in the US at all?



In Canada, the line is drawn when it comes to advocating violence to, removal of rights or diplacement of a segment of the population.  To clear things up, here is the law:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> In Canada, the line is drawn when it comes to advocating violence to, removal of rights or diplacement of a segment of the population.  To clear things up, here is the law:
> 
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html



I know. Did you look at the book under question.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> You hate say you hate jews, you don't like blacks, whites smell, asians control the media to your hearts content in Canada.  Racists cannot advocate displacement, mistreament or or violence to them in a private or public forum.  How is that not free?



What is mistreatment?  That is so vague.  Is suggesting their faith is intolerant towards women "mistreatment"? I bet they think so.


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> What is mistreatment?  That is so vague.  Is suggesting their faith is intolerant towards women "mistreatment"? I bet they think so.



I suggest you read the law.  It is more specific than I can be.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> I know. Did you look at the book under question.



I have not read it and to be fair, I've heard a WJ sorta book, but I cannot say that it is a violent WJ book.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> I suggest you read the law.  It is more specific than I can be.



I'm only asking about this one scenario:  would it be hate speech to say Sharia islam is sexist against women?  Can't you tell me?


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm only asking about this one scenario:  would it be hate speech to say Sharia islam is sexist against women?  Can't you tell me?



It wouldn't.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> It wouldn't.



Good.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm only asking about this one scenario:  would it be hate speech to say Sharia islam is sexist against women?  Can't you tell me?




That's a pretty safe question. It's socially acceptable to say anything is sexist against women, regardless of what it is. You can do better than that.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> That's a pretty safe question. It's socially acceptable to say anything is sexist against women, regardless of what it is. You can do better than that.



I know.  That question came to mind because it seems i heard something about someone being prosecuted in europe for hate speech for doing something similar.    Is that vague enough?


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I know.  That question came to mind because it seems i heard something about someone being prosecuted in europe for hate speech for doing something similar.    Is that vague enough?



Passing out fliers that describe how sexist Sharia law is towards women is probably ok too. 

Although I wouldn't question the relavence of equal opportunity employment, that may land you in jail. :huh:


----------

