Conservatives to Possibly Introduce Laws Charging Those who Speak out Against Israel or Boycott them with Hate Charges

[thejazz97]

What a politician said in the 1700's doesn't mean it makes sense for eternity.

Yeah, it does. It's nearly impossible for the two to coexist in total harmony.

[IamHomer]

Not completely on Trudeau's side, but he's gotta be better then Harper. Yeesh...

I thought Trudeau also supported Bill C-51.

[aGENT]

I thought Trudeau also supported Bill C-51.

He did.

It's seriously pissing me off.

[taxi]

I thought Trudeau also supported Bill C-51.

From the article:

That doesn't mean anything. He is obviously just looking at the elements of the BDS campaign which cross the line, and those do exist. I don't see anyone ever saying that boycotts should be illegal.

[IamHomer]

He did.

It's seriously pissing me off.

Lol why? At least he doesn't anymore.

[taxi]

Lol why? At least he doesn't anymore.

Only after he found out it was unpopular.

[WHL rocks]

Yeah, it does. It's nearly impossible for the two to coexist in total harmony.

yeah it does what? makes sense? Then second part about impossible to coexist conflicts with "yeah it does". Confusing post.

Edit. Next time you quout a post from someone don't edit it. Quote the whole post.

[WHL rocks]

My though, one must be amazed when they look and see America has done a full 180 on the principles it was founded on. The same could be said for Canada as well but to a lesser extent.

Don't be so amazed. It's wishful thinking America was founded on those principle. It was politics then as its politics now. I'm sure you know blacks were not 100% human by law back then.

In my view America is a much more principled society now than ever.

[Lockout Casualty]

That doesn't mean anything. He is obviously just looking at the elements of the BDS campaign which cross the line, and those do exist. I don't see anyone ever saying that boycotts should be illegal.

You said "Is there actually any evidence that these laws are going to be specifically directed against BDS?", and I can't see how Blaney's statement does not say precisely that. Just because the laws may not explicitly be directed at harming something, that isn't the desired effect. Not saying that's the case here, but I wouldn't put it past the Cons.

Now if you think the government would either explicitly state that they're targeting the movement or not do anything to hamper it, we won't find much common ground.

[Heretic]

What's interesting to me today is how biased each "side" in this is and how they have interpreted history.

Example: History of Palestine

From: http://www.cufi.org/PDF/Israel101.pdf

"From the fi rst century when Rome renamed the Jewish state “Palestine” until the

mid-20th century, “Palestine” was associated with Jews and the Jewish homeland.

Jews in the area used the name Palestine for their symphonies, newspapers and

other enterprises. There was the Palestine Post (later the Jerusalem Post), the

Palestine Symphony Orchestra, the Palestine Electric Company, the Palestine

Potash Company and others.

Arabs and Jews who lived in the Palestine Mandate all had Palestine Mandate

passports, but Arab residents were generally referred to as Arabs, not Palestinians.

“Palestine is a term the Zionists invented!…Our country for centuries was

part of Syria.”

—Local Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, to the Peel Commission in 1937.

Before and after World War II, anti-Semites in Europe and the U.S. told Jews to

get out and “go back home to Palestine.”

After 1948 when the reborn Jewish State took the name Israel, the term

“Palestine” went out of usage to refer to Israel.

In 1964, the term was revived when Egypt helped organize the PLO, the

Palestine Liberation Organization. By the 1970s, the term came to be

associated with Arabs, not Jews."

From: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early.php

"Who were the inhabitants of Palestine before the Zionists?

The historical figures show a substantial Arab population in Palestine till 1914 until Jews started pouring from across Europe as a result of the Zionist movement. As Palestinian refer to people who were the descendents of races living here, they have been the original inhabitants from centuries and even at present, 49% of the population consists of Palestinian Arabs, concentrated largely in West Bank and Gaza and the rest in Israel."

[taxi]

You said "Is there actually any evidence that these laws are going to be specifically directed against BDS?", and I can't see how Blaney's statement does not say precisely that. Just because the laws may not explicitly be directed at harming something, that isn't the desired effect. Not saying that's the case here, but I wouldn't put it past the Cons.

Now if you think the government would either explicitly state that they're targeting the movement or not do anything to hamper it, we won't find much common ground.

No. We have an out of context statement about the BDS and a peace of legislation that is directed at hate crimes directed towards people of specific nationalities (which BTW would also include hate crimes directed at Palestinians, which is a nationality). I don't see how there is any evidence that this law is meant to make it illegal to economically boycott Israel.

[Lockout Casualty]

No. We have an out of context statement about the BDS and a peace of legislation that is directed at hate crimes directed towards people of specific nationalities (which BTW would also include hate crimes directed at Palestinians, which is a nationality). I don't see how there is any evidence that this law is meant to make it illegal to economically boycott Israel.

Source that it's out of context? Despite the incoming denials, there is an email record where Neil Macdonald attempts to clarify the statement to no avail. Also, it may not necessarily make it illegal in order to harm the movement. You're presenting a false dichotomy, bud.

And here's what Baird had to say on the BDS movement earlier this year:

“Canada and Israel share similar views on the world stage,” said Baird. “Canada strongly supports Israel’s right to defend itself by itself and its right to live in peace with its neighbours. Canada will fight any efforts internationally to delegitimize the State of Israel, including the disturbing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.”

http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2015/01/18b.aspx?lang=eng

Again, if you're looking for a statement to the effect of, "We're going to jail everyone who doesn't unequivocally support Israel", that's not happening. However, there's plenty of evidence that this government is opposed to, and will take steps to fight the BDS movement.

Unnecessary drivel removed.

[Gross-Misconduct]

yeah, the worlds changed a bit since Franklin said that.

Wasnt bloodletting still used to cure a cold when he said that?

[Gross-Misconduct]

We have Canadian Quakers??

[taxi]

Source that it's out of context? Despite the incoming denials, there is an email record where Neil Macdonald attempts to clarify the statement to no avail. Also, it may not necessarily make it illegal in order to harm the movement. You're presenting a false dichotomy, bud.

And here's what Baird had to say on the BDS movement earlier this year:

http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2015/01/18b.aspx?lang=eng

Again, if you're looking for a statement to the effect of, "We're going to jail everyone who doesn't unequivocally support Israel", that's not happening. However, there's plenty of evidence that this government is opposed to, and will take steps to fight the BDS movement.

Unnecessary drivel removed.

Um...no, bud. There is absolutely no evidence to show that they are trying to ban legitimate boycotts of Israel or any other country. It says he is going to take a zero tolerance approach to members of BDS who commit hate crimes. He does not say that BDS is, in itself, a hate crime. It's you who is representing the false dichotomy and making a huge logical and factual leap.

The legislature also does not control what the courts consider a hate crime, and what they've considered a hate crime thus far comes nowhere close to a legitimate economic boycott:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

And yes, I would agree that there are elements on both sides of the middle east debate who's speech amounts to hate crimes. The laws would equally protect Palestinians, who are a nationality.

[Hugor Hill]

And here's what Baird had to say on the BDS movement earlier this year:

http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2015/01/18b.aspx?lang=eng

“Canada and Israel share similar views on the world stage,” said Baird. “Canada strongly supports Israel’s right to defend itself by itself and its right to live in peace with its neighbours. Canada will fight any efforts internationally to delegitimize the State of Israel, including the disturbing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.”

Let me clarify how Canadians truly feel about this issue:

Canada and Israel does NOT share similar views on the world stage. Canada strongly opposes Israel's killing of civilians and strongly supports Palestine's right to live in peace with its neighbours. Canada will fight any efforts internationally to delegitimize the State of Palestine, including the campaign to discredit the BDS movements.

I understand that the current Canadian federal government, however, has a different view than Canada.

[Heretic]

Let me clarify how Canadians truly feel about this issue:

Canada and Israel does NOT share similar views on the world stage. Canada strongly opposes Israel's killing of civilians and strongly supports Palestine's right to live in peace with its neighbours. Canada will fight any efforts internationally to delegitimize the State of Palestine, including the campaign to discredit the BDS movements.

I understand that the current Canadian federal government, however, has a different view than Canada.

Who is the "Canada" that you speak of?

I oppose the killing of any civilians. I also oppose cowards hiding behind civilians.

[Chalky]

What a politician said in the 1700's doesn't mean it makes sense for eternity.

Only thing your post proves is 2 American Presidents made conflicting statements more than 200 years apart. Which is hardly worth noting.

Yeah, it does. It's nearly impossible for the two to coexist in total harmony.

The Franklin quote lacks context next to the Obama quote. It's easy to compare a quote (that may or may not have even been Franklin's) to another quote 200 years later, but without context it's just conjecture. Both of the men being quoted have done and said some great things.

Neither of the quotes relate to why Harper is trying to stifle my free speech. Why does Harper so ardently defend Netanyahu and the Israeli economy? It's more economics than ideology. CIFTA. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/israel/index.aspx?lang=eng

[Hugor Hill]

Who is the "Canada" that you speak of?

I oppose the killing of any civilians. I also oppose cowards hiding behind civilians.

Who is the 'Canada' that John Biard speak of?

I agree and agree. We are on the same page. I was merely pointing out how our politicians make wrong assumptions about their country as a method of propaganda..

[Heretic]

Who is the 'Canada' that John Biard speak of?

I agree and agree. We are on the same page. I was merely pointing out how our politicians make wrong assumptions about their country as a method of propaganda..

I see says the blind man as he falls in the ditch (me).

I got it now.