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

[The Magician]

Just heard about this, absolutely ridiculous

[Lockout Casualty]

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.

Why do you keep pushing this ban narrative? I never said ban the movement, and actually said banning isn't the only option to hamper the movement, like you keep suggesting.

Baird clearly says, "Canada will fight any efforts internationally to delegitimize the State of Israel, including the disturbing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.” Where do you see mention of members of BDS? Again, the government sees this movement as detrimental to its efforts with Israel, and will work toward fighting it. That's clear as day. Perhaps they will work to de-legitimize the movement, maybe they'll ban congregations in large groups, I don't know, but it may not necessarily be a ban on BDS itself.

[taxi]

Why do you keep pushing this ban narrative? I never said ban the movement, and actually said banning isn't the only option to hamper the movement, like you keep suggesting.

Baird clearly says, "Canada will fight any efforts internationally to delegitimize the State of Israel, including the disturbing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.” Where do you see mention of members of BDS? Again, the government sees this movement as detrimental to its efforts with Israel, and will work toward fighting it. That's clear as day. Perhaps they will work to de-legitimize the movement, maybe they'll ban congregations in large groups, I don't know, but it may not necessarily be a ban on BDS itself.

How does a statement made 6 months ago by a single MP amount to the new hate laws being directed at stopping the BDS movement? The link your trying to make is especially weak as Baird was dismissed from his role as foreign affairs minister in February and resigned entirely from the parliament in March.

It's now July and John Baird has not been a member of the government for several months.

I also see no issue with an MP or political party stating they are opposed to a certain movement. Political parties are allowed to have political views. The idea that this legislation, which is genuinely directed at hate laws, is the result of Jewish lobby groups or is somehow meant to stifle free speech of a specific group, however, is unfounded.

Like I said before, this legislation would apply equally to Palestinians, who are also a nationality.

[Hugor Hill]

Why do you keep pushing this ban narrative? I never said ban the movement, and actually said banning isn't the only option to hamper the movement, like you keep suggesting.

Baird clearly says, "Canada will fight any efforts internationally to delegitimize the State of Israel, including the disturbing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.” Where do you see mention of members of BDS? Again, the government sees this movement as detrimental to its efforts with Israel, and will work toward fighting it. That's clear as day. Perhaps they will work to de-legitimize the movement, maybe they'll ban congregations in large groups, I don't know, but it may not necessarily be a ban on BDS itself.

Yes. Taxi will try to split hair in an attempt to turn black to white, don't you know? Then he will say the splitting of the hair is important because it is a fact and it proves you wrong.

[taxi]

Yes. Taxi will try to split hair in an attempt to turn black to white, don't you know? Then he will say the splitting of the hair is important because it is a fact and it proves you wrong.

Here is what the title of this thread is:

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

In what way am I splitting hairs. It not only states that the law is attempting to make all boycotts a hate crime but also states that the new rules would apply tall those who "speak out" against Israel. The whole article is a fluff piece, which is pretty easily exposed by the use of the word "possibly" in its headline.

[Lockout Casualty]

How does a statement made 6 months ago by a single MP amount to the new hate laws being directed at stopping the BDS movement? The link your trying to make is especially weak as Baird was dismissed from his role as foreign affairs minister in February and resigned entirely from the parliament in March.

It's now July and John Baird has not been a member of the government for several months.

I also see no issue with an MP or political party stating they are opposed to a certain movement. Political parties are allowed to have political views. The idea that this legislation, which is genuinely directed at hate laws, is the result of Jewish lobby groups or is somehow meant to stifle free speech of a specific group, however, is unfounded.

Like I said before, this legislation would apply equally to Palestinians, who are also a nationality.

I guess cabinet ministers don't speak for the government, especially when making statements on agreements made with other nations, while in said nation on government business. And it's relevant as the statement is targeted at the same movement. The link itself is only weak if you imply he was dismissed as a result of such statement.

It's also May.

The government isn't opposed, it actively "fights" the movement, as stated by Baird, a cabinet minister at the time, which was less than a year ago. (Sounds a little less... biased.) Again, you're misrepresenting the issue. Who suggested anything about the Jewish lobby? Talk about a red herring. What's another misrepresentation, huh?

You're so difficult.

[Hugor Hill]

I guess cabinet ministers don't speak for the government, especially when making statements on agreements made with other nations, while in said nation on government business. And it's relevant as the statement is targeted at the same movement. The link itself is only weak if you imply he was dismissed as a result of such statement.

It's also May.

The government isn't opposed, it actively "fights" the movement, as stated by Baird, a cabinet minister at the time, which was less than a year ago. (Sounds a little less... biased.) Again, you're misrepresenting the issue. Who suggested anything about the Jewish lobby? Talk about a red herring. What's another misrepresentation, huh?

You're so difficult.

No he isn't. The more information you introduce to the argument the easier it is for him to find hair holes. Key? Less information.

[otherwise]

How can the governemnt decide to put sanctions on to one country, and encourage other nations to do the same. But I cannot decide to sanction, through my own hard earned money, a country and encourage others to do the same?

[D-Money]

I guess it depends on the motivation behind the message.

Boycotting Israel because they're...well, Jews? That is obviously not kosher.

But boycotting Israel because they ignore International rulings and erect giant walls to isolate and segregate a portion of the population they regard as less desirable? That's kind of the opposite.

[Hugor Hill]

Here is what the title of this thread is:

In what way am I splitting hairs. It not only states that the law is attempting to make all boycotts a hate crime but also states that the new rules would apply tall those who "speak out" against Israel. The whole article is a fluff piece, which is pretty easily exposed by the use of the word "possibly" in its headline.

You need to end that sentence with a question mark.

[taxi]

I guess cabinet ministers don't speak for the government, especially when making statements on agreements made with other nations, while in said nation on government business. And it's relevant as the statement is targeted at the same movement. The link itself is only weak if you imply he was dismissed as a result of such statement.

It's also May.

The government isn't opposed, it actively "fights" the movement, as stated by Baird, a cabinet minister at the time, which was less than a year ago. (Sounds a little less... biased.) Again, you're misrepresenting the issue. Who suggested anything about the Jewish lobby? Talk about a red herring. What's another misrepresentation, huh?

You're so difficult.

Huh,..it is May, I'll give you that much.

My point was that the argument behind this article is weak. Baird makes a statement about Israel in Janaury, is dismissed from the cabinet in February, and then resigns entirely from parliament in February. The government then expands hate legislation in May to include nationalities. This somehow amounts to stifling freedom of speech about Israel...

[taxi]

You need to end that sentence with a question mark.

Not if it's meant to be a statement. I'm not attempting to elicit a response from you.

[butters]

I wonder what countries do worse things that aren't being boycotted. I don't like what Israel is doing either, but if you aren't going to boycott any other country that does equivalent or worse things then it is discriminatory in a way.

[Lockout Casualty]

Huh,..it is May, I'll give you that much.

My point was that the argument behind this article is weak. Baird makes a statement about Israel in Janaury, is dismissed from the cabinet in February, and then resigns entirely from parliament in February. The government then expands hate legislation in May to include nationalities. This somehow amounts to stifling freedom of speech about Israel...

And my point is your argument is weak. Weak like American beer.

Baird makes an official statement in his at-the-time capacity as cabinet minister as to the government's aims to fight the movement it deems anti-Semitic ("new face of anti-Semitism" ring a bell?). For unrelated reasons he is dismissed and resigns. A few months later the government expands hate legislation that critics say may be used to stifle the aforementioned movement. When asked to clarify the statement of zero-tolerance toward the movement, the government provided a bunch of hate speech laws, and a non-sequitur about our way of life, effectively dodging the question.

I'm done if you're just gonna keep trying to discredit Baird and focus on the fact he's no longer an MP, rather than the fact his statements were made while on official business to Israel to sign an agreement with Israel that defines this movement as anti-Semitic.

Frankly, I don't see why else this government, that opposes hate speech laws, would push this change, if it isn't due to its ridiculously close relationship with Israel. You say it will affect Palestinians the same way, but nobody is boycotting the Palestinians, are they.

[Lockout Casualty]

I wonder what countries do worse things that aren't being boycotted. I don't like what Israel is doing either, but if you aren't going to boycott any other country that does equivalent or worse things then it is discriminatory in a way.

There are plenty of countries worse than Israel. Luckily, they aren't placated as the closest ally. If Israel was just another $&!# stain on the map, these boycotts wouldn't happen. It's only because that sham of a democracy gets so much unequivocal support from many western governments that they do.

[Grapefruits]

I was once a Conservative supporter, I am now leaning NDP in the next Federal election. *shudders*

[DefCon1]

The conservatives are just a bunch of hypocrites with double standards. So when it comes to other countries like Iran, its ok to boycott them but doing the same thing to Israel is crossing the line? Wow...I think I've had enough with this stupid government which is so in love with the Israeli government. I like Israeli people but hate their government with a passion because of all the Palestinians they killed over the years. This is just stupid beyond belief that people can't express their right and freedom. If I don't like or support an organization or a government body, I have the right to boycott them.

[DefCon1]

Okay, I love that Harper supports Israel, but seriously? This is taking it a bit too far.

What do Canadians gains from supporting Israel? Protection?

[TOMapleLaughs]

He must know he's on his way out. Now comes the time in which Canadians will really regret giving him majorities.

[TLindenIsGod]

Go home Harper, you've had a few too many.