There is a case in Canada regarding (this is going to sound like a joke)

A Jew, a Muslim, and the Human Rights group....

See THIS video first.. and then lets discuss if this is simply one incremental step toward the worst kind of social control any of us could imagine...

Ezra Levant... champion of free speech..

"1984" might just have been postponed to 200?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0B-lYfYXmM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHrtlO5Hg88&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g&feature=related

"Social control" has been going on since the dawn of time. About the same time man discovered its value. I guess it's evolutionary. At first it was the 'gods', and 'our' impact on their moods, resulting in us starving or not. Then the bible. Popes, royalty and religious leaders have LONG understood the value of fear. Now that religion is seemingly (because of that other tool, the media) dominated by extremist nutters the average person turning towards a cocktail of 'religious' based values and calling it spirituality...not 'faith'. I guess that results in a social conscience.

I struggle with people's use of the term 'Orwellian'. It's over used, and its use is designed to create a negative feeling. In your case, 'human rights groups'. Go figure.

If you want my idea of 'Orwellian'. Try the 'new' terror laws. Circa; 'Inquisition'.

Appologies for the rambling and off topic.

In answer to your question, David, no. I read it as another thrust and parry in the long battle between the liberal, small-government, freedom-loving elite and the leftie, big-government, let's-look-after-the-little-guy elite for the hearts and minds of the majority, who quite sensibly, for the most part, sit on the fence. It's a battle that characterises and strengthens Western nations, and personally I enjoy it, cause I never know what side I'm on. I loathe censorship and think refusing to give David Irving a visa is a highly inefficient way of countering his argument. On the other hand, it seems to me self-evidently foolish to suggest that the government can't usefully improve the lot of its poorest and most disadvanted citizens, and I'm happy for it to direct my tax-dollar there.

So the middle-path works for me.

But to call this "the worst kind of social control" cheapens the experience of those who have suffered through the worst kind of social control.

And yes, I agree with StG (St George?), let's move on from "Orwellian."

But let's face it. This will become a long argument in which David employs capitalised patronising cliches - "DON'T YOU SEE?" - in great abundance. (No offense. But you will.) All with have prizes, no one will change anyone else's mind, and nothing will be resolved. Let me snip the ribbon for you.

I declare this ongoing and ultimately pointless conversation.... OPEN!

Thank you Vanilla for declaring this "pointless conversation' open ...
So I'm going to jump right in ...

Boazy, always ask the question - 'Why?'

Why did a Jewish publisher of a conservative magazine deliberately publish a series of Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that had fueled protests - some of them violent - throughout Europe and the Middle East? And he did it twice. As well as publicly insult Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.

Why? To test the system? To provoke? For publicity? Or all of the
above?

My sympathies don't lie with Mr Levant. He sounds a bit too "clever."
He's a lawyer and I think he knows exactly what he's doing. And he's doing it deliberately.

In Australia the right to freedom of speech carries with it certain
responsibilities and restrictions which protect the rights of others to open hostility and discrimination. Australian laws expressly prohibit incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

Free speech does not entitle you to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre
as I've stated before in another post...

Foxy and Vanilla..(hey ur not that one hit wonder Vanilla Ice r u ? :)
and Stg...

the point of my discussion is really to highlight the major point in my mini 'crusade' against the evil and 'Satanic' (un)Equal Opportunity Commission.

You may feel that I won't change minds :) but be assured, there are many ways to skin a cat. (or a fellow poster)

Stg makes a very good point about the terrorism laws, but the only dangerous bit, (which is similar to the other 'hate/vilification' speech laws,... is that they 'can' be used to just silence legitimate expression.

All I want to persuade you mob of.. is this:

1/ It is NOT 'hate speech' to highlight and mention the horrific actions of either
a) Old Testament
b) Nazi's
c) Mohammad personally and Islam doctrinally.

It IS 'upsetting' speech I'm sure. I was chatting with my new found 'aryan brothers' :) (5 blokes all with German background at my Gym) and one of them said he was always called a 'NAZI' at secondary school here. Now.. I would take issue with that kind of speech.. its just bad.. they are NOT nazis.

2/ That any 'hate speech' laws must ALWAYS take the following into account
a) Truthfullness
b) Intent/Motive

if I succeed in persuading you all about that I'll be pretty happy.

Foxy..on 'fire' in a theatre.. agreed..BUT.. what about a person pointing to a discarded cigarette and saying "There is a fire hazard there..put it out" ? :)
Just like if a school for national socialists opened, it would be right to point to Mein Kampf and say 'danger zone' publically and forcefully.

How unsurprising that Boazy finds kindred spirits among the 'Aryan brotherhood' at his gym.

Might I suggest a visit to the quack for a prescription renewal? It was so nice when your medication was working...