The issue is not what Mr. Hundert is alleged to have done or not done. Rather, it is about the state preventing him from exercising his freedom of speech.
For someone who has written in support of freedom speech and the apparent misuse of HRC to shut people up, it's really odd that you're suddenly all about courts silencing someone.
Well then again, you've displayed this sort of inconsistency in the past, free speech for some and not for others. http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/2010/04/government-took-102-minutes-to-do-what.html
But as it stands, it turns out that it very much was politics that influenced the decision to rule George Galloway inadmissable to Canada. Trick is that it was Gallowya's own politics, as he himself defined them, not Jason Kenney's.
Hundert is known for organizing violent protests, and known for inciting violence.
Much like George Galloway is known for supplying material aid to a terrorist organization, and was thus legally inadmissiable to Canada, the unlawful ruling of an activist judge notwithstanding.
Hundert's been restricted from expressing himself in order to prevent him from continuing to incite violence. Sheesh, what a shame.
Most of the objections to Hundert's arrest stem from the conditions imposed on his bail and the coercive nature of their imposition, not for what he has been arrested.
The blanket restriction on engaging in public political activity is not the same thing as restricting from inciting violence. The latter has a basis in law, the former is an arbitrary restriction of Charter section 2b. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html#freedoms
But I'll end here as your record suggests it is a waste of time discussing anything with you.
Go figure -- remand centre staff don't want Hundert in their custody, inciting violence amongst the prisoners with his agitprop.
This doesn't make sense to you, Bore-us? It makes sense to the rest of Canadians. There's a reason he was going to be kept in solitary confinement.
The problem for individuals like Hundert is that they can't seem to express themselves politically without either overtly calling for violence, or at least insisting that it should be condoned.
That's what people like Hundert mean by "a diversity of tactics". It's Orwellian newspeak for violence. I see no reason why he should be free to resume his violent agitprop tactics while free on bail. No reason whatsoever.
Thanks for that, Alison. It's terrific.
ReplyDeleteCrossing my fingers for Alex. As goes Alex, so goes Canada. Go Canada!
ReplyDelete*snicker*
ReplyDeleteWhen did "community organizer" become rhetorical shorthand for "riot organizer"?
Alex Hundert belongs in jail, the courts figured out a way to put him there.
So sad, so sad.
Jesus Christ. Fuck the law. Fuck the police. Stupid punitive laws designed to intimidate DESERVE to be broken.
ReplyDeleteWow Patrick:
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not what Mr. Hundert is alleged to have done or not done. Rather, it is about the state preventing him from exercising his freedom of speech.
For someone who has written in support of freedom speech and the apparent misuse of HRC to shut people up, it's really odd that you're suddenly all about courts silencing someone.
http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/search/label/Canadian%20Human%20Rights%20Commission
Well then again, you've displayed this sort of inconsistency in the past, free speech for some and not for others. http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/2010/04/government-took-102-minutes-to-do-what.html
But as it stands, it turns out that it very much was politics that influenced the decision to rule George Galloway inadmissable to Canada. Trick is that it was Gallowya's own politics, as he himself defined them, not Jason Kenney's.
Ah-ha.
ReplyDeleteSo Bore-us thinks this is a speech issue.
Hundert is known for organizing violent protests, and known for inciting violence.
Much like George Galloway is known for supplying material aid to a terrorist organization, and was thus legally inadmissiable to Canada, the unlawful ruling of an activist judge notwithstanding.
Hundert's been restricted from expressing himself in order to prevent him from continuing to incite violence. Sheesh, what a shame.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteMost of the objections to Hundert's arrest stem from the conditions imposed on his bail and the coercive nature of their imposition, not for what he has been arrested.
The blanket restriction on engaging in public political activity is not the same thing as restricting from inciting violence. The latter has a basis in law, the former is an arbitrary restriction of Charter section 2b.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html#freedoms
But I'll end here as your record suggests it is a waste of time discussing anything with you.
Go figure -- remand centre staff don't want Hundert in their custody, inciting violence amongst the prisoners with his agitprop.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't make sense to you, Bore-us? It makes sense to the rest of Canadians. There's a reason he was going to be kept in solitary confinement.
The problem for individuals like Hundert is that they can't seem to express themselves politically without either overtly calling for violence, or at least insisting that it should be condoned.
That's what people like Hundert mean by "a diversity of tactics". It's Orwellian newspeak for violence. I see no reason why he should be free to resume his violent agitprop tactics while free on bail. No reason whatsoever.
Patrick. See the last line of my last comment.
ReplyDeleteVery good, Bore-us. If you're going to emulate your friends and argue in bad faith, we won't get anywhere.
ReplyDeleteYou're really just saving me the trouble of defeating you by capitulating.