Yeah, you're probably right. My point above was that there are so many people and groups who benefit from this video that sorting out who might have funded it (if anybody) is virtually impossible. And there's no reason to think that there are any secret backers at all, other than the suspicious timing and the increasing tensions between Iran and the US and Israel. Suggestive, but nowhere near proof of anything other than that we live in a shitty world where fanatics of all stripes seem to get all the attention.

Maybe. If you're a militant atheist who wants to demonstrate the "inherent harmfulness" of religions, then stirring up a bunch of extremists of various religions might be to your benefit. I don't think Dawkins put up any money for this, but I bet that wherever he is, when he hears this story he smiles.

Canada also has hate-crime laws (which I'm pretty sure this video would fall under), and those laws have been tested against our constitutional protections of freedom of expression. Not all speech should be protected speech.

And what if some anti-Israel powers funded it, hoping that Israel would be pinned for the job? I'm not saying there wasn't Israeli funding behind it, they certainly are not above this kind of thing, but neither are parties like the Government of Iran, who stand more to gain by inciting anti-US riots in other countries than Israel does.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there are a lot of people and powers with motivation to get the fringes and fanatics riled up in the Middle East.

I've been asking myself this same question since the story broke. Sadly, far too many disparate groups are benefitting from this, including but not limited to Israel, Al Qaida (whatever that really means), fundamentalist Christians, Salafists and Wahabbists in the Middle East, the idiot who made the film, and possibly others. And this doesn't count people or groups who may have thought they'd benefit from it, but aren't, like Mitt Romney's campaign team, and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

So yeah, pick your motive, take your chances. This mess is benefitting someone, somehow. I wonder if the US based creators of this film can be charged with negligent homicide. I sure hope so.

It's probably not anything like American politics. I don't think there's anything in the world like American politics. Which is not to say that they won't forget their promises.

by the time it gets through all the pollution it should be no bigger than a Chihuahua's head.

Corporations would not exist without governments; a corporation is not just an agreement between shareholders, it's a bundle of rights that are enforced against the world, by the State. The shareholders enter into the corporate ownership agreement because they know that they'll be protected from personal liability by the actions of the corporation, among other reasons. The only way they can do this is if the State says they can and is willing to back up that statement with the support of the courts and the police if necessary. No government, no corporations. This would NOT work in a society with multiple agencies, because you would just escalate disputes up a level, from the level of various people with disputes (corporate or otherwise) to various people and their respective enforcement systems, with no grand arbitrator. We can see this at work now in International law. A natural human may be sheltered from the consequences of their corporate actions in the US, but can't rely on that protection if they travel to China or Iran or any other nation that doesn't recognize the corporate structure erected by the US government and the Chancery Court in Delaware.

Except Apple.

An MoU isn't (necessarily) a contract. Are there later contracts?

That's not a ponzi scheme, that's a pyramid scheme.

I'm sure it won't be a problem if the submitter is white.

And not start from the bottom of the pile in the first place.

Er, there's a rather large country with lots of open spaces right next door, that someone might consider as a viable option to the US or Europe. You know, Canada, that place where we've weathered the downturn better, are on track (in 2-3 years or so, unless Europe implodes) to eliminate the temporary deficits we ran up to keep our heads above water during the financial crisis and go back to running surpluses, have universal, single payor health care (at half the price per capita of US health care), similar standard of living, stable democracy, and politicians who are saner than the US ones, even if I don't like anything our current government is doing.

Just sayin'.

(We've got our own problems here, no question, but we're in better shape than the US, for the foreseeable future)

Some clauses of the Charter apply to corporations, as well as people. Clause 2b definitely applies to corporations. See Irwin Toy v. Quebec in which a Toy company sought to have laws regulating advertising directed at children under 13 struck for unconstitutionality. 5 Justices of the SCC agreed that "commercial speech" (in this case, advertising from a corporation) was protected. They split on whether the government's regs were justified in a free and democratic society (3-2 in favour of the government). S. 2 of the Charter does not apply exclusively to "persons".

disclaimer: IAAL, but not a constitutional lawyer, and certainly not YOUR lawyer. The above is not advice, and is likely complicated by constitutional law that I'm not fully familiar with.