Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

B'nai Brith Pushes for Web Regulation 364

Baldrson writes: "Wired magazine reports that in late August, B'nai Brith Canada tried to get the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to pay attention to posts on the Islam Way weblog that solicited for volunteers to join Ossama bin Laden. According to the story: "...after media reports have suggested that Montreal and Halifax may have been meeting points for a number of the terrorists involved in the attack, B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

B'nai Brith Pushes for Web Regulation

Comments Filter:
  • Bad People (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MartyJG ( 41978 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @07:53AM (#2308500) Homepage
    As somebody wisely said on this list [keepersoflists.org] at KeepersOfLists.org [keepersoflists.org], 'Bad People Use the Internet for Stuff'. Bad People are always going to use the internet, the same as Bad People use cars, the telephone, postal service and even airplanes - but whatever regulations you introduce, it's always going to mean extra hassle for the honest people, while the Bad People just find some way round it.
    • Bad People are always going to use the internet, the same as Bad People use cars, the telephone, postal service and even airplanes - but whatever regulations you introduce, it's always going to mean extra hassle for the honest people, while the Bad People just find some way round it.

      The most obvious way around it is to use some other comminications technique.
      e.g. there is plenty of concern about firearms in the US, the result being that the hijackers used a different weapon...
      • Or, as is more obvious in South Africa, the government has made it more difficult to own or acquire personal firearms, which means that the hijacker with the illegal personal firearm has no resistance.

      • by Chundra ( 189402 )
        The most obvious way around it is to use some other comminications technique.

        As a Bad Person and ringleader of a midwestern Bad Person Underground Society Cell, I couldn't agree more. For the last several years we have been using carrier pigeons. We are currently training squirrels to provide ground communications, and are extremely happy with the results so far.

  • by Happy Monkey ( 183927 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @07:54AM (#2308502) Homepage
    ...weblog that solicited for volunteers to join Ossama bin Laden. ... B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity.



    Don't ban such activity! Encourage it, and then let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups, as they currently do with pedophile rings. A free and open society does not always have to hamper the abilities of the police. Sometimes it fosters an environment where it's easier for the authorities to check things out.

    • Don't ban such activity! Encourage it, and then let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups, as they currently do with pedophile rings.


      I agree with this. After all, exchange of information over public resources between people intent on performing evil only causes a problem if you aren't aware of the information. If you aren't aware, you wouldn't know what to ban anyway. No, you should instead use the information to your own advantage. If you know what they are going to do, you can stop them in their tracks.

    • Exactly. When laws are passed that make this sort of activity illegal, it is merely driven underground to avoid prosecution. When it's free and legal, it's much easier for the state/government police to potentially infiltrate it and prevent it from being useful in the long run.


      My $.02.

      • To which, may I add: criminals, as a group, tend to make mistakes; this is largely due to most of them being amateurs. (Talk to any veteran law enforcer: the truly "perfect" crime is a very rare beast, as are people who commit enough crimes to make a living at it. This is even moreso for, say, suicide bombers.) Discussing plans in the open, where police can observe or citizens can observe and relay to police, is one such mistake.
    • ...let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups, as they currently do with pedophile rings

      I'm not sure i feel comfortable with you comparing Islam to pedophile rings.
      • Islam, like all religions, seeks to push something distasteful and potentially dangerous on children too young to know any better.

        Sounds in many ways like pedophilia...

        Religion should be dealt with like sex, perfectly allowable for anyone to do anything they want, as long as it is consented to by all participants, and those participants are over the age of minority.
        • Now that's what I call flamebait!!!

          I'm an atheist, but your idea is patently ridiculous, as well as an absurd comparison. You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion.

          As a vegan with strong ethical views, I would be angry if the government forced me to bring up my child a meat-eater (unless he or she had a medical condition which necessitated eating meat - if there are any). In my personal opinion, neither meat-eating nor veganism is ethically neutral.

          So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic. To people with strong views on religion, there are no "neutral" positions.

          • (not-a-flame)

            You're both an atheist and an vegan you say? So, you deny the possible, however unlikely, existence of God(s), rather than choose the more logically neutral position of agnosticism; and you deny yourself the tender, juicy, delicious steaks that your canine teeth are in fact adapted for (evolutionary neutral) -- that's fine, more meat for us "belly-size-economizers". :-)

            Anyway, more to the point, if there's one thing us humans like to do above all else, it's imposing our self-righteous will on others, especially our children.

            The difference here is that our government is set up to NOT allow it to impose much of its will on free people (parents), but as parents are often fond of saying to their kids, "as long as you're living under my roof this is NOT a democracy!"

            ...as long as you're not raising, say, assassins...have at it! But when your kid rejects your attempt at a vegan indoctrination... don't be a dicktator. :)

            • So, you deny the possible, however unlikely, existence of God(s), rather than choose the more logically neutral position of agnosticism?

              Do you believe in invisible pink elephants hiding in your bedroom? I hope my point is clear.

              The difference here is that our government is set up to NOT allow it to impose much of its will on free people (parents), but as parents are often fond of saying to their kids, "as long as you're living under my roof this is NOT a democracy!"

              Heheh. True. That's well recognised.

              But what I find fascinating is how everyone (except socialists) seems to ignore the fact that democracy does not exist even among intelligent adults in most workplaces (except co-operatives and a few other places). It's as if the idea is too silly to even bring up. Well I don't think it is - I'm personally not particularly interested in making a profit, so if I were to start a business I might make it a non-profit democratic cooperative.

              But when your kid rejects your attempt at a vegan indoctrination...

              But maybe they won't - I've never heard of a child brought up as a vegan later giving it up. There could be some - but aren't all the surving members of the Phoenix family still vegan?

          • It's not flamebait, it's an opinion. Way to call for censorship.

            "You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion."

            I didn't claim to be able to.

            But the fact that it's impossible to totally stop pedophila and child abuse doesn't mean we don't try.

            "So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic."

            Yup. And I'm sure a molestor would be upset that he couldn't indulge.

            As an aside, you don't "bring a child up athiest", you simply don't bring them up religious and they end up athiest. Athiesm isn't a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from religion.

            "To people with strong views on religion, there are no 'neutral' positions."

            True, but why are the views of an adult more important that the safety of a child?
        • children too young to know any better

          That reminds me of this photo [lycos.com] I saw while rummaging through footage from the disaster. How old can this kid be? I bet he already knows what a jihad is.

    • Encourage it, and then let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups

      As long as you can assure me that the Feds are strictly prevented from engaging in entrapment, are not participating in promoting the evil activity in order to prove that they are not Feds, and as long as there are strict penalties for the agents who cross the line. I dislike the idea of government dollars being used to promote or encourage terrorism or pedophilia, even if it is part of an attempt to eliminate that stuff.

      I think my favorite fictional work related to this is "A Scanner Darkly" by Philip K. Dick. I also recall a recent article in a local weekly related to the idea that cops, in their efforts to bust street prostitutes are engaging in unthinkable behavior in order to get to a point where they have evidence enough to convict the prostitute (e.g. the hookers usually have some test that the cops have to pass, like performing a light sex act, before they will discuss the actual transaction).

      It is a dangerous area to tread, this infiltration stuff. And I would prefer that we rely on attempts to actually convert our enemies to our way of thinking than to simply deprive ourselves of our rights-- that way we'll have fewer enemies and a more attractive way of life.
  • Legislation is all fine and good, but many places have legislation which would prevent this. Canada has some pretty stiff hate crime laws, which would most likely apply. Trying to get every country on the same page is like herding cats (Katz?)
  • Fruitless (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @07:55AM (#2308509) Homepage
    There's a lot of things that are posted on the web which are objectionable, depending on your definition of objectionable. There are many things said in small groups of people that are objectionable. There are things said among large groups of people that are objectionable.


    Trying to censor a viewpoint, no matter how wrong the view point is, can not possibly work. If you manage to censor the web (nearly impossible - just go off and start a GeoCities page or my.yahoo page, then another and then another and...) you only move the hateful speech someplace else. Hate didn't originate with the world wide web, its been around for a very long time. It's always managed to find a forum and it always will.


    You're better off spending the funds that would be wasted on censorship on free books for libraries (especially grade school and high school libraries) in order to mold peoples brains into being more accepting of others.

  • It means that all cities should immediately be put under marshal law because terrorists meet in them. And if your mamby pamby concern for civil rights causes you to balk at this, you must surely agree that Montreal and Halifax (being obvious dens of iniquity) should be put under marshal law. In fact, I think we ought to nuke them, just for good measure, in case any more terrorists are hiding in them.

    • In fact, I think we ought to nuke them, just for good measure, in case any more terrorists are hiding in them.

      Well put, but you know that these folks trained in Florida. I never did like that state. Guilty, all of you are guilty!

  • B'nai Brith, ignoring their name sounding like a Star Trek baddie, are approaching this in the wrong way.

    There would be nothing stopping Osama Bin Laden using a server located in a country friendly to their cause, one that considers them 'right'. One mans murdering &$%#wit terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Short of modifying DNS tables for your country or running a statewide filter proxy there'd be little or no way to halt this internet activity.

    What they ought to concentrate on is teaching people that joining up with a band of weirdo rebels is simply stupid. Regulations are a good idea if they keep the more impressionable safer, but they only work on something you can actually control.

  • I doubt that babelfish would work on the muslim text. I'd really like to know if the B'nai B'rth are correct and that they (Islam Way) are actively seeking members. Maybe it's true, maybe it's propoganda to further the b'nai's cause. Either way, I just can't read it!
  • I can't believe... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MartinG ( 52587 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @08:09AM (#2308537) Homepage Journal
    .. that there are still people around these days who are stupid enough to believe that this kind of regulation can do any good at all. How many times do they need to be proven wrong, and how often do we need our rights reducing before these stupid (but well intending although angry) people realise they are WRONG?

    I fear they will not stop until we reach orwellian levels of monitoring, banning and regulation.

    I find it ironic that the US are moving more towards stopping technologies that are evil, (which incidentally is a complete nonsense in itself,) yet none of us would like to live under (for example) the rule of the Taleban. Look again at the Tabeban - all they do is ban, monitor and control things they think are "evil" - just the knod of action we are talking about here.

    The world needs to learn that people are good and bad. "Things" are indifferent. Banning or restricting "things" simply hides bad people from view. An interesting side effect that governments find useful from that is that it increases temporarily the perception of safety.
    4
    • "I fear they will not stop until we reach orwellian levels of monitoring, banning and regulation."

      Correct. And we recall from 1984 what happens even when they reach Big Brother levels of surveillance: they go after thoughts next.

      "How many times do they need to be proven wrong, and how often do we need our rights reducing before these stupid (but well intending although angry) people realise they are WRONG?"

      Since these people don't think they have been proven wrong yet, what makes you think they will stop? Even the victims of rights reductions often applaud their freedom being stripped away in the name of safety. If the average person doesn't even get the point, the people seeking to take rights away certainly don't see it.

      Politics is a method of self-selecting away those who would actually be qualified to lead.
  • I seriously doubt the authenticity of someone posting on a public noticeboard about joining the Jihad. It's most likely government agents, looking to round up the more gullible terrorists out there. Hopefully they aren't asking them to meet for training out the back of FBI headquarters though - a bit obvious.

    In the unlikely event that it is genuine, maybe boards like these could be a source of leads for the hunters...

    shut up man
  • Posts recruiting for bin Laden are, of course, not helpful. It would be better for everyone if they were taken down. But I think everyone here agrees that censorship powers should NOT be given to the government. So how can we (legally) get rid of such?

    (1) E-mail the ISP and ask for the message to be taken down. Self-policing of the Net!

    (2) Have the government request (without threatening anything) that the messages be taken down.

    (3) *ONLY IF SUCH ACTIVITY CONTINUES AND FORMS A PATTERN* _Gently_ suggest that if many messages of this type appear, the ISP could be under suspicion of *aiding the terrorists*. Do *not* even *think* about using any laws as curbs on freedom of speech or privacy. The government *will* be using every possible resource to track these sons of you-know-what down. But we should be sure that such powers do *not* spill over into other areas.
  • "B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity."

    We had a horrible thing happen recently.. WTC will not be forgotten -- especially since this day is bringing forth issues of civil rights. This is, of course, in Canada but we know it could happen here just as well.

    The sentence quoted above is one of the most troublesome ones... to say that you ban some activity is to say that it is illegal -- which is to say that someone will be monitoring data for illegal violations.

    Why did everyone push for Carnivore, crypto key escrow (or backdoors), etc? To "save the children!" We are going to see a lot more of this very quickly.. only this time its going to be for "saving America from Terrorism!"

    ... the bad thing is, of course, that these measures (at least if done quickly) will pass with support. The world is still in Hysteria mode and willing to do almost anything to make sure it doesnt happen again -- even remove the rights/privacy of every person.

  • http://english.islamway.com/article.php?sid=110

    According to this article, an individual posted the recruitment call in the message section while talking to another individual. They also say the canadian government has dismissed any action.
    • Before we all jump to any conclusions, read islamway's response first. If Timothy McVeigh had posted to a slashdot discussion about the right to bear arms and started recruiting young libertarians, would people have called for slashdot to be shut down?
    • It seems that the Islam Way is american as well. A quick lookup on them shows theat they are based in michigan as well.

      Billing Contact:
      Islamic Assembly of North America, IANA islamwaysite@hotmail.com
      3588 Playmouth Rd
      PMB #270
      Ann Arbor, MI 48105
      US
      7345280006

      And ARIN reports that their IP is American as well

      Dialtone, Inc. (NETBLK-DIALTONEINTERNET-2)
      4101 SW 47th Ave Suite 101
      Davie, FL 33314
      US

      So, looks like the FBI has more jurisdiction here.

  • Why try to actively censor the views of those who are promoting something objectionable? Why not use the money to set up a website that promotes the opposite viewpoint from a more objective and rational perspective? People don't want to be forced into believing something; they wanted to be persuaded. Spending money on persuading people, rather than silencing the opinions of some, and putting ones trust in Truth rather than in fear, is simply much more effective than any reactionary authoritative mandate.
  • I don't remember who, (I think i was thomas aquinas) said that nothuing is intrinsically evil. Why then do we automatically feel the need to ban, regulate, whatever, anything that may have been used by unsavory parties?

    -dcviper

  • stock exchanges instead?:
    FBI probes European short-selling-NEWS [google.com]

    Yes, and those stocks were unfortunately traded on European markets, which were indeed open last week.

  • If anyone says "I believe in the first amendment, BUT..." that person probably, at their core, doesn't. People ranting against hate crimes often fall in this camp.

    First, explicit incitement to riot is NOT protected by the first amendment. If a website picks some day and advocates some awful murderous thing on that day, I'm sure the FBI can legally take them out.

    Also, anyone involved in posting on a website or running one leaves a massive electronic trail, and if indeed is at some level involved, would make it vastly easier in my opinion to identify and locate. If there is a credible hate group out there, use their own web dealings to ID the members etc...

    With search engines, the amount of logs kept by web sites and isps, it's hard for me to figure out how running a website is a huge plus and not a gigantic potential liability for these hate groups. It that allows infiltration, monitoring, and detection. What's easier for the CIA to penetrate, a group of 10 planning in Afghanistan or an irc chat room? It's also even harder to see what banning this kind of speech would productively do, as it would do nothing to stop any actual use of the Internet for planning horific acts.
  • It's a jewish organization too that was suing Yahoo in France. You know, "they" can't be wrong, "they" were mass murdered.

    You can't say anything about jewish orgs, because then you're accused of antisemitism. In the mean time, Ariel Sharon is *assassinating* -- by his own admission! -- Palestinians.

    Do we see B'nai Brith or UEJF asking for the censorship of conservative Israëli newspapers or websites, no I don't think so.

    Dont get me wrong, I hate muslim fanatics as much as the next atheist guy, and arabs don't have a monopoly on dangerous loonies.

    Ariel Sharon is the biggest threat to peace in the middle east, and maybe in the whole world, after Bin Laden.

    • You can't say anything about jewish orgs, because then you're accused of antisemitism. In the mean time, Ariel Sharon is *assassinating* -- by his own admission! -- Palestinians.

      There is DEFINITELY a difference between being antisemitic and opposing a Jewish group, and many Jews will agree. If you oppose a Jewish group strictly because of the fact they're Jews, however, then that's antisemitism. If you disagree with their policies for a justifiable reason, then it's certainly not antisemitism. However, you have to keep in mind that groups like this are, in a way, obligated to hold to a higher moral standard than others. Why? Because if even a semi-valid reason (and I'm not denying any reasons to be anti-Israeli here) exists for opposing a special group (like B'nai Brith), then antisemites can now justifiy their actions. Instead of appearing to hate someone because they're Jewish, they can hate under the umbrella of a semi-valid reason. If it's a more valid reason, then all the more so. In other words, not all opposition to certain Jewish groups is antisemitic, as you say. But that fact in itself doesn't mean that antisemitism doesn't exist.

      Next, to your questioning of Sharon's assassinations. How does this differ from the Palestinian terrorist? The difference is two-fold. Firstly, Israel has an army and police units to (try to) prevent unruly crowds and attacks against random Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has no such organizations aimed to preserve civilian order. And secondly, the terrorists aim at random targets, usually innocent civilians, while the Israeli assassinations are aimed at specific terrorist threats. It's a deep philisophical argument whether such assassinations are justifiable. If you're damn sure someone's out to kill you, are you entitled to pre-emptively take them out first? John Norton Moore, who directs the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia's law school said, "If one is lawfully engaged in armed hostility, it is not 'assassination' to target individuals who are combatants." and Air Force Col. Charles J. Duncan Jr., also a military lawyer, said, "Contrary to popular belief, neither international law nor U.S. domestic law prohibits the killing of those directing armed forces in war." "Nations have the right under international law to use force against terrorists."

      Now regarding antisemitism, it is alive and well. Unfortunately Palestinians are being manipulated by their government to hate all Jews, and even to kill them. Notice in this following quote that it's not even Israelis they're being directed against, it's ALL Jews. I'm an American who's both Jewish and Buddhist. I don't know what I personally did to invoke the hatred of these guys, but when words like these are spoken, especially over radio/TV to massive quantities of people, you bet I'll take a stand against it.

      On Oct. 14, 2000, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, said this on Palestinian Authority television.
      "Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine."

      This is just one example, and there are many many more quotes like this. I believe it's highly irresponsible for government and religious figureheads to manipulate public opinions like this. But, as per your questions of antisemitism, quotes like this show it to be more prevalent than you'd perhaps like to think.

      • There is DEFINITELY a difference between being antisemitic and opposing a Jewish group, and many Jews will agree.
        If you oppose a Jewish group strictly because of the fact they're Jews, however, then that's antisemitism.
        If you disagree with their policies for a justifiable reason, then it's certainly not antisemitism.
        The problem is that when the criticism is justified, they still jump on the persecution bandwagon, and since decent people are scared shitless at being branded a nazi, not much people dares to criticise jews. The jews know that, and they therefore think they can get away with murder (which they do in Palestine anyways).
        • To this day, it is commonplace for agents running in Germany to be given cover stories of being Jewish, and Jewish names. Then, if stopped by a policeman for so much as not signaling a turn, they need only make an off hand comment about jews being persecuted in Germany, and they'll be sent on their way with a babbling apology. By the same token, disagree with a woman, risk being labed sexist.
    • No, I don't have anything to tell about France or French people.

      The only thing is that European press where he gets his information is EXTREMELY anti-Israel. It is especially true in French-speaking countries (I read some of the France Press news agency's articles in English among other sources). Reasons?
      1) There are a lot of Muslims in France - several millions;

      2) France is desperately trying to displace ex-USSR as "The biggest friend of Arabs"; this is why they scream histerically about "Israeli aggression", even though it's clear that Arafat started the new war there. They hope to get to these markets by lobbying Muslim interests and taking their side in the Arab-Israeli conflict (hopefully, you don't forget who has built a nuclear reactor for Saddam in the beginning of eighties).

      3) I don't think French in general are anti-Semitic, but France did not have a real denazification after the WW2. Even more, some famous French Nazi criminals were saved and harbored by the Catholic church.

      And this is the same France that was in Vietnam, Algiers and so on.
  • From wired:
    "Islamway is in no way responsible for the content of postings by private individuals", the notice (on Islamway website) said.

    From slashdot:
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

    From a lawyers view, what is the difference?

  • B'nai B'rith, while a good organization, with good goals, is misguided in this attempt.

    The problem is similar to that of Congress- Older people, without great knowledge of technology, and without being properly informed by people in posession of greate technological prowess.

    I haven't been belonged to a B'nai B'rith congregation in years, or else I would call them and write them pointing out their error.
  • CSIS != CISC (Score:4, Informative)

    by BMazurek ( 137285 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @08:39AM (#2308624)
    The Slashbox links to the CISC (Criminal Intelligence Service Canada), but the article text refers to CSIS (Canada Security Intelligence Service). Here is the real CSIS site. [csis.gc.ca]
  • Unfortunately, this is like so many gun control laws we have here in the States. They mean well, but in most (not all) cases, they limit the rights of the law-abiding, while the law-breaker could give a fig.

    While I understand the desire behind such legislation, I think it's a bit misguided. Once again, we assume that the bad guys will be deterred by legislation. They are going to be deterred by enforcement.

    This particular legislation, governing website content, is going to be very tough to enforce. Especially when it is so easy to set up your own server, have restricted areas, imbed messages in .gif files all under the guise of an online flower shop.

    Perhaps a better solution is to take advantage of the web's openess and freedom and set up a few stings. Yeah, that sucks too, but not as much as having joe government approving my content.
    • they limit the rights of the law-abiding, while the law-breaker could give a fig.

      Just for clarity - Americans have no Right to own guns. Not in the 'bill of rights' sense. It says:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      That is, if you are a member of a well regulated militia charged by the authority of your state (an autonomous and democratically elected, member of the Republic which is the United States of America), you may, if you are one of *those* people, keep and bear arms.

      Therefore, if you are a citizen, who intends to do something other than participate under the regulations of a militia who's duty it is to defend your state, in order to maintain its (being the *state's*) freedom, you do *NOT* have a right to have arms.

      I will not debate the value of the public owning arms to defend itself from lawbreakers, or of citizens defending themselves from the government, but it is certainly not a "American Right".

      It may be a good thing - it may not, i also have also debated the real value in keeping arms from Good People - i mean its not *good people* you have to worry about having arms - but as a matter of semantics, it is not really a "Right".

      I know the NRA thinks otherwise, but you really only need read your Bill of Rights to understand the issue - it is very clear.
  • Two-hundred-ten years of American history under the Bill of Rights show that one can protect public safety without putting limits on free expression.

    I don't know if there is an equivalent of the First Amendment under Canadian law, but I hope they consider the example of their neighbor to the south before they punish their citizens for what they say.
    • Freedom of speech is protected by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms


      2. Fundamental Rights
      Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
      (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
      (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;


      However Section 33 allows both federal and provincial governments to pass legislation that ignores Section 2 and Section 7-15 of the Charter


      33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

      The government uses this provision only in extreme cases (such as banning hate literature). It is not used lightly and it most certainly wouldn't be used in this case.
      • Thanks for posting that.

        I'm embarrased to say I'm no more knowledgeable about Canadian government than the stereotypical ignorant American. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.
      • 2. Fundamental Rights
        Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
        (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
        (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;


        One of the main issues with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that pretty much every right granted has an escape clause that allows it to be taken away. You have a right to free speech ... unless you offend someone. You have a right to communicate in whatever language you want ... unless a province overrides your rights (like Quebec). You have the right not to be discriminated against ... unless you are a white male.

        The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [justice.gc.ca] guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

        This is referred to by some as "The Mack Truck Clause". It's not truly clear whether "reasonable limits" are a strength or a weakness, but it is definitely subject to abuse.
  • I find it quite hypocritical that the sentiment on Slashdot seems to be that it is OK to bomb innocent civilians because they were celebrating about this tragedy, and on the other hand that it's not OK to arrest individuals who celebrate it online. Perhaps it's only because the "kill 'em all" sentiment was expressed closer to the tragedy, when less rational thought was being produced.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 17, 2001 @09:09AM (#2308714)
    Note: I tried to register but I always failed !

    Email me if you want : wael@islamway.com

    Hello,

    I read your post on SlashDot and I'd like for the sake of truth to clarify things to you ..

    Bna'i Brith attack on IslamWay.com was very strange, as a member and volunteer of IslamWay.com team I assure that the main objective of this website is teaching people about Islam, and we have nothing to do with politics.

    Then what's the story of terrorism ?!

    In IslamWay.com discussion board we've more than 4000 Member and at the time of the media attack there was more than 28,000 posts!! Bnai Brith didn't only take one of the posts but even took a statement out of context to proove that IslamWay.com is a terrorist website !

    Although a service provider is not responsable for what third parties write in their website, all the media started to attack IslamWay.com ( see : http://www.islamway.com/NYPost.htm )

    Was it really Invitation to kill others ?

    The discussion post was between two people who were fighting each others by words, one called the other one that you are a hypocrite, so the other one was very angry so he told him -I'm just giving the meaning- : Let's see who is the hypocrite, Come with me to Afghanistan and let's train ourselves there .. so the person meant that army excersises will be a way to proove who is the coward and who is the brave !!

    Which is a proof that this person is a sick person or at least a one with a child mind !

    The people who attacked IslamWay.com based on the Discussion Board post didn't clarify that it was mentioned in the discussion board, and they just said a post on IslamWay.com ..

    They didn't mention it's a fight between two people but they mentioned that it's an invitation !

    My message to the people who read the fake stories about IslamWay.com to go and visit it, and judge by your self.
    http://english.islamway.com

    Thanks,

    Wael
    • I am against censorship. I also consider all authoritarian creeds, esp. religions, vile. Islam is near the top of my objects of loathing list, because cultures that adopt it tend to also adopt many oppressive practices. I don't really care about you official dogma. I try to look at what you do. You maintain slavery in Africa. You essentially have recreated slavery for women in Afganistan. This is what Islam is. It isn't the words you speak. And it is vile.

      But I feel that you should have the right to speak. Because I hate all censorship. Be sure, if I approved of censoring any, I would approve of censoring authoritarians. Which definitely includes Islam.

      As to not terrorist ... try "supportive of terrorists". Any culture that holds slavery up as an ideal (cf. slave of Allah) is supportive of terrorism.

      • You essentially have recreated slavery for women in Afganistan. This is what Islam is.

        Funny thing is, before Islam, women in Arabia were treated even worse. One of the first things Mohammed did was outlaw the common practice going around of burying alive those who were unfortunate enough to be born female. Property laws before Islam completely disenfranchised women, they got nothing, ever. Women didn't exactly get parity under Islam, but it sure was a lot better than before.

        I don't think the taliban are being taught the same interpretations of the koran...
    • The B'Nai Brith Anti Defamation league is simply a group who agressively pursues anyone who dares contradict Israeli propaganda.

      Here in Australia, they claimed the Wesley Mission, a large church group who is well known for doing work with homeless people, prostitutes, gay folk, and anyone else (i.e, they are fairly well known for being non descriminatory), was `racist' because a minister expressed sympathy for the Palestinians after an attack. With an Australian sense of humor, I think most people reading about it found it quite hilarious, but if you're on the recieving end of their lawyers, I imagine you wouldn't.

      This fear is what keeps some of the more agressive Israel supporters in their positions. There's a well known Australian businessman who continually funds development of land on the west bank. There's a fair few people who would feel fairly uncomfortable knowing their money is going towards illegally expanding this country, who supports both torture and landmines, beyond its boundaries. Bnai Brith is designed to intimidate people who oppose these actions and the people who support them.
  • Islam Way [islamway.com] uses slash. Good work.

  • by sammy baby ( 14909 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @09:41AM (#2308850) Journal
    The entire story is based upon a posting by a private individual on Islamway's English language discussion board, in the context of an ongoing dialogue between two individuals. There are over 28,000 postings on the discussion board, with more than 34,000 visitors to the page everyday, and over 4,000 active members. Islamway is in no way responsible for the content of postings by private individuals, anymore than CNN.com or Yahoo! are responsible for the postings found on the discussion boards on their sites...A reporter from an Ottawa television station conveyed to Islamway staff that the Canadian authorities have dismissed the issue as baseless, and B'nai B'rith has refused any further comment.

    - IslamWay.com's response [islamway.com]

    So first, everyone relax. It wasn't like the owner of this site was actively recruiting.

    Second, it sounds like the Canadian government isn't interested in pursuing the issue, which is a relief.

    And third, I don't see anyone pulling for net regulation when assholes in our own country start shouting, "Nuke them sand-niggers back into the stone age! I'm gonna get me one tonight!"

    As a brief side note: I'd like to remind everyone that the people of Afghanistan live in terror of the Taliban [fancymarketing.net]. Please think of the ways they're suffering before blindly calling for their annihilation.

    • I normally try to avoid 'me too' posts, but since I don't have moderator status at the moment, well, damn, that was a well-spoken and insightful post.
  • I Don't Get It (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pagsz ( 450343 )
    I don't get this. I just don't see how the two are inter-connected. Someone help me out, because I must be an idiot. How does this:

    The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada is calling for stricter regulation of hate-related material on the Internet following Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

    fit with this:

    However, last year the CSIS issued a report in which it warned that "computers, modems and the Internet are enhancing the operational capabilities of terrorist organizations." The report cautioned, "Terrorists have improved their use of advanced technologies to protect and expedite lines of communication and funding, both nationally and internationally; this has increased the chances that planning for the next terrorist attack may not be detected."

    Here's my question: How do these connect? My understanding is this: Hate groups want their filth seen by as many people as possible, so they put it up in the open. Terrorist groups, execpt possibly in the area of recruiting, would want to stay as secretive as possible. You don't post your plans to a message board where it can be plainly seen by anyone . Even in the recruiting aspect, wouldn't publicly posting recruitments be counter-productive? "To join (Known Terrorist Group), meet at the corner of The Feds are Waiting For You Avenue and You Idiot Street in Montreal." Wouldn't this just make certain movents of the groups more traceable, even under current law? (There would certainly be probable cause).

    As far as terrorist communication via the internet goes, wouldn't most communications be done via direct e-mail? And tracking these communications would require serious privacy violations. (On a lighter note, it would be strange if a terrorist group was brought down because it got caught spamming)

    So, in summary, here's my point. I don't see how restricting speech (as despicable as most agree that it is) has any effect on a terrorist organization. This may be just because I am an idiot, so feel free to explain it to me.

    Confused and waiting for someone smart to explain it all to me,
  • ...is covered the latest edition of NOW magazine (an independent free weekly in Toronto). The opening paragraphs of the article [nowtoronto.com] read:
    It didn't take b'nai brith very long on Tuesday, mere hours after the horror struck New York, to oil its spin machine. The group, whose timing is shameless, issued "an urgent alert" to security officials, warning them about possible terrorist supporters making their way to Canada for a pro-Palestinian demonstration taking place Saturday (September 15) in Montreal."Today's terrorist attacks have emphasized the vulnerability of all democratic states in the face of the ruthless agenda of terrorist groups, those who fund them and those who provide them with logistic and moral support," says the press release, neatly tying mass murder at the World Trade Centre to protest against the Israeli occupation.

    Talk about guilt by association. The idea that thousands of terrorist symps were rushing across the border to carry placards at Concordia University was certainly news to Jewish and Arab peace activists who have worked together on the demo for a month now and have diligently outlawed the burning of the Israeli flag and speeches that incite hatred.

    Once again, the story appears in full here.
  • This kind of activity is already covered under existing conspiracy laws (conspiracy to commit (murder|crime|etc)) so why must we introduce yet another law?

    Legislators seem to think that just because the internet is "different" they need to duplicate the law books for it, or maybe they're just trying to find new and novel ways to justify their jobs.

    -- iCEBaLM
  • It's good to see... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jesseraf ( 230545 )
    It's good to see terrorist use opensource software too. Imagine the MS FUD now.....
  • On the one hand we are supposed to force Israel to stop defeding itself against terrorism and other hand the US now believes it is its holy fucking manifest destiny to wage war on the whole world in general and no one in particular.

    I'm suprised it took you wingnuts only a week to blame an attack by Arabs on the US, on the Jews. Why don't pull your antisemitic heads out of your asses and read what OBL has to say which is to punish moderate Islamic states like Saudi Arabia for allowing the infidel US on it's soil. He can't go after the Sauds directly because it would mean the destruction of his own family so he goes after the US who trained and armed him.

    But please continue, go back to blaming the Jews.
  • Why are so many people so foolish and short sighted? Banning free communication does nothing to thwart or eliminate evil deeds. I hate what terrorists have done to us as much as the next person, but we can't use that as an excuse to attack the public. So what if someone is asking for voluneers to become terrorists, I would think the fact that this was done in a public forum would provide law enforcement with valuable leads. Adding restrictions on what people can say because a few nuts are out there doesn't do anything to stop or kill the nuts, it just disenfrancishes the rest of us.

    Lee

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye

Working...