Richard White
Senior Member
No but my point is we are not the only place banning them.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Richard White
- Start date
No but my point is we are not the only place banning them.
narduch
Senior Member
So you found 1 country. And it's one also being run by a fascist piece of shit.
Hardly making a strong point here
Mihairokov
Active Member
This has to do with the band calling for the killing of MPs, no?
narduch
Senior Member
I thought it was for waving a flag
zang
Senior Member
Except that Mamdani had 44% of the first-choice round, against a well-known, well-funded candidate. The fact that Cuomo couldn't beat that first round all but guaranteed it was going to be Mamdani, regardless of whether it was FPTP or ranked.
Yes, maybe Mamdani would not have entered had it not been ranked ballot, but the man seemed pretty determined to enter it to begin with.
The same with Ranked Ballots. As I said, they make sense in races where proportions aren't needed, but certainly aren't fair when parties or multiple regions are involved.
Sure, but the last election was much a reactionary one, a vote for the guy people thought would stand up most to Trump. This by-election has almost no stakes, it's not going to fundamentally change parliament, and thus no reason for strategic voting. And I'll point out, the runner up in 3 out of 4 of the past elections in U-R has been NDP.
picard102
Senior Member
No, it has to do with pressure from groups like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and B’nai Brith who are calling this a victory.
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
What do you mean by terror organizations? I keep seeing "terror" or "terrorist" being bantered around particularly by far right and authoritarian interests it's pretty much a /dog whistle that's lost all real meaning and is no longer a really helpful term right now, IMO. I'm becoming more surprised anyone reasonable is using it outside of suppressing folks whose opinions don't align with those in power.
...the same with "hate speech" too.
narduch
Senior Member
It's the tactic being used to white wash Israel's genocide.
The Canadian government is complicit (this starter under Trudeau by the way)
Mihairokov
Active Member
Harper. Wasn't it Peter Kent that said an attack on Israel was an attack on Canada? Trudeau continued with Harper government Israel policy.
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
Harper was also in that "Israel has right to defend itself" camp. I mean they sure do, but so does everyone else. Follow by, that doesn't mean "By any means necessary" there, bub...
...but I am not sure that's as important here, as they where all complicit in varying degrees when they all should of known better. And here we are today. /sigh
EBT
Active Member
No, they are not promoting hate speech or supporting terror organizations. They are condemning the actions of Israel in Gaza and, in particular, the IDF, which has committed and is continuing to commit countless war crimes too numerous to mention. You must be conflating criticism of Israel with "antisemitism" or something.
Who are the real terrorists? If you ask me, the real terrorists are the ones dropping 2000lb bombs on tents where families are sheltering, blowing babies to bits. The real terrorists are the ones sniping little kids in the head as they play. The real terrorists are the people summarily executing medics and food aid workers. The real terrorists are the ones shooting at starving people who are lined up to receive food aid. The real terrorists are the ones targeting for assassination 270 journalists and counting (including a Canadian). The real terrorists are the ones bombing hospitals and on and on, and they are nuclear armed!
Last edited:
EBT
Active Member
Israel has a right of self-defense, but as an occupying power, its rights and obligations are different from other countries.
Under international law, particularly the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, the concept of self-defense is reserved for sovereign states facing an armed attack. Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms this right.
However, when a state is acting as an occupying power, its legal obligations shift:
1. Right of Self-Defense
A state does not lose its right to self-defense simply because it is occupying territory, but that right must be exercised within the bounds of international humanitarian law—especially the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians under occupation.
2. Limits on Use of Force
An occupying power must maintain public order and safety, but it cannot use disproportionate or indiscriminate force.
It must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and avoid collective punishment, which is explicitly prohibited.
Of course, Israel has completely ignored international law. It is acting as a lawless rogue state. Who is going to stop them? Trump? He could stop the carnage with one phone call, but he won't, of course. And God help you if you protest against Israel's actions in Gaza in Canada, because you can be locked up under Carney's proposed "hate crime" laws.
Putting the legalities aside, my question is, why didn't Israel defend itself on 10/7? According to reports in Israeli media (which I follow daily), there was a 7-hour delay in responding. IDF soldiers have told local media on camera that there was a stand-down order. When the IDF was fully activated, why didn't they send special troops directly into Gaza to recover the hostages and kill the intruders? Instead, they spent months carpet-bombing Gaza until it was pulverized before sending in IDF troops. And then there is this little thing called the Hannibal Directive, widely reported in the Israeli media. Google it if you don't know. Here is a link from Haaretz: https://archive.ph/CFFQU.
Finally, it's very clear what Israel's objectives are. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich just said the quiet part out loud.
Last edited:
EBT
Active Member
Just adding to my post above, this is Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, about a year ago, speaking about Gaza. This is one of the key persons who is shaping Trump's decisions on Gaza. I suspect Steve Witkoff is another influential advisor, and of course, Ivanka. They see Gaza as a real estate bonanza.
Slumlord Jared Kushner: "I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up."
Slumlord Jared Kushner: "I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up."
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
Whether Kneecap promotes hate speech and/or terrorism that's up for individuals to decide and not governments...
...I mean this sitting government didn't seem to have an issue giving a standing ovation for Kirk's eulogizing on the Common's floor the other day, who had a history of promoting stuff that would likely fall under hate speech and promoting terrorism using their definitions. So I am not sure why this would be any different here...outside of political expediency.
...I mean this sitting government didn't seem to have an issue giving a standing ovation for Kirk's eulogizing on the Common's floor the other day, who had a history of promoting stuff that would likely fall under hate speech and promoting terrorism using their definitions. So I am not sure why this would be any different here...outside of political expediency.
