View Poll Results: Should Daryush Valizadeh be allowed to talk in Montreal Saturday?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, free speech means free speech

    8 80.00%
  • no, speech should be censored sometimes

    2 20.00%
  • I don't care, no opinion

    0 0%
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Should Daryush Valizadeh be allowed to talk in Montreal Saturday?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    deplorable basket case
    Posts
    337

    Should Daryush Valizadeh be allowed to talk in Montreal Saturday?

    Hate speaker better known as blogger Roosh V has a planned lecture in Montreal but is facing opposition from social activists who if anything have seemed to give him free publicity he never would have got otherwise.

    http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/controver...-him-1.2506694

    Curious to see where fellow merbers stand on the issue (anonymous).


    fyi, there are existing laws prohibiting hate speech
    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...-165.html#h-92

    319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

  2. #2
    A poor corrupt official
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    1,231
    Quote Originally Posted by PopeDover View Post
    Roosh V has a planned lecture in Montreal but is facing opposition from social activists...

    fyi, there are existing laws prohibiting hate speech
    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...-165.html#h-92

    319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    While the opinions and statements of Mr. "Roosh" may be distasteful, offensive and insulting to some people, such speech does not amount to "hate speech" as defined by Canadian law. The relevant legal standard in this case is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As has often been noted, the true test of whether you really believe in free speech is whether you support that right (or not) for those with whom you disagree.

    CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PART I

    CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

    Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
    Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

    1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 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.

    Fundamental Freedoms

    2. 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;
    • (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    • (d) freedom of association.
    Strasser: By the way, the murder of the couriers, what has been done?
    Renault: Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
    Heinze: We already know who the murderer is.
    Strasser: Good. Is he in custody?
    Renault: Oh, there's no hurry. Tonight he'll be at Rick's. Everybody comes to Rick's.

  3. #3
    It is getting ridiculous how activists are managing to silence speakers who disagree with them. Free speech doesn't mean much if you are only allowed to speak if everybody already agrees with you.
    I'm sure that Darwin would never have been allowed to open his mouth in public now.

    (I'm not comparing this stupid slimeball, Roosh, to Darwin, but I vehemently support his right to make a fool of himself in public.)

  4. #4
    It's a whole new ballgame
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Where I belong.
    Posts
    6,327
    Quote Originally Posted by PopeDover View Post
    Hate speaker better known as blogger Roosh V has a planned lecture in Montreal but is facing opposition from social activists who if anything have seemed to give him free publicity he never would have got otherwise.

    http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/controver...-him-1.2506694

    Curious to see where fellow merbers stand on the issue (anonymous).


    fyi, there are existing laws prohibiting hate speech
    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...-165.html#h-92

    319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Sounds like he's indictable to me. Misogyny is hate. Women are an identifiable group. Rape is a breach of the peace. Seems pretty simple to me.
    The mounties always get their man.

  5. #5
    Free speech is "limited". Hulk Hogan anyone. With a face like his, I understand why he feels the need to rape. Joke aside, Id like to side with AnonVlad, let him make a fool of himself. Im an adult (so my age says) and I can make the difference between bs and non bs but, I also think that some people cant make such a difference. He will surely influence some and disgust others. He seems to be making a living off of what he says and promotes, so we cant say hes harmless and just saying things to get attention. People buy his stuff and while some may take pieces and bits of advice, like in anything else, there are fans. Those are prolly the ones we would have to be careful about. And his thought on condoning private home rape is really the cherry on top. Really Moosh? So its basically like saying to women "get back to the kitchen or cave (depending on the country you live in) and dont get out of the house or else". All in all, if hes allowed to say anything he wants in the name of free speech, I can say to him "go die in a gutter from an infectious penile disease u fuck"

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    deplorable basket case
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by rumpleforeskiin View Post
    Sounds like he's indictable to me. Misogyny is hate. Women are an identifiable group. Rape is a breach of the peace. Seems pretty simple to me.

    Agreed except for the it's simple part. Besides the (conflicting?) Fundamental Freedoms law cited by Capt, it seems complicated because you're talking about using real physical violence just to prevent sounds coming out of someone's mouth. I personally couldn't hold a gun to someone's head to get them to shut up. I'm usually too much of a pussy to even ask nicely. It seems messed up that the people that already have the moral high ground in this case are giving it up to a hateful person by leveraging their current media sympathies and using hired guns.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by rumpleforeskiin View Post
    Sounds like he's indictable to me. Misogyny is hate. Women are an identifiable group. Rape is a breach of the peace. Seems pretty simple to me.
    I believe that he should have the right to argue for any change in the law, including the legalization of rape. I also believe that he should set an example by declaring that he, his mother and father and any other of his relatives will submit to being raped and not lay charges.

    Factoid: Until fairly recently, a wife could not lay rape charges against her husband in Canada.

  8. #8
    A poor corrupt official
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    1,231
    "Roosh" is a provocateur, a firebrand. He says and writes outrageous things in a calculated, intentional way to provoke his opponents. He is Donald Trump or Al Sharpton on steroids. He is a male version of Andrea Dworkin. He is seeking attention and Montreal is giving him exactly what he wants in a big way.
    Strasser: By the way, the murder of the couriers, what has been done?
    Renault: Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
    Heinze: We already know who the murderer is.
    Strasser: Good. Is he in custody?
    Renault: Oh, there's no hurry. Tonight he'll be at Rick's. Everybody comes to Rick's.

  9. #9

  10. #10
    "Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace."

    Being distasteful is not 'inciting hatred' in my opinion. And, really? Does anyone honestly believe that a man whose 'followers' are too shy to talk to women without the aid of a workshop are going to create a 'breach of the peace' ? Unlikely.

  11. #11
    I think they should let him speak. And arrest him on stage if he says something that is considered hate speech.

    The thing that bothers me about this:

    1) People criticizing him about his dating "advice". There are numerous so-called pick-up artists online. Some (women and men alike) might find it distasteful, but it's subjective. They give "advice" on things like: how to approach women, should you text them or not, how frequently, how many times should you ask them on a date or should you play hard to get? Pretty harmless stuff, whether it works or not. The majority of them don't advocate forcing themselves on a woman. On that basis alone, I don't see anything objectionable to his visit. If that's your basis for wanting him banned in the country, it's missing the point.

    2) The point is that he clearly said that rape should be legal. This is an endorsement of a hate crime. Is it promotion of hate crimes? Is it encouraging people to do it? Is it illegal? I'm not a lawyer nor an expert on the charter of freedom/bill of rights, I don't know. But this is the point of contention here, and promotion of rape or any type of hate crime is unacceptable in this country, and unacceptable in the US as well.

    3) This is all great advertising for someone who feeds off of controversy. This sucks. But in this day and age, it might be easy to stir outrage and benefit from the publicity, but you can be forgotten very, very fast.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •