Muslim woman thrown out of Trump rally; group seeks apology

[thaibeachlovers]

This OP's premise is the apology requested by CAIR CAIR is the facade of islamic jihad/Lawfare Jihad in America

CAIR is not an "advocacy group" (not in the manner this deceitful byline suggests). CAIR is a front group with the express goal of sedition- the overthrow of the United States of America. 1. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorism- FBI. 2. CAIR just lost a lawsuit (most points) because an employee exposed CAIR and co wrote a book called "Muslim Mafia." CAIR asserts mercenary motives of the employee should stop book publishing. The courts ruled that such a motive, if true, does not immunize CAIR from the points raised in the book- it is a "Muslim Mafia," (my emphasis). 3. Other nations have recognized and banned CAIR as an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood's Civilization Jihad. 4. CAIR and the MB are uniquely aided and abetted by the Obama administration (this is beyond dispute), to include lifting travel restrictions on MB terrorists et al to enter the US unhindered, appointing Muslim Brotherhood member to the highest levels of Homeland Security.

Paying attention to the invention and development of this issue reveals all one needs to know about the mechanics of the Muslim Mafia in America. They consistently use the power of foreign monies to leverage enemies in protracted court battles to a) silence opposition to their Civilization Jihad, B ) force compliance or capitulation on islamic accommodations, and C) use legal mechanics to force "discovery" of their enemies knowledge/documents. (In fact, this last point was the singular reason CAIR had their arse handed to them in the courts for repeatedly refusing themselves to comply with discovery as they attempted to sue/Lawfare the authors of the book, "Muslim Mafia."

Americans/UK and Europeans had better wake up: CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood are not your friends and are certainly not "advocates" for anything wholesome and American/British/Western/Enlightened/Modern/Liberal. How foolish can one possibly be? These are not "advocacy" groups, not for any end you want your children inheriting. The Muslim Brotherhood is not to Islam what the Illuminati is to the NWO theorists- the Muslim Brotherhood is an overt (and covert) organization with the avowed goal of islamically globalizing the world and restoring the Kaliphah. No secrets here, only self delusion and self dhimmitude.

Understand the network and where CAIR fits into this longstanding seditious plan to overthrow America. It is a bold as it is repulsive.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6176

http://www.clarionproject.org/Muslim_Brotherhood_Explanatory_Memorandum#

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/17/us-group-cair-added-to-terror-list-by-united-arab-emirates.html

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1854/doj-cairs-unindicted-co-conspirator-status-legit#

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/122.pdf

By legal definition, what you have said is hate speech. Incomprehensibly hypocritical from someone who just a few days ago alleged that only the Left uses illogical, fallacious and emotional language against their political foes. You long list of websites does not include http://www.anti-cair-net.org Why not? Is that too obviously a nexus of recognisable hate speech.

1. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorism. Clearly you have no evidence except slander otherwise they would be indicted. CAIR is an entity which is not responsible for the actions of individual members or associates, only for what the governing body does in its name. You should either present evidence of the involvement of CAIR in terrorism or withdraw the slander.

2. CAIR tried to suppress a 'tell all' book by a disgruntled former associate and lost the court case. The fact that CAIR was not successful in suppressing the book does not immediately validate the entire contents of that book. The attempt of suppression is no different from other organisations that want to manage their brand and the fact that they lost is a victory for the courts and free speech in America. However you use this as a vindication of the term Muslim Mafia. What does this mean? Well clearly you are making implications but with no substance. Perhaps you might provide the definition of Muslim Mafia used by the author of the said book so that people can determine the context for such incendiary speech?

3. Which nations have banned CAIR and for what reason under what laws? Do you mean Israel? Why should anyone just take what you are saying at face value?

4. Neither CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt has been classified as a terrorist organisation by anyone apart from Ted Cruz and his sort of 'people'. Why should there be travel restrictions? Why should not the US administration be in dialogue with the muslim brotherhood? It is called diplomacy. They did, after all, win an election in Egypt. So we come once more to your tautology. I say CAIR is a terrorist organisation. Consequently Obama supports terrorism because he engaged with CAIR etc etc.

You construct elaborate arguments based on what you call self evidentiary positions and regard anything contrary to this as fallacious. Muslims are citizens of the United States. They have the same protections as all other citizens. They may organise advocacy groups. They may engage in political speech and political protest. They may even bear arms if they pass the background checks. People involved in hate speech against any group attempt to de-legitimize such groups as a way to strip them of lawful protections. There is nothing new about this. However, counter-intuitively, history has demonstrated that positive outcomes can be derived from allowing dissent, from engaging with opponents and antagonists in productive ways and demonstrating respect to all persons. Your way leads to conflict, I am afraid. People who engage in hate speech, generally out of fear, end up producing the outcomes which they fear the most. It seems it doesn't matter how highly educated a person is or how articulate they are in their expression, if they have no intrinsic respect for others, then their analysis and conclusions will always be flawed.

If you want to experience real hatred, go to Saudi and preach Christianity in a public place.

The woman the OP is about was practicing silent hate ( speech ) against Trump by protesting in the middle of his supporters, and hoping to get abused to use against him.

Anyway, hateful or not, it's legal to say it in the US.

Trump does not owe that stirrer an apology. He may not even have known it was happening- how many people were there?

That woman was lucky to be able to walk out, and had she not been removed might have been taken out on a stetcher.

I thought it pointless replying to Arjunamawn's response since it would take too much time to go point by point and clearly any response would not be accepted. However on your reply, I take issue with a few things.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries (I presume you mean 'Christian' countries even though I do not believe these legally exist)? I generally see responses to that issues being emotional and ideological, not rational. That a Western Liberal democracy allows Muslims to worship in mosques in their country has entirely no relationship to or bearing on what Saudi Arabia does in terms of reciprocity. You may argue for reciprocity on the grounds of moral equivalency. I would probably agree with you and try and support your arguments. I do not believe, therefore that you can use the moral equivalency argument in your efforts to propagate anti-Muslim sentiment.

The second thing that I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech. There are many definitions around. People can and do argue the details, intent and meaning of these definitions. Here's one "... speech that attracts, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate-speech The Wikipedia definition introduces the idea of 'protected groups'. Other nuances are reflected in other definitions. By definition then, I cannot see any way that protest or oral or written speech against hate speech being in any way able to be called hate speech in and of itself. It is a logical impossibility. A fallacy.

Was she provocative? Yes. Was she engaging in risky behaviour? Yes. Did she have the right to do it? Yes, despite the inane and specious arguments about the application of property rights law in relation so who rents the building. But the fact that you didn't like it or don't agree with it by no means classifies this as hate speech. It represents a fundamental lack of understanding or willingness to understand and acknowledge what minorities and oppressed people are actually saying; what they actually mean. Their voices, already institutionally oppressed, are further marginalised by the complete unwillingness to assign any legitimacy to what is being said or how it is being said. Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that muslim people are terrorists is hate speech by definition.Ignoring and oppressing opposing views may be good for his ratings and appeal among the blue collar old man set but it only exacerbates the divide and diviciveness.

That stirrer, the one who has been excoriated by many old white men with exhortations of physical violence against here, is a brave person exercising her constitutional rights as an American. Long may she and others do so.

I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech.

To accept your premise, I would have to accept that Trump is using hate speech and I do not. There is nothing hateful in asking for a pause in Muslim immigration till satisfactory screening is set up, or saying that there are bad people among ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants.

I do accept that the woman had the right to protest, but Trump's security had the right to remove her, as she was not in a public space

Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that Muslim people are terrorists

There you go, SELECTIVELY quoting Trump. Even Obama could be made to be saying hateful things by selectively quoting him. Your problem is that everyone can look up what he actually said and see that you are not telling the whole story, which renders your point meaningless.

Constitutional rights- yes indeed, just as Trump has a constitutional right to say whatever he likes, even if others don't like it. It is their right not to like it, but they have no right to demand Trump stop saying it.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries.

I use the equivalency that Muslims claim that western countries are discriminating against them on the basis of religion, when the foremost Islamic country in the world is discriminating against Christians on the basis of religion all the time. Pots and kettles come to mind.

[lostboy]

If you want to experience real hatred, go to Saudi and preach Christianity in a public place.

The woman the OP is about was practicing silent hate ( speech ) against Trump by protesting in the middle of his supporters, and hoping to get abused to use against him.

Anyway, hateful or not, it's legal to say it in the US.

Trump does not owe that stirrer an apology. He may not even have known it was happening- how many people were there?

That woman was lucky to be able to walk out, and had she not been removed might have been taken out on a stetcher.

I thought it pointless replying to Arjunamawn's response since it would take too much time to go point by point and clearly any response would not be accepted. However on your reply, I take issue with a few things.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries (I presume you mean 'Christian' countries even though I do not believe these legally exist)? I generally see responses to that issues being emotional and ideological, not rational. That a Western Liberal democracy allows Muslims to worship in mosques in their country has entirely no relationship to or bearing on what Saudi Arabia does in terms of reciprocity. You may argue for reciprocity on the grounds of moral equivalency. I would probably agree with you and try and support your arguments. I do not believe, therefore that you can use the moral equivalency argument in your efforts to propagate anti-Muslim sentiment.

The second thing that I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech. There are many definitions around. People can and do argue the details, intent and meaning of these definitions. Here's one "... speech that attracts, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate-speech The Wikipedia definition introduces the idea of 'protected groups'. Other nuances are reflected in other definitions. By definition then, I cannot see any way that protest or oral or written speech against hate speech being in any way able to be called hate speech in and of itself. It is a logical impossibility. A fallacy.

Was she provocative? Yes. Was she engaging in risky behaviour? Yes. Did she have the right to do it? Yes, despite the inane and specious arguments about the application of property rights law in relation so who rents the building. But the fact that you didn't like it or don't agree with it by no means classifies this as hate speech. It represents a fundamental lack of understanding or willingness to understand and acknowledge what minorities and oppressed people are actually saying; what they actually mean. Their voices, already institutionally oppressed, are further marginalised by the complete unwillingness to assign any legitimacy to what is being said or how it is being said. Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that muslim people are terrorists is hate speech by definition.Ignoring and oppressing opposing views may be good for his ratings and appeal among the blue collar old man set but it only exacerbates the divide and diviciveness.

That stirrer, the one who has been excoriated by many old white men with exhortations of physical violence against here, is a brave person exercising her constitutional rights as an American. Long may she and others do so.

I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech.

To accept your premise, I would have to accept that Trump is using hate speech and I do not. There is nothing hateful in asking for a pause in Muslim immigration till satisfactory screening is set up, or saying that there are bad people among ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants.

I do accept that the woman had the right to protest, but Trump's security had the right to remove her, as she was not in a public space

Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that Muslim people are terrorists

There you go, SELECTIVELY quoting Trump. Even Obama could be made to be saying hateful things by selectively quoting him. Your problem is that everyone can look up what he actually said and see that you are not telling the whole story, which renders your point meaningless.

Constitutional rights- yes indeed, just as Trump has a constitutional right to say whatever he likes, even if others don't like it. It is their right not to like it, but they have no right to demand Trump stop saying it.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries.

I use the equivalency that Muslims claim that western countries are discriminating against them on the basis of religion, when the foremost Islamic country in the world is discriminating against Christians on the basis of religion all the time. Pots and kettles come to mind.

Whether you are inclined to accept Trumps comments as hate speech or not is irrelevant. Making it the foundation of your response is useless. Why bother countering any point when someone says point blank that I do not accept something. You just want to use polemic on the anti-Trump crowd? Fine, do it without me. However, you respond as if this was an actual discussion. So this is somewhat confounding.

I provided two references to definitions of hate speech. If you are to reject the premise that Trump's comments are hate speech, by definition, surely you would reference that against the definitions provided. A unilateral declaration that something is not so is ok for deities, military dictators and some self absorbed billionaires but not really adequate for some expat in Thailand.

Of course I was selective in my references to Trump's comments. What do you think? He has said so much crap that you have to edit it Why would I use his comments about him being a very rich man, or Megan Kelly's period, or Jeb's energy levels? I am referencing hate speech. I will, of course, use examples of hate speech. Thank you for offering your analysis of what my problem is. I would reply by saying please kindly stick it up your clacker. Those people searching for examples of Trump speech as hate speech will take exactly nano seconds to find examples. Such examples include 'Arab Americans in New Jersey cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11'; 'Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists'; 'Muslims should be banned from the US' solely because of their religion.

The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III

There is a third definition for you. These definitions establish for me that Trump's comments are hate speech by definition. Maybe you can try and deal with that instead of making a unilateral declaration that they are not on the basis of whatever is evacuating from your bowels at that moment.

I could try and argue the moral equivalency issue but it is clear that you just don't get it or wilfully refuse to acknowledge it. So there is no point. No matter. Not everyone is able to keep u on all points. But I do find it quite useless engaging in a 'he said, she said' tit for tat ad infinitum. I believe I have demonstrated my point against specific and referenced definitions; multiple definitions. If you can't argue against that with anything but 'I won't accept this because I say so', then there really is not much point doing anything further.

[chuckd]

If you want to experience real hatred, go to Saudi and preach Christianity in a public place.

The woman the OP is about was practicing silent hate ( speech ) against Trump by protesting in the middle of his supporters, and hoping to get abused to use against him.

Anyway, hateful or not, it's legal to say it in the US.

Trump does not owe that stirrer an apology. He may not even have known it was happening- how many people were there?

That woman was lucky to be able to walk out, and had she not been removed might have been taken out on a stetcher.

I thought it pointless replying to Arjunamawn's response since it would take too much time to go point by point and clearly any response would not be accepted. However on your reply, I take issue with a few things.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries (I presume you mean 'Christian' countries even though I do not believe these legally exist)? I generally see responses to that issues being emotional and ideological, not rational. That a Western Liberal democracy allows Muslims to worship in mosques in their country has entirely no relationship to or bearing on what Saudi Arabia does in terms of reciprocity. You may argue for reciprocity on the grounds of moral equivalency. I would probably agree with you and try and support your arguments. I do not believe, therefore that you can use the moral equivalency argument in your efforts to propagate anti-Muslim sentiment.

The second thing that I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech. There are many definitions around. People can and do argue the details, intent and meaning of these definitions. Here's one "... speech that attracts, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate-speech The Wikipedia definition introduces the idea of 'protected groups'. Other nuances are reflected in other definitions. By definition then, I cannot see any way that protest or oral or written speech against hate speech being in any way able to be called hate speech in and of itself. It is a logical impossibility. A fallacy.

Was she provocative? Yes. Was she engaging in risky behaviour? Yes. Did she have the right to do it? Yes, despite the inane and specious arguments about the application of property rights law in relation so who rents the building. But the fact that you didn't like it or don't agree with it by no means classifies this as hate speech. It represents a fundamental lack of understanding or willingness to understand and acknowledge what minorities and oppressed people are actually saying; what they actually mean. Their voices, already institutionally oppressed, are further marginalised by the complete unwillingness to assign any legitimacy to what is being said or how it is being said. Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that muslim people are terrorists is hate speech by definition.Ignoring and oppressing opposing views may be good for his ratings and appeal among the blue collar old man set but it only exacerbates the divide and diviciveness.

That stirrer, the one who has been excoriated by many old white men with exhortations of physical violence against here, is a brave person exercising her constitutional rights as an American. Long may she and others do so.

I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech.

To accept your premise, I would have to accept that Trump is using hate speech and I do not. There is nothing hateful in asking for a pause in Muslim immigration till satisfactory screening is set up, or saying that there are bad people among ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants.

I do accept that the woman had the right to protest, but Trump's security had the right to remove her, as she was not in a public space

Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that Muslim people are terrorists

There you go, SELECTIVELY quoting Trump. Even Obama could be made to be saying hateful things by selectively quoting him. Your problem is that everyone can look up what he actually said and see that you are not telling the whole story, which renders your point meaningless.

Constitutional rights- yes indeed, just as Trump has a constitutional right to say whatever he likes, even if others don't like it. It is their right not to like it, but they have no right to demand Trump stop saying it.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries.

I use the equivalency that Muslims claim that western countries are discriminating against them on the basis of religion, when the foremost Islamic country in the world is discriminating against Christians on the basis of religion all the time. Pots and kettles come to mind.

Whether you are inclined to accept Trumps comments as hate speech or not is irrelevant. Making it the foundation of your response is useless. Why bother countering any point when someone says point blank that I do not accept something. You just want to use polemic on the anti-Trump crowd? Fine, do it without me. However, you respond as if this was an actual discussion. So this is somewhat confounding.

I provided two references to definitions of hate speech. If you are to reject the premise that Trump's comments are hate speech, by definition, surely you would reference that against the definitions provided. A unilateral declaration that something is not so is ok for deities, military dictators and some self absorbed billionaires but not really adequate for some expat in Thailand.

Of course I was selective in my references to Trump's comments. What do you think? He has said so much crap that you have to edit it Why would I use his comments about him being a very rich man, or Megan Kelly's period, or Jeb's energy levels? I am referencing hate speech. I will, of course, use examples of hate speech. Thank you for offering your analysis of what my problem is. I would reply by saying please kindly stick it up your clacker. Those people searching for examples of Trump speech as hate speech will take exactly nano seconds to find examples. Such examples include 'Arab Americans in New Jersey cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11'; 'Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists'; 'Muslims should be banned from the US' solely because of their religion.

The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III

There is a third definition for you. These definitions establish for me that Trump's comments are hate speech by definition. Maybe you can try and deal with that instead of making a unilateral declaration that they are not on the basis of whatever is evacuating from your bowels at that moment.

I could try and argue the moral equivalency issue but it is clear that you just don't get it or wilfully refuse to acknowledge it. So there is no point. No matter. Not everyone is able to keep u on all points. But I do find it quite useless engaging in a 'he said, she said' tit for tat ad infinitum. I believe I have demonstrated my point against specific and referenced definitions; multiple definitions. If you can't argue against that with anything but 'I won't accept this because I say so', then there really is not much point doing anything further.

"The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III"

I hate to bust your bubble, Sam, but none of this is taking place in the UK. What constitutes hate speech in the UK would very likely be considered free speech in the US.

Now if you can provide a pertinent section of US law that covers your argument, I am certain we will listen.

[lostboy]

I thought it pointless replying to Arjunamawn's response since it would take too much time to go point by point and clearly any response would not be accepted. However on your reply, I take issue with a few things.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries (I presume you mean 'Christian' countries even though I do not believe these legally exist)? I generally see responses to that issues being emotional and ideological, not rational. That a Western Liberal democracy allows Muslims to worship in mosques in their country has entirely no relationship to or bearing on what Saudi Arabia does in terms of reciprocity. You may argue for reciprocity on the grounds of moral equivalency. I would probably agree with you and try and support your arguments. I do not believe, therefore that you can use the moral equivalency argument in your efforts to propagate anti-Muslim sentiment.

The second thing that I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech. There are many definitions around. People can and do argue the details, intent and meaning of these definitions. Here's one "... speech that attracts, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate-speech The Wikipedia definition introduces the idea of 'protected groups'. Other nuances are reflected in other definitions. By definition then, I cannot see any way that protest or oral or written speech against hate speech being in any way able to be called hate speech in and of itself. It is a logical impossibility. A fallacy.

Was she provocative? Yes. Was she engaging in risky behaviour? Yes. Did she have the right to do it? Yes, despite the inane and specious arguments about the application of property rights law in relation so who rents the building. But the fact that you didn't like it or don't agree with it by no means classifies this as hate speech. It represents a fundamental lack of understanding or willingness to understand and acknowledge what minorities and oppressed people are actually saying; what they actually mean. Their voices, already institutionally oppressed, are further marginalised by the complete unwillingness to assign any legitimacy to what is being said or how it is being said. Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that muslim people are terrorists is hate speech by definition.Ignoring and oppressing opposing views may be good for his ratings and appeal among the blue collar old man set but it only exacerbates the divide and diviciveness.

That stirrer, the one who has been excoriated by many old white men with exhortations of physical violence against here, is a brave person exercising her constitutional rights as an American. Long may she and others do so.

I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech.

To accept your premise, I would have to accept that Trump is using hate speech and I do not. There is nothing hateful in asking for a pause in Muslim immigration till satisfactory screening is set up, or saying that there are bad people among ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants.

I do accept that the woman had the right to protest, but Trump's security had the right to remove her, as she was not in a public space

Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that Muslim people are terrorists

There you go, SELECTIVELY quoting Trump. Even Obama could be made to be saying hateful things by selectively quoting him. Your problem is that everyone can look up what he actually said and see that you are not telling the whole story, which renders your point meaningless.

Constitutional rights- yes indeed, just as Trump has a constitutional right to say whatever he likes, even if others don't like it. It is their right not to like it, but they have no right to demand Trump stop saying it.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries.

I use the equivalency that Muslims claim that western countries are discriminating against them on the basis of religion, when the foremost Islamic country in the world is discriminating against Christians on the basis of religion all the time. Pots and kettles come to mind.

Whether you are inclined to accept Trumps comments as hate speech or not is irrelevant. Making it the foundation of your response is useless. Why bother countering any point when someone says point blank that I do not accept something. You just want to use polemic on the anti-Trump crowd? Fine, do it without me. However, you respond as if this was an actual discussion. So this is somewhat confounding.

I provided two references to definitions of hate speech. If you are to reject the premise that Trump's comments are hate speech, by definition, surely you would reference that against the definitions provided. A unilateral declaration that something is not so is ok for deities, military dictators and some self absorbed billionaires but not really adequate for some expat in Thailand.

Of course I was selective in my references to Trump's comments. What do you think? He has said so much crap that you have to edit it Why would I use his comments about him being a very rich man, or Megan Kelly's period, or Jeb's energy levels? I am referencing hate speech. I will, of course, use examples of hate speech. Thank you for offering your analysis of what my problem is. I would reply by saying please kindly stick it up your clacker. Those people searching for examples of Trump speech as hate speech will take exactly nano seconds to find examples. Such examples include 'Arab Americans in New Jersey cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11'; 'Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists'; 'Muslims should be banned from the US' solely because of their religion.

The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III

There is a third definition for you. These definitions establish for me that Trump's comments are hate speech by definition. Maybe you can try and deal with that instead of making a unilateral declaration that they are not on the basis of whatever is evacuating from your bowels at that moment.

I could try and argue the moral equivalency issue but it is clear that you just don't get it or wilfully refuse to acknowledge it. So there is no point. No matter. Not everyone is able to keep u on all points. But I do find it quite useless engaging in a 'he said, she said' tit for tat ad infinitum. I believe I have demonstrated my point against specific and referenced definitions; multiple definitions. If you can't argue against that with anything but 'I won't accept this because I say so', then there really is not much point doing anything further.

"The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III"

I hate to bust your bubble, Sam, but none of this is taking place in the UK. What constitutes hate speech in the UK would very likely be considered free speech in the US.

Now if you can provide a pertinent section of US law that covers your argument, I am certain we will listen.

Don't be obtuse Charles. You know very well that I am arguing about definitions of hate speech. It is immaterial if such definitions have no legal standing in the US or any other place when that is not the issue. I am not suggesting that Trump be arraigned for hate speech under UK law at all. I am trying to get this TVF guy to reference his claim that Trump's words are not hate speech against some definition.

If I wanted to argue any punitive actions against Trump for his comments under US Law, that would be an entirely different conversation.

I keep telling you that your assumptions about Sam are searching in the wrong direction. You may as well call me something like Chris as Sam. Don't you think? And my Thai is quite ok but not fluent.

I am happy to respond to any definition of hate speech that you choose to post in relation to interpreting Trumps comments.

[chuckd]

Whether you are inclined to accept Trumps comments as hate speech or not is irrelevant. Making it the foundation of your response is useless. Why bother countering any point when someone says point blank that I do not accept something. You just want to use polemic on the anti-Trump crowd? Fine, do it without me. However, you respond as if this was an actual discussion. So this is somewhat confounding.

I provided two references to definitions of hate speech. If you are to reject the premise that Trump's comments are hate speech, by definition, surely you would reference that against the definitions provided. A unilateral declaration that something is not so is ok for deities, military dictators and some self absorbed billionaires but not really adequate for some expat in Thailand.

Of course I was selective in my references to Trump's comments. What do you think? He has said so much crap that you have to edit it Why would I use his comments about him being a very rich man, or Megan Kelly's period, or Jeb's energy levels? I am referencing hate speech. I will, of course, use examples of hate speech. Thank you for offering your analysis of what my problem is. I would reply by saying please kindly stick it up your clacker. Those people searching for examples of Trump speech as hate speech will take exactly nano seconds to find examples. Such examples include 'Arab Americans in New Jersey cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11'; 'Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists'; 'Muslims should be banned from the US' solely because of their religion.

The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III

There is a third definition for you. These definitions establish for me that Trump's comments are hate speech by definition. Maybe you can try and deal with that instead of making a unilateral declaration that they are not on the basis of whatever is evacuating from your bowels at that moment.

I could try and argue the moral equivalency issue but it is clear that you just don't get it or wilfully refuse to acknowledge it. So there is no point. No matter. Not everyone is able to keep u on all points. But I do find it quite useless engaging in a 'he said, she said' tit for tat ad infinitum. I believe I have demonstrated my point against specific and referenced definitions; multiple definitions. If you can't argue against that with anything but 'I won't accept this because I say so', then there really is not much point doing anything further.

"The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III"

I hate to bust your bubble, Sam, but none of this is taking place in the UK. What constitutes hate speech in the UK would very likely be considered free speech in the US.

Now if you can provide a pertinent section of US law that covers your argument, I am certain we will listen.

Don't be obtuse Charles. You know very well that I am arguing about definitions of hate speech. It is immaterial if such definitions have no legal standing in the US or any other place when that is not the issue. I am not suggesting that Trump be arraigned for hate speech under UK law at all. I am trying to get this TVF guy to reference his claim that Trump's words are not hate speech against some definition.

If I wanted to argue any punitive actions against Trump for his comments under US Law, that would be an entirely different conversation.

I keep telling you that your assumptions about Sam are searching in the wrong direction. You may as well call me something like Chris as Sam. Don't you think? And my Thai is quite ok but not fluent.

I am happy to respond to any definition of hate speech that you choose to post in relation to interpreting Trumps comments.

No, I won't get into a rhetorical argument about what the meaning of the word "is" is.

I will merely point out that hate speech in the UK and hate speech in the US are entirely different and the speech in this thread took place in the US.

The UK definition is off topic.

[lostboy]

Whether you are inclined to accept Trumps comments as hate speech or not is irrelevant. Making it the foundation of your response is useless. Why bother countering any point when someone says point blank that I do not accept something. You just want to use polemic on the anti-Trump crowd? Fine, do it without me. However, you respond as if this was an actual discussion. So this is somewhat confounding.

I provided two references to definitions of hate speech. If you are to reject the premise that Trump's comments are hate speech, by definition, surely you would reference that against the definitions provided. A unilateral declaration that something is not so is ok for deities, military dictators and some self absorbed billionaires but not really adequate for some expat in Thailand.

Of course I was selective in my references to Trump's comments. What do you think? He has said so much crap that you have to edit it Why would I use his comments about him being a very rich man, or Megan Kelly's period, or Jeb's energy levels? I am referencing hate speech. I will, of course, use examples of hate speech. Thank you for offering your analysis of what my problem is. I would reply by saying please kindly stick it up your clacker. Those people searching for examples of Trump speech as hate speech will take exactly nano seconds to find examples. Such examples include 'Arab Americans in New Jersey cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11'; 'Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists'; 'Muslims should be banned from the US' solely because of their religion.

The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III

There is a third definition for you. These definitions establish for me that Trump's comments are hate speech by definition. Maybe you can try and deal with that instead of making a unilateral declaration that they are not on the basis of whatever is evacuating from your bowels at that moment.

I could try and argue the moral equivalency issue but it is clear that you just don't get it or wilfully refuse to acknowledge it. So there is no point. No matter. Not everyone is able to keep u on all points. But I do find it quite useless engaging in a 'he said, she said' tit for tat ad infinitum. I believe I have demonstrated my point against specific and referenced definitions; multiple definitions. If you can't argue against that with anything but 'I won't accept this because I say so', then there really is not much point doing anything further.

"The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III"

I hate to bust your bubble, Sam, but none of this is taking place in the UK. What constitutes hate speech in the UK would very likely be considered free speech in the US.

Now if you can provide a pertinent section of US law that covers your argument, I am certain we will listen.

Don't be obtuse Charles. You know very well that I am arguing about definitions of hate speech. It is immaterial if such definitions have no legal standing in the US or any other place when that is not the issue. I am not suggesting that Trump be arraigned for hate speech under UK law at all. I am trying to get this TVF guy to reference his claim that Trump's words are not hate speech against some definition.

If I wanted to argue any punitive actions against Trump for his comments under US Law, that would be an entirely different conversation.

I keep telling you that your assumptions about Sam are searching in the wrong direction. You may as well call me something like Chris as Sam. Don't you think? And my Thai is quite ok but not fluent.

I am happy to respond to any definition of hate speech that you choose to post in relation to interpreting Trumps comments.

No, I won't get into a rhetorical argument about what the meaning of the word "is" is.

I will merely point out that hate speech in the UK and hate speech in the US are entirely different and the speech in this thread took place in the US.

The UK definition is off topic.

The Off Topic accusation. From a non Moderator. How can I deal with that? Particularly when the ruling is made by someone who seems to be more equal than others in this artificial world that we temporarily inhabit. Did you study law? Is this such an important thing to you, to taint an argument. To have it removed? Fruits from a Poisonous Tree. I have always liked that expression.

Very well, you don't like the 1986 UK Ordinance, please remove it from consideration. Destroy it. Put it in the mental trash can (I could have said rubbish bin but I am respecting your ethnocentricity). Erase it from memory. Completely.

That does, however, leave 2 alternative definitions of hate speech that I offered. What about them? Does it matter from whence these definitions are derived? One is from Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales was born in Alabama. So does this mean I can use Wikipedia as a reference?

I accept totally that the legal basis for defining hate speech in the US will be different from that in the UK or Australia or Canada or ... you get my point. All I want is a definition against which to compare Trump's comments. I cannot imagine that the conceptual meaning of hate speech will differ to any great degree. Provide me with a definition that you are happy with and then we have a basis for discussing. I cannot accept an individual's declaration that certain speech or terms are not hate speech without a point of reference. You clearly have issues with defining that point of reference. I know why but it doesn't matter. Any point of reference will do as a starting point. What is not acceptable is to make such claims without any point of reference.

[neverdie]

Seems Trump is running his very own version of the Klu klux klan.

A dangerous man indeed.

[Scott]

From a moderator: A discussion of the UK definition is off-topic. As a comparison of the difference in the two countries definition, it is interesting and noteworthy, but somewhat tangential.

If you wish to make comparisons, that's acceptable, but this is turning into a bit of an argument.

As far as anyone being 'more equal' than others, I will take exception to that and I am sure that the other member could give you are much more accurate picture of any special treatment.

Keep the discussion civil, on topic and off the issue of moderation.

[thaibeachlovers]

If you want to experience real hatred, go to Saudi and preach Christianity in a public place.

The woman the OP is about was practicing silent hate ( speech ) against Trump by protesting in the middle of his supporters, and hoping to get abused to use against him.

Anyway, hateful or not, it's legal to say it in the US.

Trump does not owe that stirrer an apology. He may not even have known it was happening- how many people were there?

That woman was lucky to be able to walk out, and had she not been removed might have been taken out on a stetcher.

I thought it pointless replying to Arjunamawn's response since it would take too much time to go point by point and clearly any response would not be accepted. However on your reply, I take issue with a few things.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries (I presume you mean 'Christian' countries even though I do not believe these legally exist)? I generally see responses to that issues being emotional and ideological, not rational. That a Western Liberal democracy allows Muslims to worship in mosques in their country has entirely no relationship to or bearing on what Saudi Arabia does in terms of reciprocity. You may argue for reciprocity on the grounds of moral equivalency. I would probably agree with you and try and support your arguments. I do not believe, therefore that you can use the moral equivalency argument in your efforts to propagate anti-Muslim sentiment.

The second thing that I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech. There are many definitions around. People can and do argue the details, intent and meaning of these definitions. Here's one "... speech that attracts, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate-speech The Wikipedia definition introduces the idea of 'protected groups'. Other nuances are reflected in other definitions. By definition then, I cannot see any way that protest or oral or written speech against hate speech being in any way able to be called hate speech in and of itself. It is a logical impossibility. A fallacy.

Was she provocative? Yes. Was she engaging in risky behaviour? Yes. Did she have the right to do it? Yes, despite the inane and specious arguments about the application of property rights law in relation so who rents the building. But the fact that you didn't like it or don't agree with it by no means classifies this as hate speech. It represents a fundamental lack of understanding or willingness to understand and acknowledge what minorities and oppressed people are actually saying; what they actually mean. Their voices, already institutionally oppressed, are further marginalised by the complete unwillingness to assign any legitimacy to what is being said or how it is being said. Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that muslim people are terrorists is hate speech by definition.Ignoring and oppressing opposing views may be good for his ratings and appeal among the blue collar old man set but it only exacerbates the divide and diviciveness.

That stirrer, the one who has been excoriated by many old white men with exhortations of physical violence against here, is a brave person exercising her constitutional rights as an American. Long may she and others do so.

I find disturbing is your assertion that speech against hate speech is itself hate speech.

To accept your premise, I would have to accept that Trump is using hate speech and I do not. There is nothing hateful in asking for a pause in Muslim immigration till satisfactory screening is set up, or saying that there are bad people among ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants.

I do accept that the woman had the right to protest, but Trump's security had the right to remove her, as she was not in a public space

Trumps claim that Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that Muslim people are terrorists

There you go, SELECTIVELY quoting Trump. Even Obama could be made to be saying hateful things by selectively quoting him. Your problem is that everyone can look up what he actually said and see that you are not telling the whole story, which renders your point meaningless.

Constitutional rights- yes indeed, just as Trump has a constitutional right to say whatever he likes, even if others don't like it. It is their right not to like it, but they have no right to demand Trump stop saying it.

What rationale do you provide for expecting moral equivalency between the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the practice of Christianity in other countries.

I use the equivalency that Muslims claim that western countries are discriminating against them on the basis of religion, when the foremost Islamic country in the world is discriminating against Christians on the basis of religion all the time. Pots and kettles come to mind.

Whether you are inclined to accept Trumps comments as hate speech or not is irrelevant. Making it the foundation of your response is useless. Why bother countering any point when someone says point blank that I do not accept something. You just want to use polemic on the anti-Trump crowd? Fine, do it without me. However, you respond as if this was an actual discussion. So this is somewhat confounding.

I provided two references to definitions of hate speech. If you are to reject the premise that Trump's comments are hate speech, by definition, surely you would reference that against the definitions provided. A unilateral declaration that something is not so is ok for deities, military dictators and some self absorbed billionaires but not really adequate for some expat in Thailand.

Of course I was selective in my references to Trump's comments. What do you think? He has said so much crap that you have to edit it Why would I use his comments about him being a very rich man, or Megan Kelly's period, or Jeb's energy levels? I am referencing hate speech. I will, of course, use examples of hate speech. Thank you for offering your analysis of what my problem is. I would reply by saying please kindly stick it up your clacker. Those people searching for examples of Trump speech as hate speech will take exactly nano seconds to find examples. Such examples include 'Arab Americans in New Jersey cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11'; 'Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists'; 'Muslims should be banned from the US' solely because of their religion.

The 1986 UK Public Order Act says "A Person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours ... is guilty of an offence..." Part III S18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III

There is a third definition for you. These definitions establish for me that Trump's comments are hate speech by definition. Maybe you can try and deal with that instead of making a unilateral declaration that they are not on the basis of whatever is evacuating from your bowels at that moment.

I could try and argue the moral equivalency issue but it is clear that you just don't get it or wilfully refuse to acknowledge it. So there is no point. No matter. Not everyone is able to keep u on all points. But I do find it quite useless engaging in a 'he said, she said' tit for tat ad infinitum. I believe I have demonstrated my point against specific and referenced definitions; multiple definitions. If you can't argue against that with anything but 'I won't accept this because I say so', then there really is not much point doing anything further.

Such examples include 'Arab Americans in New Jersey cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11';

To be hate speech it would have to be a lie. He was apparently wrong about the location, but not about the cheering of the destruction.

I found this in a couple of minutes on google.

http://spectator.org/blog/64746/trump-right-cnn-reported-american-muslims-celebrating-911

ergo NOT hate speech

'Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists'

Depends on your definition of "many", but it would be true that some Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists, so unless you want to debate "many" it is a fact. Ergo, not hate speech.

I don't see that hate speech has any bearing on this election anyway, as all speech is protected under the constitution, other than perhaps calling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none, and that is not the case

[lostboy]

If you want to experience real hatred, go to Saudi and preach Christianity in a public place.

The woman the OP is about was practicing silent hate ( speech ) against Trump by protesting in the middle of his supporters, and hoping to get abused to use against him.

Anyway, hateful or not, it's legal to say it in the US.

Trump does not owe that stirrer an apology. He may not even have known it was happening- how many people were there?

That woman was lucky to be able to walk out, and had she not been removed might have been taken out on a stetcher.

Such examples include 'Arab Americans in New Jersey cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11';

To be hate speech it would have to be a lie. He was apparently wrong about the location, but not about the cheering of the destruction.

I found this in a couple of minutes on google.

http://spectator.org/blog/64746/trump-right-cnn-reported-american-muslims-celebrating-911

ergo NOT hate speech

'Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists'

Depends on your definition of "many", but it would be true that some Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists, so unless you want to debate "many" it is a fact. Ergo, not hate speech.

I don't see that hate speech has any bearing on this election anyway, as all speech is protected under the constitution, other than perhaps calling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none, and that is not the case

My recollection is that you are the one who accused the woman's actions as being hate speech. I have consistently asked you to provide some definition to use as a reference point in defining hate speech. Not just your view, which I believe is not only erroneous legally but ill-informed and biased. You continue to discuss this without providing a frame of reference except your own.

That's fine. It is easier then to reject your views. They are tainted and have no relevance or meaning to the topic under discussion.

Trump did not say that Muslims celebrated 9/11 in New York in 2009. If you have been searching for some reference to vindicate Trump's clearly understood and understandable comment for the past days and only found that one reference, then this should tell you something. He meant this as a slur against Muslims. By every definition of hate speech that I can find, that is hate speech.

Then you go on to continue to be an interpreter of Trump, like some religious acolyte telling the worshipers what their deity actually means when he starts speaking in tongues and no one is understanding what he say. Ok, you claim that many translates to some. So what. Why did he make that reference? Precisely to hang the accusations on all Mexicans. Again, the very definition of hate speech.

If you are going to try and argue that one persons speech is hate speech and another person's speech is not hate speech, the provide some frame of reference. I have done so. I have been vilified for it by a number of people for being non compliant with what they want to say. I really don't care what definition you use, just present one and then see how your apologies and excuses hold up. They will not. The woman's actions were legitimate political speech protected by the US Constitution. If it went to the Supreme Court, the entire body of legal precedent dictates that it would be judged legitimate political speech and so protected. In no way whatsoever was her action hate speech. Trump is on record with his comments and despite the pretty pathetic and I believe shameful efforts of his apologists to spin these comments, they do, by definition qualify as hate speech. By refusing to acknowledge any acceptable and accepted definition you avoid deflect and distract from that core idea.

Edited January 17, 2016 by lostboy

[ldiablo]

It will be a cold day in hell before this woman or anyone else gets an apology from the next American President.

Edited January 17, 2016 by ldiablo