Prosecution is not necessarily persecution. If tried under Canadian law, the Sheik will have the protections of natural justice and administrative fairness. He will have the right to know the case against him and to have a reasonable opportunity to defend his innocence. It is not a foregone conclusion that he will be convicted. If convicted, he will have appeal rights. When appeal rights are exhausted, his sentence will be determined, according to law and precedent. This is how a civil society defends itself. I fail to see any merit allowing incitements to do violence to pass without comment. Tolerance of the intolerant isn't liberalism, it's just being stupid.

I don't know where all these nitwits got the idea that I need them to speak for me. I speak quite well for myself, thank you, and anybody who is running off at the mouth about what I like and don't like instead of listening is very unlikely to be hearing me when I do.

Here's an idea Tom. Instead of railing against the small fry, 'out in the open', plainly stupid sheik - why not fire off a few letters to Canwest - which has taken that great leap towards promoting hatred and prejudice by labelling any group in Iraq that opposes U.S. occupation a terrorist. That got them a nice little complaint from the wire service (Reuters) but little in the way of prosecution and barely a word said against them in these parts - perhaps because they own both major dailies? Maybe the sheik could have more effectively hidden his hatred under the guise of 'editorial style' as our friends at Canwest did.

This is a real dilemma. I have no time at all for the hate crimes laws, human rights commissions and the other organs of the state which enforce "nice". I have a lot of time for religious freedom which, tragically, includes the freedom to announce that "heathens are damned", and has lead to much of the bloodshed in the world for milennia.

The full Zundel is a temptation in this case simply because I happen to so profoundly disagree with the Sheik's comments assuming that they have been reported accurately.

For me the question resolves in two ways: was there incitement to act in a tangible manner. Bomb a synogogue, murder a Jew? If there was then the full weight of the law needs to be used to punish the Sheik - not for the thought; rather for the action of incitement.

But if the Sheik was quoting some of the more inflamatory passages of the Koran and drawing his teaching from them then, reprehensible as the thought is, I would be loath to see the State intervene.

Hanif Karim, on the other hand, deserves a medal. Two actually, one from the Muslim community, the other from those of us who wonder if there are moderate Muslims willing to stand up to the clerics who preach hatred.

This is where a little education can go a long way - like perhaps letting the Sheik know that by calling Jews sons of pigs (or whatever he said to that affect) - it would apply equally to Arabs since both are as closely related as the donkey to the mule he likes to talk about. In fact, the whole "anit-semitic" thing is amusing when you realize that Arabs and Jews are both Semites - and the two groups are more similar to each other than to any other group on this planet - painful ain't it - when family feuds are made public?

Many of these "free speech" arguments were recently made by social conservatives and religious fundamentalists of various stripes against including gays and lesbians in anti-hate legislation.

Mr. Spector; Of course they were, and rightly. It's only the stupid, hateful and unpopular speeches that need protecting. Or those opposed by authority.

Nobody is threatening to discriminate against people chanting 'My country right or wrong, goooooooo BUSH!

Sometimes it almost seems as if "nice" people are as much part of this problem as the ditherwits who promulgate racist and religious intolerance. We're so "nice" we just gulp and shake our heads instead of making one helluva noise. So many of these clucks use the very protections and laws they would deny the rest of us, they maunder on about their right to free speech but would gladly muffle the rest of us. The election of Dubya , to me, signals a very scarey upsurge in right wing fundamentalist Christian strength and influence. They are organized and most of the rest of us aren't, really. One of my fears is that Dubya had a plan in place in the event he won the election and already we are seeing that plan in the build-up toward the demolition of Fallujah. It is against international law to deny civilian non-combattants the chance to get the hell out of a target area but there are heart-breaking numbers of reports of people who were shot by U.S. troops as they tried to flee. Dubya is going to smash two cities into rubble. He knows this will inflame those who are resisting the illegal U.S. invasion. The shit will hit the fan. The big crusade will happen, children will be the big losers (they might grow up to be insurgents, after all.) Iraq will be ground into the dust and then it's a toss-up as to whether Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea will be next but the Imperial Army will be on the move, and they'll be singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" as they do their hate-filled damndest to slaughter as many of the innocent people they consider to be "infidels" as technology will allow. It is no comfort at all to look at previous empires which have drenched the soil with blood and then withered away, no comfort at all to tell myself Amerikkka , too, will implode, destroyed by it's own internal rot. Eight of my eleven grand-children are status first nations, these hate mongers would quite cheerfully blow them to macerated bits, given the chance. I know their hate is rooted in fear, I understand the psychology of their authoritarian reaction, I grew up in the fundamentalist playpen and it has been a real struggle to climb out of and beyond it. Even now there are times when I am hit with an almost paralyzing dread and the thought "what if they are right", even though I am convinced they aren't; we are slaves to our conditioning. A pope said it first, then Hitler repeated it and I'm sure Dubya and his ilk believe it: give me a child until it is six and it is mine all the days of it's life (or words to that effect). We are so "nice" we hesitate to blow the whistle on people who live in filth and condone sexual activity of and with children as young as thirteen, we are so "nice" we say Oh well, it's their religion when old men in Bountiful, B.C. take as their sixth or seventh wife some barely pubescent girl. If we weren't so "nice" we might send the cops in to arrest these wrinkled old pervs and put them in jail where they belong. But we're nice, we're so very well conditioned and nice that not only did Dubya get in there's a good chance Gordo Scambull and the Fiberal dinosaurs will be re-elected. After all, the drunk is going to give free diagnostic testing to all kids under the age of six. Whoopie ding and then how do the parents PAY for the dentist, the glasses, the hearing aids, etc. If the fuckerfaced freak was the least bit concerned the kids would not only be tested, the problems would be addressed free of charge, this is just more cow cack and pony puckies to gain votes and it will work. It isn't going to help the kid to have "hearing impaired" written on it's permanent school record. The kid needs free hearing aid, free cochlear implants, SOMETHING!! But as long as we are "nice" our future generation will be left out in the cold. We're the breadbasket of the entire world and our children are hungry. But by Jesus we are "nice" about it. Hey, God, loved your post. Nice to know you're awake, I thought you were in a terminal coma. So could you explain again what you meant when you said "Thou shalt not kill". Please! Some of these witherdicks seem not to understand that one. They're a bit hazy on Thou Shalt Not Steal, too. And we won't even mention Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery...I think you've lost the battle over that one.

I'd be interested to know your source for the statement, "Weimar Germany boasted very robust anti-hate speech laws, and that they were vigorously enforced during the run-up to Nazi take-over." It sounds uncannily like the ridiculous assertion made by gun control opponents that if Jews in Weimar Germany had enjoyed the right to bear arms, the holocaust would never have happened.

Morman, I had Svend's bill in mind as I wrote. The worry about anti-hate laws is that they can proscribe thought and speech which people take as coming from their God. Leviticus, the Koran... At the time of that debate I opposed the anti-hate crime legislation on pretty much the same basis as i wrote above. I cannot see banning speech (or sacred texts for that matter) which happen to offend against a concept of nice. But, speach which incites direct and immediate action I am comfortable prosecuting. (Which is not to say that it would be a terrifically easy thing to prove in Court.) Which does not make the Sheik any less of a disgrace to Islam and to the Muslim community. (There is an interesting question, however, about such people's immigration status. Here I would be inclined to use a much lower standard. The basic rule being that residence in Canada is a priviledge and not a right and this sort of remark should certainly be grounds to review the landed immigrant status of the person making it. The fast good-bye seems indicated.)

I wonder why we would allow religious people to incite hatred against gays and lesbians because they say the words come from their God. I'm sure someone who's beaten up in Stanley Park would not feel any less pain or humiliation knowing that the aggressor was divinely inspired. And what's next? Can I invent a religion and fulminate against Svend Robinson and claim an exemption from the law? We should clear our heads of the free speech in the US constitution, and reflect on the wisdom of section 1 of our charter.

Holy Christ, are you *that* Norman Spector? I'm disappointed to see you putting "freedom of speech" between quotes, if so, Minister. Zundel and the Sheikh are expressing, in various formats, the poison in their heads. Every Canadian is familiar with people who speak so foully; many Canadians do speak so. What hateful speech reveals about its speakers' intentions and capabilities is a matter of conjecture. If hate-crime law were enforced with any of the vigour its proponents intend, half of Canada would have to arrest the other half. For bad speech. The legislation is a pointless stupid blunt instrument. The Sheikh, Zundel, and other fascist agitators do bear watching, I'd agree, within the bounds of the Charter's guarantee to *security of the person.* Of course Sinn Fein is likely to help arrange Semtex for the Real IRA. But for Christ's sake, you arrest 'em when they break the law, not when they *talk* about breaking the law. Argh, I'm annoyed, Mr Spector. I particularly resent having to agree with !Jay! !Currie! I just think this verb "to incite" is too slippery to make law out of. Even in war, you can't take a man's life for the thoughts in his head.

Mr. Spector; I see your problem. It lies in your first sentence; "I wonder why we would allow" people to talk. How do you propose do disallow it? Who will decide what to disallow? If those whose speech annoys us won't shut up after we explain to them how they really shouldn't say things we don't like, is the next step to disallow them altogether?

I've been watching the current crop of legislators legislate, and I must say I would be very afraid to trust myself to their tender mercies when the freedoms and protections like this one are gone.

Oh, and if you do decide to do a Hubbard and invent your own religion, send me a pamphlet please? I would really love to see that!

It's often been observed that, on some points, the left and the right eventually converge. I don't know whether this includes the author of this article, Mr Sandborn. However, several comments in this thread take precisely the same position Randy White and others in his party expressed during the debate over Svend Robinson's amendment to the Criminal Code, Bill C-250, which included sexual orientation in the hate speech protections. The Bill was passed in the last session of Parliament and is now the law of the land. I'm sure Randy White would welcome the support of the Left in repealing the new provision and, indeed, the entire law.

Your commentary and approach would help perpetuate the myth that only whites can be racist and only males sexist, when in fact one only has to look at the attrocities committed around the world (eg the systematic rape and murder of blacks by Arabs in the Darfur region of the Sudan) to realise that Canada is a relative bastion of tolerance and equality. If we are to be a truly non-racist society then we should be willing to pursue hate mongers with equal determination be they neo-Nazis, Muslim Mullahs or what have you.

I certainly respect the principle behind hate speech laws. However, I am always uneasy with the use of censorship to shut down the expression of vile sentiments. Yes we live in a "nice" society now, but what happens when there is a change. For example, what if the current US government passes a law making it illegal to dis fundamentalist Christians? Will the gay people who now decry the anti-gay hatred spewing from pulpits be subject to prosecution themselves? Free speech can sometimes be ugly, but it is important that it remain free for the haters, so that it can remain free for all of us. The way to combat hate speech is not by suppressing it, but by vociferously refuting it. As a transsexual lesbian, I am on the receiving end of a lot of hate speech, but I don't feel that prosecuting the people who say such things is going to make this a better society. Instead it will just make them feel persecuted and likely reinforce their feelings. Has Zundel changed his views since his conviction?

This conversational thread comes very close to touching a deep contradiction in our anti-hate laws but continues to slip away when it comes too close. As a homosexual, a former clergyman and a firm free speech advocate, I have a point of view that pushes the river on several fronts. My oft-repeated point to Jews is that, were I so inclined (which I am not) to say and publish that I believed that Jews are vile and deserving of death, I would be in a world of trouble. Commissions, tribunals and courts would be all over my sorry ass in the twinkling of a human rights complaint. Why is it then, that Jews (and by extension Christians and Moslems, who revere the same scripture) are free to say and publish that I am an abomination and worthy of death? If you think I'm overstating the case, I direct your attention to the sacred words of Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as with a woman it is an abomination and they shall both be put to death and their blood shall be upon their own hands. That is the report by Jews and Christians alike of the word and will and law of their creator god. The wording varies slightly from translation to translation, but "abomination" and "death" are used in every instance. All the Tulmudic hair-splitting in the world cannot change the clear incitement to homophobic violence contained in this text. I long ago concluded that the god of Abraham is a violent, homophobic, misogynistic, manipulative and profoundly disturbed creature. I also understand that he is an imaginary being, so his opinions on a wide range of issues are about as relevant as those of Zeus, Wodan or Krishna. So Tom, in answering your question "What do we do with hateful preachers?" I say we call them out as the hatemongers that they are, imams, ministers, priests, rabbis, mullahs, lamas and the whole lot. And having called them out we leave them to spew their hatred in the naked light of day until the ridicule of intelligent and informed men and women marginalizes their ancient creeds of hatred and renders negligible their influence in the public sphere. What we don't do is build legal instruments of selective suppression and oppression and allow bureaucracies and special-interest groups to decide what constitutes the legitimate free speech of the day. Mr. Spector is correct to note that many of the "free speech" arguments were made by social conservatives and religious fundamentalists against including gays and lesbians in anti-hate legislation. That these arguments were made by people whose other views I find odious does not make the arguments wrong. Conservative religious leaders are absolutely correct in fearing that the inclusion of homosexuality in the anti-hate laws is a prelude to an all-out assault on their religious freedom. With texts like Leviticus 20:13 on their altars, shrines and pulpits, it is only a matter of time before gay rights organizations and individuals launch case-by-case legal assualts against churches, synagogues and temples. Wait for it -- it'll be great fun. Personally, I'm all for letting Jews, Muslims, Christians and Queers rant and rave against one-another all they like, calling each other the sons of whatever animal they consider the most vile (though I could be offended on behalf of pigs and monkeys, who can't speak for themselves). I'll gladly accord Jews the right to parade their hate-mongering sacred text around in fancy gold wrappings and enthrone it in their holy places, and Christians the right to hold the same hate literature up in their sanctuaries and intone "this is the word of the lord". I'll go one further and be willing to live in a world where Jews and Christians can call for my death for being an 'abomination'. All I ask is that they get over themselves sufficiently to allow Muslims to call for Jewish deaths in an obviously over-the-top rant and respond by exposing those calling for religious violence to the ridicule and approbrium they so richly deserve. Or is a Jewish life more sacred than a homosexual life and more deserving of protection under law from threat of lethal violence? I'm only asking. Kevin Dale McKeown

For me personally, freedom of religion means freedom to worship the god/gods of your choice. It has never meant the freedom to worship in the manner of your choice. Ie. If your god starts asking you for human sacrifices then no, I'm sorry but you're not free to do that. Similarly, if your god starts calling for a jihad, no, you're not free to do that either.

I find the notion that the right to free expression is fundamental to democracy to be erroneous, based upon another fallacious notion that various individual rights are of equal value. I suggest that we look at human rights and their relationship to democracy in a different manner, one based upon layers (as opposed to the charged word, 'hierarchy') of rights. For example, a truly fundamental right should be each person's right to maximize their safety and integrity of their personhood without threatening the right of others to do the same. When freedom of expression is used to threaten the safety and dignity of others (e.g. by hateful communications) its stature as an individual freedom should take a back seat, especially when the hate is directed at groups, such as those with religious beliefs or those with green ideologies. Gradually as the layers of rights & freedoms are addressed from such a core right as individual security, there should be a step-wise shift from individuals to families to communities to regions, etc. I am trying to point out an alternative perspective, one that is not mired in the assumptions i) all individual rights and freedoms are equal, and ii) what makes us human is soley an individual consideration, when there is considerable evidence that our conscious awareness has a communal aspect, in addition to a unique individual one. In fact it is my view that the notion of an absolutely separate subjective existence for each of us is an 'atomistic' perspective that has been proven inadequate by quantum physics. But it is this atomistic and separatist perspective on human existence that is destroying the nurturing biosphere and environment of this planet as well as our full heritage as instances of all humanity. The atomistic viewpoint fosters fragmentation, separation, greed, the bully-boy "free" marketplace, addictive consumption, and the neocon agenda. The true nature of humanity in its communal aspect is waking from its slumber as a result of extreme atomism. Tom, I suggest you reflect upon the vast cooperative efforts and integrative awareness of the cells of the body (even bio-energetically :-))as a strong metaphor for a truly functioning democracy.

The discussion around this topic is so very, very important. Of all of the contributions to the debate, I think that Anne Cameron in her most refreshing diatribe, has the very best grip on the subject. Why are we so tolerant of intolerance? Why do we not only allow, but celebrate the “right” of parents to abuse their children by brainwashing them, or withholding from them the intellectual or experiential wherewithal to make good life choices? (If it was good enough for grandpa, it’s good enough for me!) Why do we subscribe to a conventional wisdom that boils down to “let’s not rock the consumption/corporate boat,” when the clichés it substitutes for wisdom are so transparently false? Why is the Fraser Institute legitimised by the CBC inviting its ideologues to comment on current affairs? Why do we invoke “cultural relativism” to ignore, if not to condone, beliefs and practises that are demonstrably inimical to social well being, or to anyone’s individual welfare? Tom Sandbourne is absolutely right. The Weimar Republic had a constitution and a liberal vision far ahead of its time. But as Sandbourne employs the example, it is something of a non-sequitur. He might have asked why (as was also the case in Germany after the constitution of 1848) the German people were so easily led by emperors and dictators to ignore the philosophical niceties. And then to ask: “how different are we?” (Hitler certainly appreciated the value of the “big lie,” the big cliché, and the importance of controlling public information.) It almost makes one despair of democracy. Almost, but not quite! Well intentioned folks, like Tom S., who are afraid to shut down the peddlers of hate, xenophobia, and selfishness for fear of eroding “freedom of speech” to the point where their own free speech might be jeopardised are missing a pretty important point. If they win, diversity loses. Period. If we want a society built on principles of fairness, compassion and openness, there is no room for the freaks, the neo-cons, neo-libs or whatever they are called these days. And there is no reason to be tolerant of them. Without them, at least the discussion will continue. If the courts are the only civilised device for exposing and opposing them; then by all means, let’s use the courts.

Clyde are you suggesting we "brain wash" all those who view the world with different specs other than our saccharin sweet social inclusive (on an exclusive bases) perspective? Why even have a right-wing government run in the election? We can ban them outright - perhaps legally through the courts by proving they are counter-productive to our peaceful society. I can see why it is so hard to convince the well-meaning evangelical Christian who wants to do nothing more than save my soul by teaching me the true path to heaven; but I have opted to take the path not taken. This argument reminds me of an essay topic I was given in grade 7: The Challenge of a Free Society. Firstly, I honestly believe that education is the cure to all angst since xenophobia by definition is the fear of the unknown - or foreign. The first step is to make all phobists known to their fear so they themselves can realize they are indeed the same beast. Although it would be "anti-Freedom of Speech" to ban my urge to call all of Gordo's followers corporate butt-lickers missing the 23rd chromosome of the H. Sapien species; -it would be justified to outlaw my calling for physical harm to befall these less-than humane souls - for in the latter case my right of free thought cannot tresspass upon their rights not to be harmed by my socially twisted state of mind.

One problem with "hate speech" and "the full Zundel" is that enforcement is selective. For example, the Ukrainian holocaust was recently denied in print by a sectarian leftist newspaper (indeed, by its editor!). Ukrainian Canadian Congress attempts to have this reviewed by Justice were thwarted by Justice Minister Cottler.

I have no difficulty in supporting the right to religious freedom in Canada as long as that includes the right of freedom from religion, which is increasingly becoming of far greater need from my perspective. As Shirin noted, one of the longest, bloodiest and plain meanest religious wars is that between Arabs and Jews. One calls the other a pig, the other replies "you're an filthy ass." Both carry identical genes out of the same bloodlines, the same parents and grandparents. What's the fight over this time? Why, a rocky piece of land that one claims to be his because some expansionist historian told him so and it must be true. I've always thought that Zundel was a nutcase who deserved pity or a good talking to, but since Canada opted to start treating him as a potential terrorist, I think it's our government that is in dire need of a refit. The hardnosed actions agsinst that pitiful fool were carried out on the behest of someone or some group. It's just unfortunate that politicians will not be straightforward on issues like this and instead try to mask what is really taking place. But when draconian laws are implemented and the first case is to squash a fly it looks a bit much. I do have to wonder how easy it is to be pegged a trouble maker if people with power don't like you. Question: Who pressed Ottawa to get rid of Zundel? Was he a threat to national security? Had he threatened anyone? Was his continued presence an embarrassment to people who cooperate too closely with others who have far too much of a commitment to another country? It reminds me of the hate campaign fostered in northern Alberta a few years ago against a rancher who dared to challenge the oil industry on their sourgas well discharges. Simply because the man had an accent, a "foreign name", lived in a cooperative community in the heart of the Capitalist oilpatch and spoke his mind, governments, media and much of the public was turned against him.

Excuse me? First of all, the main issue that the region had with Weibo Ludwig and Robert Wraight was that gas wells were being blown up and service vehicles vandalized. Since Ludwig was the loudest critic, he drew the heat -- not because he had an accent or lived in a religious community. The next big issue the community had was the death of Karman Willis.

RealBMFC, I think you ought to go back and look at that issue again. Ludewig was made out to be a crazy by the oil industry and its lapdog politicians and much of the mainstream media. Yes, it was about damage to the oilfields, but it was also as much or more (take your pick) about the health of people and animals in the Peace region. And it was also about his accent, his name and his community or style of life, also thanks to an industry that wanted this man removed. Yes, there was a tragic death of a young teen girl, which still raises an awful lot of questions, again centred on the perceptions this greasy industry created of Ludwig in the wider community. The visit of a pickup truck that tears into your yard in the early hours of the morning with young people screaming and raising hell, might prompt you to take action as well my friend. And given the animosity generated by the industry toward Ludwig, what would you have done in his place? Granted shooting into the dark at a moving vehicle may be unwise, but perhaps the driver of that pickup can tell you how lucky he is that he wasn't a victim of his own stupidity. You might also ask him why he would harrass a family in the middle of the night, in a manner that could be mistaken for a lynch mob. Perhaps the main issue was damage to the oilfields because there really isn't that much and the industry is aggressive and extremely powerful, especially in Alberta. But for a lot of people the main issue was pollution caused by this same industry, but that's so normal in Alberta that media don't even see the red flags popping up. In my mind both actions are crimes, but apparently only the former is "main" enough to be prosecuted in Alberta.

allan, you put it best when you said '...thanks to an industry that wanted this man removed.' The man's religious beliefs, if anything, would have gotten him more sympathy than not in the High Level area. I'm no fan of the oil industry, but any individual in that country who does the slightest thing to threaten it, especially one who is as vocal as Ludwig, doesn't need to be otherwise different to enflame the locals. Add to that a few explosions at oil rigs (even if they were set by the Mounties) and a local girl getting killed (even if she was a monster-truck terrorist), and I'm surprised he wasn't lynched frankly. Most of those locals agree and share his hard-line religious principles anyway; that's probably what saved his ass.

Look allan, I think racism IS a problem in Canada. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree with this one.

RealBMFC, you may be right that most of his neighbours share Ludwig's religious view. It's been almost 40 years since I spent time in Alberta's oil patch so I certainly don't appreciate what other than oil dollars passes for god up there these days. However, taking on the oil industry's cancerous degradation of the environment and peoples' health, even if it pisses off every last oil industry cheque casher in Alberta hardly ranks as a crime in my books. In fact, I don't have any problem with suggesting that what Ludwig did, even if it included blowing up oil wells or pumping stations, was far less of a crime than we are witnessing in another oil patch today thanks to former oil baron GW Bush. I too would not have been surprised had he been lynched given the state of hysteria created by an industry that protects the politicians who protect the oil industry. That the police are suspected to have been doing much of the shit themselves should really come as little surprise to anyone who follows that agency's illustrious history of taking care of the little guy. Perhaps what kept the lynch mob at bay was the thought that they could be the next idiot sacrificed to keep the oil pumping and the gases spewing. I really don't blame his neighbours for the situation. I do blame the corporate media which acts as the mouth organ for the oil industry, but that may seem normal for reporters in Alberta where anyone who speaks out is bound to seen as a radical troublemaker. Racism is a problem as you say.

The only people who could afford the time, energy and money to persue hate crime charges through the court are the most organized, rich, and powerful of 'minorities'. I wonder who that is?

For years I attempted to teach clear thinking in my English classes which, judged by what I saw in society, seemed to be futile. I'm most impressed by all these discussions which do show thinking--usually clear. And for sure after following some of the discussions in the States which were mostly namecalling...well it's good to be home.. Whether I agree with the writer's views or not, for the most part, arguments are well presented. Norman, I've followed your political career for years and disagreed with you almost all the time. Whether you have grown in your views or whether I have, I'm sure glad you are including your views in these discussions. I still don't agree with all your views, but thanks for being here and helping to keep all of us honest.

I've never seen a quote where the sheik "called jews the sons of monkeys and pigs". As far as I can tell this is a fabrication of the Vancouver Sun. Apparently he did call *the assassins of Ahmed Yasin* "sons of monkeys and pigs"; but to conflate "assassins of Yasin" with "jews" is a fallacy. It is equivalent to equating "calling GWB a moron" with "calling Christians morons", simply because GWB is a Christian. Looks like yet another example of the Asper-press fabricating a story to kick at Muslims.

Here's a late reference for pfd (above) who wanted to know about the laws in Weimar Germany that prohibited group defamation. Back in 1991, Thomson Professional Publishing Canada published a book entitled Freedom of Expression and the Charter. The editor of this anthology was David Schneiderman. The book includes an essay by Professor Cyril Levitt (a sociologist and civil libertarian) about Weimar Germany's laws banning expressions of hatred toward recognizable groups (i.e., Jews). Levitt said that German Jews filed many lawsuits against Nazis and other far-right nationalists for hatemongering in the 1920s, but Germany's ultra-conservative judges either let the Nazis off the hook on legal technicalities or slapped the Nazis on their wrists with light penalties. You can probably get this book at your local public library.