# Messed up rapper.



## EngineerWannabe (30 Jun 2012)

I just saw this on facebook. Really messed up
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/29/pro-taliban-rapper-gets-taxpayer-subsidies#.T-81ROxziC0.facebook


----------



## jeffb (30 Jun 2012)

I'm torn on this one. As much as this guys message disgusts and angers me, as long as government is in the business of providing subsidies for "artists" then I don't believe it should be picking and choosing based on the message of the artist. The role of the muse is to advance counter positions to the establishment and if the government censors this idiot, where does it draw the line?


----------



## Sythen (30 Jun 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> as long as government is in the business of providing subsidies for "artists" then I don't believe it should be picking and choosing based on the message of the artist.



I totally agree with you.

From the article found here:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/06/20120630-092225.html



> See, that's the thing about "art." Everyone has a different taste. Most Canadians would agree that Militari's vision is sick. The fact that he has to rely on government handouts, rather than actually selling his music videos in the free market, testifies to that fact. But who should make the decisions about what taste is acceptable to the government?



Which brings it further. If he (or any other artist, whether pro military or whatever) can't make it without government hand outs, why should we be paying them to have a hobby?


----------



## Teeps74 (30 Jun 2012)

Frankly, anyone with their hand out, expecting me, the taxpayer, to put something in it should be happy with the idea that I am going to put some controls on it. The government bloody well should have strings attached to every penny it doles out, even to artists. To be fair, it could be really a simple rule. Monies not to be used to foment an insurgency or other such seditious actions.

All handouts to this kid should cease. He is free to express himself anyway he sees fit. But when he lends support to our enemy, the support to enable him to be "artistic" should not be coming from the government, nor form us, the taxpayers.


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Jun 2012)

I wonder if he does birthday parties?


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jun 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'm torn on this one. As much as this guys message disgusts and angers me, as long as government is in the business of providing subsidies for "artists" then I don't believe it should be picking and choosing based on the message of the artist. The role of the muse is to advance counter positions to the establishment and if the government censors this idiot, where does it draw the line?


I'm not torn.  He is promoting hate and advocating the killing of our troops.  If he wants to do so and not cross the line enough where he'll go to jail, fine.  He can do it on his own dime, not mine as a taxpayer.  At the very least, anyone who promotes hate should not get any government funding whatsoever.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm not torn.  He is promoting hate and advocating the killing of our troops.  If he wants to do so and not cross the line enough where he'll go to jail, fine.  He can do it on his own dime, not mine as a taxpayer.  At the very least, anyone who promotes hate should not get any government funding whatsoever.



Seen this.  If he wants to promote hatred towards Canadians, and CF members......Time for him to give all that money back to the Government from which it came.  If someone wants to promote hatred or hurtful actions against me, they are a THREAT and should be dealt with.  We do have Hate Crime Laws.....Why is he exempt?  Because he got a Government grant?  I want MY taxpayer dollars back.


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (1 Jul 2012)

I don't get it.
If the 'Ban won't let kids fly kites, or send girls to school, why on earth would they put up with a rap "artist"?  Especially one of such little talent?
Perhaps for the prop value, but if they had him when their utterly false interpretation of Islam were to be realized, I think they would promise him a soccer stadium. Though not of the order that Manu Miltari has in mind.
Too bad he can't rap worth shite other than copycat crap. I've heard better rap in a field tripping class of kindergarten.
rancing:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Jul 2012)

A simple case of hate crime like this should just fall under the human rights commission, and should be a pretty easy witchhunt investigation.  If they can get Steyn, than this ought to be a non issue.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'm torn on this one. As much as this guys message disgusts and angers me, as long as government is in the business of providing subsidies for "artists" then I don't believe it should be picking and choosing based on the message of the artist. The role of the muse is to advance counter positions to the establishment and if the government censors this idiot, where does it draw the line?


I disagree.  We have sent our soldiers into harms' way, to kill the guys that this guy is trumpeting and romanticizing.  It drew the line when guys like me (and many others) went over and killed a shit ton of those "heroes" about whom this scum sucker is lauding.


This is relativism at its worst.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jul 2012)

Sure glad we spend money on art projects.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2012)

Ignatius J. Reilly said:
			
		

> I don't get it.
> If the 'Ban won't let kids fly kites, or send girls to school, why on earth would they put up with a rap "artist"?  Especially one of such little talent?
> Perhaps for the prop value, but if they had him when their utterly false interpretation of Islam were to be realized, I think they would promise him a soccer stadium. Though not of the order that Manu Miltari has in mind.
> Too bad he can't rap worth shite other than copycat crap. I've heard better rap in a field tripping class of kindergarten.
> rancing:



 ???

Google is your friend.  Have you seen any of the propaganda that the Islamists have put onto the Net?  They are very adept at producing videos with Rappers to glorify their Jihad.  

Islamists glorify DEATH.  To die fighting the Kaffirs (Kafir, an Arabic term used by Muslims to describe non-Muslims.) makes one a martyr.  To kill an innocent "Believer (Islamist)" in the process of killing Kaffirs makes them martyrs.  To kill Kaffirs, or a Muslim who is not an Islamist, and send them to 'the great Satan' makes one a hero.  There is only DEATH in the Islamist mentality.

Islamists are the followers of radical followers of Islam who follow the Five Pillars of Islam and believe that the "Sixth Pillar of Islam", violent Jihad is the only way.  

Google is your friend:

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/prrts/trrrsm/index-eng.asp

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-eng.aspx

http://www.adl.org/terror/tu/tu_0401_canada.asp


Numpty, with his "art" only contributes to Islamist recruiting of Canadians to the Islamist movement.   His video adds to the many that are already on the web targeting Americans, Canadians and other Westerners in a means to sway impressionable minds to the the Islamist beliefs.  He is a 'Threat' to our security/safety.


----------



## Tow Tripod (1 Jul 2012)

I was on this individuals Facebook page last night. A number of people said that they were going to complain about him distributing hate speech. I looked this morning and apparently the administrators took down Mr Manu Militair. Well done Facebook!
I was surprised by the amount of young Quebecers who fully supported his message and automatically turned it into a French, English issue.
Strange times we live in. Happy Canada Day!


----------



## Redeye (1 Jul 2012)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> I was on this individuals Facebook page last night. A number of people said that they were going to complain about him distributing hate speech. I looked this morning and apparently the administrators took down Mr Manu Militair. Well done Facebook!
> I was surprised by the amount of young Quebecers who fully supported his message and automatically turned it into a French, English issue.
> Strange times we live in. Happy Canada Day!



Actually, looks like the tabloids spun it that way too. 

To me the issue's cut-and-dried simple. Refer to Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and move on. Guy is presenting a different POV, and nothing in the lyrics excerpts printed in and media I saw either "promoted" or "glorified" anything. It was a "shock value" thing to prompt people to think about war, according to the artist, and flipping a perspective does that pretty well. It didn't work out well so the guy pulled the video himself. Fair enough. 

I find the idea of the government denouncing opinions they don't like to run counter to one of the most fundamental freedoms in our society and much more troublesome. I may despise what someone says, but nevertheless I will defend without reservation their right to do so. Pretty simple. 

I think he probably owes Sun Media and anyone else who carried the story a thank you note for a whole lot of free publicity.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Actually, looks like the tabloids spun it that way too.
> 
> To me the issue's cut-and-dried simple. Refer to Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and move on. Guy is presenting a different POV, and nothing in the lyrics excerpts printed in and media I saw either "promoted" or "glorified" anything. It was a "shock value" thing to prompt people to think about war, according to the artist, and flipping a perspective does that pretty well. It didn't work out well so the guy pulled the video himself. Fair enough.
> 
> ...



Just when i thought that no one could step up and defend this guy, look who shows up to the party.

 :

Redeye the apologist.


----------



## Redeye (1 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Just when i thought that no one could step up and defend this guy, look who shows up to the party.
> 
> :
> 
> Redeye the apologist.



Explain to me, in simple terms, how muzzling any Canadian who has a different point of view is consonant with the most basic of fundamental freedoms in a democratic society. The grants process is a whole separate issue, more complicated, but it's that simple for me. I don't want a government telling people what they can or can't say. Period.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2012)

Really Redeye?  Have you even listened to his lyrics, not snippets; or watched his video?  Jihadists have been using this medium to transmit their messages and recruit for some time now.  This plays right into their hands, and the Canadian Government paid for it.  That is a real coup for them.  


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rufo4BR8tm8

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125186382


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I may despise what someone says, but nevertheless I will defend without reservation their right to do so. Pretty simple.



:bullshit:


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Explain to me, in simple terms, how muzzling any Canadian who has a different point of view is consonant with the most basic of fundamental freedoms in a democratic society. The grants process is a whole separate issue, more complicated, but it's that simple for me. I don't want a government telling people what they can or can't say. Period.



I don't think this work should be muzzled. I equally don't think it should be funded by the Government. If "art" contains messages that are against the good of the nation, then it should not be funded by the nation (taxpayers). This is not the same as censorship, and it's the salient point here. It's not so much what he said, it's that we paid for it.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't think this work should be muzzled. I equally don't think it should be funded by the Government. If "art" contains messages that are against the good of the nation, then it should not be funded by the nation (taxpayers). This is not the same as censorship, and it's the salient point here. It's not so much what he said, it's that we paid for it.



No?

Now let me see.....If by chance he had written the lyrics to say Kill all Muslims, we would already see him up in front of a Human Rights Tribunal because some muslims found it insulting and hateful.  Funny that.  He can write about killing Canadian soldiers and "Crusaders", but heaven forbid he use any reference to killing muslims.


Something wrong with this picture?


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No?
> 
> Now let me see.....If by chance he had written the lyrics to say Kill all Muslims, we would already see him up in front of a Human Rights Tribunal because some muslims found it insulting and hateful.  Funny that.  He can write about killing Canadian soldiers and "Crusaders", but heaven forbid he use any reference to killing muslims.



Damn good post!


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No?
> 
> Now let me see.....If by chance he had written the lyrics to say Kill all Muslims, we would already see him up in front of a Human Rights Tribunal because some muslims found it insulting and hateful.  Funny that.  He can write about killing Canadian soldiers and "Crusaders", but heaven forbid he use any reference to killing muslims.
> 
> ...



He should be held accountable for his speech. Like all cockroaches he has scurried away when the light has been shone on him. We should not let such as these take comfort in knowing that they can toil away in the darkness and we won't do anything about it. It doesn't matter who he's claiming to hate.


----------



## Redeye (1 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really Redeye?  Have you even listened to his lyrics, not snippets; or watched his video?  Jihadists have been using this medium to transmit their messages and recruit for some time now.  This plays right into their hands, and the Canadian Government paid for it.  That is a real coup for them.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rufo4BR8tm8
> ...



I haven't been able to find the video, and even if I could, streaming video where I am currently is basically impossible. If the lyrics quoted in the National Post write up are the most extreme of the whole thing, which I would expect to be the case given the nature/bent of the story, then I don't even find them particularly offensive. There's a vid of it performed live but I can't stream it and if I could, my French isn't good enough to really get it all anyhow I'm sure.

From my understanding, it mentions no organization, no religious bent, no nothing of the sort. So in terms of the lyrics, he's making no statements advocating killing anyone. And again, from the excerpted lyrics, the media is failing dearly to make a case to me that it's "promoting" or "glorifying" anything. All it's shown me is he has (as he said himself) attempted to present the opposite view point (the one we used to revere in the context of Afghanistan when it was aimed at the 40th Army), to advance an anti-war argument. If someone has the complete lyrics I'd be interested to see them. The video seems a fair bit more controversial, and while it disturbs me, it still falls under Section 2(b), which trumps my right to not be offended, every single time.

As far as promoting Canadian artists and cultural activities which seems to be what both NP & Sun Media want to have a go at, I support programs like that. They're a relatively small budget expenditure, and help make sure we don't import everything, for lack of a better way to put it. Without programs like FACTOR/VideoFACT for example, a whole lot of Canadian musicians who've gone on to be greatly successful would have a very hard time getting their feet in the door. Tarring them all with the brush aimed at this guy isn't reasonable.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2012)

So.  Some of Manu Militari's lyrics to his song "L'Attente" go:

"I get my shovel out.
I hurry to dig a hole to put my fertilizer bomb.
Since there is no metal in it, 
The Trap is undetectiable.
I just need to cover my tracks before takeing to the hills.
Death is so close,
I start reciting the Chahada.
The enemy approaches I recognize Canada's colours like hundres of countries.
Adrenaline rushes through my body.
In a few seconds they'll understand how much I hate them."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iteHS4rJh8

It is getting a lot of airplay on the French Much Music.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Jul 2012)

It took some looking to find it, but this link includes a rough translation. I originally saw it on National Newswatch and went into its blog archives.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2012/06/prime-ministers-office-condemns-rap-video/


----------



## JorgSlice (1 Jul 2012)

Is anyone else feeling their blood boil?  :threat:


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2012)

Yes.

"They walk amongst us."


----------



## Redeye (2 Jul 2012)

Context is all. A French acquaintance and I were discussing it. The song in totality is a narrative. A guy coerced into growing opium whose kid is killed during military operations, who gets caught up in the corruption, who is horribly impacted by a war he had no part in starting but is ultimately drawn into fighting. Then "story" in the narrative is the Manu's impression of the perspective of a civilian caught up in a war he had nothing to do with, and how it changes him. That's the message (against war) that he's trying to convey, and he chose a hard hitting way to do it, which is pretty bold.

I don't think he's "one who walks amongst us". He's a not a Muslim, and his song's story probably shocks me more for the fact that it has a grain of truth to it more than anything else - that ordinary people can be pushed to extremes by simple things. We would have cheered at such a tale during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in all likelihood. The video was in egregiously poor taste, the song less so, but at the end of the day I still think it's his right to express himself as he sees fit. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So.  Some of Manu Militari's lyrics to his song "L'Attente" go:
> 
> "I get my shovel out.
> I hurry to dig a hole to put my fertilizer bomb.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (2 Jul 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't think this work should be muzzled. I equally don't think it should be funded by the Government. If "art" contains messages that are against the good of the nation, then it should not be funded by the nation (taxpayers). This is not the same as censorship, and it's the salient point here. It's not so much what he said, it's that we paid for it.



That was the discussion of beer and cigars last night (and amazing roast lamb grilled up by one of the LCAs) - how is that different than censorship? Who is the arbiter of "the good of the nation"? That to me is by definition censorship, but I can see there's some line. If you're advocating the commission of a crime in some form, for example, then yes, there's got to be a discussion of the artistic merit of doing so. But to me even this doesn't go over that line.


----------



## JorgSlice (2 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That was the discussion of beer and cigars last night (and amazing roast lamb grilled up by one of the LCAs) - how is that different than censorship? Who is the arbiter of "the good of the nation"? That to me is by definition censorship, but I can see there's some line. If you're advocating the commission of a crime in some form, for example, then yes, there's got to be a discussion of the artistic merit of doing so. But to me even this doesn't go over that line.



Never said he couldn't say those things, but simply that if he is going to be a welfare queen and use government tax money (which we've all paid into) to dishonour the troops, then he should pay it back.


----------



## Redeye (2 Jul 2012)

JorgSlice said:
			
		

> Never said he couldn't say those things, but simply that if he is going to be a welfare queen and use government tax money (which we've all paid into) to dishonour the troops, then he should pay it back.



Except there's no mechanism for that, without getting into very thorny issues. As I understand it, the funding he received, the quoted number, is what he's received all time, and I'm fine with accepting that there will be occasional controversy in an otherwise generally successful program. I don't know what "dishonour the troops" means in this context. We neither have, nor are we entitled to the universal admiration of Canadians, and the "involvement" is tangential anyhow.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jul 2012)

How on earth are the french turning this into a french-english issue?
Isn't that grasping at straws a little?


----------



## Etienne (2 Jul 2012)

When I saw the video, I thought that artistically it was OK, putting aside wrong vehicles and uniforms for Canadian soldiers. I did understand the "story" behind that song, and he has the right to "sing" it. Thing is, he said in interviews that he wanted to show the Afghan view of the war. Fine by me, but what are it basics for that ? Did he spent months with Afghan farmers, did he spent time with a cell of Taliban studying their tactics ? If yes, well I think that a certain government group would have questions for him. But the answer is probably no, and that is where I am glad that the video was pull out of youtube and the song erased from his next album due to come out shortly (yep).


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Jul 2012)

Nothing but the usual apologists coming to defend some piece of shit.  :


----------



## Redeye (3 Jul 2012)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Nothing but the usual apologists coming to defend some piece of crap. *one of the single most fundamental freedoms of a free and democratic society. *



TFTFY.

Interestingly enough, he has another track (which still has an anti-war message to it) about a guy joining the military and straightening out his life - it's called Ryan. Don't think he's got any problem with militaries per se, but like plenty of people he's anti-war. And in a debate raging elsewhere over this, someone else made a great point. For all the whining about whatever funding he may have got, there's a not insignificant number of Canadians, I'm sure,  who would be as outraged at the amount of money poured into the military in general, or the war in Afghanistan and want no part of that. So I guess it kind of balances out.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> TFTFY. some piece of crap.


TFIFAE.  It was correct the first time.


----------



## Strike (3 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Nothing but the usual apologists coming to defend some piece of crap. *one of the single most fundamental freedoms of a free and democratic society. *



You know, people missuse that excuse so many times.  Freedom of speech does NOT mean that you can spout off hate speech and encourage others to take up arms/react with hate/incite violence/libel/whatever.  There is still responsibility attached to those rights that people like to conveniently forget or just plain ignore.

Your argument about his words not directly inciting violence?  He may not have MEANT for it to happen, but when it says in the song that the singer (subject) recognizes the Canadian colours and how much he hates them, well, that's pretty much cut and dried as far as I am concerned.

I really don't care if he's got another song talking about a guy who joined the military and sorted himself out.

Seriously, stop being so apologist!  The guy wrote a song that has the serious possibility of becoming an anthem for those who would wish to do us harm and pretty much copies all the Taliban music video propaganda that they send out.  No wonder people are pissed to find out that the government is funding this.

If he's going to be anti-war, then maybe he should be writing songs against NATO and governments, not the people on the ground that are trying to make a difference.


----------



## Sythen (3 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> TFTFY.
> 
> Interestingly enough, he has another track (which still has an anti-war message to it) about a guy joining the military and straightening out his life - it's called Ryan. Don't think he's got any problem with militaries per se, but like plenty of people he's anti-war. And in a debate raging elsewhere over this, someone else made a great point. For all the whining about whatever funding he may have got, there's a not insignificant number of Canadians, I'm sure,  who would be as outraged at the amount of money poured into the military in general, or the war in Afghanistan and want no part of that. So I guess it kind of balances out.



 : Because a legitimate function of government, funding a military and honouring our international commitments is balanced out by paying someone to pursue their hobby? And Strike is 100% correct. One of my favorite quotes:

7 Blunders of the World by Mahatma Gandhi

Wealth without work

Pleasure without conscience

Knowledge without character

Commerce without morality

Science without humanity

Worship without sacrifice

Politics without principle

8th Blunder of the World by Arun Gandhi

Rights without responsibilities


----------



## TN2IC (3 Jul 2012)

Under "Taliban law" quote... 



> Prohibition against music.
> Cassettes and music are forbidden in shops, hotels, vehicles, and rickshaws. If a music cassette is found in a shop, the owner will be imprisoned and the shop closed. If a cassette is found in a vehicle, the vehicle will be impounded and the driver imprisoned.



Makes sense... no?


----------



## Redeye (3 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> You know, people missuse that excuse so many times.  Freedom of speech does NOT mean that you can spout off hate speech and encourage others to take up arms/react with hate/incite violence/libel/whatever.  There is still responsibility attached to those rights that people like to conveniently forget or just plain ignore.
> 
> Your argument about his words not directly inciting violence?  He may not have MEANT for it to happen, but when it says in the song that the singer (subject) recognizes the Canadian colours and how much he hates them, well, that's pretty much cut and dried as far as I am concerned.
> 
> ...



I don't see him as doing that - the song's "storyline" doesn't either suggest it. It doesn't encourage violence, it doesn't glorify or promote, it, it's not libelous, it's not hate speech. I make no apology for thinking free speech trumps basically anything, none of the limitations I would accept on speech (that is, libel, slander, incitement to violence etc) appear here. It's that simple. The likelihood of it becoming an anthem for anything approaches zero. The point he's making is against "NATO and governments". I cannot argue that the concept is plausible - it's basically McChrystal's Insurgent Math turned into a rap. I don't agree with his way of going about it, but I find it far more disturbing that people complain about the exercise of rights than anything in the song and its tasteless video.


----------



## Redeye (3 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> : Because a legitimate function of government, funding a military and honouring our international commitments is balanced out by paying someone to pursue their hobby?



There are people that would argue that funding arts should be a higher priority. There are also groups (some Quakers, though from what I gather, not all of them) who wish to be excused the portion of taxes that fund the military, or to have funds devoted elsewhere. A PMB to that end was introduced in the House of Commons which was discussed here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103559.0 - so it's not as though the ideas don't exist in some people's minds. So to some, and no, I'm not one of them, that's a perfectly reasonable position.


----------



## Sythen (3 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There are people that would argue that funding arts should be a higher priority. There are also groups (some Quakers, though from what I gather, not all of them) who wish to be excused the portion of taxes that fund the military, or to have funds devoted elsewhere. A PMB to that end was introduced in the House of Commons which was discussed here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103559.0 - so it's not as though the ideas don't exist in some people's minds. So to some, and no, I'm not one of them, that's a perfectly reasonable position.



On the same note, I'd like to introduce a PMB to give every 16 y/o girl a unicorn and make it so every rainbow has a pot of gold at the end.  :

You're right, some people do live in a fantasy world. No one can outlaw stupid. Art is a hobby. Period. Full stop. Some people make money from their hobby. Never in the history of man has a civilization or people failed because they didn't have enough art of varying sorts. Would you like to guess how many have fallen due to lack of a proper or competitive military? One is the supreme function of any federal government, keeping its population free and reasonably safe. The other, if it didn't receive funding from the government, is likely to get one of those First World Problems meme's written about it.

No where do I advocate silencing him. I 100% agree with you, but you're trying to morph this conversation into something its not. I am, however, 100% against the government funding someone's hobby. What if I wanted to become an eGames athlete? Should the government pay me hundreds or thousands of dollars to play video games all day? 

EDIT: For grammar and such.


----------



## Redeye (3 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> On the same note, I'd like to introduce a PMB to give every 16 y/o girl a unicorn and make it so every rainbow has a pot of gold at the end.  :
> 
> You're right, some people do live in a fantasy world. No one can outlaw stupid. Art is a hobby. Period. Full stop. Some people make money from their hobby. Never in the history of man has a civilization or people failed because they didn't have enough art of varying sorts. Would you like to guess how many have fallen due to lack of a proper or competitive military? One is the supreme function of any federal government, keeping its population free and reasonably safe. The other, if it didn't receive funding from the government, is likely to get one of those First World Problems meme's written about it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying. As far as funding arts and culture, I have to disagree for the most part. I wouldn't say it should be a funding priority, but it is in my view important to provide mechanisms that fund art and culture in some form. Without it, what do we have as a civilization? Our understanding of history and other civilizations is in large part through art. I haven't looked up numbers but I suspect that the sum total of funding to the arts in a variety of forms through government and government/private sector initiatives like that which provided grants to Manu Militari represent a relatively small portion of the government's outlays, and the vast majority of them are uncontroversial. They do, in some cases (maybe most, don't have numbers) provide economic benefits in the long run, which is why we fund things like movie and TV production through things like tax incentive, rebate, and grant programs. Organizations like FACTOR and VideoFACT help promote Canadian musicians to help them get off the ground, etc. Public funding for things like galleries create tourist draws with huge benefits to communities. Does the National Art Gallery in Ottawa make money? I somehow doubt it, but it draws visitors.

To try and equate this to something military, consider the Ceremonial Guard. An utterly frivolous waste of taxpayer money, some might argue (and they do, it was probably at least 25% of the insane comments on various media outlets' coverage of the young soldier who was injured the other day, I need to stop reading those idiotic comments....). Despite the fact that it costs money for uniforms and for all the Class B Reservists who do the job (allowing, of course, for the fact that they complete training as well), and directly generates not a penny in revenue nor makes a contribution to security, it's a massive tourist draw. And tourists pour money into Ottawa's economy. So there are benefits to it. Does that seem like a reasonable comparison?

I laughed at the FWP reference, because yes, there indeed is a potential for that, and a high one at that, but that is why there's a process to award grants etc. Was this one of the better uses? Probably not. But that will happen in every system, and it isn't in my mind a reason to attack the whole system.


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> TFTFY.
> 
> Interestingly enough, he has another track (which still has an anti-war message to it) about a guy joining the military and straightening out his life - it's called Ryan. Don't think he's got any problem with militaries per se, but like plenty of people he's anti-war. And in a debate raging elsewhere over this, someone else made a great point. For all the whining about whatever funding he may have got, there's a not insignificant number of Canadians, I'm sure,  who would be as outraged at the amount of money poured into the military in general, or the war in Afghanistan and want no part of that. So I guess it kind of balances out.



Look, he's back again.  :


----------



## Loachman (3 Jul 2012)

One of the nice, yet occasionally simultaneously annoying, things about rights and freedoms is that they apply, and have to, equally to all people.

Should a government limit, or attempt to limit, rights and freedoms for a group or even a single person, no matter how much popular support there is for such a limitation, then that and all rights and freedoms are, effectively, null and void.

We might not like somebody's message, and others may not like ours, but all deserve to be free of governmental suppression.

And while arts funding is another matter, and not a core federal responsibility as has been pointed out, we are stuck with it and it, too, must be free of popular and governmental bias.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jul 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> One of the nice, yet occasionally simultaneously annoying, things about rights and freedoms is that they apply, and have to, equally to all people.
> 
> Should a government limit, or attempt to limit, rights and freedoms for a group or even a single person, no matter how much popular support there is for such a limitation, then that and all rights and freedoms are, effectively, null and void.
> 
> ...



Folks should not make the mistake that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides unlimited protection of the rights listed therein.  

Section 1 of the Charter  is clear that the Government may place limitations on the rights and freedoms granted under subsequent Sections:



> Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms​
> Rights and freedoms in Canada
> 
> *1.* The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it *subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society*.



Backed up with associated references, Wiki summarizes thus:



> ...Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R. v. Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R. v. Butler). It has also been used to protect from the unreasonable interference of government in the lives of people in a free and democratic society by defining these limits...




It would probably take a battery of lawyers on both sides to sort out whether guilty or not of an offence that could be considered one in which the Government would be justified under Section 1 of the CCRF in placing "_reasonable limits prescribed by law_," however, a quick review of Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, considering Canadian soldiers as the "identifyable group" upon which hatred is willfully promoted, lends credence to those who make a case for this individual stepping beyond his Charter rights:

Article 319.(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada



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




 :2c:

While it is my own opinion of the rapper's work, I am not naive enough to believe that this is simply a "narrative piece."   In any event, I find it offensive and I do not want my tax money spent on such material. 


Regards
G2G


----------



## Strike (3 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> To try and equate this to something military, consider the Ceremonial Guard. An utterly frivolous waste of taxpayer money, some might argue (and they do, it was probably at least 25% of the insane comments on various media outlets' coverage of the young soldier who was injured the other day, I need to stop reading those idiotic comments....). Despite the fact that it costs money for uniforms and for all the Class B Reservists who do the job (allowing, of course, for the fact that they complete training as well), and directly generates not a penny in revenue nor makes a contribution to security, it's a massive tourist draw. And tourists pour money into Ottawa's economy. So there are benefits to it. Does that seem like a reasonable comparison?



You cannot equate it to this, simply because of the economic spinoffs that the Guard provides.  The only economic spinoffs the video/song provides is to the artist whereas the Guard events benefit many.  The Guard also does not look to bash another group in order to promote itself.

I know you were trying to find something that the rest of us knuckle draggers could relate to, but this comparisson is simply and utterly flawed.

Now, if you were to compare it to the portrait of our PM that recently garnered so much attention...


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> You cannot equate it to this, simply because of the economic spinoffs that the Guard provides.  The only economic spinoffs the video/song provides is to the artist whereas the Guard events benefit many.  The Guard also does not look to bash another group in order to promote itself.




I would argue otherwise.  It does benefit others.  It is another tool in the toolbox of Jihadists.


----------



## Redeye (4 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> You cannot equate it to this, simply because of the economic spinoffs that the Guard provides.  The only economic spinoffs the video/song provides is to the artist whereas the Guard events benefit many.  The Guard also does not look to bash another group in order to promote itself.
> 
> I know you were trying to find something that the rest of us knuckle draggers could relate to, but this comparisson is simply and utterly flawed.
> 
> Now, if you were to compare it to the portrait of our PM that recently garnered so much attention...



I wasn't trying to draw a comparison to this one specific artist but to arts funding programs in general. And even then, I even think I said it's not a perfect comparison.


----------



## Redeye (4 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would argue otherwise.  It does benefit others.  It is another tool in the toolbox of Jihadists.



I'm sorry, but you're starting to make me think you check under your bed for Jihadists every night. 

G2G - you're correct about the Charter, but I don't think you'd be able to make an argument like that in R. v. Keegstra (which was based on promoting hate through teaching false information). R. v. Butler I'm not as familiar with (except that I know it had to do with pornography).

I don't see how you could find the either the song or video promotes hate though. It take are army of lawyers, as you said, to make that case, and I'd still think it's really, really shaky.


----------



## exabedtech (4 Jul 2012)

So some Canadian received an arts grant, as some artists do, and created something that some find offensive.  Is this really news?  
I don't see his 'work' as art, but that hardly means that it isn't.  Art comes in all shapes, sizes and flavours.  Some you'll like, some you'll hate but regardless, we all need art in our lives and we all see art in our own way.  

As Canadians, are any of us going to advocate for the destruction of this man's art?  Should he be jailed?  No, he shouldn't be and neither should his funding be cut unless his funding were somehow conditional on the type/quality/nature of the art he was to produce.

We don't have to agree with his music or find it in any way to be in good taste but we do have to recognize that free societies allow for freedom of thought and expression.


----------



## Strike (4 Jul 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> We don't have to agree with his music or find it in any way to be in good taste but we do have to recognize that free societies allow for *freedom of thought and expression. *



...provided that expression does not mean advocating hate (yes, Redeye, the song advocates hate against a group of people.  Read the damn lyrics, some of which have been posted earlier in this thread) against a group of people.

Again, everyone seems to forget that part.  Re-read G2G's post where he quotes the Charter.  (I would repost it, but I'm on an iPad and multi-quotes get complicated)


----------



## exabedtech (4 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> ...provided that expression does not mean advocating hate (yes, Redeye, the song advocates hate against a group of people.  Read the damn lyrics, some of which have been posted earlier in this thread) against a group of people.
> 
> Again, everyone seems to forget that part.  Re-read G2G's post where he quotes the Charter.  (I would repost it, but I'm on an iPad and multi-quotes get complicated)



Is it really hate?  How about a movie like "American History X", a video game where you can beat up hookers or a cartoon like Southpark.  Poor taste, but hardly something that would fall under hate crimes as some of Ernst Zundel's writings would.  

Its a 'song' that most would find offensive, but taken in its entirety, within its context, it isn't going to meet the criteria for hate speech.  If it did, charges would already have been laid.


----------



## Strike (4 Jul 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Is it really hate?  How about a movie like "American History X", a video game where you can beat up hookers or a cartoon like Southpark.  Poor taste, but hardly something that would fall under hate crimes as some of Ernst Zundel's writings would.
> 
> Its a 'song' that most would find offensive, but taken in its entirety, within its context, it isn't going to meet the criteria for hate speech.  If it did, charges would already have been laid.



What if the roles were reversed in the lyrics of the song and the final scene showed a Canadian soldier killing an unarmed, injured insurgent?  How do you think people would react?  Think it's not a song encouraging hate? Think again.

My final thought as I head off to bed, here's hoping MusicAction stops funding this guy.


----------



## Redeye (4 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> What if the roles were reversed in the lyrics of the song and the final scene showed a Canadian soldier killing an unarmed, injured insurgent?  How do you think people would react?  Think it's not a song encouraging hate? Think again.
> 
> My final thought as I head off to bed, here's hoping MusicAction stops funding this guy.



I don't believe the law would consider it so, in either case. Both in poor taste? Sure, but not hate within the scope of the law and thus protected speech.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I don't believe the law would consider it so, in either case. Both in poor taste? Sure, but not hate within the scope of the law and thus protected speech.



That's simply your opinion, as are the others, nothing concrete, just your own thoughts.

Hate, is obviously, in the eye of the beholder.

Some here are diametrically opposed to the views and opinions expressed.

Neither is going to be convinced by the other, nor do they seem to want to be.

Some just want to argue the opposing point to appear superior to the rest.

Whatever the reason, unless someone says something earth shaking, new, or definitive, can everyone please stop rehashing the same nause every three posts?

It's getting boring and has made the whole thread stale and unpalatable.

Much akin to a scratchy old broken record.


----------



## mikewalker28 (5 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We do have Hate Crime Laws.....Why is he exempt?  Because he got a Government grant?  I want MY taxpayer dollars back.



Because you are a white, Canadian / American male, you can't discriminate or legally you will be discredited, and jailed. We as Canadians, or Americans are probably the most discriminated on race world wide right now, but because we are such a "dominate force" these laws are not set up to protect us, they seem in place to protect people like this, i understand he has the right to 'say what ever the frig he wants' but lets get real, if this punk *** fake gangster rapper, really hates this country so much, I personally will sell my ******* house, car, give my business up. To get funding for him to be on the next plane out of our beautiful country, and back to Afghanistan and instead of using ******* 'rap' and our tax dollars to spread hate towards our finest and country, he can arm him self and fight like a ******* man, and our troops can shell his little ***** ***, and maybe a couple of his Buddy's. 

THIS KIND OF STUFF MAKES ME MAD  :threat:
******* coward, at least his dirt farming friends have the balls to fight for the warped sense of thinking they have, this little ***** hides behind our constitution. 

frig him, and frig anyone that supports him.

I wish I would have skipped this post, kinda killed my morning I'm going back to bed.


----------



## JorgSlice (5 Jul 2012)

mikewalker28 said:
			
		

> Because you are a white, Canadian / American male, you can't discriminate or legally you will be discredited, and jailed. We as Canadians, or Americans are probably the most discriminated on race world wide right now, but because we are such a "dominate force" these laws are not set up to protect us, they seem in place to protect people like this, i understand he has the right to 'say what ever the frig he wants' but lets get real, if this punk *** fake gangster rapper, really hates this country so much, I personally will sell my ******* house, car, give my business up. To get funding for him to be on the next plane out of our beautiful country, and back to Afghanistan and instead of using ******* 'rap' and our tax dollars to spread hate towards our finest and country, he can arm him self and fight like a ******* man, and our troops can shell his little ***** ***, and maybe a couple of his Buddy's.
> 
> THIS KIND OF STUFF MAKES ME MAD  :threat:
> ******* coward, at least his dirt farming friends have the balls to fight for the warped sense of thinking they have, this little ***** hides behind our constitution.
> ...



Whoa WHOA! Slow down there, Speed Racer....


----------



## brihard (5 Jul 2012)

mikewalker28 said:
			
		

> Because you are a white, Canadian / American male, you can't discriminate or legally you will be discredited, and jailed. We as Canadians, or Americans are probably the most discriminated on race world wide right now, but because we are such a "dominate force" these laws are not set up to protect us, they seem in place to protect people like this, i understand he has the right to 'say what ever the frig he wants' but lets get real, if this punk *** fake gangster rapper, really hates this country so much, I personally will sell my ******* house, car, give my business up. To get funding for him to be on the next plane out of our beautiful country, and back to Afghanistan and instead of using ******* 'rap' and our tax dollars to spread hate towards our finest and country, he can arm him self and fight like a ******* man, and our troops can shell his little ***** ***, and maybe a couple of his Buddy's.
> 
> THIS KIND OF STUFF MAKES ME MAD  :threat:
> 
> ...



You feel better now, Sparky?

He's Canadian. Born and raised. He has the same right to express himself as you do- the freedom that let's you say all of what you just said extends to him too. He's not 'hiding behind the constitution'; the Charter protects us from bad and oppressive laws, and that mead some stuff we don't much like can be said. But that's as it should be. We are NOT a country where saying the wrong thing is a justification for violence against you. Best wrap your head around that, because that is among the freedoms YOU wish to join up to defend. Sort yourself out.

As to those trying to invoke s. 319 of the criminal code, it does not apply. "Identifiable group" does not include identification by profession. It doesn't take an army of lawyers to riddle that one out; merely a plain text reading of applicable sections of the criminal code. The Salman Hossein case serves as valid precedent for another loudmouth who actually *did* say people would be justified at having a go at us, and that section of the Criminal Code did not come into play.


----------



## mikewalker28 (5 Jul 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You feel better now, Sparky?
> 
> He's Canadian. Born and raised. He has the same right to express himself as you do- the freedom that let's you say all of what you just said extends to him too. He's not 'hiding behind the constitution'; the Charter protects us from bad and oppressive laws, and that mead some stuff we don't much like can be said. But that's as it should be. We are NOT a country where saying the wrong thing is a justification for violence against you. Best wrap your head around that, because that is among the freedoms YOU wish to join up to defend. Sort yourself out.
> 
> As to those trying to invoke s. 319 of the criminal code, it does not apply. "Identifiable group" does not include identification by profession. It doesn't take an army of lawyers to riddle that one out; merely a plain text reading of applicable sections of the criminal code. The Salman Hossein case serves as valid precedent for another loudmouth who actually *did* say people would be justified at having a go at us, and that section of the Criminal Code did not come into play.


Honestly birhard, with ALL due respect towards your post, frig his rights man. 
All this kid is going to end up doing is A) getting him self killed or B) getting half his family deported.
I honestly don't know a thing about 'law' or 'politics' what I do know though is if your going to breast feed, then your mother sure as hell deserves some respect, and if that respect isn't there, move the frig out of the house. Before big brother - dad comes down on your *** hard.

Ahhhh! man I'm gonna be done with this post, because i can forsee my self being banned from army.ca if I get into this anymore, 4:30 AM and I'm going to skip breakfast and hit the heavy for the next 3 hours after seeing this 

And did I really just get called speed-racer and sparky, lol


----------



## mikewalker28 (5 Jul 2012)

Deleted  :facepalm:


----------



## Redeye (5 Jul 2012)

mikewalker28 said:
			
		

> Honestly birhard, with ALL due respect towards your post, frig his rights man.
> All this kid is going to end up doing is A) getting him self killed or B) getting half his family deported.
> I honestly don't know a thing about 'law' or 'politics' what I do know though is if your going to breast feed, then your mother sure as hell deserves some respect, and if that respect isn't there, move the frig out of the house. Before big brother - dad comes down on your *** hard.



Getting half his FRENCH CANADIAN family deported? To where, exactly? And getting himself killed? By who, exactly?



			
				mikewalker28 said:
			
		

> Ahhhh! man I'm gonna be done with this post, because i can forsee my self being banned from army.ca if I get into this anymore, 4:30 AM and I'm going to skip breakfast and hit the heavy for the next 3 hours after seeing this
> 
> And did I really just get called speed-racer and sparky, lol



Yes, you did. And you should have skipped this post and the others. As Brihard said, if you can't wrap your head around the basics of the laws of this country, and react like that (with such ignorance to boot), please seek another profession.


----------



## Scott (5 Jul 2012)

mikewalker28 said:
			
		

> And don't ever compare me to a piece of garbage like that again, the BIG difference between me and him is I would give up EVERY freedom I have, and my home - personal, To protect my family and loved ones from people like him, and his terrorist friends he preaches about, this fucking coward's preaching 'murder' to civilians, there are ways to be pro - anti war in a PRODUCTIVE mannor, I can understand a Taliban sympathizer. or anyone that is ANTI war, I my self think war is messed up and hate the idea of murder, but come on man. should this REALLY be tolerated, how is it going to look, when he goes to the next extreme i.e suicide bomb. If he's got the BALLS to be so bold in his music and pubic about it, we'll whats next, how is he going to top that, it's amazing to think. That no one is actually taking into consideration of what this guy might be capable of and the contacts he's going to make now, especially after the media blows this up.
> 
> ARGH!  :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat:



You mad or something?

Done now?

Hope so, because the points others made to you are valid and do not deserve such anger in return. Hmmkay?

Calm down.

rancing:

Scott
Staff


----------



## mikewalker28 (5 Jul 2012)

iper:


----------



## Scott (5 Jul 2012)

mikewalker28 said:
			
		

> See the double standard our society has ? I just proved my point in this post, As birhard stated.



You're obviously very excitable and cannot control what it is you type. I see by your posting history that this isn't the first instance of such.

You also completely lost me



> Which where just shut down in an indirect mannor bye "scott staff"



Define this for me: private site.



> But hey, as long as we live in a country where homebread terrorists can recruit through rap, disrespect our soldiers, and i get my *** chewed we'll to hell with it.
> 
> And to you
> I'm ignorant, for not tolerating some one that raps about terrorism, and is doing a CD release party on 9/11 to promote his "art" ?
> ...



You're ignorant for acting like a child here.

Now, if you're done, like you said a few posts ago, I'd suggest you go handle that poor heavy bag before your fingers run away on themselves again and you post something that will get you into the warning system - like another shot at me doing my job here.

I've got no dog in this fight and couldn't give less of a fuck about what some barely talented rapper, a genre I do not enjoy, does with his funding. But I do not accept the foul rhetoric which you post and the manner which you post it. That's called holding this forum to a higher standard than your new bestie has been held, eh?

Think about that, calm down and relax.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (5 Jul 2012)

mikewalker28 said:
			
		

> I'm ignorant, for not tolerating...



I think that pretty much sums it up. While you don't have to agree with this situation - and I would wager few or none here do - ranting on the Internet resolves nothing. You can express outrage without going off the rails. We encourage reasoned debate about the issues here, not frothing at the mouth and chest beating to make a point. Might be a good idea to read and understand our approach for a bit longer before jumping headlong into another rant.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Scott (5 Jul 2012)

The Boss is always so much nicer than I am...

Thanks, Mike B.


----------



## Scott (5 Jul 2012)

This topic's open for posting. Please leave the previous situation alone and carry on.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2012)

Shoulda just left this whole mess locked. :


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2012)

At least for 24/48 hours.....


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (5 Jul 2012)

Surely we can conduct ourselves reasonably moving forward and a lock isn't required.


----------



## mikewalker28 (5 Jul 2012)

We'll it turns out, justice can be served in the way of informing admins of contraversal content on members websites, promoting terrorist acts, apparently with a well written plea to VortexSolution.com the hosting company of manu militari in montreal, can result in closer of a website!
:bowing:

What I dont understand is, this kid was born May 21, 1979 in Quebec, he's a CANADIAN! has tured in India, Greece and the Middle East. promoting his "art" and has made $110,000 in four years from a group called MusicAction, a gov funded musical historian group.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2012)

The amount of freedom in ones freedom of speech is directly proportionate to how much grief and drama what someone is saying causes the medium in which it's being said on.

every kid in north America probably grows up at one point telling their parents it's a free world and they can do/say what they want until they discover

saying some things to some people get you a punch in the face
saying some things get you in trouble with the authority.

You can say say whatever you want but expect a reaction of some sort.


----------



## brihard (5 Jul 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> The amount of freedom in ones freedom of speech is directly proportionate to how much grief and drama what someone is saying causes the medium in which it's being said on.
> 
> every kid in north America probably grows up at one point telling their parents it's a free world and they can do/say what they want until they discover
> 
> ...



Yup, for sure- but where the state becomes involved, that 'reaction' must have grounding in law, and in this case the law is pretty clear that the state shall leave well enough alone. That's what we've democratically decided. We are all free to scream ourselves hoarse over this, but talk of criminal charges and such is grossly overboard.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2012)

Money for nothing and Chicks for free..........Was that song by Dire Straits not banned not too long ago?  























Do you know how many chicks took offence?


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jul 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> and in this case the law is pretty clear that the state shall leave well enough alone.



A clear law, any clear law, is never more than one lawyer away from being a not-so-clear law.


----------



## brihard (5 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A clear law, any clear law, is never more than one lawyer away from being a not-so-clear law.



You greatly oversimplify how easy it is for law to come into question. Generally speaking when uncertainty comes in it's in the appeals stage, or when a defense is raised on constitutional or Charter grounds.

Since S. 319 of the criminal code - incitement of hatred - quite explictly deals only with certain categories as 'identifiable groups', and since 'members of the military' in no way fall into that, there's no room for a credible application of this particular offense in this instance. As I said earlier, the precedent was already set when Salman Hossein was not charged for his comments about the military being fair game- though later he fled the country before being indicted for advocating genocide of Jews.

Prosecutors seldom if ever apply sections of the criminal code in a novel manner; rather when a 'new' type of behaviour becomes something we wish to prosecute, the law is amended legislatively. Criminal code offenses are rarely stretched, and there's certainly nothing unique or new about this circumstance that might lead a crown attorney to do so. 

I stand by what I said- there is no evident case for criminal prosecution on any count. All he did was express himself in a manner that pissed many people off, and because Sun turned this into another one of their blithering crusades by misrepresenting facts a whole bunch of folks are now going off half cocked without actually looking into it themselves or seeing what was actually said or shown.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jul 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You greatly oversimplify how easy it is for law to come into question.



Of course, as i am not a lawyer. Are you ?


----------



## brihard (5 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Of course, as i am not a lawyer. Are you ?



No, I am not a lawyer, but I did spend four years in school studying this stuff from numerous legal angles, plus what I've looked into on my own both during and since then, including a lot of digging into free expression issues. When the Hossein situation came up I made sure to look into the incitement of hatred provisions of the criminal code before articulating my views on that. I'm boned up enough on criminal, constitutional and Charter law to be fully confident in what I've said, and I'm prepared to discuss specific case precedent.

I am not able to practice law. I am able, however, to give a pretty well informed opinion on this very specific issue.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jul 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I am not able to practice law. I am able, however, to give a pretty well informed opinion on this very specific issue.



That's why i was asking. Thanks.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ...Since S. 319 of the criminal code - incitement of hatred - quite explictly deals only with certain categories as 'identifiable groups', and since 'members of the military' *in no way fall into that*, there's no room for a credible application of this particular offense in this instance...



Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out either in the CCC, or Canadian case law, where the Canadian Forces is specifically excluded from consideration as an 'identifiable group'?   This rather sweeping statement does much to erode the value of many of your previous comments.


Regards
G2G


----------



## exabedtech (5 Jul 2012)

If we are to jail every rapper that says something stupid, hateful, offensive, childish, racist or otherwise in bad taste then I guess we need to start building more prisons.
Musicians in general and rappers in particular are not strangers to creating controversy in order to get their name out.  This clown is a perfect example... no one ever heard of him and now he's in the news and being discussed.  Anyone want to guess at how much money he's earned through this tactic?

This is only a big deal unless we make it out to be one.  Same class as wearing a meat dress or shaking the hips in a suggestive manner.  Lets get over it.


----------



## brihard (5 Jul 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out either in the CCC, or Canadian case law, where the Canadian Forces is specifically excluded from consideration as an 'identifiable group'?   This rather sweeping statement does much to erode the value of many of your previous comments.
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Certainly. You'll find it in section 318(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada; the crime of advocating genocide, which includes a definition of 'identifiable group'. Subsection (7) of 319 (the offence of incitement of hatred) refers to that prior section for its definition of 'identifiable group'. It is not a category that is considered to be exclusionary in definition, but rather inclusionary- that is to say, unless you fit a category explicitly enumerated under that section, you are not in play.

Kindly offer me the chance to back up my position with the facts I've previously offered to cite before you call me out on the anticipatory 'erorison of value' of my posts. You'll find I rarely say anything I'm unwilling to back up, and will immediately cede a point if I cannot prove myself correct. You would not have found this difficult to find yourself had you chosen to look before taking a shot at me.




			
				Criminal Code of Canada said:
			
		

> 318(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
> 
> 319(7)   In this section,... “identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;



http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-150.html#docCont


----------



## cphansen (5 Jul 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Certainly. You'll find it in section 318(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada; the crime of advocating genocide, which includes a definition of 'identifiable group'. Subsection (7) of 319 (the offence of incitement of hatred) refers to that prior section for its definition of 'identifiable group'. It is not a category that is considered to be exclusionary in definition, but rather inclusionary- that is to say, unless you fit a category explicitly enumerated under that section, you are not in play.
> 
> Kindly offer me the chance to back up my position with the facts I've previously offered to cite before you call me out on the anticipatory 'erorison of value' of my posts. You'll find I rarely say anything I'm unwilling to back up, and will immediately cede a point if I cannot prove myself correct. You would not have found this difficult to find yourself had you chosen to look before taking a shot at me.
> 
> ...



I can certainly see where section 318 (4) of the Criminal Code's criteria would make it impossible for the Canadian Military to be defined as an identifiable group.

I guess we have to rely on our uniforms, discipline and professionalism etc.


----------



## brihard (5 Jul 2012)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> I guess we have to rely on our uniforms, discipline and professionalism etc.



Exactly right. No opinion expressed by anyone else can take that away from us.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Certainly. You'll find it in section 318(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada; the crime of advocating genocide, which includes a definition of 'identifiable group'. Subsection (7) of 319 (the offence of incitement of hatred) refers to that prior section for its definition of 'identifiable group'. It is not a category that is considered to be exclusionary in definition, but rather inclusionary- that is to say, unless you fit a category explicitly enumerated under that section, you are not in play.
> 
> Kindly offer me the chance to back up my position with the facts I've previously offered to cite before you call me out on the anticipatory 'erorison of value' of my posts. You'll find I rarely say anything I'm unwilling to back up, and will immediately cede a point if I cannot prove myself correct. You would not have found this difficult to find yourself had you chosen to look before taking a shot at me.
> 
> ...



Thank you, I had not appreciated the linked definitions from 318 to 319.  I stand corrected and offer my apologies for my previous comment towards you.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## brihard (5 Jul 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Thank you, I had not appreciated the linked definitions from 318 to 319.  I stand corrected and offer my apologies for my previous comment towards you.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Accepted, and thank you.

The CCC is a pain in the arse that way. Lots of references amidst sections, and then there's case law on top of it to further hammer down nuances and definitions as appeals are heard.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jul 2012)

> A Manitoba MP is calling for a review of Heritage Canada funding, following the release of a music video he says glorifies terrorism.
> 
> The video by rapper Manu Militari shows a re-enactment of a roadside bomb attack on a Canadian military vehicle and the murder of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


CBC.ca, 5 Jul 12


----------



## dogger1936 (6 Jul 2012)

Food for thought:

Is this song any worse than the drug glorification and police killing rap that seems prevalent?

Like this gem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efs5lOPNuIE

Society is full of degenerates and unfortunately some of our tax dollars funded an artist who falls into that category.

And you have to admit...what a way for a unknown "rapper" to get free publicity. Good marketing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Food for thought:
> 
> Is this song any worse than the drug glorification and police killing rap that seems prevalent?
> 
> ...


True, but does anybody know if the worst of the drug glorifying/cop killing rappers are getting access to tax money for this stuff?  



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> And you have to admit...what a way for a unknown "rapper" to get free publicity. Good marketing.


True enough - something about no such thing as _bad_ publicity....


----------



## zander1976 (7 Jul 2012)

All grants have stipulations that state what you can and can't use the money for. Someone messed up and they should be reprimanded. It's been a while since I read a Canadian grant application but from what I remember violence was highly frowned upon. In any case why is art protected and how do you define art? It takes the same amount of work to light and shoot a flower as it does a naked women but one is art and the other is porn. You can draw the art line in the sand all over the place if you want. On a personal note, I am a proud Canadian and I sure as hell don't want to pay some douchbag a cent to promote anything to the contrary.


----------



## GnyHwy (7 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Food for thought:
> 
> Is this song any worse than the drug glorification and police killing rap that seems prevalent?
> 
> ...



Good thing that the link above is a weak artist, and he is probably giving handjobs to his cellmate for cigarettes.

Good marketing?  No.  It is cheap marketing, and thank goodness is not lasting.


----------



## dogger1936 (7 Jul 2012)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Good thing that the link above is a weak artist, and he is probably giving handjobs to his cellmate for cigarettes.
> 
> Good marketing?  No.  It is cheap marketing, and thank goodness is not lasting.



 ;D One could hope he is serving a purpose somewhere. 


As for the marketing it's free national wide marketing. TV, Radio, Internet has covered this "artist". If you ever checked into what a FM station charges for business ad airtime it's unreal. It's the best marketing ever; FREE!

And we're still talking about him!

For clarity:
(Please note if I do not support this crap; I don't even like the use of glorifying using coke on FM radio stations (i.E nicki minaj et al). Add in having friends killed by taliban I have certain rage issues with the glorifying of these savages by this artist that I will not get into on the internet)


----------

