Trump: Drop Democracy – Call In Thought Police

“Trump is also set to call for increased vetting of individuals entering the United States by developing a “test” that would question visa applicants on their support of US values and seek to weed out any supporters of extremist ideologies.”
 
See Trump to lay out plan for combating radical Islamic terrorism
Trump, please just go away. Your values are incompatible with life in the 21st century. We value democracy. We value human rights. You don’t. Just go away.

Morphing your plan to ban muslims into a plan to ban folks based on geographic origins is no less stupid than promising folks to police the thoughts of candidates for immigration. This is all an irrelevant smokescreen. Ever heard of the Internet? How are you going to filter that? Blocking FB, Google, Twitter,…? What other verbal diarrhea are you going to emit between now and the elections? Save our ears, minds and hearts. Just go away. Start your long vacation early, preferably at the South Pole or some remote location with poor Internet access.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Trump: Drop Democracy – Call In Thought Police

  1. oiaohm says:

    You are an idiot….Go ahead file papers. I await your pitiful complaint, but wait, do even remotely understand that you must have proper jurisdiction and venue? Survey says no.
    dougman do you even understand who I have to file against I Survey says no. The party I have to file against first is Robert Pogson and his hosting provider. Of course in that case most likely Robert would go for the settle out of court option and delete all your posts. This is what happens on facebook and everywhere else on the internet. Internet hosting providers don’t bother going to court over this stuff instead they tell the owner of the site to clean it up or be deleted.

    So you will not see the pitiful complaint at least not a first. If something major has happened and they suspect your actions are happening on multi locations causing multi problems the will have asked for connection information as part of out of court settlement. And if you are causing enough problems they will not be past using the Patriot Act.

    So you are totally fine if Robert deletes your posts I hope dougman because that is the legal position you are putting Robert in by doing it wrong. Part of the reason why I have been stomping on you like a tone of bricks for getting it wrong. Counter posts can in fact stop take down orders. In other words the posts I have been doing point out your errors protects Robert.

    Online gambling is illegal btw.
    LOL.
    Online gambling hosted in Australia where Australia laws say Online gambling is legal is perfectly fine as long as the site is licensed and you are not Aus citizens or any other citizen forbid from online gambling. And it gets more stupid you download an android/iphone application and use that to do gambling on the servers and it now magically not on-line gambling any more under Australian law yet doing same thing by the browser is on-line gambling. How does android/iphone application make it legal by law your phone is a sub venue of the license holder so your actions are between the phone and you so perfectly legal what happens in background like connecting to internet hosted server does not matter any more.

    USA laws on on-line gambling is also funny.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling#United_States
    Betting on a electronic dice roll(a game of chance) perfectly legal, Betting on a sporting event of any form illegal.

    dougman again you don’t know your own countries laws. Online gambling is not illegal in the USA or Canada or Australia absolutely. Only particular forms of Online gambling is illegal in all 3 countries to particular clients. A dice roll with no profit is illegal in none of them including having to pay if you lose the dice roll. Again attempting to make a point without any legal ground to stand on. So another idiot statement.

  2. dougman says:

    “Do you really feel like rolling the dice now dougman. Most current day hate speech prosecutions go like this in the USA of settling out of course. The punishment under USA law for a hate speech conviction is 10 years jail.”

    You are an idiot….Go ahead file papers. I await your pitiful complaint, but wait, do even remotely understand that you must have proper jurisdiction and venue? Survey says no.

    Online gambling is illegal btw.

  3. dougman says:

    “This is a demonstration of the ignorance of Trumpists.”

    Hah…since when do I play the trumpet?

  4. oiaohm says:

    In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender” on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued “any number” of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that “fighting words” could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
    Fighting words
    In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[86] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[87] The opinion noted “This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property”, among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.
    And this is the hate speech on the wikipedia.

    dougman you just quote from a wikipedia page that has it incorrect . 1992 ruling makes it clear that you can be held liable as accessory to a crime for hate speech.

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/04/montana-hate-speech-case-wont-be-prosecu
    Lets come forward to the most recent case. Do you really feel like rolling the dice now dougman. Most current day hate speech prosecutions go like this in the USA of settling out of course. The punishment under USA law for a hate speech conviction is 10 years jail.

    I gave you the right wikipedia page to read but then you had to be a idiot and attempt to find one that helps you case.

    See dougman does not know that the 1942 interpretation has been found fairly much not flawed. If your actions end up causing more violence you are stuffed and if you actions possible cause more violence you might get away with it under USA law basically. The problem here is extremist from the Islamic or Christian sides are known to undertake violence if provoked. So the t-shirt of 1971 does not apply. 1971 case hindged clearly on the fact the Draft are not known for undertaken violence.

    Also in your quote 1971 case you ignored the test case “direct personal insult” can you be sure with the crap you have been saying that an extremist from the Islamic side would not take direct personal insult and if they do you have committed an offence that could have triggered violence. So 1971 case does not hold at all for the crap you have been saying.

    Now if what you are saying happens to be balanced based on facts and an extremist takes offence on either side by USA or UN laws stiff briskets its legal. Hate speech USA and UN Racism don’t apply where everything is properly balanced and factual.

    dougman please note I am not saying you cannot talk out about the issues. I am just saying legally you should be putting in more effort to make sure what you are typing is balanced particularly when the current environment is heated.

    dougman the oldest ruling I have brought into an Australian Civil court is 300 years old (yes before Australia was colonised ) it is the ruling that allows opposing council to be called as a character witness to put opposing council underoath for the complete case. Just because a ruling is old does not mean it expired or that it cannot hurt case big time.

    by their utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
    Can you tell me absolutely that you incorrect information would not do either. The fact is you cannot dougman because you have to be aware the extremist abusing islam will use any excuse to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. Same stuff said about Jewish or Christianity is also known to cause same problems. The problem with it posted on the internet is the inflicted injury or incite might be years into the future. USA law does not say exactly how soon after typed text is published can it turn into hate speech due to confirmed action. Could be 10 to 20 years down the track and you find yourself in jail.

  5. dougman wrote, “Only you would bring up a 70+ year ruling.”

    This is a demonstration of the ignorance of Trumpists. They don’t get that the rule of law is a living thing being born, growing and maturing. Long established principles of law, social norms and plain good manners just whiz right over their heads while they are wriggling around in the mud of their delusions. Accusing billions of people of crimes on the basis of a few thousand criminals who happen to be somehow related to the larger group is just wrong. It’s guilt by association, not widely accepted crime and punishment.

  6. dougman says:

    Wow, an Australian that can cite wiki, woohoo! Only you would bring up a 70+ year ruling.

    To expand on your argument, and to the court case you feebly cited, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire created the “fighting words doctrine” — defining them as words that “by their utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

    You are failing to realize that later Supreme Court decisions curtailed the reach of Chaplinsky. For example, in Cohen v. California (1971), the Court ruled that an individual’s wearing of a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in a California courthouse did not constitute fighting words, because Cohen did not direct the message at a particular person. “No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant’s jacket as a direct personal insult,” the Court said.

    Others cases have affirmed the very same thing, namely if you bother to look them up.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

    See I can cite Wikipedia too!

  7. oiaohm says:

    To be truthful due to the stuff you doing being illegal fairly much every where dougman don’t be surprised if one day your posts are gone from Roberts site and he might not have a choice. Both USA law and Canada law could land on Robert over it. Basically there is no valid place for Racist or Hate Speech what ever you want to call it.

  8. oiaohm says:

    With that said, I challenge you to run a full-page print ad in a local newspaper, stating the following: “Islam Is NOT a Religion of Peace” & “Transgenderism = Mental Disease” & “Gays Die from Aids” & “Black Lives Matter, taught by convicted cop killer Assata Shakur”.
    I guess you have not attempted to do that in the USA either dougman.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
    Supreme Court case law

    Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: “There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
    Like it or not stuff like that is breach of USA law as well dougman. Don’t suggest something illegal in your own country.

    Jokes are not 100 percent protected under USA law either. Nothing dougman. are suggesting as so called difference between Canada and USA is different just dougman. being an absolute idiot.

  9. dougman says:

    “dougman freedom of speech defence are you an idiot ”

    I only have one thing to say to a ankle biting dill.

    LIONS DON’T CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH THE OPINION OF SHEEP

    Oi!

  10. dougman says:

    “ROFL! HAHAHAHA! GASP! ROFL!”

    BTW: Who said I was voting for Trump? Are you a mind-reader?? I even stated some time ago in this blog that Hillary is going to be the next president.

    Amazing, just amazing, I have to set here and teach a Canuck about the laws of their land.

    Canadian Human Rights Commission says, “Value and respect everyone” — or else! Or else as in, they will fine you. Yes pervasive freedom of speech is so great in Canada, that if you say something that angers another, you can be dragged before a court and fined.

    “Human Rights Tribunal orders stand-up comic to pay $25K for moral damages, $10K for punitive damages”

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-verdict-1.3688089

    Aren’t jokes protected in Canada protected speech?

    Free speech in Canada is not absolute! Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression. Wow!…imagine that.

    Citing Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec, which outlines the types of speech that do enjoy absolute expression. Speech that aims at truth, speech that contributes to social and political decision making or speech that is an expression of self-fulfillment. Ward’s jokes had to meet one of these conditions in order to qualify for free-speech protection.

    “A comedian cannot operate solely in function of the laughs of his audience…He also has to take into account the fundamental rights of the victims of this jokes.”

    Ward’s jokes don’t raise questions of public interest. Given that, they don’t qualify for protection. With that conclusion, Ward’s case is lost. His jokes were found to have discriminatory and not considered to be protected speech.

    An absolute miscarriage of justice, even if you agree that the jokes were in bad taste, offensive, rude, crude, upsetting, or otherwise objectionable.

    With that said, I challenge you to run a full-page print ad in a local newspaper, stating the following: “Islam Is NOT a Religion of Peace” & “Transgenderism = Mental Disease” & “Gays Die from Aids” & “Black Lives Matter, taught by convicted cop killer Assata Shakur”.

    Eh.

  11. oiaohm says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
    we are allowed to speak out against those that want to oppress and undermine the West.
    dougman this line when you allow for social psychologists study of Tit for Tat is a very stupid thing if you are doing it wrong and it explains why most of the time attempt do what you describe is illegal.

    Why people who are not oppressing or undermining the west end up being oppressed and undermined by your stupidity so creating even more enemies. To not produce a forever increasing number of enemies to fight you must take a very moderate and balanced tone. Yes you have been doing it absolutely wrong. Nothing you say better be UN racist or what USA call hate speech as those actions are not solution to problem just make it worse. Human Tit for Tat nature temps everyone to-do stupid things when sides are willing to kill each other you have to be a lot more careful.

  12. oiaohm says:

    dougman freedom of speech defence are you an idiot who has not read USA constitution. You really need to double check the agreements USA has signed with the UN. You will find the USA has in fact signed the agreement with the UN that I am calling you a racist by using. If you stupid racist point of view causes an attack you technically can be extradited from the USA to face trial possibly death penalty. So being racist under UN law is absolutely no joke.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
    And funny enough to read the USA constitution. The very section for free speech in the USA constitution in fact forbids what you have been doing dougman so making it a crime. What USA law calls hate speech in UN law calls racist and in both cases is illegal. UN law has max punishment death plenty while still inside the USA with Hate speech fairly much fines.

    So in the rights to free speech on these topics legally Australia, Canada and the USA are 100 percent equal.

    To remain legal dougman you do really need to ask yourself the question is what I seeing really a religion problem or is a cultural problem effecting all religions. Incorrect religion teaching is fairly much a cultural problem effecting all religions and need to be stomped on fairly heavily no matter the religion doing it.

    You’re serious, aren’t you? Have you any idea of what freedom of speech even means?
    Robert Pogson the reality here is dougman is a common USA idiot who has no clue what free speech under USA laws in fact means forgetting dougman knowing anyone elses. The reality here dougman is both Robert Pogson and me most likely have a better understanding of what free speech means that what you do.

    Yes free speech is not in the Australia constitution but it not required to be since we get it from the common law based on Magna Carta and from different agreements with the UN that our courts have to obey. Something to be aware the Australian Constitutions statements can be challenged under common law from memory Canada is the same. In countries where constitutions can be challenged under common law you don’t write any prescribed rights into the constitution instead you write them straight into common law by test cases since common law rules above everything. Different system fairly much the same result. USA people for some reason thinks this stuff has to be written into constitutions.

  13. dougman wrote, “Canada and Australia does not have a fundamental right and freedom of speech as enjoined here in the U.S., we are allowed to speak out against those that want to oppress and undermine the West.”

    ROFL! HAHAHAHA! GASP! ROFL!

    … ah… You’re serious, aren’t you? Have you any idea of what freedom of speech even means? Have you no knowledge of Canada and other Commonwealth countries? We all share freedom of speech which USA inherited from Britain. Britain had a democracy centuries before USA was a gleam in anyone’s eye.

    I’m always amazed that some folks, like supporters of Trump, base their arguments upon ignorance rather than facts and reason. It’s sad but I think it’s a trend of being lazy in thought, word and deed. Some find it easier to whine, complain and spew hatred rather than making the world a better place. Thank Goodness I’m Canadian.

  14. dougman says:

    “I could legally accuse you of being racist in UN court you are racist end of story.”

    Is that the best you can do is label me a racist. *rolls-eyes*

    Do share your nexus to the U.N. When are you filing your brief?? I would totally enjoy reading your evidence.

    Along with that, please show to me, how I, an American citizen, would be subject to the U.N. jurisprudence.

    Unfortunately, Canada and Australia does not have a fundamental right and freedom of speech as enjoined here in the U.S., we are allowed to speak out against those that want to oppress and undermine the West.

  15. oiaohm says:

    dougman for example if a lot of people told you that white was black does not make black magically change to white.

    This is how bad you arguement that “Muslims/Islamist’s are not a race so you cannot be a racist” is. The reality is how badly race is define means that women and men can be classed a independent races.

    So using the UN courts define of racist prevent a huge stack of bad behaviours and it why UN rules get to be so simple. Fairly much any means you think up as a means to group humans could be called a race and if you dig into UN ruling you will find most of them called a race.

  16. oiaohm says:

    If, as many people say, that Muslims/Islamist’s are not a race, then therefore, how is one a racist?
    dougman it does not matter what many people say. I use what is accept in UN courts of law to define racist. Since I could legally accuse you of being racist in UN court you are racist end of story. Yes by UN rules every religion group is classed as a Race and every on earth is classed as well as own to one race called the human race.

    No point messing with my handle to attempt to get out of it.

  17. dougman says:

    Ham-Bone,

    If, as many people say, that Muslims/Islamist’s are not a race, then therefore, how is one a racist?

    Gnaw on that one for a while, then finish it off with a tim-tam and a glass of milk.. Oi!

  18. oiaohm says:

    dougman unfortunately you are been pure one sided again and letting your racism show.
    http://www.heretication.info/_womensrights.html
    This is the flaws in the Christian bible over womens rights. Reads a lot a like to the koran right.

    You are completely ignoring bad Christian teaching in schools pushing basically the same crap as the bad Islamic teaching do including claiming that Christian belief is stronger than all others. Have parents been kicked out of schools for challenging Christian ministers on the same points the answer unfortunately is yes. So the kinda behaviour about bad Indoctrination should be checked for against in most cases when religion is being taught because a lot of religion is flawed.

    So are there some Christian ministers in the USA who don’t respect the values of that nation the answer is yes.

    This is only one example I could have in fact listed over 30 religions with issues with rights of individual sexs.

    There are a set of generic thing people teaching lots of old religions that should be taught that this was acceptable in the time the religion was form but since we no longer class women or men as assets so these sections are no longer acceptable. There are some old religions like buddistism that don’t need corrections over the treatment of women or men but these are in fact rare most religions are bias to one sex or the other with bias to men being the most common.

    This is the problem I have a lot of the yelling a Islamist is standing in a glass house throwing stones because the person standing in the glass house with you are doing equally bad things. We want to improve the world in a lot of cases we have to drop religion naming of a lot of these things and set down a list of things no religion leader has the right to teach any more and possible make teaching that stuff a criminal offence.

    Most cases Islamic issues are just perfect mirror of what countries have tolerated Christianity and other religions in the countries perform. So it about time we pull the head out the sand and in fact look around and maybe then multiculturalism might be able to work with all sides agreeing to play by the same set of rules.

    “the Republican presidential nominee will lay out proposals to combat ISIS and prevent terrorist attacks in the US, including banning individuals from countries with heavy terrorist footprints where the US government cannot adequately vet visa applicants and increasing cooperation with willing Middle Eastern allies”
    dougman there is a horible fact large percent of ISIS are not Middle Eastern but foreign fighters.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11660487/Islamic-State-one-year-on-Where-do-its-fighters-come-from.html
    I guess you would not have been thinking France and Belgium as countries with heavy terrorist foot prints so you might not be able to vet a visa application from either of those countries either. Yes those foreign fighters are mostly native born of the countries they are from and are converters who don’t really know the religion that well.

    Its like the one ISIS held city Syria recently freed all the killed ISIS fighters were British not a single local with them.

    You also have Mercenary and Christian groups going into Iraq and Syria doing things that are not mean to be doing as well so adding even more fuel to the fire.

    The issue is the terrorist problem is not a regional problem this is why trumps point of view is not useful. We have a global issue with the way religion is taught and its causing a fairly much global production of terrorists from more than one religion that needs to be addressed. dougman you need to step back and look at the big picture. The big picture tells you we for sure don’t need trump in the mix as his actions will make it worse.

  19. dougman says:

    “You have to respect the values of that nation.”

    Such an original thought, however these Islamist’s bring their Sharia Law and push it on everyone.

    https://www.thomasmore.org/press-releases/thomas-more-law-center-files-federal-lawsuit-on-behalf-of-marine-dad-banned-from-school-property-after-he-objected-to-islamic-indoctrination-of-daughter/

  20. kurkosdr says:

    Hey, that’s actually a good idea. Want to enter the US? You have to respect the values of that nation. No self-righteous immigrants spewing insults about how the USA should be more like the countries they fled from.

  21. dougman says:

    So your an ISIS sympathizer now?

    It was stated that, “the Republican presidential nominee will lay out proposals to combat ISIS and prevent terrorist attacks in the US, including banning individuals from countries with heavy terrorist footprints where the US government cannot adequately vet visa applicants and increasing cooperation with willing Middle Eastern allies”

    My suggestion since Trump upsets you so, is to offer up your home and land to some African Muslims. They could live in your garage, or you could *build* them something to live in during the long cold winters. You could also put them to work helping to build your garden, just think of all the possibilities.

    However, you may have issues with getting them to perform physical labor.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pk2-vr4sSw

Leave a Reply