Messed up rapper.

[Redeye]

: 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[brihard]

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.

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]

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