I’m sensible enough to understand that not all of them believe Mo raped a child just because christian nationalists like David Wood or zionist bigots like Gad Sad accuse them all for believing it.

wp:Aisha#Age at marriage and consummation

First line:

Classical Islamic sources state that Aisha was six years of age at the time of her marriage with Muhammad (then fifty) and nine at the time of its consummation.

​

You can’t have double standards like “drawing a symbol is a criminal offence but attacking muslims for being muslims is acceptable” and expect to be taken seriously by sensible people.

Yes, these are charged incidents, but IIUC, the first was essentially a property crime that was quickly remedied.

The other looks like a dumbass picked an argument with a woman in a hijab—a woman who is probably a bit concerned about assault from men and/or Mulslimphobes, and/or racists.

Maybe charge him with harassment.

If you want to ban the swastika and attacking Islam, then that's something else.

​

You don’t have to like their religious head gear. You can’t pick and choose which hats are sacred and which ones get attacked by racist white supremacists publicly and be taken seriously.

No hat is sacred, but you don't touch another's headwear (unless you get consent), because it's their property, and if they're wearing it at the time, it can be assault.

But commenting on headwear, while possibly ill-mannered, isn't a crime, IMO.

​

This isn’t about mohammad or blasphemy, which is thankfully still legal in this frozen shithole.

My part of Canada isn't frozen, nor has it been frozen for over 150 days.

​

It’s about a proud racist proudly attacking a family and disgusting people defending his actions.

I thought he was alone.

City of Montreal bylaw banning insults against police officers is unconstitutional, lawyers claim

https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/lawsuit-claims-city-of-montreal-bylaw-banning-insults-against-police-officers-is-unconstitutional/

By Joe Lofaro

Updated: October 01, 2026 at 3:57p.m. EDT

Published: September 30, 2026 at 7:20p.m. EDT

​

(my bold)

The legal challenge was filed in Superior Court on Tuesday by the Saint-Michel Legal Clinic (CJSM) and the Association des juristes progressistes (AJP). In it, they argue that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that expressions that could be characterized as “abusive, insulting, offensive, aggressive, provocative, or even humiliating are protected by freedom of expression.”

Look bud, we share the politics, ok? I'm not asking you to maintain etiquette towards the asshole in the article. I'm asking you to maintain it towards this community. Keep the Community Centre/Infoshop/Union Hall tidy, you know what I mean?