If Canada can't defend the free speech of its most talented native son, then it shouldn't be getting even our devalued tourist dollars.
Believe it or not, he's isn't referring to Wayne Gretzky here, but Mark Steyn, and he's threatening to withhold his tourist dollars if the CHRC complaint against Steyn and Macleans isn't dropped. Oh my! If Hugh Hewitt can find Canada on a map, he may decide not to come here!I fear for my economic well-being!
And what if U.S. Conservatives take it into their head to rename them all "Freedom Geese"? Whatever shall we do then...?
Meanwhile, here's a less heated take on Steyn, Macleans, and their troubles with tribunals.
If the complaints are weak or frivolous, they are not likely to have any success at all. The complainants nonetheless have the right to be heard. That is how our judicial processes work and that too, is a freedom worth protecting.
Exactly.
14 comments:
You may not realize it (and opposite to Volair's assertion that he may not agree with you, but he'd fight to the death for your right to say it) because its a voice from the right being silenced,
but outside our country, many writers are concluding that our right to free speech here in Canada is dying a not-so-slow death.
I thought belittling (and in some instances cheering on) the terrorists' real threat to do us harm would be the defining moment of how liberalism has been completely corrupted by a partisan desire for power,
but tacitly (or in some instances explicitly) endorsing the squelching of free speech rights of those on the right, may, just may, be the new defining moment for today's "progressive" left.
"free speech here in Canada is dying a not-so-slow death"
Personally, I think greatist threat to free speach today is coming from the corporate sector (media consolidation, bad copyright law bought and paid for by lobbyists, etc.), not minority groups with little political power.
"I thought belittling (and in some instances cheering on) the terrorists' real threat to do us harm would be the defining moment of how liberalism has been completely corrupted by a partisan desire for power,"
So, refusing to live in fear is belittling, eh?
Is it the CHRC which has yet to find somebody NOT guilty? Isn't that the definition of a kangaroo court?
"I fear for my economic well-being!"
Well, according to Toronto Business Review just his musing of a boycott has already sent shockwaves through the economy.
The biggest threat to freedom of expression comes from people who treat it like garbage, such as someone who floats an outrageous lie like this:
I thought belittling (and in some instances cheering on) the terrorists' real threat to do us harm would be the defining moment of how liberalism has been completely corrupted by a partisan desire for power,
Although the opposite has been argued, I maintain that 'freedom of expression' is not a carte blanche for lying. In some instances, when the lie is simply the product of some propagandised imbecile raging away in some lonely corner, then I do believe we have the obligation to protect that person's right to behave in a way that he or her sees fit, as long as it affects no one else.
But overwhelmingly, our laws take a dim view of lying; with laws against fraud and defamation and with employer/employee protection against workplace fraud.
Dishonesty isn't something I'm going to be all that motivated to protect and until more rightwingers understand that, they can continue to howl at the moon about their rights withering away under the totalitarian Canadian state while they champion genuine, demonstrable and foreign frauds like Hugh Hewitt, Bill 0'Reilly, Ann Coulter and the rest of these Republican shills; people who are always threatening Canada with either economic or military retribution, far out of proportion to whatever problem they're highlighting, and who resort to any untruth necessary support those actions...Paris Business Review being a glaring case in point.
I'll start defending your right to expression the minute you give me the impression you think it's a right worthy of protection. And you could all start by throwing these American neocon fascists under a bus, or at least give the rest of us the impression that what they say should matter very little to Canadians.
In the meantime, take your free speech and shove it up your commodious, 5th column arses. You're not doing anything useful with it anyway.
> The biggest threat to freedom of expression comes from people who treat it like garbage, such as someone who floats an outrageous lie like this:
Although the opposite has been argued, I maintain that 'freedom of expression' is not a carte blanche for lying. In some instances, when the lie is simply the product of some propagandised imbecile raging away in some lonely corner, then I do believe we have the obligation to protect that person's right to behave in a way that he or her sees fit, as long as it affects no one else.
Steyn is not being persecuted for telling lies, as with most of these cases he is being persecuted for telling the truth.
> But overwhelmingly, our laws take a dim view of lying; with laws against fraud
No one is saying that Freedom of Speech protects lying under oath or committing fraud.
> Dishonesty isn't something I'm going to be all that motivated to protect and until more rightwingers understand that,
Cripes, you shouldn't be so hard on lying and dishonesty. That's the one thing that liebranos excel at.
> they can continue to howl at the moon about their rights withering away under the totalitarian Canadian state while they champion genuine, demonstrable and foreign frauds like Hugh Hewitt, Bill 0'Reilly, Ann Coulter and the rest of these Republican shills; people who are always threatening Canada with either economic or military retribution, far out of proportion to whatever problem they're highlighting, and who resort to any untruth necessary support those actions...Paris Business Review being a glaring case in point.
Once again, the issue is not "lying" or "fraud".
> I'll start defending your right to expression the minute you give me the impression you think it's a right worthy of protection. And you could all start by throwing these American neocon fascists under a bus, or at least give the rest of us the impression that what they say should matter very little to Canadians.
So you'll allow freedom of speech as soon as anyone who might say something you might disklike is gone. How liberal.
Steyn is not being persecuted for telling lies, as with most of these cases he is being persecuted for telling the truth.
Really? You'll have to demonstrate that. For the past year at least, Steyn has been writing as if the Iranian nuclear weapons program was an irrefutable and established fact. We've recently learned that this isn't the case. So what's going on here? You tell me.
I realise rightwingers think discussions like this are court cases where everyone is bound by rules of evidence, legalistic definitions and due process, but they're not. I'm not so obligated, and neither is the "court of public opinion." That's what we have courts and tribunals for.
So you'll allow freedom of speech as soon as anyone who might say something you might disklike is gone. How liberal.
Read more carefully, stupid wingnut. I'm not going to defend the right among people who treat it like garbage and who are trying to legitimise hate speech...indeed who are trying to turn hate speech into a virtue (just like in the good ol' US of A). You and your little band of nazis are on your own.
...too bad as well, because liberals are the only people who are actually any good at defending that right. As we see at FD, as soon as it becomes an issue, the discussions usually turn into public lynchings and cross over into criminal hate speech and defamation which may in fact end up indicting the people who run the site.
You people are your own worst enemies.
"Really? You'll have to demonstrate that. For the past year at least, Steyn has been writing as if the Iranian nuclear weapons program was an irrefutable and established fact. We've recently learned that this isn't the case. So what's going on here? You tell me."
We aren't talking about Iranian nuclear weapons, we're talking about the the human rights complaint.
"We're" not talking at all.
If you want to have a real dialogue, get a blogger account.
But even then, don't bother. I'm not going to rush to take the "high ground" and spout off a lot of platitudes about freedom of expression (Peace be Upon It) that we haven't all heard before, nor am I going to pretend this is the actual CHRC tribunal.
Some of you righties should have started handling Mr. Steyn's writing a tad more critically long ago...instead, you just opened your throats and let Steyn slide right in: "He's irascible!" "He tells it like it is!" "Each month, when I get my copy of The Western Standard, I always read Steyn's column last, saving it for desert!" "I want mustache rides from Mark Steyn!!!" "Mark Steyn...I want to BEAR YOUR CHILDREN!"
...a live sex-show is more subtle than this orgy of Steyn-worship.
It's a waste of time arguing with anonymous douchebags.
============================
I find it kind of amusing that when Free Dominion was being "threatened" by the HRC, it was "liberal" bloggers that stood up for them and spoke out on the subject of free speech. It sure as hell wasn't the Blogging Tories who wimped out in fine fashion to a man (and woman).
Red Tory - you're aging prematurely, is that why you quit blogging? Anyway if you decide to start up please allow anonymous commenters back
In favour of denying the free speech rights of its political opponents?
Good old fashioned Marxist authoritarianism alive and well with today's left.
In favour of denying the free speech rights of its political opponents?
Good old fashioned Marxist authoritarianism alive and well with today's left.
"It's a waste of time arguing with anonymous douchebags."
That's why I never stood for parliament - Sir Humphrey Appleby
Post a Comment