Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The Cold Hand Of Censorhip, Conservative Style!

Writer, Columnist, and Senator in Waiting Link Byfield, on Mark Steyn:

We may not like talk like that, or opinions like Mark Steyn's. But just because they offend us does not mean governments in a free society should stop them. Governments can no more control public opinion than King Canute could hold back the tide.

Now, Link Byfield is an executive of the Wildrose Party of Alberta. The Wildrose Party of Alberta is currently in the process of merging with their former Nemisis, the Alberta Alliance Party, into the "Wildrose Alliance". And (and here's my point) the remnants of the Alberta Alliance Party are issuing legal threats against an Alberta-based blog (the Alberta Alliance Watch) for reporting on this merger in unflattering terms. Specifically:


The response I did receive [from the AAAP] came in the form of a complaint about yours truly filed with another website. I hold an account on scribd.com, otherwise known as the "youtube for documents". It allows members to publish, share, and discuss all sorts of written files. As this post indicates, I uploaded some completely accurate copies of publicly available Alberta Alliance documents, namely, a copy of the Alberta Alliance's 2006 constitution, and 2006 Policy Book. The Alberta Alliance is now asserting that this amounts to a copyright violation, and are demanding that scribd.com pull the files.

The Alberta Alliance's complaint can be read here. They are apparently quite proud of it. Notice how Jane Morgan has redacted the URLs, and cc'd the thing to the Party President, Randy Thorsteinson.

The AAP wants to silence this guy. To that end, they're trying to stop him from hosting older version of documents that, in the case of their policy book, they have in the past and continue to give away for free via their websites.

Surprisingly, there's a plug for free speech pretty high up among their core principles.

So, Link, your new party is making a fool of you, and a mockery of its own principles. Step up and give 'em heck! And as for everyone else, LOOK! More hypocrisy from Conservatives over Free Speech! Oh My! I am SO shocked!

h/t buckets.

Update: Jane Morgan of the AAP speaks in the comments:

To set the record straight. One email was sent to "request" the old documents be removed. Period, end of story.Let me be crystal clear; NO legal action what-so-ever has been or will be taken.

Jane Morgan, CFO Alberta Alliance Party#3,

Thought the guy at AA Watch would panic, did you?

73 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

Righty grasp of freedom of expression goes no further than Eric Cartman's "I do what I want!". The nuts and bolts involved in the process of being able to actually express something is just too complicated for them.

I came across this yesterday regarding Adbusters' suit challenging corporate censorship of the public airwaves.

When it comes to freedom of expression, being a hate-spewing bigot seems to be the only thing the righties value.

Anonymous said...

You raise a good point in there are other restrictions of expression in this country that may be of concern, such as libel laws that are perhaps suboptimal, and the existence of TiGuy.

Ti-Guy said...

If I could stop the Biff, don't you think I would have by now?

Anonymous said...

you guys are just hilarious. you have no understanding of anything. the alberta alliance thingy maybe stupid, but you cant grasp the difference between a claim of copyright and the state regulating opinions. you also cant grasp the difference between being allowed to express yourself, and being given a platform on a privately owned network.

adbuster's is free to publish whatever opinions it wants, and to broadcast anything it wants if it finds a willing partner to do so - there are gazillions of channels today - no need to strong arm tv networks.

the adbuster's case is like if Steyn was to sue MacLeans so that they run his articles, or an advertisement which MacLeans doesnt want to run - that would be complete BS.

If a tv network doesnt want to associate themselves with Adbusters, that's entirely up to them. That is what freedom means.

bigcitylib said...

Anon 11:47,

The copyright claim is a frivolous legal claim(read AA watch for why that is); the CHRC complaint against Steyn is probably another. That's what's the same about them. That's why it is fruitful to compare them.

Anonymous said...

Im willing to just accept your statement that the copyright claim is frivolous, and if it is it will be thrown out of court very early on the legal process. A claim to copyright is one thing: it's saying I own this material, you're not allowed to publish it. A HRC complaint basically says: your opinion is illegal to communicate.

That is an entirely different game when it comes to freedom of speech. Your lack of understanding on these issues even though you have been incessantly posting about this is unbelievable.

The only way you might consider it fruitful is to create another minor diversion from the fact that you havent been able to answer anything remotely sensible to having your posts systematically exposed as incoherent by most posters here, with the exception of ti-guy which is obviously your little side-kick.

bigcitylib said...

"A claim to copyright is one thing: it's saying I own this material, you're not allowed to publish it. A HRC complaint basically says: your opinion is illegal to communicate."

Of course. So? It is the frivolity that is the issue. Concentrate your mind on the frivolity, specifically on the fact that Conservatives make frivolous legal manouvers as much as anyone else, they maybe just use different legal mechanisms to do it. In both cases it is an attempt to stop speech: Steyn and his racist ranting in one, this guy trying to research the Alliance/Wildrose merger on the other.

Anonymous said...

ok sure they're both frivolous. Big deal. Im concentrating my mind on the frivolity right now: frivolity, frivolity, oh Im starting to see something, yes its extremely frivolous, its your blog!!!

No for real though, Im willing to accept that conservatives use frivolous claims as much as anyone else. In fact, the issue here isnt with the complainants - they have the right to use the legal avenues provided to them, in fact Im grateful because they brought this issue to the forefront. The problem is the legal avenue itself - copyright claims have a purpose in some circumstances. Speech control by quasi-judicial bodies has no place in a free society under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever.

For hate speech, libel, or slander, go to a real court, which will be capable of weighing the many difficult issues surrounding the claim. If your feelings are hurt after reading Macleans, stop reading Macleans, prepare yourself a bubble bath, and put on your favorite Kenny G cd.

Ti-Guy said...

the adbuster's case is like if Steyn was to sue MacLeans so that they run his articles, or an advertisement which MacLeans doesnt want to run - that would be complete BS.

See? Stupid, conserva-tard opinion completely unencumbered by factual reality.

A privately-owned publication like MacLeans is one thing, but the publicly-owned airwaves licensed to broadcasters by the CRTC is quite another.

These issues are less about conservatives and Conservatives being wrong about principle and more often about how simply uninformed and well...moronic...they are.

Ti-Guy said...

Speech control by quasi-judicial bodies has no place in a free society under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever.

Yes, well...as we all know, the law changes whenever as self-righteous moron screams about it.

Anonymous said...

ti-guy: if you're going to smoke weed all day, thats fine, but please lay off the crack, because when you smoke crack, you write stuff like this:

Yes, well...as we all know, the law changes whenever as self-righteous moron screams about it.

this has nothing to do with anything. Im expressing my hope that the law will change. Why dont you try responding with logic as to why you think it shouldnt.

Fuck you're dumber than I previously thought. I bet you vote NDP.

Ti-Guy said...

this has nothing to do with anything. Im expressing my hope that the law will change.

And I'm sure being a loud-mouthed moron will go far in translating that hope into reality.

...Who is breeding these people?

Anonymous said...

A privately-owned publication like MacLeans is one thing, but the publicly-owned airwaves licensed to broadcasters by the CRTC is quite another.

maybe 10 or 20 years ago, but there now over 400 channels. if Adbuster cant find one that will broadcast their message, they must really be out there those guys.

besides the broadcasters are answerable to their audience for the crap they broadcast, and networks should be free not to associate with far left loonies like adbuster.

to make a schoolyard analogy, adbusters are like the losers with no friends asking the teacher (the government) to force other kids to play with them.

Anonymous said...


And I'm sure being a loud-mouthed moron will go far in translating that hope into reality.


haha at least while Harper is in power I have hope.

Ti-Guy said...

maybe 10 or 20 years ago, but there now over 400 channels.

Stop digging; you already proved you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

There's nothing meaningful in you restating how you think things should be as opposed to what they are.

I'm surprised Conservatives manage to figure out to how to wipe their arses; I imagine them sitting on the toilet ranting about how less-than-ideal shitting is.

bigcitylib said...

"No for real though, Im willing to accept that conservatives use frivolous claims as much as anyone else. In fact, the issue here isnt with the complainants - they have the right to use the legal avenues provided to them, in fact Im grateful because they brought this issue to the forefront. The problem is the legal avenue itself - copyright claims have a purpose in some circumstances. Speech control by quasi-judicial bodies has no place in a free society under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever."

Mr. Warman has put a real crimp in Canadian Neo-Naziism using CHRC tribunals. Since I see that as a definite good, I have no problem with such things existing in a free society. You would make legal frivolity exclusive to those who have the dough. The CHRC process was designed to give an inexpensive means of accessing the system, and in this it has succeeded. If that means that there is a more inexpensive means available to MISuse the system, than thats an acceptable price IMHO.

Remember too that if the CIC vs. Steyn case goes through to a conclusion, and if Steyn's writing is given an exemption because he is a journalist, this will serve as a precedent which will act as a brake on further, similar cases.

Anonymous said...

tiguy: I understand your inclination is to stop debate when you cant handle it, but frankly you provide aboslutely zero justification as to why people shouldnt express their desire for changes in the law.

with your attitude of and IQ of a retarded monkey, no laws would ever get changed. fuck you're dumber than a doorknob why the fuck am I even arguing with you.

Ti-Guy said...

tiguy: I understand your inclination is to stop debate when you cant handle it...

When did I stop debate? You're the one who disgraced himself by proving he doesn't know what they fuck he's talking about, and now you're stopping debate with personal attacks.

but frankly you provide aboslutely zero justification as to why people shouldnt express their desire for changes in the law.

Who's stopping you, motor-mouth?

with your attitude of and IQ of a retarded monkey, no laws would ever get changed. fuck you're dumber than a doorknob why the fuck am I even arguing with you.

Heh heh. Victory is mine!

Nothing like the smell of charred Conserva-tard to make my day.

Anonymous said...

Heh heh. Victory is mine!

Your "Victory is Mine!" parting shot is pretty much what I expect from...a right-tard.

both your posts. you stupid dumb shit. i see you're learning from jermo sapiens, which is understandble considering how he/she manhandled you in your debate with him/her.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Warman has put a real crimp in Canadian Neo-Naziism using CHRC tribunals.

no he didnt, he put them in hiding, where they are potentially more dangerous. he also pocketed alot of money from his many complaints.

if you think warman has solved anything with his complaints you are sadly mistaken - these people still hold contemptible opinions and still spread their hate around, they just dont talk about it online.

First Lady said...

To set the record straight. One email was sent to "request" the old documents be removed. Period, end of story.

Let me be crystal clear; NO legal action what-so-ever has been or will be taken.

Jane Morgan
CFO

Alberta Alliance Party
#3, 1303 - 44 Ave NE
Calgary, AB T2E 6L5

Toll free: 1-888-262-1888
Phone: (403) 769-0992
Fax: 1-866-620-4791

Ti-Guy said...

both your posts. you stupid dumb shit. i see you're learning from jermo sapiens, which is understandble considering how he/she manhandled you in your debate with him/her.

You're mother's a whore.

There, I win again.

Anonymous said...

You're mother's a whore.

ouch, you dont take it well when people point out your hypocrisy. either stop being a hypocrite then, or may I suggest anger management.

Here's another one of your posts:


You types have spent the last 7 years ridiculing, defaming and insulting liberals/lefties/progressives and now you think we're all supposed to be nice and supportive? You are dreaming in technocolour.

Here's a little lesson for you (and for that asshole, Mark Steyn), anony-tard...be nice to the people you step on on the way up, because you'll be meeting them on the way down.


So what shall it be: calling each other's mothers whores (I suspect your mother was an ape-like creature which was not advanced enough to practice prostitution, so I wont go there), or should we be nice?

Ti-Guy said...

he put them in hiding, where they are potentially more dangerous.

Oh, so they are dangerous, then? Glad you agree. Now that they're in hiding, we can let the police handle them and not have public discourse burdened by their hateful spew.

No free speech absolutism ever prevented black people from being lynched or civil rights workers from being murdered by the KKK, if I recall correctly.

Anonymous said...

No free speech absolutism ever prevented black people from being lynched or civil rights workers from being murdered by the KKK, if I recall correctly.

no but free speech allowed a wide change in mindset of a country which was diseased by racism and segregation. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X benefited greatly from the 1st amendment (is it 1st or 2nd, i forget). Thank god no thought police was there to silence them in the name of the orthodoxy of the day.

Ti-Guy said...

So what shall it be: calling each other's mothers whores (I suspect your mother was an ape-like creature which was not advanced enough to practice prostitution, so I wont go there), or should we be nice?

Call my mother whatever you want; she's already been accused of being a baby-murdering, Taliban-hugging emasculating feminazi from people such as yourself, so I doubt she'll think being called a prostitute is all that insulting. In fact, coming from you types, she'd consider that positively flirtatious.

Ti-Guy said...

no but free speech allowed a wide change in mindset of a country which was diseased by racism and segregation.

Was? Still is.

Anonymous said...

actually, i dont give a shit about your mother. nor do i give a shit about you. if you want to discuss substantive issues, lets hear it, otherwise feel free to insult myself and anyone remotely associated to me, i couldnt care less.

Anonymous said...

no but free speech allowed a wide change in mindset of a country which was diseased by racism and segregation.

Was? Still is.


whatever, the point is the immense strides the USA has taken since the pre-civil rights era would not have been possible without free speech, particularly if you consider that the powers that be during that time were not particularly sympathetic to the civil rights message, at least at the state level, vs the federal level.

Ti-Guy said...

the point is the immense strides the USA has taken since the pre-civil rights era would not have been possible without free speech,

Oh, bravo. *clap clap clap* Like I'm supposed to be impressed that a country that had apartheid that I actually remember as a kid managed to transcend it.

And besides, since when did letting the KKK march through the public square have anything to do with Martin Luther King?

Anonymous said...


Oh, bravo. *clap clap clap* Like I'm supposed to be impressed that a country that had apartheid that I actually remember as a kid managed to transcend it.


no but if you werent so blinded by hatred towards mark styen you could discuss free speech reasonably and realize the contribution free speech made in the civil rights movement.


And besides, since when did letting the KKK march through the public square have anything to do with Martin Luther King?


good question. but since this has nothing to do with anything at all, perhaps you should take your pills, it'll help you with your schizophrenia.

Ti-Guy said...

no but if you werent so blinded by hatred towards mark styen

Well, that's what happens when you're the target of hate speech. You become radicalised and are no longer interested in seeking common ground with the people who've been targeting you.

And that really is a shame, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

tiguy: you were the target of hate speech by Steyn??

and you've become radicalized by Steyn?

is that what you're saying?

you poor thing.

Ti-Guy said...

I'm not the one doing all the whining. God, it was so pitiable watching Steyn whinge on to Boston Bozo Sean Hannity about all teh meen Canadians (who he hates) trying to silence him.

Waaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

...and this after his paranoid interpretation of what some Imam said when he engaged his freedom of expression.

Dante said...

Quite everyone.
The science is settled and the debate is over.

Wayne said...

ti-guy quote: "Well, that's what happens when you're the target of hate speech. You become radicalised and are no longer interested in seeking common ground with the people who've been targeting you.

And that really is a shame, isn't it?"

Wow.

I'm glad that Northern Ireland is not still following ti-guys logic.

Ti-Guy said...

Wayne's only commenting here because BCL doesn't generally delete retards.

It's your moment to shine, Wayne. Don't screw it up.

First Lady said...

Did I expect him to panic? LOL, no.

He did exactly what I expected; blog for days about a non-issue.

Meanwhile here is a real pending suit...

http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2008/01/premier-ed-stelmach-threatens-to-sue.html

Cheers,
Jane

Anonymous said...

"...and this after his paranoid interpretation of what some Imam said when he engaged his freedom of expression."

What paranoid interpretation?

Wayne said...

"There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood." John Stuart Mill

I understand anger ti-guy and I fight everyday with it. I really try hard to let it go.

A thank you to BCL for letting me comment.

Ti-Guy said...

What paranoid interpretation?

Watch this and listen to Steyn's interpretation of what the Imam said.

Frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin cataloguing the journalistic malpractice in that short clip. Suffice it to say that Steyn's interpretation of what the Imam said is highly paranoid at worst, and simply ridiculous speculation at best.

Truly embarrassing for the Ponce. Hardly rises above the crap KKKate can spew before she's even had her first morning Irish Coffee.

Mike Brock said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Brock said...

Oh, bravo. *clap clap clap* Like I'm supposed to be impressed that a country that had apartheid that I actually remember as a kid managed to transcend it.

I've neglected to actually comment the past few days, but I find it quite amusing how a pair of guys who regularly espouse their intellectual prowess over that of conservatives, make such rudimentary mistakes in basic argumentation.

This response is clearly argumentum ad logicam, specifically an argumentum ad odium, where you are simply rejecting the experience in the United States out of your hatred for it. This is an argumentation fallacy.

If a racist says that all black people have dark skin, his conclusion is not invalid because he's a racist.

The fact is, pretty much every argument you and Mr. Murphy make can be shown for their argumentative weakness along these lines.

Ti-Guy said...

where you are simply rejecting the experience in the United States out of your hatred for it.

No, I'm rejecting it more because I don't think it has anything useful to tell us, and I think documented history tends to back me up on that. I've felt that way generally about the whole discussion over the value of free speech absolutism; when I look South these days, I find that very hard to credit.

There must be a name for the logical fallacy invoked to argue that every time a non-Conservative brings up the US, it's evidence of anti-Americanism.

Wayne said...

Steyn was correct in the clip I just watched.

The people that Allah dooms is everyone but muslims.

Wake up ti-guy, your hate is blinding you, from reality..

Mike Brock said...

No, I'm rejecting it more because I don't think it has anything useful to tell us, and I think documented history tends to back me up on that. I've felt that way generally about the whole discussion over the value of free speech absolutism; when I look South these days, I find that very hard to credit.

Okay, expand on that. What about documented history tells you that the emancipation of black americans is not linked to the absolute right to freedom of expression.

Conversely, point to negative outcomes that absolute free speech has led to.

It seems to me, that arguments for suppressing free speech have often been made by theocrats and kings in the name of preserving the status quo, and as an extension: a notion of public order.

Now, the same argument is made by the "progressive" left. I find this interesting to say the least. The only difference between the theocrat, the king, and the contemporary "progressive" leftist, is the subject matter by which they justify the "public good".

Ti-Guy said...

Steyn was correct in the clip I just watched.

Well, there you go. The exact opposite of whatever Wayne calls "correct" is closer to the objective truth.

I'm sure I could prove that scientifically.

Ti-Guy said...

What about documented history tells you that the emancipation of black americans is not linked to the absolute right to freedom of expression.

The fact that Black Americans didn't have freedom of expression.

I'm not going to be defending the right of some robber baron's catamite to occupy an unearned bully pulpit so he can make all kinds of slanderous attacks, quite often on people who are far less powerful or connected than he is.

If you want to frame that in the context of the most seminal freedom-expanding events of the last 300 years or so, go right ahead, but that seems rather grandiose.

Mike Brock said...

The fact that Black Americans didn't have freedom of expression.

Nobody will debate that the US Constitution was interpreted and applied equally throughout US history.

I certainly don't debate it.

The fact of the matter is, the supreme court of the United States did eventually come to the conclusion that all the rights set forth were unalienable and universal. This is important.

To say that because the constitution did not work up until X time, it is immaterial, is once again an argument fallacy. That is subjective context.

It is for that very reason that I oppose subjective context in law in the first place. I do not want the extent to which rights are afforded to people to be a subjective measure based on where the winds are blowing at any one point in time.

Also, to equate defense for absolute free speech with defense of neo-nazism or the like is an ad hominem argument.

To support a right in absolute, is not to support any and all actions that are justified by that right.

People have the right to be rude and obnoxious, and I don't call for limitations on their rights to suit my sensibilities.

Are things like holocaust denial offensive? Yes. Do people have a right to deny it? I believe so. People have a right to deny anything. I have a right to deny you exist, that the world is a sphere, that pigs can't fly.

To that extent, I find it interesting that many people who would support holocaust denial being "illegal speech" also support conspiracy theories such as those which content that 9/11 was an "inside job" by the CIA.

Perhaps 9/11-denial should be a crime too.

Ti-Guy said...

Yeah, well...until the neocons vacate public discourse, I'll be completely uninterested in what conservatives or Conservatives have to say about freedom and rights.

Anonymous said...

You want to see the cold hand of censorship, Liberal style?

Try holding a university discussion on pride of race for whites.

Or look to hold a prayer meeting at work.

Or try to set up a shooting club, a young conservatives club, or a pro-life group on a university campus.

You guys wrote the book on censorship, and call it 'fighting intolerance'. Hypocritical Bastards.

Mike Brock said...

Yeah, well...until the neocons vacate public discourse, I'll be completely uninterested in what conservatives or Conservatives have to say about freedom and rights.

Another ad hominem remark. Can't win a debate, so attack the character of the one (or those) making it.

Law is Cool said...

Just FYI, the claims that the complainants were demanding " five unedited pages in his magazine, plus an unedited cover picture" appears to be unsubstantiated.

Discourse with individuals present first-hand seem to directly dispute this account.

Information presented by the complainants, well before these claims were made, seem to indicate a desire for a piece by a mutually agreed upon writer, which would obviously still be subject to editorial review.

We do agree that Richard Warman has demonstrated the invaluable role of the CHRC. We hope that other Canadians be afforded the same rights.

Ti-Guy said...

Another ad hominem remark. Can't win a debate, so attack the character of the one (or those) making it.

Well, as I've said before, I don't consider this debate. The slander Conservatives have engaged in over the course of the last few years has generally indicated that debate or even dialoguing in good faith is not something one can generally expect.

As for attacking character...what character?

Mike Brock said...

Well, as I've said before, I don't consider this debate. The slander Conservatives have engaged in over the course of the last few years has generally indicated that debate or even dialoguing in good faith is not something one can generally expect.

As for attacking character...what character?


Let's see. You're pigeon-holing me as a neocon conservative, and my opinions on human rights are apparently not worth your consideration, by some sort of self-evident bias.

If you can not understand how that position is logically fallacious, then it is you who are not worth debating, not me.

Ti-Guy said...

You're pigeon-holing me as a neocon conservative, and my opinions on human rights are apparently not worth your consideration, by some sort of self-evident bias.

Yeah, pretty much. I'll feel guilty about that in a few years or so.

If you can not understand how that position is logically fallacious, then it is you who are not worth debating, not me.

I'm sure I'll get over it.

Seriously, you sensible Conservatives really should spend more time mentoring all the mouth-breathers you're allied with, rather than waste your time trying to dialogue with people who, at this point anyway, are completely uninterested in finding common ground with you.

Wayne said...

"I don't consider this debate."

ti-guy

Mike Brock was debating you in a very reasonable manner and made many valid points.

You on the other hand were very dismissive not very progressive if you ask me.

Ti-Guy said...

You on the other hand were very dismissive not very progressive if you ask me.

Big hairy deal. Conservatives have never told me anything useful in my entire life and after several years of grotesque slander from them, I'm sure I care even less if I'm missing something significant.

Remember...these are the people who called the Charter itself stupid not too long ago.

Mike Brock said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Brock said...

Remember...these are the people who called the Charter itself stupid not too long ago

Considering I have always been an ardent supporter of constitutional law as a basis for individual rights protection, I have never been a hypocrite on these terms.

I am however, a long critic of Section 1 of the Charter that allows for "reasonable limits" that are "demonstrably justifiable in a free in democratic society". This is of course the legal basis for the Human Rights Commission to exist outside the our due process rights laid forth in subsequent sections.

You might also be surprised that I am against the Notwithstanding Clause.

If anything, I want a stronger charter, not a weaker one.

So by pigeon-holing me, you are showing the same type of hatred that you wish to see the HRC condemn. Only your hatred is for a political group, not a religious, ethnic or racial one. It's abhorrent just the same.

Ti-Guy said...

Only your hatred is for a political group, not a religious, ethnic or racial one. It's abhorrent just the same.

Not exactly...it's legitimate to hate hateful ideas and hateful expressions and normal to develop a general distaste for the group of people who tend to support them.

I don't hate conservatives or Conservatives for who they are...I hate them for what they do, particularly with regard to the grotesque slander I mentioned above.

As for the "reasonable limits" section of the Charter and the notwithstanding clause...you have to remember that I was around when all that was hashed out the first time. I have no interest in revisiting that. Both are designed to keep the interpretation of constitutional law flexible and liberal, and I think they're succeeding well enough.

Mike Brock said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Brock said...

Not exactly...it's legitimate to hate hateful ideas and hateful expressions and normal to develop a general distaste for the group of people who tend to support them.

I don't hate conservatives or Conservatives for who they are...I hate them for what they do, particularly with regard to the grotesque slander I mentioned above.


How does any of this apply to me? I am afraid I don't buy into the guilt-by-association fallacy either.

As for the "reasonable limits" section of the Charter and the notwithstanding clause...you have to remember that I was around when all that was hashed out the first time. I have no interest in revisiting that. Both are designed to keep the interpretation of constitutional law flexible and liberal, and I think they're succeeding well enough.

I'm not sure what "succeeding well enough" is supposed to mean. But based on what logic (there's that word again) do human rights need to be "flexible" in order to be "liberal". I'm sorry, but I'm having a lot of trouble filling in the logical leap there.

Wayne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wayne said...

"Not exactly...it's legitimate to hate hateful ideas and hateful expressions and normal to develop a general distaste for the group of people who tend to support them."

Like Radical Islam and Radical Muslims, ti-guy?

In general conservative dislike the actions of this religion and this group?

Ti-Guy said...

How does any of this apply to me? I am afraid I don't buy into the guilt-by-association fallacy either.

Tell that to your co-partisans...those right at the top, in fact. We're preparing for yet another useless showdown because the Harpies think the head of the CNSC is incompetent/evil/Mrs. Hitler because she was appointed by the Liberals. If you care about the fallacy of guilt by association, there's one to sink your teeth into.

I'm not sure what "succeeding well enough" is supposed to mean.

Meaning amending the Charter is not a priority for me.

But based on what logic (there's that word again) do human rights need to be "flexible" in order to be "liberal"

Human rights are only as meaningful as whatever law exists to enshrine them. It's the law, the code itself that is interpreted and it's preferable that that interpretation be liberal, as opposed to narrow and restrictive.

Mike Brock said...

Tell that to your co-partisans

What is it exactly that brings you to the conclusion that I am partisan?

Meaning amending the Charter is not a priority for me.

I'm afraid that is not a logical response. You said it's "working well enough for me." That's a conclusion. I wanted to know what brings you to this conclusion, not to have the conclusion re-iterated in even more abstract terms.

Human rights are only as meaningful as whatever law exists to enshrine them. It's the law, the code itself that is interpreted and it's preferable that that interpretation be liberal, as opposed to narrow and restrictive.

So let me get this straight, for the law to be liberal, it must be interpreted liberally? That's quite possibly the most silly argument I've ever heard.

bigcitylib said...

Hey MAS, you sound awful white. Sure this isn't a big scam on your part?

Ti-Guy said...

What is it exactly that brings you to the conclusion that I am partisan?

Aren't you a Conservative? You used to be and I haven't seen any tearful recantation. ;)

I'm afraid that is not a logical response. You said it's "working well enough for me." That's a conclusion. I wanted to know what brings you to this conclusion, not to have the conclusion re-iterated in even more abstract terms.

Oh, well.

So let me get this straight, for the law to be liberal, it must be interpreted liberally? That's quite possibly the most silly argument I've ever heard.

Yeah, sounds silly to me too. Exactly where did I assert that the "law must be liberal?"

Gayle said...

"I am however, a long critic of Section 1 of the Charter that allows for "reasonable limits" that are "demonstrably justifiable in a free in democratic society"."

The point of section 1 is to allow a broad interpretation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter. Otherwise we would find ourselves in the same position as the Americans - restrictive interpretations of such rights as the freedom of expression.

Anonymous said...

"Hey MAS, you sound awful white."

Don't let TiGuy hear you talking like that unless you want to hear his tear-jerker about the time he wrote Monsieur Eaton...

Anonymous said...

PS BCL you're a Liberal, not an angry white man, and thus ineligible to believe in conspiracies, leave that to me. If these guys are Muslims, I'm Adnan Khashogghi.

Ti-Guy said...

Don't let TiGuy hear you talking like that unless you want to hear his tear-jerker about the time he wrote Monsieur Eaton...

Huh?