And I hear rumors that Nazi Overlord Ed Zundel will be doing up a news release before the end of the week.
Now, why do the Nazis support M-446? That Nazis are free speech absolutists is laughable. Rather, this portion of of the Act was specifically designed for and has been used extensively to chase down Canadian Nazis. Delete it and, whatever else you do, you will make life easier for Canadian Nazis. You will make it easier for them to communicate, easier for them to recruit. That's why they're behind it, and the whole free speech thing is a feint to sucker the stupid.
So, as a corollary, I would argue for example that people like Mr. Martin and you yourself are not Nazi sympathizers. You've just been conned by Nazis. Booby boy.
And the result of repealing this provision will surely be...more Nazis! and more empowered Nazis! Nazis here, and Nazis there, feeling their oats and living Large!
Real Nazis too, not metaphoric in the slightest. You might be willing to allow that in order to have Ezra Levant quit his whining, I am not.
Incidentally, you've linked to me and yet I get no traffic. Is AM 770 out in Mushaboo somewhere?
28 comments:
I would argue for example that people like Mr. Martin and you yourself are not Nazi sympathizers. You've just been conned by Nazis.
I don't even think they're being conned. The free speech warriors in the media love controversy, because it's very easy to report and to comment on.
I don't need to know anything about anything to follow a conversation between the Grand Wizard of the KKK screaming "nigger, nigger, nigger!" and a black person. I can just sit back, watch the fur fly, enjoy the fact that the spectacle is good for the "figures" and thus advertising rates and revenue and then say something "principled" at the end...either moaning about racism or the nobility of unfettered free speech or the totalitarianism of people who don't quite see at that way. And when that topic itself becomes the controversy, you can report on that. The self-reference is endless.
In by 9, out by 5 and the mortgage, she is paid. Today's "journalists"...nice work if you can get it.
"Paul Fromm is another."
Actually I debunked this lie a month ago when you last tried it:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23292180&postID=5955381636995093701
The word "Nazi" needs to mean more than "guy I disagree with who was photographed, once, adjacent to some peripheral white nationalists seventeen years ago". At least if you want people to take you seriously.
Potato...potahto. Watch this.
I personally don't think flavour and nuance are important distinctions to make among the various fascists. Call 'em all nazis and call it a day.
It's not like today's generation knows any history other than Hitler's Germany, anyway.
"It's not like today's generation knows any history other than Hitler's Germany, anyway."
And whose fault is that, Mr. Let's dumb down the school system so my feminist comrade's tardspawn doesn't have hurt feeeeeelings?
You're talking about my generation, btw. The "new" generation of post 1984 born kids have a verb, "to hitler". It is used to make fun of the propensity of old white Canadians - such as BCL and TiGuy - to drag Hitler into every debate. Those kids, perhaps the majority visible minorities (?), actually don't know anything about WWII and many come from lands that weren't obsequious colonial backwaters like Canada. Thought you should know.
Ti-guy,
Thanks for your link, it's helping me make my case.
http://freeborncanuck.blogspot.com/
And whose fault is that, Mr. Let's dumb down the school system so my feminist comrade's tardspawn doesn't have hurt feeeeeelings?
Serves me right for engaging an anony-tard.
If you don't like the lack of nuance in this "debate" (*har*), go read a book and introduce more informed elements for discussion.
The "new" generation of post 1984 born kids have a verb, "to hitler". It is used to make fun of the propensity of old white Canadians - such as BCL and TiGuy - to drag Hitler into every debate.
Yeah, well that just proves my point. A few years earlier, a statement of probability, called Godwin's Law, was devised. Beats the illiterate "to Hitler," I'd say.
Thanks for your link, it's helping me make my case.
I don't think it does. HRC's are a mechanism by which disputes are mediated and resolved...not an instrument of censorship.
That's an important distinction to make.
"I don't think it does. HRC's are a mechanism by which disputes are mediated and resolved...not an instrument of censorship.
That's an important distinction to make."
Yes, that's true, but what mediation will take place when a "global" defendant just doesn't show up and any absentia rulings are pretty much useless becuase that defendant ain't coming back to Canada and niether is his blog, podcast or net radio station. Nor will he in good faith stop boradcasting his hateful remarks.
I repeat, HRCs are essentially powerless.
but what mediation will take place when a "global" defendant just doesn't show up and any absentia rulings are pretty much useless becuase that defendant ain't coming back to Canada and niether is his blog, podcast or net radio station. Nor will he in good faith stop boradcasting his hateful remarks.
Canadians should be focussed on Canadian law and the behaviour of Canadians in Canadian society. The HRC's deal with the issue of discrimination encountered by Canadians in their activities here.
The question of censhorship (which I've always opposed) became really moot with a globalised media, but mediation with respect to expression should still be local if the impact is local.
As I've known for a long time, I don't need to have nazis screeching about nazism in Canada as an issue of freedom of expression, because I can get that information any time I need it. I'm concerned about the consequences of such expression, one being the marginalisation of its targets and the other being the radicalisation of people, which leads to violence.
Freeborn,
if the HRCs were so powerless I doubt Fromm would be so huffed at them.
Bourque is reporting that there is a "TALIBAN WEBSITE HOSTED IN BRAMPTON ONTARIO." Do you thing that the HRC will investigate these foreign hate-mongers in our midst? Not bloody likely.
The left and fascism have had a long-standing love affair and it's not about to end soon. We see those same tendencies on this blog. Tp BCL like the HRC;s some forms of speech are more equal than others.
I thought of writing about the whole Taliban in Brampton thing today, but I'm not sure that the same laws even apply if you're at war with a country and someone is quite literally talking up the enemy. Of course, Lorne Gunter might have problems with this. He seems to think its okay to TALK about shooting Canadian troops.
Do you thing that the HRC will investigate these foreign hate-mongers in our midst? Not bloody likely.
Damn right, not bloody likely.
Do these people even know what human rights commissions are and how they operate?
Since this whole story linked through KKKate's, I didn't bother looking at it too closely. But if there are no material links to the Taliban, isn't this just fwee speach? I'd like to hear the warriors take on that.
Link is here:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191045.php
This is the origonal source. It does look like a Taliban propoganda site, in Brampton. The writers above are claiming that this site is "doing business" with the Taliban, and even if that doesn't involve an exchange of money, its illegal in Canada.
I dunno. If so, take the site down. But, if I were a hardcore Speechy, could I argue this way?
Getting to you aren't I?
You can't beat common sense.
"Common" being the operative term...
It is well-known that the Nazis suppressed free speech. As did the Communists. Today's left follows that twisted tradition. BCL has way more in common with the Nazis than Liberal MP Keith Martin. Martin's on the right side of history on this one.
BCL, I'm waiting for your post that takes the position that questioning human-caused Global Warming is a crime against humanity.
It'a people like you and Dion that will ensure that the Liberal party joins the fringe loony left.
The same section of the Human Rights Act was used to investigate a Roman Catholic Bishop in Calgary for putting forth his church's views on homosexual conduct. Views that that church and its members have held since its inception. The Nazis did the same thing to the Christian Churches in Germany in the 1930's. Something else BCL has in common with the Nazis with his little post agreeing with the protests preventing the pope from speaking at a University where he had been invited to speak.
A little bit of a totalitarian streak there, BCL, I'd say. I'll repeat, you have more in common with the Nazis than Keith Martin.
"if the HRCs were so powerless I doubt Fromm would be so huffed at them."
Why not? If it gets the bugga-boos a bumpin' ana thumpin' an so hoppin mad that they'll denounce a delicious corn beef on rye, why not huff a little? Or can't y'all bring youself to believe that even with the best of intentions an HRC ruling can also have the same effect on neo-nazis that a fire and brimstone Aryan preacher has singing the old gospel from the Fatherland?
oh yeah, granted. "Powerless" was a poor choice of words. I meant useless, perhaps counter-productive.
Ti-guy could talk, deconstruct, talk some more, rationalise a little, talk about it again, do this for the rest of his life and not a thing would change.
But that would be ok with him because the status quo is the new progressive.
This would be a dandy spot for a picture of
P.E.Trudeau riding his motorcycle,
wearing that famous Nazi helmet of his!
Matt, you're so uncivil. Where are those prairie good manners?
Or can't y'all bring youself to believe that even with the best of intentions an HRC ruling can also have the same effect on neo-nazis that a fire and brimstone Aryan preacher has singing the old gospel from the Fatherland?
Believe that based on what? Anyway, you seem to suggest that if we don't support the free absolutism the neo-nazis want, they'll get worse.
Sounds like blackmail...or sounds like we should have real reasons to think these people are dangerous.
In any case, the absence of human rights commissions didn't stop the Murragh Building from being bombed.
Thanks for being so on top of this issue, BCL.
I will be blogging later this week on this topic, but in the meanwhile, think you are 100% correctin your point of view.
I hope so, Mr. Wise. More legal expertise on this issue would be deeply appreciated. Alot of people are giving opinions on legal language without having any real training on what it actually means. Me included.
This is where today's left has gone:
"If your an advocate of free speech, you must be a Nazi."
Remarkable.
Look, I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be a law in the criminal code against hate speech, which there is. The issue is specifically Section 13(1) legislation and how it is being applied by the commissions.
Not having a human rights speech code would not mean that genuine Nazis could operate in Canada without compunction. Nazis could still be charged under the criminal code, a much more punishing process.
By all means, put the real Nazis in jail, punish them. Real Nazis, real haters are career haters, that's what they do, that's who they are. But harassing Canadian Churches for their theological beliefs, and journalists, writers and publishers who write about hundreds of issues in the course of their careers should not be subject to speech codes that are open to interpretation by human rights commissions.
The Charter right to free expression Can only by suspended in the case that it can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Some idiot ranting on a two-bit white supremacist website is not justification for the thought police at the HRC to stifle free speech. That should be obvious, but I've been disappointed before.
Post a Comment