Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's office disavowed the motion and suggested Martin will be asked to withdraw it.
"It" is MM-446, an attempt to gut Canadian civil rights legislation because it annoys a few fringe Right journalists. And the author says he's a Liberal!
And a defiant one too:
Martin said he won't back down, arguing that it's his right and duty as a parliamentarian to introduce private member's bills that address issues of importance to his constituents.
Quickly now, ask Mr. Martin whether he wants to run for the LPC or switch back to the Conservatives. And lets see if Stephen Harper wants to back a guy supporting a motion so thoroughly endorsed by Canada's Nazi community. I would suspect that his answer is "Aiieee! Get away from me!"
46 comments:
"endorsed by Canada's Nazi community"
All 4 of them? In their basement apartment in Etobicoke? Scary stuff.
I hear the Doukhobors endorse this bill too.
(Get a book reader i.e. conservative to explain the Doukhobor reference to you, then it will be funny)
Everyone knows who the Doukhobors are. They're my favourite sect...stripping to challenge civil and human rights abuses.
Lard arses like Steyn, Levant and Shaidle should think about adopting that technique.
...be a lot funnier than listening to their pissing and moaning.
Let's not forget that this Martin is a former Reformer... If there was going to be any Liberal to do something like this, he would be the one.
stripping … Lard arses like Steyn, Levant and Shaidle should think about adopting that technique.
Great. Now I have to go stab out my mind's eye.
All God's children are beautiful.
"All God's children are beautiful."
Up until recently humans were homely. Seriously, have you ever seen a 19th century picture of an attractive woman? I'm reading about the Painted Women of Deadwood right now, here is what went for two ounces of gold dust:
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-southdakota/DeadwoodProstitute.jpg
Yeeesh. Not with your dick.
Jenny Jerome was reputed to be a 19th century uberbabe:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Jennie_Jerome.jpg
Bien de loin mais loin d'etre bien!
See Steve Sailer for a further explanation of fundamental babe theory.
You know the Canadian left has reached rock bottom, when it's contribution to the debate as to the parameters of one of our most fundamental freedoms, is:
to claim that by being on the other side of the debate is to be a Nazis sympathizer.
A side that seeks to champion that most fundamental freedom no less.
And it's good to see Dion jumping on board with the Ti-Guy's and BCL's of this world.
So very, very good to see.
The Canadian Left believe in cencorship. They are the purist of the pure, don't you know. Everyone who does not agree is evil. Moonbats.
Michael Coren tried the same tactic in last Saturday's Toronto Sun. He didn't like Barack Obama because he has an aquaintance who seemed to be shady.
Your comments about your opposition to Keith Martin's private member's bill because Canada's Nazi community endorses this bill is similar to Coren's stategy of opposing Obama. Don't attack the primary person or problem; go after a secondary concern.
As for Ezra Levant's view on the Alberta Human Rights Commission, his arguments are correct. The Alberta HRC is a government, not a judicial body even though it has judicial powers. It doesn't hear evidence in the same way that a civil or criminal court would. The HRC official/officer is essentially an interrogator who attempts to probe the inner deviant thoughts of Ezra Levant. Even though the Danish cartoons may be offensive to some people, there was nothing in those cartoons that would be considered libellous--nothing proven false that would cause some kind of injury to others. I will personally add that even though Muslims may be prohibitted by their religion from viewing images of the Prophet Muhammad, I don't think that they have the copyright of His image. Non-Muslims are free to make and view his image.
The Nazi community centre is having a corn roast tomorrow. Bring butter and salt.
Keith Martin wants out of the Liberal Party - who can blame him?
Stephane Dion will take forever before he takes action against Mr. Martin. Kinsella's flipping out on his blog about it. Cobwebs get spun in Dion's as he ponders, open-mouthed any decision beyond tying his shoe laces or going to the loo.
All God's children are beautiful
But everyone knows Steyn and Levant are the spawn of Satan.
(Apologies to Satan)
I do not and will not pretend to be an expert on this whole HRC crap going on, but even I can see a system that is broken or being abused.
When one person or group can lodge a complaint against another group or person to a govt agency that has no true judicial mandate and the person being accused must be totally responsible for any monetary cost to defend its actions (non-criminal or the complaint would be dealt with by the Criminal Code of Canada) then it need to be fixed.
I suggest a simple fix, if the submitter of the complaint for lack of another word is found to be wrong, then they should be held liable for all expenses incurred by the HRC and the defendant again for lack of a better word. This would at least cause people to think twice about these complaints.
They should also be liable for any civil action that could arise concerning liable from their submission of the complaint if the defendant's character and or reputation has been damaged.
Seriously, Ti-Guy and others including myself have used and personally I have no problem with it, strong language concerning the intelligence of the members of opposing political beliefs and parties that do not agree with him , should we be able to drag them to a tribunal because he offended some conservative members sensibilities.
Remember a political party is no difference this any other identifiable group therefor they could be maligned under the standards of the existing rules.
Just because Nazis support Martin's motion doesn't mean it is a bad motion. There are plenty of good people who believe in freedom of speech. The HRC's act like they can ignore evidence and they allow circumstantial evidence as direct fact. Its time someone had some chutzpah and speak up for the good people who are being affected by the HRcs.
For instance, Reality Bites' comment is very offensive, but should it be a HRC complaint? No, of course not, even though things like that are commonly brought to these HRCs.
Michael Coren tried the same tactic in last Saturday's Toronto Sun. He didn't like Barack Obama because he has an aquaintance who seemed to be shady.
Not true. It isn't the same tactic at all. Now, if Martin or Steyn or Levant were a part of that Nazi organization, then you would be correct. Huge difference. Reality versus fantasy.
Kingston, what makes you think they are out of control? Levant and Steyn's word that it is?
Michael Coren tried the same tactic in last Saturday's Toronto Sun. He didn't like Barack Obama because he has an aquaintance who seemed to be shady.
Comparaison n'est pas raison.
There are first principles involved here; the democratic ideal of marginalising illiberal and anti-democratic forces and the imperative to prevent fascists and radicals of all kinds from finding each other and organising. It's the same approach we've taking with Islamists and it should apply to everyone equally.
Anyone who doesn't like that can move to Alabama, for all I care.
Ti-Guy and others including myself have used and personally I have no problem with it, strong language concerning the intelligence of the members of opposing political beliefs and parties that do not agree with him
As long as you persist in the fantasy that I despise these people for who they are, not for what they SAY and DO, then there's just no hope of you understanding some subtle differences here.
Thanks for making my point Ti-guy, People do not recognize the difference and become offended and there for interpreted it as an attack on an identifiable group or organization. What your intent was does not matter a smidgen to the HRC it is the interpretation of the comment as seen by others that matters to the HRC.
Thanks for making my point Ti-guy, People do not recognize the difference and become offended and there for interpreted it as an attack on an identifiable group or organization.
It's not my fault other people won't/can't pay attention.
What your intent was does not matter a smidgen to the HRC it is the interpretation of the comment as seen by others that matters to the HRC.
Funny. Ezra Levant seem to imply the exact opposite when he stridently condemned the question by the AHRC investigator which sought to determine what his motives were.
Free speech absolutists dismiss outright the concept of intent and motivation in communication, yet these are highly significant elements in fundamental justice (and which jurisprudence deals with in all kinds of matters). They're also hypocrites who read into everything all kinds of dastardly motivations, as manifested by the never-ending defamation and vilification of liberals/lefties who are criticised as censorious, totalitarian, marxist, Hitlerian when expresing even the slightest approval for measures that foster better social or community cohesion.
It's individualism/solipsism as pathology and it's evil in its banality; that's what motivates most Conservatives these days as far as I can tell. Eric Cartmanism, although not nearly as amusing.
It's astounding how the likes of Ti-Guy and BCL think nothing of the mere publication of a cartoon as worthy of being brought before a government tribunal,
but are completely oblivious to the fact that much of what both of them write daily on this blog could be considered equally (or on many occaisions moreso) offensive and hateful, and thus worthy of a similar fate.
Leftist/fascist tendencies certainly partly explain ti-guy and BCL's positions, but so too does simple myopic ignorance.
Yo ti-guy, I think you mentioned on this or another thread that you didn't think eliminating section 13 wouldn't help/hinder the Can. Neo Nazi movement either way. Why is that? B'Nai Brith (and Warman) swear by it.
I think you mentioned on this or another thread that you didn't think eliminating section 13 wouldn't help/hinder the Can. Neo Nazi movement either way.
No, I said I don't think it helps them...they'll be neo-nazis whether that legislation exists or not.
It's an issue of what that provides for the rest of us to deal with what we consider threats to our democratic rights. Absent that, people will resort to violence, at which point, things begin to spiral.
It's astounding how the likes of Ti-Guy and BCL think nothing of the mere publication of a cartoon as worthy of being brought before a government tribunal,
With every re-iteration of this lie, my opposition to the free speech absolutists becomes more resolute.
"Funny. Ezra Levant seem to imply the exact opposite when he stridently condemned the question by the AHRC investigator which sought to determine what his motives were."
If the effect on others was not the prime motivation during these hearings, then there would be no need for the hearing, who would care what the intent was.
I too watched the video where that question was asked, and in all seriousness I took it as standard question so the proper box could be checked in typical bureaucratic govt fashion. What was she hoping for, he would fall on his knees and confess, I did this because I hate Muslims. Thus making the complaint relevant.
Ezra Levant is a big boy and he does not need my help to defend himself, but I consider the whole think frivolous. Would you support me in my quest to drag the artist who drew caricatures of Jesus in a detrimental form before the HRC.
I seriously hope not, because that too would be wrong.
Just because I condemn or do not agree with some groups theories or religious dogma does not mean I am advocating hate or wish them harm. It means I do not agree with them, and the last time I checked that was legal or else these blogs would be pretty fucking boring.
We all read and see things we do not agree with, we analyze them and make a decision as to whether they are worthy of our support, concurrence or opposition. I am not a sheep and I do not need the govt or some agency to protect me from what someone says in a newspaper, or a blog or any other form of communication.
Kingston, I certainly would support you if you wanted to do that. I think your complaint would be summarily tossed because there is in that case ZERO PROBABILITY of someone tossing a brick through a church window because the caricature drove them to think this was a good thing to do. That's very different from Ezra's publishing the cartoons, which indeed seems to have led to hate mail being sent and etc. The probability of a WS reader pitching a brick at a mosque because of this is HIGHER THAN ZERO. Hence, I think anyway, the HRC paid more attention to his case.
Its not about "offending", its about "possible harm".
Would you support me in my quest to drag the artist who drew caricatures of Jesus in a detrimental form before the HRC.
Yes, because it's your right to do something like that. It's the process I support, not the issue at hand.
...Just as a quick aside: the iconoclasts who disrespect Christian imagery are usually Christians themselves who are flaunting the imposed censorhip they have encountered as members of that community.
Just because I condemn or do not agree with some groups theories or religious dogma does not mean I am advocating hate or wish them harm. It means I do not agree with them, and the last time I checked that was legal or else these blogs would be pretty fucking boring.
And I believe you because I've become familiar with your character. But I don't take a lot of the others at face value, since they've manifested illiberal and anti-democratic tendencies in all kinds of other ways.
It has always been possible to criticise, forcefully the dangers inherent in radical forms of Islam, but that's not something the Levants and the Steyns and the Shaidles seem all that interested in. As far as I can tell, they are just waging a total war on every liberal who's ever looked at them cross-eyed, or whom they hate out of jealousy, professional or otherwise.
Kick him out of caucus and challenge his riding in the next election.
Get rid of him.
The death toll from two Baghdad market bombs allegedly carried by mentally disabled women and set off remotely has risen to nearly 100, say officials.
Nice job fellas. Your Islamofascist "resistance" and "freedom fighters" are learning the ropes. Why kill oneself for your exalted cause of Islamism and "identity socialism"? Just find a mongoloid, and she will do the job nicely for the postcolonial leftofascist and their resistance fighters.
I congratulate the western postmodern/postcolonial left, for a job well done. 100 people killed at the pet marketplace.
Yay, this will shoo the democracy pushing imperialists away.
Ahmadi
Now "Ahmadi" is blaming us for bombs in Bagdad?
Holy fuck...he's insane. Trace his IP and sic the RCMP and CSIS on him, before he ends up gunning down the next Council of Canadians rally.
Be nice to the fake Muslim.
I think he really doesn't understand that he's talking to Canadians when he invokes "post colonialism" as a significant motivator of the hated liberals and the lefties.
He might be confusing us with the British, or something.
Who knows, who cares...deploy the tasers.
heh - semi-literate Pomos -
There is no space between 'post' and 'colonialism'.
You two still don't know WTF it means! LOL
For the web-challenged, uh, there is this place called wikipedia, where cultural studies morons do not frequent ...
A.
BTW, read that article in the WSJ that says DailyKos and emotional-left websites are doing down the toilet. How low have your hits dropped? Time to get a real job, ey?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120191142380836927.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
What's the deal with all the references to post-modernism today, Ahmadi/Biff? Did you read something about cultural theory (on your break from flipping burgers) and decide to deconstruct this blog?
...God. As if the post-structuralists hadn't been irritating enough on their own. Who suspected they were actually driving the Right insane?
BCL
Just so you know I refuse in principle to post commments while you have your censorship monitor on. Who in he the hell do you think you are to play soviet censor? Also I've been reading your posts of late and you're views on freedom of expression are way out of the mainstream. You applaud actions taken by others to shut down speech you disagree with. You're just a little commie. You probably read The Communist Manifesto when you're not monitoring people's comments.
Ironically, Frances, you post this when the comments moderation is off.
Which it will be until tommorow morning. Ti-guy, ignore them and get some sleep.
Just so you know I refuse in principle to post commments while you have your censorship monitor on
And yet another fine argument for moderation.
Um, by the way, Frances, where's you blog so I can come crap all over it? Your outrage isn't matched by a willingness to live up to what you demand of others, is it?
Ti-guy, ignore them and get some sleep.
There's nothing good on the teevee, so the "Carnival of Wingnuts" is all there is right now.
Frances, the leftists by and large hate free speech and either delete posts or moderate them. Like Juan Cole only allows 5 comments a day, and he is the leading figure for the postcolonial leftists!
DailyKos will blacklist your IP immediately if you criticize Islam or Mohammad the child molester (Peace be Upon Him), or even toe out of line.
And BCL will soon turn on moderation, and no more left bashing for me and you. Good riddance.
Is it any wonder that the leftofascists put in place the anti-Human Rights Commission so that nobody can criticize their privileged ideology of Islam and the death squad Islamists of Sadr and Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad?
100 Iraqis killed at the pet marketplace and the poco leftists cheer them on and want to deliver Iraq to the hands of the Islamists. You see, Gaza strip and South Lebanon is now a paradise. BCL should move there and leave us classic liberals alone.
So tell me you pomos, why do you privilege Islam, if you cannot stand living under Islamic rulership? Why want Islam for others while you enjoy your welfare checks and government taxpayer leeching jobs here?
I asked you before, what are your jobs BCL and to-guy? I will tell you mine if you care. But why do you avoid the question? I know, its not a simple one-dimensional left-right question that you guys can comprehend.
BTW, flipping burgers is an honorable job - its you freeloaders doling on hapless taxpayers who are the abomination. What do you do for a living you two fucking idiots? If at school, what do you study - you sure sound like you are still in college, never having heard of postcolonialism, and confusing that with neo-colonialism.
You guys must give the real socialists and communists a fit! Which BTW, I have some respect for. But not for failed wannabe-capitalists not having proper jobs that become activists because they are losers to society and are filled with envious hatred of others - and masquerade that as a (selective) bleeding heart.
A.
Kiram to kosse khaharet va Hazrate Mohammad qoromsaaq. Get a veiled slave friend with 11 babies and 4 other co-wives to translate that for you douchebags. I doubt you know even a single Mozlem.
Show us yer tits, Ahmadi.
bigcitylib:
Three points. First, the validity of an idea like "free speech" does not depend in any way on who endorses that idea. Specifically, to say that a Nazi supports an idea advanced by Keith Martin in no way undermines the validity of Martin's position. Surely, you would object if someone denigrated an idea of yours by citing the support given to it by a thoroughly disreputable person of whom you disapproved. You would justly resent having you and your ideas smeared by association in this manner. Why are you so willing, then, to use these tactics against Mr. Martin. If you disagree with his ideas, argue on the basis of principle, and leave illogical and irrelevant smear tactics behind.
Second point: Nazis are no friends of free speech. They, Stalinists, and people like them inevitably gravitate toward censorship, no matter what they might say for short-term advantage. Free speech is an indispensable element in resisting despots, and Nazis know it.
Third point: do you not see that extra-judicial "speech police" like the CHRC can someday suppress your views just as easily as they can suppress the views of Mark Stein and Ezra Levant. Imagine having to defend yourself, at your expense, because someone else, at no expense to himself, claims that your utterance might drive others to violence. Would not your ideological opponents find such a tribunal an attractive tool for “encouraging” you to remain silent? What’s not for them to like? The mechanism costs them nothing and you everything. Furthermore, the tribunal is not encumbered by rules of evidence and by the need to convince a randomly selected jury that you are guilty. Rather, a panel of “experts” in “human rights” will decide your fate. Do you think these “experts” will always be saints concerned only with higher truth? Do you think, just possibly, that these “experts” might be selected for their political views? And is it possible, just possible, that those views will not quite align with your own? Today, you seem to be unconcerned. Perhaps you think that, should the CHRC ever become ideologically hostile to you, you will have time to organize and “correct” it. Well, maybe you will, and maybe you won’t. Think carefully.
One-hundred-to-one the "experts" who in the last two weeks have suddenly become so knowledgeable about the workings of human rights tribunals couldn't name half a dozen differences between their evidentiary procedure and those found in civil court.
Nor could they name half a dozen people found to be in violation of the hate speech provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act who weren't Nazis.
Or even one.
So is Dion going to be portrayed as a micromanaging dictator, whose motto is "My way or the highway"?
You really haven't got a clue about what free speech is supposed to mean.
National Socialist part - sounds like the NDP to me.
Post a Comment