You know, both Ezra Levant and Fromm at Stormfront have made note of motion sponser Keith Martin's own visible minority status, arguing that this will make it easier for the Conservative government to move M-446 forward.
And this brings to mind a bumper sticker I used to see down in Arizona: A poor man voting for Reagan is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
Mr. Martin, you are that chicken.
Update: Jason's got a nice piece on this today.
18 comments:
What visible minority status? Keith Martin's more whitebread than I am.
They should form a group...Canadian Council of Christians, Jews and Various Beige People in Support of Nazis. No Muslims, Indians or Irish Allowed.
Part Indian, apparently.
You sound as ridiculous as Harper when he says the Liberals "support terrorists" when they oppose detainee transfers.
Never mind that the poor got RICHER under Reagan, who needs to bother with facts?
Except, KC, I have provided to REAL Nazis that support this measure.
According to this crappy blog, if you disagree with the CHRC's censorship campaign your a nazi?
It was the Nazi's who used these types of kangaroo courts to silence people.
They need to be shut down and are an embarrassment to canada
Except, KC, I have provided to REAL Nazis that support this measure.
Are you suggesting that the whole Liberal concern over taliban detainees is a hoax?
I think you know that these are REAL taliban detainees. Undoubtedly the concern of the Liberals for these guys is REAL too.
I will now follow your faulty logic (after which ti-guy will freak out).
Liberals share the same concerns as the Taliban, and are therefore Taliban supporters. We already know from your post and your logic that they are also nazi supporters.
So why are you a Liberal blogger when they are the party of the Taliban and the Nazis? I guess you're nothing but a Taliban and Nazi supporter according to your own logic.
Detaines do not necessarily equal terrorists; Nazis are Nazis.
And another thing, showing concern for detainees does nothing to help the Taliban (the opposite, though, does help them). This motion would make it easier for Canadian Nazis to organize. And that is a fact.
It is my understanding that Nazis need oxygen to breath.
As well, many Nazis eat apples.
We should ban oxygen.
And apples.
To do otherwise is tantamount to supporting Nazis.
Lots of things help Nazis.
- Freedom of conscience amd belief
- Freedom of association
- The right of peaceful assembly
- The right to vote
- The right not to be arbitrarily detained
- The right to counsel
- The right of due process
And on and on.
Should we curtail these rights as well in order to prevent "helping the Nazi's"?
Oxygen,
Apples,
and Free Speech,
out with them all, I say.
Nazis obviously favoured more (versus less) governmental controls over the populace.
Funny, but I don't think BCL would follow his logic to advocate for more limited government.
Exploiting the horrors of a regime which killed six million Jews, to score petty political points, only works so well, eh there BCL?
Should we curtail these rights as well in order to prevent "helping the Nazi's"?
No.
I don't agree that removing 13(1) helps the nazis (although the nazis are enthusiastic about it, as he points out). I just think removing it is an attack on the legislation we've got in place to mediate disputes regarding civil liberties.
Great point rabbit. The thing is, the people who are so up in arms about Martin's motion are those who believe wholly in censorship and they want to be the ones who decide what and whom needs to be censored.
This whole Nazi argument is stupid.
Nazi, communist...who give a flying Fk. Anyone weighing their twisted beliefs are giving them a seat around the issue
If anyone believes that Martin is a closet Nazi just say so. If not, don't get all sophomoric and argue that he is wrong because Nazis support the view. Can anyone say strawman?
I don't think Martin is a closet Nazi. I think his motion will have the effect of making it easier on Canadian Nazis to organize, communicate, recruit, and generally go on being Nazis. Why do you think they're really in support of it? You really think they want free speech for all?
Of course not.
My point is that by considering what they like or don't like, you are effectively giving them power.
There are principled people on both sides of this argument. I personally feel that all hearings should be undertaken within the legal community and I hate bigots with a passion.
Post a Comment