Saturday, March 22, 2008

Your Daily Nazi, Saturday Edition

In which Macleans columnist Mark Steyn waxes enthusiastic over Barb Kulaszka, Nazi Mark Lemire's lawyer and author (or editor, depending on the attribution) of "Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Z√ľndel".

Macleans must be so proud of their boy.

I've thought of organizing an anti-Macleans boycott, but where do you find copies these days other than the lobby of your local dentist's office? And how do you suppress the circulation of a magazine that is already only associated in people's minds with the sound of a dental drill?

54 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

I've gone one better than simply boycotting MacLean's. I've taken out subscriptions to The Walrus and Harper's. Free expression that matters in other words.

Let the brighter lights at MacLean's wallow in a cesspit of banality if their mortgages are that important to them.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday it was white atheists hating brown Christians.

Today we have white atheists (Dr. Dawg) referring to men of Jewish heritage - Mark Steyn - as Nazis.

I guess that's one way for Dr. Dawg to dodge the repeated accusations of anti-semitism that are made against him, calling a Jewish guy an anti-semite.

What do you plan for an encore? Accuse Marlene Jennings of belonging to the KKKlan?

Is there some sort of master plan amongst the members of the relevant blogrolls to deliberately pump out hot steaming turds like this one as blog posts, to scare off the "normals"? It's rather clever overall strategy, really: gross out the only people likely to narc you for getting the facts wrong, and just being an idiot, on a daily basis. The only ones left are the "dirty" people, like Ti-Guy.

I'd quite like to read about politics, somewhere, anywhere that isn't retarded. I really don't have anything personal against bloggers, except for their extremely low quality of narrative.

Anonymous said...

anon 12:24. Steyn's not Jewish.

Ti-Guy said...

Pull yourself together, anon @ 12:24. You're screeching and hysterical and that cannot be good for your blood pressure. Perhaps you need a good shag, or a quick one-of-the-wrist, or something? Or it's just past noon Eastern Time, on a Saturday...you can start drinking now.

If you discovered, BCL, that your fatuous, honesty- and evidence-challenged sock-puppets and anony-trolls were actually highly-placed individuals within movement conservatism itself, I wouldn't be the least surprised.

Isn't that kind of tragi-comic?

Dr.Dawg said...

Well, it's happened before.

Ti-Guy said...

Well, Dawg, we never did find out if your Conserva-troll was highly-placed or not, but it in the end, it doesn't really matter. Among neoconservatives, the difference between Mark Steyn or Jonah Goldberg and your garden-variety online troll is simply an issue of vocabulary.

Anonymous said...

Um, you fine fellows seem to have it backwards: *I* am busting *you* for racism, not the other way around.

The Conservatives would pay good money to have an anti-racist activist of my calibre on their team; you should be the ones who are worried.

Attacking Native Canadians for not being atheist. Calling a distiguished man of letters and Jewish heritage a "Nazi". That's skating on some thin ice boys. You should be thanking me.

Anonymous said...

Ti-guy seems to think anyone that disagrees with his viewpoints is an idiot.
Suggesting someone that differs in opinion with you needs a good shagging is so mature.
Do you have to get off your knees from under BCL's desk to type that?

Dr.Dawg said...

Attacking Native Canadians for not being atheist. Calling a distiguished man of letters and Jewish heritage a "Nazi". That's skating on some thin ice boys.

Why, you might be right. Who did these dreadful things?

Ti-Guy said...

Suggesting someone that differs in opinion with you needs a good shagging...

A lie! What I'm doing...and stating categorically, not suggesting...is that the dreary misery at 12:24 needs to indulge a bit more in a few simple pleasures. That could also extend to reading a good book (or *a* book), but I'm not a utopian.

Ti-Guy said...

Why, you might be right. Who did these dreadful things?

And who's the "distinguished man of letters?"

God, that's precious. BCL, are you trolling your own blog again?

Holly Stick said...

Speaking of free speech, Rick Mercer's rant this week was about Ezra Levant the annoying crusader for freedom of speech. Mercer said Levant has spent $100,000 on the human rights complaint. Is that was Ezra has claimed? How could he possibly have spent that much, unless he's been billing himself at top lawyer rates for spending time putting himself up on youtube?

Anonymous said...

is Rick Mercer a neo-con?

Supports war in general: check.

Supports invasion and occupation of Muslim countries in particular: check.

Gay: check.

Supports big government, gay marriage, and affirmative action: check.

Ergo, Rick Mercer is a neo-con. And what's the deal with people *not* knowing that Rick Mercer is gay? Liberace effect? Does zinc based deodorant break down gaydar enzymes?

Ti-Guy said...

Mercer said Levant has spent $100,000 on the human rights complaint.

Actually, Mercer asserted that Levant has spent that much republishing the cartoons. Who knows what that means? I hope Revenue Canada does.

It's close to the figure Levant's defunct rag sucked out of the Publications Assistance Program in one year, in any case, so if Levant's whining about how much this State persecution is costing him, he might want to shut up and call it even.

Dr.Dawg said...

No kidding, Holly. The guy could have (and in fact, did) send a letter of response to the complaint. He was under no compulsion to do anything else, and the complaint was flimsy enough that that should have been an end of it.

If that self-aggrandizing clown spent $100K in his self-promotion campaign, that's his choice. It certainly wasn't forced upon him by events.

Ti-Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ti-Guy said...

Rick Mercer is a neo-con.

You can't be a neo-con without the lying. That's what distinguishes neocons from everyone else.

Dawg...Holly is incorrect about what Rick Mercer asserted.

Dr.Dawg said...

Ah. My post appeared simultaneously with yours, Ti-Guy.

Maybe I should bring myself to watch Mercer's rant. But the $100K figure for republishing the cartoons seems equally suspect to me--unless it's the exact-same $100K that he extracted from the PAP for a rag that went belly-up. With some ingenuity in the creation of causal links, I suppose one could claim that the effective loss of that investment could be tracked back to the outrage that publishing the cartoons unleashed.

Think I'm on to something?

Phillip H. said...

Apparently BCL choses to interpret Steyn's article's as being the opposite of what is written,

in order to smear him.

In an article in which he attacks neo-Nazis, Steyn is somehow, pro-neo Nazis?

I suspect if Steyn came out with an article about the need for clean drinking water, that would somehow be interpreted in a way so as to smear him with the "Nazi"/"racist" label.

Intellectual honesty doesn't seem to be a strong point around here.

Ti-Guy said...

Think I'm on to something?

Morally, perhaps, but that really doesn't matter to the free speech warriors.

Ti-Guy said...

Intellectual honesty doesn't seem to be a strong point around here

If intellectual honesty is your major concern, you might start with Mark Steyn himself and the doughy and sweaty posse he runs with at The National Review, who churn out entire libraries worth of intellectual dishonesty.

Freedom of expression really is a colossal joke to these people, isn't it?

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

You know I'll have to mark Ezra's varying monetary claims. They seem to have changed over the weeks

Anonymous said...

"You know I'll have to mark Ezra's varying monetary claims."

Openly smearing Jewish people with accusations of financial irregularities, purely for political gain, eh? Classy.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, given that Liberal "leader" Stephane Dion's wife's father was a Nazi soldier in WWII.

Dr.Dawg said...

Ah. I see. Jewish people get a pass on financial matters--simply because they're Jewish. Sounds downright... anti-Semitic.

Still waiting to find out who went after Native people for not being atheists, etc.

Ti-Guy said...

Openly smearing Jewish people with accusations of financial irregularities, purely for political gain, eh? Classy.

Wow...you have to be like five different flavours of nazi (or simply a Conservative) to have thought *that* one up.

How did you do it, anonymous? Years of practice?

Holly Stick said...

Ti-guy, you are slightly mistaken in writing: "...Actually, Mercer asserted that Levant has spent that much republishing the cartoons..."

Rick Mercer's blog has the rant in print; I presume it's the same as what he said on TV. Maybe there is also a video link:

"...Since then, he's spent over a hundred thousand dollars defending his right to republish the cartoons..."

I think BCL or somebody commenting here a while back talked about Ezra's expenses or at least his heartrending (= nauseating) appeals for financial appeal.

http://www.rickmercer.com/blog/index.cfm/2008/3/18/tbd

Anonymous said...

"How did you do it, anonymous? Years of practice?"

Irwin Cotler has identified 17 distinct strains of "new" antisemitism. You exhibit 12, by the way. Do you have a problem with Irwin Cotler, and his identification of 17 strains of "new" antisemitism, that you would like to address?

Anyway, the libel suggesting the Jews are shysters goes back at least as far as the Merchant of Venice for this ill-read rube.

So why perpetrate an unsubstantiated rumour of financial irregularity about a Jewish public figure in an attempt to score political points in the first place? You know that is textbook antisemitism.

Ti-Guy said...

You exhibit 12, by the way.

And those are...?

Do you have a problem with Irwin Cotler, and his identification of 17 strains of "new" antisemitism, that you would like to address?

I'm completely unfamiliar with them. But I'm a huge fan of Irwin Cotler, so I imagine his analysis was done in good faith.

You, however, are a dishonest nazi.

Ti-Guy said...

My mistake Holly (and Dawg, I misled you as well). I was actually giving Ezra the benefit of the doubt here.

Now I am intrigued...how on Earth has he spent 100,000$ to defend his rights in this case? I could have have done it for far, far less than that.

Anonymous said...

"But I'm a huge fan of Irwin Cotler"

Sure you are, being a criminal and all. Crimewise, the guy's softer that Inge Hammerstrom.

Ti-Guy said...

Sure you are, being a criminal and all.

Oh, c'mon. You can defame me far more grotesquely than that, can't you?

I remember when nazis really knew how to smear. Now that the Conservatives have stolen their thunder, their efforts seem rather flaccid lately.

Holly Stick said...

Hey, lawyers charge big fees for writing letters, don't they?

Actually, when somebody questions Ezra Levant's financial claims, it's not because he's Jewish, it's because as an individual his veracity is in question. Can anon explain how Levant could have spent over $100,000 defending his right to publish the cartoons, when all he needed to do was write a letter to the Human Rights Commission explaining that he considered it a matter of free speech? Or why he feels the need to appeal for money to the rightwing rubes reading his blog?

Anonymous said...

"Or why he feels the need to appeal for money to the rightwing rubes reading his blog?"

"Money grubbing", in other words?

Holy fuck. You guys really are blind to your antisemitism, it's not just an act, or even irony.

You're just so used to hurling accusations of racism you are wholly oblivious to the fact that you yourselves are racist.

Not what BCL was expecting when he titled this post Your Daily Nazi, but certainly apropos.

Ti-Guy said...

Why are you implying that we be exterminated, anon? What's wrong with you? Did you and your buddies just come back from the Wanseekonferenz?

KC said...

Although I reluctantly support Levant in this whole mess (I say reluctantly because I think that although he is a jackass even though he absolutely had a 'natural right' to publish those cartoons) he cant have it both ways.

On the one hand he suggests HRC's are more like criminal law by saying he should be entitled to the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. But if HRC's are like criminal law he doesn't get to complain about the cost of mounting his own defence. Defendants in criminal law proceedings dont typically recover costs from the prosecution (although they might be eligible for legal aid)

On the other hand he suggests that HRC proceedings are civil in nature and he should be entitled to costs. But this would mean the reverse of what I wrote above and he isnt entitled to the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard of proof is not accorded to defendants in civil proceedings.

He has to pick one another. He cant demand the best of both worlds.

As someone who supports the work HRC's in employment, housing, etc. and just thinks they arent the proper venue for adjudicating speech I think the better solution here would be reasonable costs($100,000 is pretty ridiculous since this hasnt even gone to the tribunal yet) paid by the commission to successful defendants--and recoverable from the complainant at the discretion of the commission.

bigcitylib said...

KC,

How about covering both sides of the case (rather than just the complainant)? I think that's Kotler's idea.

Ti-Guy said...

is pretty ridiculous since this hasnt even gone to the tribunal yet

Ezra's case has been dropped. This is now just a personal vendetta against the Human Rights Commission, in the service of a harem's worth of the Robber Baron's catamites.

And with this crew, I know it's not just the speech provisions of the human rights code. Remember Ezra and "it's the the stupid Charter?" These people are against human rights protection in toto.

KC said...

BCL - I suppose that could work too but I don't really see why the government should have to pay for the defendants legal costs in successful cases. That would be a pretty big departure from "the way things are done"--not that there cant be debate about the way we do things.

I also cant really see the HRC's going after complainants if they themselves take the matter beyond the initial screening. At that point the HRC has made its own determination on the matter and has to bear the costs associated with that. I do think the HRC should be able to recover its costs in dealing with frivilous, nuisance complaints.

KC said...

Ezra's case has been dropped. This is now just a personal vendetta against the Human Rights Commission, in the service of a harem's worth of the Robber Baron's catamites.

My understanding was that an identical complaint to the Soharwardy complaint was still outstanding.

And with this crew, I know it's not just the speech provisions of the human rights code. Remember Ezra and "it's the the stupid Charter?" These people are against human rights protection in toto.

I am aware of that and part company with them beyond removing--or at the very least adding additional legislative safeguards--the hate speech provisions in HR statutes.

Ti-Guy said...

My understanding was that an identical complaint to the Soharwardy complaint was still outstanding.

I'm not aware of any.

bigcitylib said...

KC,

Or just a reaffirmation of free speech exemptions for journalists. That is all I think is really required.

And what I think will eventually transpire when the Levant/Steyn cases get adjudicated. The fact that the HRCs have batted 1000% thus far is due to the fact that Warman and co. have been pretty careful as to who they have targeted.

KC said...

Ti-guy - Ezra Levant has said that there is still an outstanding complaint from a Calgary or Edmonton Muslim organization stemming from the same publication that has not been withdrawn. Maybe hes lying or has followed up on that since I read but that is what he has said.

BCL - I think it needs to be deeper and more nuanced than that. I dont really see why MacLeans gets more leeway in saying what it says merely because it is bigger. I dont like the Steyn complaint because--while I think he is wrong about the extent of the trends, etc--I know that if there was a massive wave of immigration of evangelical Christians from the Southern US bent on imposing their biblical ways I would have something to say about it. Now maybe Steyn is wrong that there is a wave of Muslims to Europe, and maybe he is wrong about the extent of illiberalism in that population, and maybe hes just a moronic racist but his is an argument that needs to be allowed to be made. Identifying demographic trends in religion, discussing common political beliefs of those populations and the potential reprecussions for a society is something that needs to be allowed to occur--even if the author is wrong about it. As an atheist and a secularist Im not particularly comfortable with placing religion--whether collectively or individually--"off limits" for debate and discussion. Religion will try to carve out such a zone of immunity if it can and we shouldnt take any chances with that.

I dont like the Levant complaint because I done think our laws should be allowed to be employed to impose religious taboos. It was pretty clear to me at least that all the anger over those cartoons had nothing to do with the fact that bombs were being associated with Muslims. Much harsher stereotyping goes on all the time without incident (ever see the Family Guy where Stewie acting as a ticket collector at the airport singled out a gentleman in a turban for random screening?). It was because some folks didn't like the fact that other people--outside their religion--werent respecting the rules of their religion. If you read Syed Soharwardy's complaint its pretty evident that this was his principle grievance. Once again I dont think that is a legitimate use of state institutions.

Now we'll have to wait and see if the HRC's actually have the good sense to say "no thanks" (that wont completely satify me but thats for another day); but if these complaints are successful SOMETHING will need to be done to protect secularism, and freedom from religion.

Ti-Guy said...

Maybe hes lying or has followed up on that since I read but that is what he has said.

Ezra doesn't lie...not like that anyway. I'd be interested to find out where that second complaint is referred to.

I'm not going looking for it. My browser's parental control features won't let me access wingnut porn.

KC said...

"I'm not off the hook, of course. An identical complaint was filed by Soharwardy's friends at the Edmonton Muslim Council. So the case proceeds against me still."

http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/cartoon-complaint-update.html

Dr.Dawg said...

"Irwin Cotler has identified 17 distinct strains of "new" antisemitism."

I'd like a reference for this. A taxonomy, we have now, of anti-Semitism? What utter balderdash.

But the writer thinks that raising financial issues about someone who happens to be Jewish is "anti-Semitism." This is just the other side of the anti-Semitic coin. Next we'll be told that criticizing Meyer Lansky is anti-Semitic. Like criticizing Al Capone was anti-Italian.

This guy should stay anonymous, or he'd be in danger of being laughed to death.

Ti-Guy said...

This guy should stay anonymous, or he'd be in danger of being laughed to death.

He's just complex liar we've seen around here before.

...God, I hope so anyway. That he actually believes what he's writing is a disturbing thought.

Ti-Guy said...

Thanks for the link, KC.

bigcitylib said...

KC,

I don't agree. Sohardwardy says quite clearly in his complaint that non-Muslims should not be bound by Muslim strictures.

But the most important line is that (he feels) Ezra is using jouranilistic freedoms to raise strife among the Muslim community. Which I think is correct, the question being what if anything to do about it?

Anonymous said...

"I'd like a reference for this."

And I'd like a blowjob from Nelly Furtado.

Ever try asking nicely? Ever try asking nicely, cunt? He did create a taxonomy, it is available on the internet, and it is BS. BS of which you are ignorant and I am knowledgeable, so know your place.

"This guy should stay anonymous, or he'd be in danger of being laughed to death."

Strange that an anonymous internet entity calling itself "Dr. Dawg" would be making fun of anyone's handle, doubly so when it is a little clueless on matters Cotler and seeking a favour from me. I'm telling Michael Geist.

bigcitylib said...

Anon 8:00 am has the right attitude. Entertain me like him, and you will never be deleted.

Dr.Dawg said...

It's hard to keep track of all the timorous anonymice scampering around the site. Did one person write:

Irwin Cotler has identified 17 distinct strains of "new" antisemitism. You exhibit 12, by the way. Do you have a problem with Irwin Cotler, and his identification of 17 strains of "new" antisemitism, that you would like to address?

and then this?

He did create a taxonomy, it is available on the internet, and it is BS. BS of which you are ignorant and I am knowledgeable, so know your place.

We have here either a schizophrenic or two quite separable 'mice.

In any case, Cotler identified 13 (not 17) manifestations of anti-Semitism, and indeed it's mostly BS, like the invented "New Anti-Semitism."

I would like to propose…a set of indices by which we can identify…and monitor the nature and meaning of the new anti-Jewishness. These indices are organized around a juridical framework and draw upon principles of discrimination and equality as they find expression in both domestic and international law. There are thirteen indices that may serve to illustrate this new anti-Jewishness…

These "indices" include criticism of Israel. Cotler claims that classical anti-Semitism was directed against Jews as individuals, which would surprise mediaeval and more recent pogromists, as well as the Nazis. The article is a mish-mash of politically self-serving nonsense.

It's possible to criticize people on financial matters who happen to be Jewish, and not be anti-Semitic. Anyone who claims the opposite, quite frankly, can go and fuck themselves. (Just trying to get in synch with the tone around here.)

Holly Stick said...

Gosh, I thought I was just being anti-lawyer.

KC said...

BCL - Yes he says that and then contradicts himself by citing scripture and rambling about how much Muslims revere their "Prophet". Pretty clear to me.

As for causing strife in the Muslim community--sounds like more of the same to me. Why was their strife? Because of the cartoons. Why would the cartoons cause strife? Because of nonsensical religious gibberish about not depicting some historical fellow. If Levant isnt allowed to publish something that causes "strife" because it offends a communities religious beliefs we are essentially imposing theocracy.

And I say nuts to that. When I was in Grade 10 Gym class for some reason I felt inclined to exclaim "Jesus Christ" (I must have hurt myself or screwed up in a game or something). The Gym teacher told me not to swear. I said "Its not a swear to me, Im not a Christian. Jesus, Christ Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ!". I was sent to the Vice Principals office (much like Levant has been here) and made my case that I shouldnt have to live by the religious dictates of another even if that upsets them; and Im going to apply the same standard to Levant. Keep in mind the political context of the time: a bunch of Islamic countries were demanding that the west stop such blasphemy, and even in Canada we had boneheads like Elmasry and Soharwardy demanding the same thing. Levant was making the same point I was by repeating "Jesus Christ" after being told not to: you cant make me live by your religion.

I REFUSE to pay deference to the nonsensical dictates of the religious--and that includes the Islamic prohibition against depicting the prophet. The religious have freedom of religion and I have freedom from their nonsense. I dont care whether those religious dictates are being imposed by some cleric whining to the state, or a community getting up tight. Its theocracy no matter how you cut it.

What bothers me about the Levant case is I feel like if it were Christians that had been mocked and an HRC complaint was being filed the same progressives who are denouncing Levant would be supporting the defendant. There should be no double standard. Religious nonsense is religious nonsense.