Firstly, my hope is that Macleans accepts the students' offer to settle their complaint. This does not seem to me to be a probably outcome, however. Macleans has spent so much time cultivating Canada's Far Right over this issue that it would literally stand to lose handfuls of subscriptions if it were seen to back down.
Should the complaint proceed, I hope we get a replay of the OHRC response, which would be for the CHRC to say that, yeah, Macleans has gone Islamophobe in publishing Steyn (among other things), but their content nevertheless does not meet the standard of Section 13. In other words, give the magazine another public spanking, the way Barbara Hall did. Send Kenneth Whyte another message that taking a Canadian institution into the same sewer as he took the National Post is not a good business strategy.
Because this is about more than Free Speech. As Mr. Layton writes:
The NDP appreciates the battle you are waging against mainstream media’s portrayal of Muslim Canadians and the intolerance and hatred against other communities such as Arabs and South Asians.
...which is why, despite the slim technical merits of their case, I find our law students engaged in an attractively quixotic endeavour. Much better these guys should call the rancid husk of the old Macleans to task than the CJC should go after Arthur Topham, whose anti-Semitic writings are much more extreme than anything Steyn has ever written, but which are so long-winded and boring that they seem incapable of bringing harm to anyone.
PS. Steyn calls his post today Jack and the Jew-hater. Think about glass houses and all that, Mark. You've got a few Jew haters on your side of the issue as well.
53 comments:
I forget who it was in The National Lampoon satire of Canada that it published in the 70's who described Barbara Amiel's writing style as the consequence of her husband (I guess George Jonas at the time) keeping her on a steady diet of coffee and 222's.
We need that kind of approach (and perhaps insider information) to find out what keeps Mark Steyn's tone so reliably hissy, strident, petulant, peevish, waspish, cunty and...um...Heatherish...and frankly, just plain douchey.
"Taliban Jack?" He's cribbing from the The Blogging Tories now?
He needs a good entartage.
Be fair, BCL. The National Post was always in the sewer.
Because this is about more than Free Speech.
Is the case against Macleans even about free speech at all? I don't recall any evidence that the complainents want to silence anyone. All they've ever asked is for their voice to be heard.
All they've ever asked is for their voice to be heard.
And as far as I can tell they've been heard in numerous op-eds. Unfortunately for them none of their op-eds actually countered any of Steyn's points, but basically whined about "not being heard".
As in, look Im writing a newspaper column in the Globe, National Post, and countless other newspapers about how the media is not allowing us to be heard.
Hard to argue with such air-tight logic.
How is that different from what the right whingers do every day, Jerome? All they do is whine about not being able to talk about stuff. Or they whine that nobody is talking about something.
That aside, it has nothing to do with the fact that this isn't even a free speech issue.
As in, look Im writing a newspaper column in the Globe, National Post, and countless other newspapers about how the media is not allowing us to be heard.
My impression is that they've studiously avoided refuting the baseless Islamophobia and embarked more on a project of education. Although laudable in itself, at some point, people should be given the opportunity to confront their accusers and challenge their accusations.
MacLean's doesn't have to do that, of course, just as no one else is obligated to think that it's become nothing more than neocon rag, cavorting on the frontiers of hate speech.
How is that different from what the right whingers do every day, Jerome? All they do is whine about not being able to talk about stuff. Or they whine that nobody is talking about something.
That aside, it has nothing to do with the fact that this isn't even a free speech issue.
Robert: I was merely pointing out that if all they ever wanted was to be heard, they were in fact heard, ad nauseum. If you want to skip the issue and turn this into a blanket condemnation of everything right-wing, go ahead, but I dont see how it relates to the current topic.
As far as using the coercive power of the state against a publication for articles they dont like, it doesnt get more clear cut than that: it is absolutely a free speech issue. Whether Macleans gets fined or is forced to publish something by a court order, it means that if you publish something which is not in the taste of special interest groups, the state will impose sanctions.
This is to be distinguished from Bill C-10 which merely cuts funding to movies deemed of bad taste. There are no state sanctions attached to such a movie, merely denial of funding.
For the sake of consistency, I will point out that Macleans is in fact subsidized by the Canadian Magazine Fund. I would support denial of these subsidies to Macleans wholeheartedly for any number of reasons, including:
-They have enough $.
-They sometimes publish controversial material like Steyn columns.
-Having media sucking on the public tit is always a bad idea.
Jerome,
They would NAT have been heard if they had just let the issue lie.
Although laudable in itself, at some point, people should be given the opportunity to confront their accusers and challenge their accusations.
MacLean's doesn't have to do that, of course, just as no one else is obligated to think that it's become nothing more than neocon rag, cavorting on the frontiers of hate speech.
Ti-Guy I hate to say it but I agree completely (save the characterization of Macleans but that's not really the point here).
Im sure the Toronto Star or the G&M would consider publishing their rebuttal. I think they should make efforts to have a media outlet publish it voluntarily.
They would NAT have been heard if they had just let the issue lie.
That's a good point actually, considering these guy's claim to fame is only to have filed the complaint. I suspect most media outlets, even the very lefty ones, would have little time for unknown writers with a beef against steyn.
But the actual complainant El-masry does have some name recognition: had he written a column against steyn's thesis it would have likely been published, or they could have solicited any number of columnists sympathetic to their cause to address these issues. Im sure they would have had some success had they tried these avenues.
Nevertheless, I reject the implication that one is entitled to gain credibility by filing a spurious complaint to an HRC. It worked for them, and I dont blame them for making use of our system. But it highlights the problems with the system.
Just think of the implications. From what I can tell you guys are offended by the National Post content - fair enough. Do you feel entitled to reply to articles or columns with which you disagree?
I think they should make efforts to have a media outlet publish it voluntarily.
That's what they're trying with MacLeans's.
Look, they're free to take up any action within the law (despite Levant's accusations of high treason and divided loyalty, these are Canadians, remember) and MacLean's is free to respond. We'll see how that goes.
Do you feel entitled to reply to articles or columns with which you disagree?
God, I'm having such terrible déjà vu. I've argued this to death.
Check the archives on this blog, Jérôme.
That's what they're trying with MacLeans's.
no they did tried that initially, and now they're trying to force macleans to publish it.
Look, they're free to take up any action within the law
That i agree with. However, the way in which they are using the law highlights that the law needs changing.
Check the archives on this blog, Jérôme.
I'd rather not - just give me a yes or no. If the current state of the law allows for disgruntled readers to hijack a publication, are you cool with that? Im not. I think its wrong whether the publication is left or right.
Whether Macleans gets fined or is forced to publish something by a court order, it means that if you publish something which is not in the taste of special interest groups, the state will impose sanctions.
So in other words, more speech equals less speech. Now I've heard everything.
This is to be distinguished from Bill C-10 which merely cuts funding to movies deemed of bad taste.
Not to get sidetracked, but it doesn't cut funding. It gives a cabinet minister the authority to deny tax credits to a film company based on whatever the reason of the day is. This isn't about censorship either. It's grotesque interference in our tax system that will be squashed dead in the courts.
So in other words, more speech equals less speech. Now I've heard everything.
that is not what i said, nor is the issue about the "amount of speech". It is about the consequences one faces if speech is deemed unacceptable by the state. Freedom of speech also means not publishing stuff you dont want to publish.
Just like freedom of religion includes the freedom not to be religious. Just like freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate. Just like democratic freedoms include the right not to vote...
It's grotesque interference in our tax system that will be squashed dead in the courts.
sure, if you say so. on what basis, pray tell. and whether it's a tax credit or actual funding, its a subsidy and for the purposes of this discussion the difference is academic.
no they did tried that initially, and now they're trying to force macleans to publish it.
No, that's not what's happening. Human rights law doesn't prescribe consequences. Nowhere does it say that if MacLean's loses, it will be forced to publish anything.
That i agree with. However, the way in which they are using the law highlights that the law needs changing.
You need to read the text of the law, Jérôme.
I'd rather not - just give me a yes or no. If the current state of the law allows for disgruntled readers to hijack a publication, are you cool with that? Im not. I think its wrong whether the publication is left or right
That's why I won't/can't answer your question before you familiarise yourself with the law. You will in fact learn that your question is moot.
HRC's are arbitrative mechanisms, not directives.
Mark Stein writes about a religions group that likes to take over where ever they go. A process that has been repeated over and over in North and Central Africa the last few decades . . . . and a few nut-bars decide it applies to them . . . only in Canada!!!
And then there's silly Jack, get out your tea and cookies Jack, maybe you can pat a few heads and get a few votes.
If your name was mentioned in the article in a bad light and you feel offended . . . sue Stein and Macleans.
Its too bad these offended are not as upset with their so-called "Minority" that are causing them all the bad press in the world.
Does this mean the Catholic Church can now sue the Toronto Star for all their bad press. Better do it quick before the Star folds completely.
For all the lefties . . . Free Speach is about people saying things that you don't agree with . . . so get over it!!!
Any of you folks been to Holland, Belgium, Denmark, or Britain lately . . . . thought not!!!
And then there's France . . . areas of Paris where the police don't even go . . .
sure, if you say so. on what basis, pray tell.
Well, Jerome, what a tax credit does is lower a person or company's taxable income which in turn lowers the amount of tax they have to pay. In other words it allows them to keep more of their own money.
Aside from that, the big problem with Bill C-10 is that there is no definition of what will lead to the revocation of the credit. So how does a company plan their budget when they have no idea if they'll receive these tax credits. They can't. No company can and corporate Canada will not tolerate that kind interference in their business planning. In fact, that type of hostile tax structuring will only make companies think twice about setting up shop in Canada. This thing is dead and buried already regardless of whether or not it passes through the Senate.
Mark Stein writes...
*snort*
Yay! Noschool's back. How's it hangin', you old illiterate?
No religion should be insulted ?
So much for all the Canada Council grants for "artists" who can put a Jesus statue in a bottle of urine or whatever.
Or maybe they should fund artists to insult all religions equally.
Or does Trudeau's charter protect religious folks from being insulted ?
So much for all the Canada Council grants for "artists" who can put a Jesus statue in a bottle of urine or whatever.
That happened in another country.
Are you OK, Fred? Do you want me to call the paramedics?
I pay my taxes for you to get proper medical treatment, you know. Just like I pay them to support the troops.
Support the Troops! Institutionalise Fred!
"Should the complaint proceed, I hope we get a replay of the OHRC response. . ."
What a starchy old conformist you have become BCL.
Mocking and belittling the OHRC is the best stategy. Sure, Barbara Hall can deny Macleans the presumption of innocence again and all that other nonsense.
I really can't believe you support such silliness by a government agency. Guess your days of mocking authority were short indeed.
Layton's letter is just another illustration of how foolish HRCs have become. Can you imagine a politician meddling in a criminal case?
With HRCs, anything goes, no presumption of innocence required. You're guilty because, well, well because Barbara Hall says you're guilty that's why.
No safeguards for the accused required. Heck, no legal authority is even required for government agencies to impugn you.
I hope the CHRC follows BCL's advice. Every step these semi-legitimate agencies take is one step closer to their hopeful demise.
Good riddance! :)
You need to read the text of the law, Jérôme.
Ti-Guy, dont take it from me, take it from El-Masry who stated at the press conference that they would specifically seek a forced publication at the BC HRC. The BC HRC statute is different from the CHRC statute, which are both different from the OHRC statute.
I think you owe me an answer to my question.
Jerome,
Show me a link dude. My reading was that the lawyer (Faisal?) stated that the BCHRC itself might demand the publication of a response as part of its judgement, not that he or E. were demanding that the BCHRC should make such a demand.
Happy to stand corrected, but you'll have to prove it.
Well, Jerome, what a tax credit does is lower a person or company's taxable income which in turn lowers the amount of tax they have to pay. In other words it allows them to keep more of their own money.
yes thanks robert nice way to not actually answer my question. I know what a tax credit is, i was asking as to on what basis a court would strike down C-10. That production companies dont like it is undoubtedly true, but that's not a basis to strike a law upon.
BCL: Here's section 37 of the BC Human Rights Code, which sets out available remedies:
37 (2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
(i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
So it looks like subparagraph 37(2)(d)(i) of the BC Human Rights Code would give legal authority to the BC Tribunal to order Macleans to publish. Maybe it wouldnt be interpreted as broadly - Im not expert on BC Human Rights Code jurisprudence.
BTW, the link is here:
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/h/96210_01.htm#section37
or just google bc human rights code.
In any event at the press conference 2 days ago that's what the complainants said, that they can seek this remedy from Macleans. It looks to me as if the statute is drafted broadly enough to allow it in theory - I guess time will tell to see what will happen in practice.
BCL: also, from the NP report of the press conference (if there is a G&M report I havent seen it)
He also hinted that the rebuttal has already been written, or at least sketched out, and that "one of the remedies in British Columbia may very well be that they could be ordered by the tribunal to put it in, subject to certain conditions and restrictions."
Link:
nationalpost.com/news/canada/
story.html?id=483738
Right. Thats the lawyer, not E., and he is not saying that this is one of their demands but something the BCHRC itself might require.
Big talk. He thinks he's going to win.
Ok BCL I confused Faisal Joseph with ElMasry. Whatever.
My initial point was that these guys now seek to force Macleans to publish their rebuttal rather than have Macleans do it voluntarily. I stand by that position. In fact I dont see how you could suggest otherwise.
I stand by that position.
Good for you.
In fact I dont see how you could suggest otherwise.
Look up the word "may."
Ok BCL I confused Faisal Joseph with ElMasry. Whatever.
Lord, these kids and their ADD...
I think some people should worry less about their "fwee speach!" and deal with their horrific reading comprehension skills and short attention spans.
Ti-Guy, thanks again for exposing your bad faith.
You got these complainants making a public settlement offer to the effect that "let us publish or we maintain our complaint" and they finsih off with "the BC Tribunal MAY order you to publish it anyways" - are you suggesitng they should have said "BC Tribunal WILL order you"? I dont think even these guys can or should suggest that they are a certain of what a tribunal would order.
You're still suggesting that they are trying to get Macleans to voluntarily publish their piece? I think its crystal clear that Macleans DOES NOT WANT TO PUBLSIH IT. So that should be the end of it, but no they're trying to impose it on Macleans.
If you can come up with an actual argument to show that they are merely seeking that Macleans publish voluntarily, lets hear it.
If all you have is accusations of ADD and bad reading skills, I guess unfortuantely we'll hear it too. But yeah, Im guessing your response will be something like "What really bugs me about these fwee speechers is that they're stupid and cant argue anything, because they're all neocon zionist bush-puppets"
"What really bugs me about these fwee speechers is that they're stupid and cant argue anything.
Well, duh.. I don't even think Steyn graduated high school. He'd be selling pencils from a cup if it hadn't been for all the wingnut welfare he's been hoovering up all these years.
The only thing any of this has revealed is an incredible hostility certain people have when confronted with the reality that they really don't know anything and are more comfortable being exposed to information that panders to their irrational beliefs and petty hatreds, rather than exposing themselves to information that challenges them.
What the speechies are arguing for is for the right to have their stupidity respected, even celebrated and the right to convince others that hate, bigotry, dishonesty and journalistic malpractice are simply forms of political expression that desperately need protection.
I think if MacLean's gave up the 3.5 million dollars a year it sucks out of the federal Publications Assistance Program, I'd personally stop caring as much as I do about its claim that it has a right to offend Canadians. Alternately, they could drop the Robber Bride and the Robber Baron's catamite already and let those two sink into a gin-soaked irrelevance they've more than earned the right to enjoy.
The only thing any of this has revealed is an incredible hostility certain people have when confronted with the reality that they really don't know anything and are more comfortable being exposed to information that panders to their irrational beliefs and petty hatreds, rather than exposing themselves to information that challenges them.
you mean like when you stated that HRCs are an arbitrative mechanism and pretended that I knew nothing about the law and then went on to provide you with specific sections of the BC code which show exactly the contrary? And how you suggests that the complainants are trying to get Macleans to voluntarily publish their rebuttal and I provided an argument as to why this is nonsense and you responded with the fact that I must be afflicted with ADD and a reading disorder? And how you exposed your petty hatred of anybody who doesnt share your far-left worldview?
Yeah I agree with that. I also agree that Macleans shouldnt get federal funding, see my post at 4:15PM.
you mean like when you stated that HRCs are an arbitrative mechanism and pretended that I knew nothing about the law and then went on to provide you with specific sections of the BC code which show exactly the contrary?
Are you suggesting I should have known you knew anything about the law at the time there was no evidence at hand to indicate that you did? And are you further suggesting that because you subsequently went out and googled up something that that somehow changes the conditions under which I made my original assumption?
Anyway, to answer your question: no, it's nothing like that at all. The hostility I'm detecting here is this high dudgeon speechies get into when they discover that some people are pretty damn indifferent to their bombast about free expression when a) they never say anything useful at all and b) don't have the vaguest understanding of how censorship, journalistic malpractic and outright distortions in the media are far bigger problems than the slaps on the wrist they're likely to get from an HRC decision.
And how you exposed your petty hatred of anybody who doesnt share your far-left worldview?
Now it's FAR-LEFT, is it?
Where do you guys get all this? Do you watch too much FoxNews or something (O'Reilly calls everything far-left, the term is meaningless)? In any case, commentary that reveals an indifference to the fact that words have meaning doesn't do much to disabuse me of the notion that speechies are just really, really stupid.
Are you suggesting I should have known you knew anything about the law at the time there was no evidence at hand to indicate that you did? And are you further suggesting that because you subsequently went out and googled up something that that somehow changes the conditions under which I made my original assumption?
ah wow ti-guy, Im having fun here, I hope you are too. You accuse others left and right of intellectual dishonesty and now you readily admit that you suggested I knew nothing based on "no evidence to the contrary". Similarly, you have no evidence to suggest that I am NOT a drug dealer, or a murderer.
I made a statement about the law which was correct, you asserted it was false and I knew nothing, and then I showed my statement to be correct. Im suggesting that you should not go around calling people ignorant of certain things without evidence that they are in fact ignorant, rather than lack of evidence that they are not ignorant. In other words, take 2 seconds to google before throwing insults left and right.
And I dont mean to insult you with "far-left". The left, as far as I can tell from G&M editorials, PEN Canada, and others who have come out in favor of free speech, do not share your position on this. Whatever, if you dont like that characterization, lets forget about it.
and now you readily admit that you suggested I knew nothing based on "no evidence to the contrary".
Learn how to use quotation marks. I never said that.
Similarly, you have no evidence to suggest that I am NOT a drug dealer, or a murderer.
Right. And?
I made a statement about the law which was correct, you asserted it was false and I knew nothing,
No, that's not right. Correct and re-submit.
I made a statement about the law which was correct, you asserted it was false and I knew nothing, and then I showed my statement to be correct. Im suggesting that you should not go around calling people ignorant of certain things without evidence that they are in fact ignorant, rather than lack of evidence that they are not ignorant. In other words, take 2 seconds to google before throwing insults left and right.
Oh, get stuffed, you tedious little scold. I don't even know if any of that is true, because I'm hardly paying attention. Like I said, I'm completely indifferent to issue of the right to free expression of stupid people who never say anything worth listening to. And since no one is in fact shutting y'all up, I don't know what the crisis is all about.
The left, as far as I can tell from G&M editorials, PEN Canada, and others who have come out in favor of free speech, do not share your position on this.
I share PEN's position on freedom of expression; I also support the HRC's. When someone issues a fatwa against the Robber Baron's Catamite, I expect I will be suitably...er...concerned, as he has been about all the other people living under the yoke of poor human rights protection.
I'm already working on the frown I'll use when I hear that Steyn's head is resting on pike somewhere.
I share PEN's position on freedom of expression; I also support the HRC's.
that makes a lot of sense. you support PEN's stated opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of expression as well as the HRC's suppression of freedom of expression.
No, that's not right. Correct and re-submit.
That's your post of 7:16PM
That's why I won't/can't answer your question before you familiarise yourself with the law. You will in fact learn that your question is moot.
HRC's are arbitrative mechanisms, not directives.
That was shown to be completely false, a complete fabrication.
Let's recap: you make up stuff as you go along, you cant formulate an argument, when confronted with your faulty logic you react by throwing insults indiscriminately.
And you project all these on your ideological opponents. I feel sorry for you.
that makes a lot of sense. you support PEN's stated opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of expression
That's not what I said, is it? Why are you lying?
In the end, the issue is complex. PEN also opposes Bill C-10, which a lot of the speechies support.
PEN is being coherent, at least.
Let's recap: you make up stuff as you go along, you cant formulate an argument, when confronted with your faulty logic you react by throwing insults indiscriminately.
And you project all these on your ideological opponents. I feel sorry for you.
Oh, God, stop crying. Aren't Teletubbies on now, or something?
your posts:
I share PEN's position on freedom of expression;
That's not what I said, is it? Why are you lying?
contradictory posts, check.
Oh, God, stop crying. Aren't Teletubbies on now, or something?
unwarranted insults, check.
lack of argument, check.
Yes or no. Does this...
"I share PEN's position on freedom of expression;"
...mean the same thing as this...
"I support PEN's stated opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of expression."
Yes.
I will now provide an argument as to why this is the case, without insulting you (watch and learn).
I share PEN's position on freedom of expression
Ok great you share PEN's position. That position includes an opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of speech. You did not qualify your statement that you shared PEN's position only to a certain point, or that you disagreed on some points but not on others. Your statement was a complete, unqualified endorsement of PEN's position on freedom of expression, which includes said opposition to HRC's "excesses".
To take an example, if someone says they share George Bush's position on Iraq, you would correctly understand that this person is in favor of the war on Iraq.
Hey, if you didnt mean it, just go ahead and correct the record. No need to throw accusations of lying around. Seriously, you make fun (rightly so) of right-wingers who cant make an argument and just throw insults around. And then you turn around and do the exact same thing.
That position includes an opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of speech.
Funny, because I don't find that articulated by PEN Canada. What I find is: "PEN Canada calls on the federal and provincial governments
to change human rights commission legislation to ensure commissions can no longer be used to attempt to restrict freedom of expression in Canada."
An attempt of restrict freedom of expression is not the same thing as actual suppression of freedom of expression, which the HRC's, cannot do. All they can do is impose penalities and specify consequences. In other words, they can't take people's computers away from them, or shut down presses, or put duct tape over people's mouths, or throw them in jail, or...
In other words, your argument has failed. The two statements are not the same; you just tried to insist they were by inserting information into one of them that is quite plainly not there; the assumption that when I said I supported PEN's position on freedom of expression, I was including its position on HRC's. Human Rights Commissions and freedom of expression are two distinct things.
I'm sure PEN has all kinds of other positions as well; that doesn't necessarily mean I'm addressing them when I state that I support PEN's position on freedom of expression.
Now please apologise for causing this unfortunate contretemps, and we will move on.
oh my god, how could I have been so foolish, they are only attempting to suppress freedom of speech. I take back what I said earlier, you are the king of nuances.
no in all seriousness ti-guy, as I said you should clear the record to clarify your statement rather than twist yourself into a logical pretzel like you just did. dont get me wrong, this is entertaining stuff - but like you said, it would be nice if we could move on.
also for the record, human rights commission can and have issued injunctions against people - i'll even use the google for you and show you if you ask nicely. injunctions by HRCs, like court orders or orders from any other administrative tribunal have force of law. do you think you can just ignore these things and get away with it?
ignoring such an order from an HRC is the same as contempt of court and could ultimately lead to jail. dont get me wrong, jail sentences would not be the first enforcement tool used but if you ignore a judge's order enough times, you're ending up in a slammer.
so the following:
In other words, they can't take people's computers away from them, or shut down presses, or put duct tape over people's mouths, or throw them in jail, or...
is patently false in many respects. the duct tape is symbolic, but the jail most definitely is not.
as I said you should clear the record to clarify your statement rather than twist yourself into a logical pretzel like you just did.
It's not a logic pretzel. You just happen to believe "HRC's" and "freedom of expression" are the same thing. I can't help you with that.
And if you wanted me to clarify something, you should have thought about that before accusing me of being...well, what was is exactly...inconsistency? Incoherence? I don't know. I can never understand anything you speechies are saying.
the duct tape is symbolic
Yeah, I know. Everything is symbolic with the speechies. I guess when you have nothing to say but can't shut up, one has to find grandeur somewhere. It's easy when it's all symbolic.
It's too bad their imaginations (with the exception of Ezra "Victim of State Inquisition and Torture!" Levant), are so limited; instead of duct tape, why can't it be ball gags? Laryngectomies? Tongue extractions?!!
It's not a logic pretzel. You just happen to believe "HRC's" and "freedom of expression" are the same thing. I can't help you with that.
no no no, its a logical pretzel to pretend that PENs position is an opposition to HRC's attempts at suppressing speech rather than just suppressing speech. the fact that the word attempts is there doesnt change anything.
also, any position on free speech in canada necessarily includes a position on HRCs. if you share PENs position on free speech except for HRCs, you should have said so. instead, you are twisting yourself into a pretzel.
foreign policy, and Iraq, are two separate things. yet if you share Bush's position on foreign policy, without qualifications, that necessarily includes his position on Iraq.
Sorry to give you lessons in logic like that, but Im actually having fun so dont feel bad.
Back for more eh?
no no no, its a logical pretzel to pretend that PENs position is an opposition to HRC's attempts at suppressing speech rather than just suppressing speech. the fact that the word attempts is there doesnt change anything.
That wasn't central to my point refuting (successfully) your argument that I agree with PEN's position on HRC's. I simply mentioned it because PEN seems to be the first entity I've come across that better articulates what the speechies have been dishonestly propagandising about. This appears as attempts to censor. It's wrong as well, but not as dishonest.
I guess speechies will never admit that censorship occurs before something is expressed. If something ends up being expressed, there is no censorship. What happens, afterwards, if anything at all, are simply reactions and/or consequences. These are very important conceptual distinctions.
I guess if the speechies ever admitted they actually understood censorship, they'd be obliged to deal with important instances of it, such as media and corporate censorship, censorship conducted by Canadian border agents, government censorship of public information (did you notice Harper suspended CAIRS last week?) and the censorship of dishonest authoritarians like Ezra Levant, who moderates the comments on his blog ever so judiciously and sues anyone who accuses him of being a racist.
Sorry to give you lessons in logic like that, but Im actually having fun so dont feel bad.
I find it hilarious that any of you persist in thinking you're going to trap people like me, who opposes censorship vehemently and supports directing resources (such as the PAP) to encourage people to express themselves meaningfully, but rejects free speech absolutism in favour of mediation, into some humiliating logical fallacy that'll cause me to change my mind. I've studied the dynamics of propaganda that worked for both the Jewish and Rwandan genocides for years and the propaganda that duped the Americans into a disastrous invasion (another crime against humanity) and you're just never, ever going to convince me to doubt what I know to be true.
I personally am convinced that the cabal of propagandists involved in this mess were trying to provoke a civil emergency in Canada in early 2006 and they're simply not going to be given the chance to do that. Not in my country.
I guess speechies will never admit that censorship occurs before something is expressed. If something ends up being expressed, there is no censorship. What happens, afterwards, if anything at all, are simply reactions and/or consequences. These are very important conceptual distinctions.
that's exactly what the HRC complaints will do - the next person who like Steyn might want to quote an incendiary imam will think about it twice, as he knows he's going to be at the mercy of the CIC and its state enforcers.
It's wrong as well, but not as dishonest.
Okay so now you disagree with PEN. At least its consistent with your other posts.
but rejects free speech absolutism in favour of mediation
HRCs are not involved in mediations, they might encourage it between the parties, but ultimately its the defendant against the commission, in an adversarial hearing before a tribunal. more stuff made from thin air?
I personally am convinced that the cabal of propagandists involved in this mess were trying to provoke a civil emergency in Canada in early 2006 and they're simply not going to be given the chance to do that. Not in my country.
yeah thanks for stopping that civil emergency in early 2006, that was a close call, but ti-guy was there to save the day!!!
You didn't address this:
I guess if the speechies ever admitted they actually understood censorship, they'd be obliged to deal with important instances of it, such as media and corporate censorship, censorship conducted by Canadian border agents, government censorship of public information (did you notice Harper suspended CAIRS last week?) and the censorship of dishonest authoritarians like Ezra Levant, who moderates the comments on his blog ever so judiciously and sues anyone who accuses him of being a racist.
I've said before, but I guess I should be plainer about it, because I've discussed this to death; I'm completely indifferent to you speechies and your petty little concerns for racists like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant and all the other bigots and neo-nazis when there are bigger issues that none of you cares to address.
Go and donate 1000.00 to Ezra Levant. Then go write a book or an article on the perils of human rights commissions. Then do something else for free expression and Canadian democracy and the protection of human rights.
Do something useful with your precious freedom of expression in other words, instead of wasting other people's time.
I guess if the speechies ever admitted they actually understood censorship, they'd be obliged to deal with important instances of it, such as media and corporate censorship, censorship conducted by Canadian border agents, government censorship of public information (did you notice Harper suspended CAIRS last week?) and the censorship of dishonest authoritarians like Ezra Levant, who moderates the comments on his blog ever so judiciously and sues anyone who accuses him of being a racist.
I didnt address this because this is nonsense to a degree that your sentences dont make sense, and you dont actually express a coherent thought. It's a bizarre mixture of paranoia and cliché.
Do something useful with your precious freedom of expression in other words, instead of wasting other people's time.
what the hell do you care if Im wasting my own time and if its useful. try to make an ARGUMENT, as in a combination of fact and logic which point to a conclusion which supports your position. In over 50 comments, you havent done it once.
Do something useful with your precious freedom of expression instead of wasting smarter people's time.
Do something useful with your precious freedom of expression instead of wasting smarter people's time.
yes, you've made it abundantly clear how smart you are by:
making stuff up as you go along (complainants are asking Macleans to "voluntarily" publish, HRCs are "arbitrative", HRCs dont issue injunctions, all proven to be complete fabrications, yet you carry on making more stuff up"
responding to the destruction of your position/statements by insults (that's a big winner right there and a sure sign of intellectual acumen - Dion should run on that "Conservatives are big fat stupid meanies")
failing to construct an actual argument throughout. never has there been anything resembling the application of logic to facts. to me, your failure to actual make an argument, shows just how brilliant you really are, you are not constrained by the conventions of logic, facts, or common sense - congratulations.
lastly, I am not wasting your time, I am wasting mine. That you choose to read my comments and respond is your choice alone.
Post a Comment