Friday, November 07, 2008

Your Daily Nazi: CPoC Will Debate Freeing The Neo-Nazis!

Whoopsie! Looks like I spoke too soon! The Speechy Wars are back on!
Mind you, resolutions made by the grass-roots are usually ignored by the party, and in any case I imagine the delgates won't frame the issue as being how the CPoC should make it easier for Neo-Nazis to organize in Canada. They will probably refer to it as a "resolution to keep Ezra Levant in pay-pal donations". Or something of that nature.
h/t NN and FD.


Reality Bites said...

During the last policy convention Connie Fournier got a so-called "partial-birth" abortion resolution on the list. I said to a friend they'd never let it come up for debate, let alone pass.

I was right. This resolution will go absolutely nowhere unless Harper wants it to. And if by chance it passes and Harper doesn't want to go there, he'll have no problem disowning it loudly and have fun watching Ezra throw a hissy fit to boot.

And if this issue becomes a public one, it'll become quite apparent what kind of speech he's REALLY trying to protect.

Mala Fides said...

What would Canada's right-wing party be without its facsist base of support and its ideological core?

Dr.Dawg said...

Where did you get the resolutions book? Is it on-line?

bigcitylib said...


The documents are all at National Newswatch. Follow the link. The actual resolution is in one of them, but I copped the pic from FD because I couldn't determine which .pdf. Lots of good stuff in addition to this.

Ti-Guy said...

I wish there were some concerted effort to highlight the characters (and the moral/intellectual bankruptcy) of the people who are campaigning in support of weakening the provisions of human rights legislation.

We all know Ezra Levant is not just against human rights complaints with regard to expression; he is against human rights protection in toto. And we know Stephen Harper attempted to have the ability to spend money equated with freedom of expression, a case he lost at the Supreme Court.

Coupled with their silence over SLAPP suits, their insistence on using libel legislation, not to protect their reputations (they don't have any worth protecting), but to prevent uncomfortable truths from coming to the surface and their own personal censoriousness, and you can only conclude that this whole support for free speech absolutism is simply a ruse to ensure that the only "truths" that are public are the ones determined by powerful, wealthy agencies.

This is the situation that largely exists in the US, and the consequences have been disastrous.

Reality Bites said...

They're talking about this now on FD, where someone called "fourhorses" said:

as Narrow Back posts above, BCL and co. are trying to frame conservatives as neo-nazis for even discussing this.

How long will conservatives be willing to allow loud mouths lefties to paint them with this brush ?

Does it sound to you like fourhorses has a problem with free speech or something?

Reality Bites said...

P.S. Connie writes "By the way, it's nice to see that RealityBites is still being eaten alive by his irrational, obsessive hatred of me. I hope it keeps him awake at night while I go about my life not caring."

What an ego! The only reason she was even mentioned was because it was her resolution. No comment about her of any kind was made, let alone one indicting irrational, obsessive hatred. (Mirrors, Connie. You might try looking in one) Perhaps these people, rather than fighting for speech, would best spend their time learning to read.

Ti-Guy said...

Heh. This is like high school:

Per Connie:

"Nobody even goes to BCL's site. If FD and the rightwing blogs stopped linking to him, his only traffic would be himself, those two ghouls that post there, and Warman/Kinsella."

Why that no good so-and-so. Still, better no one come here than the RCMP visiting your minions, eh Conchita?

By the way, is her husband...mulatto?

Reality Bites said...

No, but he has what used to be termed a "bastard" child, while Connie herself is divorced with children. They were living common law for quite some time before marrying.

And somehow they feel they have the right to dictate whether or not other people have the right to marry. The kind of people who can book a honeymoon at the kind of place where it doesn't matter if "kids stay free."

Ti-Guy said...

Fornication? Divorce? Polygamy (which, according us *good* Catholics, is what she's now engaged in)? Man...that's hawt!!

Jesus...makes me feel like I've lived my whole life in a convent.

Now I want to be a conservative!