Friday, June 19, 2009

Me On The CHRC

Some twerp at Western Standard has been talking trash about the stuff I have written re the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ezra Levant, Nazis...etc. etc.

He writes:

Academic and blogger Marc Bourrie had a good post recently on the Orwellian tactics of Commissar Lynch and the CHRC. Given that he has done doctoral research on the history of state censorship in Canada, his opinions on this matter carry some weight.

But there's another reason why his post is worth reading, for if you take a look at the comments section you will discover everything you need to know about the intellectual bankruptcy of the port side of the Canadian blogosphere. In response to Bourrie's reasoned criticisms of the HRCs, the luminaries of Canada's nutroots - Dawgie and BCL in particular - have nothing to say. They evince no concern about due process, the rule of law, free speech rights, Warman's internet shenanigans, etc. No, for them the real issue is Ezra Levant's honesty (Robert McClelland calls him a "lying douchebag" in the first comment.

Nothing to say?

Well, indeed I have written alot on Ezra's varous allegations. Because most of the ensuing debate hinges on their accuracy. Here's just a few wherein I believe I have managed to establish that one or another of his claims are false, either through original research or by citing the work of others:

On his false allegations re the creation of the Canadian Nazi Party by the CJC: here, here, and here.

On his false allegations (recycled from White Nationalist sources) re the "hacked wifi" controversy: here, here, here, here, here, and here. And that's probably not all of them.

On his false allegations re the Cools post (also recycled from White Nationalist sources): here, here, here, here, here, here. And these are just the more important ones.

On Ezra's tenuous grasp of the complexities of the various provincial and federal human rights codes/laws etc: here, here, here, and esp. here (wherein I realized Ezra didn't understand what section of the B.C. code was actually at issue).

On Ezra's doubts re the existence of Bill White (American Neo-Nazi, now bound for the BigHouse thanks in part to Richard Warmen).

On Ezra's claim that Section 13 has been suspended (due to the brave work of himself, Ezra Levant).

And that's not half the stuff I've written. Anything I have said about Mr. Levant's accuracy has been sourced up the wazoo from multiple places.

But wait! Its not just about Ezra here at BCLSB, not even when it comes to the issues surrounding Canadian HRCs/HRTs (including the "problems" with the way they operate! For example:

On Warman's "shenanigans": here.

And on the Moon reports recommendations: here, here, here, here, and here.

On the Topham case (which is an example of "Left" anti-semitism and therefore, come to think of it, a refutation of Ezra's charge that HRCs/HRTs only target Conservatives).

On B'nai Brith's recommendations re the CHRC/CHRT.

Anyway, that is a small selection. I would just add that whenever I have made an error in writing about any of these matters, I have corrected it as quickly and openly as possible. That is what you do when you are concerned with facts. On the other hand, I doubt Ezra has every acknowledged error in any of the cases above, and others involved in the debate (Mark Steyn) have refused to pull false and in fact defamatory material from their websites when asked.

I would put this up against anything Mr. Yirush has attempted on the issue. Or anything Mr. Bourrie as done, come to think of it, Mr. Bourrie being a generally intelligent person who gets all tribal when he sees real or imaginary threats to the journalistic profession. In fact I would suggest that both men read some of the material before suggesting that I have been conducting an empty smear campaign.

12 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

They evince no concern about due process, the rule of law, free speech rights, Warman's internet shenanigans, etc.

The lies, the lies, the lies...

roblaw said...

Ok, but, here's the thing. We get that you don't like Ezra and Steyn. But, do you believe that the balance evidenced by the various HRC's is appropriate today?

Do you believe that Richard Warman's conduct is above reproach?

The thing that strikes me is this is all somewhat reminiscent of the battles between Joe Borowski and Henry Morgentaler - where the real point of the issue somehow got lost in the battle of personalities, with the various factions simply supporting their "champion" and then leaving their tools of critical analysis at the door.

Consider, if you might, how you might feel if some right-wing zealot was the chair of one of these HRC's, and there was a suggestion that certain bloggers were exposing "Conservatives" to hatred and contempt? And, I'm sure I don't need to ask you, do you feel that you might be entitled to respond, "..and what if they deserve it?"

bigcitylib said...

Roblaw,Conservatives aren't a protected group as far as I know. But if someone were calling repeatedly for Christian genocide (which is the kind of thing the HRT's actually worry about), then I would have no particular problem with an HRT takig that up.

roblaw said...

So, then, your suggestion BCL, is he legislation is sufficient in and of itself to assure that it's tools cannot be abused by someone with a certain ideological point of view that might differ from yours.

You missed my point - if a righ-wing ideologue was the chair of a HRC, you would feel comfortable in the legislation as it stands, assuring that your point of view was able to be expressed freely, and that your ability to defend yourself if you were subject to a complaint was more than adequate.

Ti-Guy said...

with the various factions simply supporting their "champion" and then leaving their tools of critical analysis at the door.

Unless you've really not paid attention to this issue, this is outright fabrication, Rob. Ezra's personality is about the only one I really find repulsive; with respect to the rest, we've spent an ordinate amount of time challenging the vilification, the defamation, the usubstantiated assertions, and the outright lies that have been trotted out to challenge the tribunals.

What kind of lawyer are you to blithely dismiss that kind of commitment to clarity to suggest that it's, above all, just an matter of political differences and juvenile personality clashes?

By the way, are you a friend of Ezra's?

bigcitylib said...

I didn't miss your point, if thats what it was; I ignored it. Why would anyone seriously worry about a right-wing ideologue being appointed? Lynch is a Tory appointee; so is Lustig.

Ti-Guy said...

Feh. Rob's just a troll, really. He never comes back when anyone points out a weakness in his argument. At best, he'll pull out some snippet he's gleaned from parsing a comment and then derail the conversation with that. And putting words in people's mouths is standard operating procedure for trolls: "So what you're saying is you support nun-raping?"

I've come to the conclusion that most right wingers mistake catalogues of logical fallacies as guides on how to argue.

Dr.Dawg said...

Excellent compilation, to which I would merely add Ezra's spectacular misreadings of a number of HRT cases, including the infamous "hand-washing case" that really wasn't about handwashing at all.

One cavil: Topham is not a "lefty" by any stretch, and allows his site to be used (for example) to glorify Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP. How he ever got the "left" tag is a mystery to me.

Ti-Guy said...

How he ever got the "left" tag is a mystery to me.

Brain-addled by post-structuralism, I imagine. And that was/is a leftist intellectual fashion, no matter how much some people try to distance themselves from it.

Dr.Dawg said...

I don't see too much "post-" anything in Topham, I'm afraid. A classic paleo-Nazi.

Ti-Guy said...

I don't see too much "post-" anything in Topham,

Post-psychedelics?

You're right, though. The dominant theme over there is Jewish/Zionist conspiracy. It's just me trying, and failing, to make sense of people who came of age in the 60's.

Ti-Guy said...

By the way, is this "twerp" this Graig Yirush? M.Phil. in Political Thought and Intellectual History from Cambridge University? PhD Johns Hopkins University?

If it's also Olaf/The Prairie Wrangler's Craig (which I suspect it is) I didn't realise that that asshole was so credentialed.