tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post4166570820064571159..comments2024-03-17T03:16:44.995-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Keeping Mark Steyn In Linebigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-83930066824421734092008-01-08T09:24:00.000-05:002008-01-08T09:24:00.000-05:00"Steyn's defense is that he is merely quoting an "..."Steyn's defense is that he is merely quoting an "eminent European Muslim" (actually some guy in Norway I think that they've been trying to deport to the Middle East). On this I think Steyn has a point. But..."<BR/><BR/>Blinding flash of the obvious! Mark Steyn is not the author of those words! Have a seat, BCL, you must be exhausted from all that thinking.<BR/><BR/>Mark Steyn does not need a defense, BTW. It's only hypersensitive losers who need to be constantly offended and victimized to maintain a sense of identity who feel he does.<BR/><BR/>Man up, losers! You offend us too, but you don't see us evil right-wing hatemongers haling you before Soviet-style People's Courts for it. Wouldn't be very useful anyway, I suppose, as they're manned by your ideological kinfolk, but the point is that it wouldn't even occur to us; you have the same freedom to hate as we do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-88040505948055953782008-01-05T17:09:00.000-05:002008-01-05T17:09:00.000-05:00gayle::::I have made no claims about Steyn, and do...gayle:<BR/><BR/>:::I have made no claims about Steyn, and do not intend to.:::<BR/><BR/>ahhh, that is more fair. pathetic and self-contradictory, but still fair.<BR/><BR/>I withdraw my previous comment about substantiation w.r.t. steyn.<BR/><BR/>:::My purpose was to point out your ignorance about the operation of the Charter.:::<BR/><BR/>by deliberately misreading what I wrote.<BR/><BR/>now that's sheer brilliance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-68362502842017371482008-01-05T16:55:00.000-05:002008-01-05T16:55:00.000-05:00gayle::::As for the rest, I am not going to run ar...gayle:<BR/><BR/>:::As for the rest, I am not going to run around in circles with you anymore.:::<BR/><BR/>in other words, you refuse to substantiate your claim.<BR/><BR/>thanks for the mind-trip back into the dark ages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-55796252680327492932008-01-05T16:50:00.000-05:002008-01-05T16:50:00.000-05:00kristenLet me repeat my point for the third time:"...kristen<BR/><BR/>Let me repeat my point for the third time:<BR/><BR/>"It is wrong to assert that the Charter protects all forms of speech absolutely."<BR/><BR/>This is what you said:<BR/><BR/>“folks tend to get upset when the obvious rule of law is ignored by legal institutions.<BR/><BR/>or will you justify here the suspension of charter?”<BR/><BR/>I pointed out the Charter does not need to be suspended in order for expression to be limited. At no point did I ever limit this to violent forms of expression. You simply jumped to that conclusion because you did not understand my reference to section 1.<BR/><BR/>You demonstrated your ignorance of the Charter when you asked me to "elucidate" the violence, and then said this:<BR/><BR/>"strawman, but understandable. in the effort to be pithy, I was not logically complete."<BR/><BR/>This demonstrates your belief that the ONLY limit on free expression was if that expression was violent. That is the only way to logically interpret your comments given your claim that in order to limit speech was to "suspend" the Charter. <BR/><BR/>I have made no claims about Steyn, and do not intend to. My purpose was to point out your ignorance about the operation of the Charter.<BR/><BR/>As for this:<BR/><BR/>"don't attempt to divine thought-process from a sentence fragment."<BR/><BR/>If you were capable of expressing yourself in complete sentences I might be able to comply.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest, I am not going to run around in circles with you anymore. You are clearly out of your depth when discussing the Charter, and you and I both know it. Your attempt to change this into a conversation about something else is not going to work.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-76434533092684374962008-01-05T16:11:00.000-05:002008-01-05T16:11:00.000-05:00gayle:apparently the first time was insufficient, ...gayle:<BR/><BR/>apparently the first time was insufficient, so let me repeat myself-<BR/>"don't attempt to divine thought-process from a sentence fragment."<BR/><BR/>take a step back and look at the hilarity of what you've done twice in quick succession:<BR/>1. arrogantly presumed what I'm thinking on the basis of insufficient evidence<BR/>2. lectured me on the 'arrogant' thinking you've so miraculously found in me.<BR/><BR/>you should know better.<BR/><BR/>second, I never claimed the charter protects all form of expression. you have twice now claimed that I did. the error is yours.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>since you seem to be unobservant and resistant, let's go over things slowly.<BR/>1. you referenced <B>violent</B> (but not hate) speech as a form of expression not protected by the charter.<BR/>2. I responded <B>topically</B> by asking for you to point out the violence.<BR/>2a. or did you completely fail to notice that my question mimicked the response I quoted above it?<BR/>3. instead of doing the sensible thing and just saying 'no, of course there wasn't violence; however, hate speech is another form of expression not protected by the charter; I claim that steyn's speech falls in <B>this</B> category,' you chose to switch into freud mode.<BR/><BR/>:::You seem to be one of those people who think they are smarter than they are, but who are not smart enough to know that. I would feel sorry for you if you were not so very, unjustifiably, arrogant about it.:::<BR/><BR/>and where did my intelligence come into this? needless <I>ad hominems</I> and strawmen attacks speak about you far more than the question<BR/><BR/>'elucidate the violence'<BR/><BR/>ever did about me.<BR/><BR/>but whatever. in the face of such compelling psychoanalysis I must tremble.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>let's cut to the quick:<BR/>can you substantiate your effective claim (that you still haven't made because you're too busy rambling on about how arrogant I am) that steyn's speech qualifies as hate speech unprotected by the charter?<BR/><BR/>if you don't advance the claim, then you're entire presence in this thread of comments self-contradicts.<BR/><BR/>if you do advance the claim, then prove it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-1461796020232958682008-01-04T20:37:00.000-05:002008-01-04T20:37:00.000-05:00"you failed to answer a simple three-word question..."you failed to answer a simple three-word question. try again.'<BR/><BR/>Your question was irrelevant, but the answer is it is not violent. The reason it is not relevant is because section 1 allows the freedom of expression to be limited. In simple terms (and hopefully you will understand this), it is wrong to assert the Charter protects all forms of expression absolutely. In fact, it does not protect violent expression. Even forms of expression that fit within the definition of "expression" in section 2 may be limited by operation of section 1. That is why hate speech, which is not a violent form of expression, is not protected by the Charter.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be one of those people who think they are smarter than they are, but who are not smart enough to know that. I would feel sorry for you if you were not so very, unjustifiably, arrogant about it.<BR/><BR/>Let me say this again - you should not be discussing the Charter in the context you wish to discuss it until you actually understand how it works - and it is painfully obvious you do not.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-32515511901447435922008-01-04T18:59:00.000-05:002008-01-04T18:59:00.000-05:00gayle::::Ok - so you do not understand the Charter...gayle:<BR/><BR/>:::Ok - so you do not understand the Charter. I suggest you read it before you make such arguments...<BR/><BR/>&c &c..<BR/>:::<BR/><BR/>you failed to answer a simple three-word question. try again.<BR/><BR/>moreover, don't attempt to divine thought-process from a sentence fragment. it makes you look foolish.<BR/><BR/>ti-guy:<BR/><BR/>:::What? Read my first comment; my major beef with Steyn has always been that he's stupid...he asserts things without knowing whether they're true or not.:::<BR/><BR/>you demonstrated a single case.<BR/><BR/>do you have more?<BR/><BR/>:::you didn't comment on all the troll crap, did ya?:::<BR/><BR/>oh, don't get me started on the troll crap. I don't have to time for it.<BR/><BR/>my goal is to hear a well-argued argument against steyn. I'm not going to find that in repling to steyn-supporting trolls.<BR/><BR/>:::Sorry, that's your job. Read Steyn's crap and critique it.:::<BR/><BR/>so, argument by assertion?<BR/><BR/>you advanced a claim. prove it buddy.<BR/><BR/>:::No, it wouldn't be. Reading Steyn only makes one dumber.:::<BR/><BR/>dismissal by assertion is a shitty method for inquiry.<BR/><BR/>note: your stubborn refusal to substantiate your claim leads me and others to dismiss it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-83736159544523017292008-01-04T14:48:00.000-05:002008-01-04T14:48:00.000-05:00Bigcitylib,As someone who has read "America Alone"...Bigcitylib,<BR/><BR/>As someone who has read "America Alone", Steyn explicityly states that race isn't the issue, culture is. The muslims that emigrated to the UK in the 50s, 60s, and 70s are, in his words, more integrated with the UK than their children or grandchildren. These initial immigrants aren't the problem, and I have yet to see anything written by him bemoaning hindi migrants from India, christian migrants from Lebanon or Bhuddist migrants Thailand. The issue is NOT race, it is culture.<BR/><BR/>Steyn also addresses the issue of moderate muslims, and while I grant it is controversial, it should not be verboten.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-42948256670285164352008-01-04T02:21:00.000-05:002008-01-04T02:21:00.000-05:00The people on here who are ready to hang Steyn fro...The people on here who are ready to hang Steyn from the gallows simply because they don't disagree with him are scary, scary people. When on earth did "free speech" come to mean "free speech if *I* agree with you"?!?<BR/><BR/>And then to incorrectly attribute quotes to him as "proof" of his guilt is beyond the pale. You all should listen to Rex Murphy's thoughts on this matter: http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/human_rights_gone_awry.html<BR/><BR/>Or are the CBC and Murphy also "right wing zealots"?Robert W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11450265399740128136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-71049005664015380012008-01-03T22:48:00.000-05:002008-01-03T22:48:00.000-05:00"Actually, it's the rest of us who suffer, but...w..."Actually, it's the rest of us who suffer, but...well, never mind."<BR/><BR/>I would not worry about it TG, I doubt she will be back - at least not as "kristen".Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-33908398175937547542008-01-03T22:46:00.000-05:002008-01-03T22:46:00.000-05:00"Tell me Gayle, how can Steyn be "bigoted" against..."Tell me Gayle, how can Steyn be "bigoted" against all muslims everywhere in every context, when his works are littered with references to the tragedy of moderate Islam dying."<BR/><BR/>Did I say anything about Steyn? Could you please point me to the quote?<BR/><BR/>And biff, because you tend to argue about points I have not even made, I want to be clear I will not allow you to engage me in another one of your rambling pointless hate-filled arguments.<BR/><BR/>Have fun playing with yourself.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-46383842343720866582008-01-03T22:34:00.000-05:002008-01-03T22:34:00.000-05:00biff - you are boring, repetitive and as unconvinc...biff - you are boring, repetitive and as unconvincing as ever.<BR/><BR/>Just for the record, my comment was directed to someone who claimed that bashing a religion was not racist. But I understand that, like all intelligent debate, is beyond your comprehension.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-73172745240613527852008-01-03T20:11:00.000-05:002008-01-03T20:11:00.000-05:00which is only superficially relevant to the questi...<I>which is only superficially relevant to the question being discussed in the original post and comments thereafter.</I><BR/><BR/>What? Read my first comment; my major beef with Steyn has always been that he's stupid...he asserts things without knowing whether they're true or not. I <I>do</I> in fact believe he's a bigot, probably a racist as well, but I don't care to prove that and I don't care if anyone else thinks that's true or not. But his stupidity is easily documented, which many have done, an example of which I highlighted.<BR/><BR/>It also doesn't matter to anyone whether you think that comment was suitably placed within the rhetorical structure of this blog posting and the subsequent comments, because that's a joke; you didn't comment on all the troll crap, did ya?<BR/><BR/><I>now, if you presented how steyn was unrigourous in his arguments about Islamisation, I'd be very interested.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, that's your job. Read Steyn's crap and critique it.<BR/><BR/><I>it still wouldn't be relevant to the charge of racism and the legitimacy of the legal charges against steyn, but it'd be interesting.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it wouldn't be. Reading Steyn only makes one dumber.<BR/><BR/><I>I guess I'll just suffer for it then.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it's the rest of us who suffer, but...well, never mind.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-39797869303045982792008-01-03T19:16:00.000-05:002008-01-03T19:16:00.000-05:00"yes. please elucidate the violence."Ok - so you d..."yes. please elucidate the violence."<BR/><BR/>Ok - so you do not understand the Charter. I suggest you read it before you make such arguments.<BR/><BR/>Short version (which has already been set out by jermo, by the way):<BR/><BR/>Section 1 of the Charter says the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter "are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". <BR/><BR/>Translation:<BR/><BR/>Expression may be limited in certain circumstances, which is why hate speech, while a form of expression, is not accorded constitutional protection. In other words, it is a balancing act (did you miss that point in my post?).<BR/><BR/>In fairness to you, I should not have said the SCC "protected" all forms of expression - rather I should have said they "defined" expression under the Charter as covering all but violent forms of expression. That is under section 2. You still have to deal with section 1.<BR/><BR/>That does not excuse you for making comments about the Charter when you clearly have not educated yourself on it.<BR/><BR/>Please try to keep your arrogance in check next time.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-57960607408880875972008-01-03T19:05:00.000-05:002008-01-03T19:05:00.000-05:00gayle::::Huh? I assume you are aware the SCC in Ir...gayle:<BR/><BR/>:::Huh? I assume you are aware the SCC in Irwin Toy protected all forms of expression, other than violent forms.:::<BR/><BR/>yes. please elucidate the violence.<BR/><BR/>:::It is wrong to assert that the Charter protects all forms of speech absolutely.:::<BR/><BR/>strawman, but understandable. in the effort to be pithy, I was not logically complete.<BR/><BR/>ti-guy:<BR/><BR/>:::I wasn't making the argument that it did.:::<BR/><BR/>then blame yourself for poor communication. remember: you replied to a request for evidence of steyn's racism. <BR/><BR/>:::I brought it up as evidence of Steyn's lack of rigorousness. :::<BR/><BR/>which is only superficially relevant to the question being discussed in the original post and comments thereafter.<BR/><BR/>hence my 'red herring' comment.<BR/><BR/>:::Please apologise to me for accusing me of the logical fallacy of arguing by non sequitur:::<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.answers.com/topic/red-herring?cat=biz-fin" REL="nofollow">red herring</A>:<BR/>2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.<BR/><BR/>now, if you presented how steyn was unrigourous in his arguments about Islamisation, I'd be very interested. it still wouldn't be relevant to the charge of racism and the legitimacy of the legal charges against steyn, but it'd be interesting.<BR/><BR/>can you do that?<BR/><BR/>:::It's non standard and makes you look illiterate.:::<BR/><BR/>I guess I'll just suffer for it then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-92069556187014754092008-01-03T18:21:00.000-05:002008-01-03T18:21:00.000-05:00Kristan, I thought you had left...in a huff...stey...Kristan, I thought you had left...in a huff...<BR/><BR/><I>steyn's error in a recently published article about NOW has precisely jack relevance to the question of racism or bigotry.</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't making the argument that it did. I brought it up as evidence of Steyn's lack of rigorousness. Please apologise to me for accusing me of the logical fallacy of arguing by <I>non sequitur</I>, as that incivility has wounded me deeply. <BR/><BR/><I>I can only answer for myself: it was the popular convention on the first bulletin board I posted on, back in the day. I like it.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, of course I believe you. You should really stop using it, though. It's non standard and makes you look illiterate.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-76522918468545419762008-01-03T18:09:00.000-05:002008-01-03T18:09:00.000-05:00I know I am late to the substantive issues in this...I know I am late to the substantive issues in this little debate, but I am going to wade into it anyway.<BR/><BR/>Jermo:<BR/>“I asserted my opinion: that the HRCs are biased against whites. You asked for evidence. I pointed you to where to look for evidence.”<BR/><BR/>When you go to court, do you tell the judge that if s/he does not believe you to go look it up? Surely you know that when you make an argument, it is up to you to back it up with actual facts. Or do you just tell the judge to read the SCR’s if he does not believe you.<BR/><BR/>“Right now, the HRCs are providing the racists with the best gift possible: arguments to legitimize their opinion. By systematically ruling against whites and allowing every claim made by an immigrant, they are creating the sort of situation where it boils over in a kind of Herouxville and Bouchard-Taylor Commission mess.”<BR/><BR/>The problem with you (and others) relying on the assertion that the HRC has allowed all the claims by immigrants and has not allowed any claims from white straight males is that even if it is true, it is utterly meaningless. It is like saying an elite soccer team is racist because all team members are white, when only 5 Aboriginals tried out, and none of them had ever played the game before.<BR/><BR/>You see, it is the quality that is relevant, not the quantity. If you wish to assert the HRC’s are biased, then you need to bring forward evidence that they have allowed claims they should not have allowed, and denied claims they should have allowed. Numbers are meaningless – we want facts. (Note, facts; not your opinion based on your reading of the cases).<BR/><BR/>Kristen:<BR/><BR/>“folks tend to get upset when the obvious rule of law is ignored by legal institutions.<BR/><BR/>or will you justify here the suspension of charter?”<BR/><BR/>Huh? I assume you are aware the SCC in Irwin Toy protected all forms of expression, other than violent forms. The key is section 1. It is a balancing act. You do not like the way that has turned out – bully for you. It is wrong to assert that the Charter protects all forms of speech absolutely.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-58546549026864616432008-01-03T17:33:00.000-05:002008-01-03T17:33:00.000-05:00ti-guy::::I'll just link to Wolcott's latest skewe...ti-guy:<BR/><BR/>:::I'll just link to Wolcott's latest skewering of the ponce and leave it at that.:::<BR/><BR/>red herring.<BR/><BR/>steyn's error in a recently published article about NOW has precisely jack relevance to the question of racism or bigotry.<BR/><BR/>:::Why do "Kristan" and "Jonny" use the same odd typographical convention (:::) to mark quotations?:::<BR/><BR/>I can only answer for myself: it was the popular convention on the first bulletin board I posted on, back in the day. I like it.<BR/><BR/>ok, now I'm gone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-64519956515744811722008-01-03T17:25:00.000-05:002008-01-03T17:25:00.000-05:00Those opinions need supporting evidence, without w...<I>Those opinions need supporting evidence, without which, BigCity"Liberal" merely appears bigoted or, in his own loose argot, racist.</I><BR/><BR/>Would that Mark Steyn's writing were held to the rigorous standards of <I>supporting evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll just link to Wolcott's <A HREF="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2007/12/mark-steyn-bear.html" REL="nofollow">latest skewering</A> of the ponce and leave it at that.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-69271510705028035062008-01-03T17:00:00.000-05:002008-01-03T17:00:00.000-05:00BigCity"Liberal" wrote:I use "racist" deliberately...BigCity"Liberal" wrote:<BR/><BR/><EM>I use "racist" deliberately, because I don't think that Steyn and especially his audience could tell a muslim from a Mexican if they ran up and bit them on the ass screaming "I am a Muslim!"</EM><BR/><BR/>Those opinions need supporting evidence, without which, BigCity"Liberal" merely appears bigoted or, in his own loose argot, racist.<BR/><BR/><EM>(Witness the Ezra Levant and the Babushka incident).</EM><BR/><BR/>"Witness" that Ezra Levant is not Mark Steyn and cannot be more than one member of Steyn's readership. ("Witness" that the quoted sentence includes one error of word choice, one of phrasing, one of capitalization, and one of punctuation.)<BR/><BR/><EM>To claim Steyns' ranting is anti-Islamist rather than straight-up racist is to grant it a subtlety it does not deserve. He's basically complaining that "we" are about to get overrun by a dark-skinned race. The fact that they are also of a particular religion is essentially a quibble.</EM><BR/><BR/>We think this claim has cost BigCity"Liberal" the favorable regard of anyone who has read Mark Steyn's book <EM>America Alone</EM> with even ordinary comprehension.<BR/><BR/><EM>(He also bashes Jamaicans in his spare time, if I remember correctly).</EM><BR/><BR/>We do remember correctly. Mark Steyn deplored a high crime rate in Jamaican immigrant communities and a prevalence of Jamaican gangs engaged in organized crime. That would not be evidence of racism or any other sort of bigotry, unless he were to make up false claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-43870349479735082752008-01-03T16:18:00.000-05:002008-01-03T16:18:00.000-05:00Why do "Kristan" and "Jonny" use the same odd typo...Why do "Kristan" and "Jonny" use the same odd typographical convention (:::) to mark quotations?<BR/><BR/>Oh, well. Since Kristan flounced off, we shall never know.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-30251634744271612182008-01-03T15:31:00.000-05:002008-01-03T15:31:00.000-05:00:::Well, because (as Ti-Guy mentioned) the case in...:::Well, because (as Ti-Guy mentioned) the case involves an application of the legislation to an area beyond its original intent.:::<BR/><BR/>so why not prosecute, eh?<BR/><BR/>the <I>reductio ad absurdum</I> here is too obvious.<BR/><BR/>:::While Steyn's assertions might well consitute hate speech (rather than just offensive speech)in another context (a work setting, as G. Wise suggests),:::<BR/><BR/>irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>:::they are probably allowed in the context of an article in a magazine by a "journalist".:::<BR/><BR/>1. the air quotes are unnecessary and frivolous.<BR/>2. then in the same way, freedom of the press is only 'probably allowed.'<BR/><BR/>:::However, the CHRC might want to test that distinction (rather than assume it),:::<BR/><BR/>on what basis? clearly not the basis of law.<BR/><BR/>:::and you need a tribunal to do that.:::<BR/><BR/>no, you need a repeal of charter to do that.<BR/><BR/>:::Macleans and Steyn join a whole buttload of Canadian Nazis in driving the evolution of our legal framework.:::<BR/><BR/>needless <I>ad hominem</I>.<BR/><BR/>:::Good on them.:::<BR/><BR/>and shame on you. you would shame a man for the clear use of his personal liberty.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>since I agree with steyn that this case is <I>prima facie</I> idiotic and should never have existed, I am eager to hear a rational and evidence-driven argument to the contrary. perhaps I will find it elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>presumably it will not include:<BR/>1. incorrect quotation<BR/>2. argument by assertion<BR/>3. social justification for legal prosecution<BR/>4. basic logical errors<BR/>5. <I>ad hominem</I> attacks<BR/><BR/>but until then..<BR/><BR/>good day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-23738524826885745712008-01-03T15:22:00.000-05:002008-01-03T15:22:00.000-05:00jonnyWhat is worse, hating someone because of the ...jonny<BR/><BR/>What is worse, hating someone because of the colour of their skin, or because of their religion?<BR/><BR/>Does it matter?<BR/><BR/>Bigotry is hatred. Whether you hate them for their skin or their religion matters not. That is why I could care less if someone uses the term racist instead of bigot. We all know what is meant, and attacking someone's opinion because they mix the terms up simply demonstrates the weakness of the attacker's position.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-49371361016295544872008-01-03T15:15:00.000-05:002008-01-03T15:15:00.000-05:00Gayle said ::I am getting sick of this. We "get" t...Gayle said ::I am getting sick of this. We "get" that. The fact that some people use the term "racist" instead of the term "bigot" does not negate their point. ::<BR/><BR/>But surely it does? Racism implies bigotry. Bigotry does not imply racism. Someone could be bigoted in another way: against people who drive Hondas or have blonde hair for instance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-58207953572174895812008-01-03T15:06:00.000-05:002008-01-03T15:06:00.000-05:00Kristan,Well, because (as Ti-Guy mentioned) the ca...Kristan,<BR/><BR/>Well, because (as Ti-Guy mentioned) the case involves an application of the legislation to an area beyond its original intent. While Steyn's assertions might well consitute hate speech (rather than just offensive speech)in another context (a work setting, as G. Wise suggests), they are probably allowed in the context of an article in a magazine by a "journalist". However, the CHRC might want to test that distinction (rather than assume it), and you need a tribunal to do that. Macleans and Steyn join a whole buttload of Canadian Nazis in driving the evolution of our legal framework. Good on them.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.com