tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post3180499772799584862..comments2024-03-17T03:16:44.995-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Steyn Responds: CHRC Not Needed To Combat White Supremacists/Nazisbigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-34299727642742181062008-01-13T22:07:00.000-05:002008-01-13T22:07:00.000-05:00HOW MANYOF YOU THOUHT 1984 WOULD NEVER HAPPEN OR Y...HOW MANYOF YOU THOUHT 1984 WOULD NEVER HAPPEN OR YOU WOULD BE A REBEL WELL HERE ITIS NOW ARE YOU ON THE THOUHGT POLICE SIDE OR THE FFREE THINKER SIDE THIS HAS GONE BEYOND POLITICS THIS IS THE REAL THING YOU CANNOT REBVERSE IT ONCE IT HAPPENS ITS TIME TO TAKE ASTAND WETHER YOU LIKE THIS GUY OR NOT HE IS RIGHT GO TO SMALL DEAD ANIMALS AQND SEE WHAT THEOPPONENTS HAVE POSTED YOU WONT GET ARASHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-35351403361246244742008-01-10T02:17:00.000-05:002008-01-10T02:17:00.000-05:00Dear M. J. Murphy,Marc Lemire was kind enough to a...Dear M. J. Murphy,<BR/><BR/>Marc Lemire was kind enough to alert me to your challenge to Mark Steyn that is posted on his site. I’m writing to first thank you for the plug and second to correct some of the misinformation that you’ve managed to spread about. I’m not sure how you came on this issue or where you actually got your information from but it seems as though you dashed to my site (possibly) and grabbed some snippets or else it was second hand info that you received from elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>I still haven’t figured out how to post material to Steyn’s site so I haven’t done so yet but for the sake of you and your readership I thought it would be appropriate to correct the more blatant errors. <BR/><BR/>All the information regarding myself, my background and my place of residence and my reasons for challenging the CHRC is contained within the “Response” which I sent to the CHRC on January 3, 2008. Had you read that detailed document it’s highly unlikely you would have made the statements that you did in you letter to Steyn. The document is on my site and can be found at http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629 <BR/><BR/>First off my website RadicalPress.com is not located in Victoria, B.C. but in a small community called Cottonwood which lies approximately midway between Quesnel, B.C. and the old historic town of Barkerville, in the foothills of the Cariboo Mt. range in central British Columbia. It’s my hunch that you’ve mixed up my site with another Victoria-based one called http://www.PEJ.org which also received the identical complaint that I did and from the same person and organization. They got their complaint back in May of 2007 and as far as I know are still “negotiating” with the CHRC and Mr. Abrams.<BR/><BR/>As well, none of the titles that you’ve listed were written by me. I run a news service and as such carry numerous articles by varied writers. Those you listed were from other sources. If you had read either the Response or the preceding article, THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada's Internet by the B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=628 that would have been obvious. <BR/><BR/>One thing you were right about though was my “obsession” with “those darn Zionists”. After forty years of tracking down the nature of the Beast it would be rather silly of me to keep on writing about peripheral issues when the root of the problem had been discovered and required greater attention. <BR/><BR/>I also beg to differ with you regarding your comment that a person is “basically fucked” when the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada goes after you. That is purely an assumption on your part. It may be based upon the fact that up to this point no one has ever won a case who has been charged but it is not a foregone conclusion. Time will tell. There is certain to be much more fur flying before this case draws to a close I can assure you of that.<BR/><BR/>Unlike Steyn’s reply to you which was riddled with rather puerile, insulting and misleading characterizations (which I will address next) you at least had the courtesy to bring my plight to his attention and for that I am indebted to you. <BR/><BR/>I will send you a cc of what I have to say to Steyn. If you have an email contact address for him that you could furnish me with it would be most appreciated.<BR/><BR/>I”m still forced to work with dial up internet believe it or not so I’m not sure whether I’ll be able to post to your blog. If this doesn’t appear right after you receive this email then I would appreciate it if you would post it in the comments or elsewhere. Thank you for your time and your help.<BR/><BR/>I remain,<BR/><BR/>Arthur Topham<BR/>Pub/Ed<BR/>The Radical Press<BR/>Canada’s Radical News Network<BR/>radical@radicalpress.com<BR/>http://www.radicalpress.com<BR/>“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”<BR/>------------------------------------------------------------Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-61786091134757651522008-01-09T10:07:00.000-05:002008-01-09T10:07:00.000-05:00KC seemed to be responding to your claim that Stey...<I>KC seemed to be responding to your claim that Steyn's article didnt attract the attention of the state.<BR/><BR/>ti-guy's response: That's because it quite plainly didn't. The human rights complaint process is complaint driven, and this one was brought by a group of citizens.</I><BR/><BR/>The complaint was brought by immigrants. Immigrants are agents of the state. That's why they are imported -- to expand and increase the power of the state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-65375646293220432962008-01-08T14:42:00.000-05:002008-01-08T14:42:00.000-05:00johnn thacker: both your posts are excellent.And h...<I>johnn thacker: both your posts are excellent.</I><BR/><BR/>And here we have the not unexpected righty <I>gush.</I><BR/><BR/><I>in the civil system, you can make a claim against someone, pay your lawyer to represent you, and in the event you lose, you have your legal bills to pay and sometimes costs for the defendant. this is a serious deterrent against frivolous suits, although they still happen.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm familiar with this argument. Justice is something you should be allowed to think applies to yourself only if you can <I>pay</I> for it.<BR/><BR/><I>if you cant tell from the above that HRCs are closer in process and procedure to the criminal system than to the civil one, its a sad commentary on you.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I can't...so start crying. Because it's, you know...<I>sad.</I><BR/><BR/>*rolls eyes* I'm always amazed at the conceit righties have to think their unending complaints about everything are so grand and significant.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-674963974855006672008-01-08T14:08:00.000-05:002008-01-08T14:08:00.000-05:00johnn thacker: both your posts are excellent.tiguy...johnn thacker: both your posts are excellent.<BR/><BR/>tiguy: althoguh HRCs dont operate in the field of criminal law, they are closer to the criminal justice system than the civil justice system in its basic structure.<BR/><BR/>in the civil system, you can make a claim against someone, pay your lawyer to represent you, and in the event you lose, you have your legal bills to pay and sometimes costs for the defendant. this is a serious deterrent against frivolous suits, although they still happen.<BR/><BR/>in the criminal system, if an individual complains to the police of criminal acitivty, the police may make an arrest, adn the state prosecutor will lay charges and argue them in court. if the charges are dismissed, the original complainant does not have to pay costs or anything.<BR/><BR/>here, with HRCs, you have complainants and all they have to do is to alert the HRC. the HRC then invesitgates by itself, and holds a hearing by itself. the complainant has nothing left to do and cannot be on the hook for costs even if the complaint is frivolous.<BR/><BR/>if you cant tell from the above that HRCs are closer in process and procedure to the criminal system than to the civil one, its a sad commentary on you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-44200452870957532122008-01-08T14:06:00.000-05:002008-01-08T14:06:00.000-05:00No, I don't. I don't really see anything that seem...<I>No, I don't. I don't really see anything that seems to be anti-gay in Steyn's post.</I><BR/><BR/>Steyn starts off:<BR/><BR/>"The Law Is Cool <B>nellies</B> are all very excited because they think they've caught me out being inconsistent. Here's their "evidence":"<BR/><BR/>Not that I think that's significant; it's just really <I>adolescent</I> and, as I said, a little precious coming theatre critics with poncey accents acquired from their public school days.<BR/><BR/>...*snort*Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-51150290937795222022008-01-08T13:54:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:54:00.000-05:00By the way, how many different ways can Mark Steyn...<I>By the way, how many different ways can Mark Steyn call his detractors "queers?"<BR/><BR/>Hissy and peevish theatre critics who affect poncey accents that invoke scenes of bare-buttocks caning from their "John Brown's School Days" English public school experience should not be casting stones, knowhatImean?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I don't. I don't really see anything that seems to be anti-gay in Steyn's post. Are you objecting to "a nation free only to prance along to Barney the Dinosaur pabulum," perhaps? Or perhaps the comment about wetting one's pants, again not one that I'm familiar with as an anti-gay attack? Has there ever been a suggestion that Barney is a gay icon, rather than simply insipid and too childish even for children?<BR/><BR/>However, I do see you making a gratuitous anti-gay comment against theater critics, theater, and accents, ti-guy.<BR/><BR/><I>But he still doesn't realize that he is not a respondent to the CHRC complaint; it was directed at Maclean's alone.<BR/><BR/>We conclude that he likes playing the (whining) victim, even when he's not personally targeted.</I><BR/><BR/>I think it's quite a stretch to claim that someone is not "personally targeted" when a lawsuit is merely aimed at whoever publishes their work or an excerpt of it. When segregationists in the American South fined trains and bus companies who allowed blacks to sit with whites rather than going after the blacks directly, it would take quite a lot of sophistry to claim that blacks were not "personally targeted," and merely wanted to play the victim.John Thackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15269867695937765049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-30467239055121172452008-01-08T13:50:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:50:00.000-05:00whether in a civil or criminal matter, once the st...<I>whether in a civil or criminal matter, once the state is alerted to a behavior it does not like, whether its "complaint-based" or not, once the state has a hold of you, it doesnt matter much if its warman or some bureaucrat who kickstarted the whole process.</I><BR/><BR/>Man, you're a piece of work. Don't make analogies then if you are not prepared to see them through.<BR/><BR/>Criminal law is different because the action itself requires the imposition of the State (even if the State never becomes aware of it, a crime is a crime). Tort or civil law is only engaged when a someone's decides to litigate.<BR/><BR/>What you need to argue here, anony is that you don't <I>like</I> the human rights laws and the tribunals and you would like to see them changed. I don't agree with you and wouldn't support you, but no one's stopping you from doing what you think needs to be done.<BR/><BR/>What else do you think needs to be said? Calling me stupid some more?Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-39128172923147229422008-01-08T13:49:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:49:00.000-05:00"In a legalistic point of view, the defendant won...."In a legalistic point of view, the defendant won. But in practical terms, it cost him enormous amounts of money in legal fees, which are not recoverable, and years of stress and trouble."<BR/><BR/>Well this is the case with more than just violating freedom of expression. Every time the cops collect evidence in violation of someone's Charter rights the same thing happens.<BR/><BR/>In any event, section 24(1) of the Charter allows the Courts to order costs to the person whose rights have been violated.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-72114482023780032992008-01-08T13:45:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:45:00.000-05:00Excellent post, and good for you for getting Steyn...<I>Excellent post, and good for you for getting Steyn to respond. Briefly, Steyn's response is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen a grownup make in public.<BR/><BR/>It does not suffice to point to one or two articles over the past couple of years to proclaim oneself a defender of free speech.</I><BR/><BR/>So your argument is somehow that he should be doing more to prevent the HRC from cracking down on the white supremacists, because without doing more he's not really a defender of free speech? That's a pretty tough standard for any of us to live up to, I think.<BR/><BR/><I>And from a conservative point of view, did he just seriously make a defense of free speech based on a friggin' UN treaty? As ever, too clever by half.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I'd say that one of the worst arguments I've ever seen a grownup make in public is that one that Dean Stacey of the HRC made, that free speech is an "American concept" and doesn't apply in Canada. His invocation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights was quite obviously to point out that free speech, thankfully, is not just an American idea. Certainly overheated Yanks may try to sell it as one at times, and certainly US libel law and law against prior restraint protects free speech more than Canadian or British law, but I refuse to view that as a bad thing just because it's <B>American</B>. <BR/><BR/>It for the same reasons that I don't view it as obviously bad that the American concept of free speech makes laws banning video game sales of "Mature" rated titles to minors get struck down by judges, whereas Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba's laws, essentially the same as voided laws from Kansas and elsewhere, remain in force in Canada.<BR/><BR/>I hardly see how Steyn's argument is so bad. It's a pretty standard argument in favor of free speech that goes back to Milton and beyond, that government censorship is worse than the dangers from speech by idiots. You may believe that Steyn is one of those classic "free speech for me, but not for thee" people, and there is a lot of that hypocrisy out there. I hardly see how what he's written right there supports it, though. Certainly some of his friends and allies have used Canadian and British libel laws to chill free speech through a threat of lawsuits, but I don't see any quotes or support from Steyn for those actions. Guilt by association can be carried to far.John Thackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15269867695937765049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-45663517675580868652008-01-08T13:35:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:35:00.000-05:00holy shit Im in shock at your stupidity, I guess a...holy shit Im in shock at your stupidity, I guess analogies are too complex for you. <BR/><BR/>whether in a civil or criminal matter, once the state is alerted to a behavior it does not like, whether its "complaint-based" or not, once the state has a hold of you, it doesnt matter much if its warman or some bureaucrat who kickstarted the whole process.<BR/><BR/>Let me cite your own post so you dont lose track of the logic here:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>There's a world of difference between the citizen's use of the mechanisms of the State and the State imposing itself on the actions of individuals. It's not trivial.</I><BR/><BR/>My point is that there isnt that much difference at all, the citizen's use of a mechnaism in this case is to compalint to the state, and then the state takes over from there. Much like a police, you call the police, they investigate, if there's something to the complaint they go further and handle it from there. I know you have a hard time with analogies but it's the same with the HRC: people complaint, they invesitage if there's something to the complaint and if so, take over from there. To the defendant, it hardly matters who or what alerted the state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-47425795710742377652008-01-08T13:29:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:29:00.000-05:00its like if you call the police on someone, or if ...<I>its like if you call the police on someone, or if the police just arrest someone on their own. am i missing something, please expand on the non-triviality of the difference.</I><BR/><BR/>First, learn the difference between criminal and civil law and...on the outside chance that you're an American...know that in Canada, the police have exclusive right over laying charges.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-91399388342129926232008-01-08T13:12:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:12:00.000-05:00Nice try. There's a world of difference between th...<I><BR/>Nice try. There's a world of difference between the citizen's use of the mechanisms of the State and the State imposing itself on the actions of individuals. It's not trivial.</I><BR/><BR/>its like if you call the police on someone, or if the police just arrest someone on their own. am i missing something, please expand on the non-triviality of the difference.<BR/><BR/><I>be nice to the people you step on on the way up, because you'll be meeting them on the way down.</I><BR/><BR/>if you want to play nice that's fine. i'll adopt whatever tone you deem appropriate for this discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-40957676957809358782008-01-08T13:08:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:08:00.000-05:00You types have spent the last 7 years ridiculing, ...<I>You types have spent the last 7 years ridiculing, defaming and insulting liberals/lefties/progressives and now you think we're all supposed to be nice and supportive? You are dreaming in technocolour.</I><BR/><BR/>come on, more than 7 years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-23385057168580636172008-01-08T13:05:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:05:00.000-05:00gayle: how refreshing to have an opinion expressed...gayle: how refreshing to have an opinion expressed on this blog, which although I disagree with it, is thoughtful and coherent.<BR/><BR/>you are correct that any HRC decision could be overturned by judicial review and that courts are likely to overturn any decision which contravenes the charter. this has happened before, in the case of a man who had had an ad put in the saskatoon star phoenix which pointed to passages in the bible which condemn homosexuality.<BR/><BR/>In a legalistic point of view, the defendant won. But in practical terms, it cost him enormous amounts of money in legal fees, which are not recoverable, and years of stress and trouble. The lesson is for publishers: go on the safe side, even if you eventually win, you dont want to go through that process.<BR/><BR/>So the chilling effect on speech is definitely there, and the defendant is effectively punished for his speech even if a higher court does overturn the HRC's decision. Ideally, the higher court would tell the HRCs not to hear cases on freedom of speech at all - to me that would be a satisfactory conclusion but it hasnt happenned yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-80747942231411369712008-01-08T12:58:00.000-05:002008-01-08T12:58:00.000-05:00that is exactly what KC said, you're just too fuck...<I>that is exactly what KC said, you're just too fucking stupid every i must be dotted and every t crossed otherwise you dont understand the simplest of points.</I><BR/><BR/>Nice try. There's a world of difference between the citizen's use of the mechanisms of the State and the State imposing itself on the actions of individuals. It's not trivial.<BR/><BR/>If you can't argue your case articulately enough, then shut the fuck up, or put your time to more productive use...like writing yet another perfumed and lipstick-smeared letter of support to Mark Steyn.<BR/><BR/>You types have spent the last 7 years ridiculing, defaming and insulting liberals/lefties/progressives and now you think we're all supposed to be nice and supportive? You are dreaming in technocolour.<BR/><BR/>Here's a little lesson for you (and for that asshole, Mark Steyn), anony-tard...be nice to the people you step on on the way up, because you'll be meeting them on the way down.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-7851910250886929372008-01-08T12:57:00.000-05:002008-01-08T12:57:00.000-05:00Gayle,Just a minor point. As the folks at Law is ...Gayle,<BR/><BR/>Just a minor point. As the folks at Law is Cool pointed out, the complaint is actually against Macleans and not Steyn. He is being outraged on their behalf.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-79607537327737063882008-01-08T12:56:00.000-05:002008-01-08T12:56:00.000-05:00AarghI do know how to spell constitution...The sec...Aargh<BR/><BR/>I do know how to spell constitution...<BR/><BR/>The second paragraph should read:<BR/><BR/>"The state does not over-rule the constution. If the speech in question is deemed to fall under Charter protection the state can not enforce it, as the state may not enforce any decision that violates the right to freedom of expression."Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-2479369510707789882008-01-08T12:53:00.000-05:002008-01-08T12:53:00.000-05:00"now the state is looking at the speech in questio..."now the state is looking at the speech in question and will regulate it and enforce its decisions with coercion if need be. That was not an opinion, it is a plain fact."<BR/><BR/>The state does not over-rule the constution. If the speech in question is deemed to fall under Charter protection the state can not enforce any decision that violates the constution.<BR/><BR/>If Steyn does not like the decision of the HRC he may apply to a court to review that decision. The Court has the power to enforce the constution, and it will do so.<BR/><BR/>I do not presume to speak for TG, but personally I have faith in this system and therefore do not agree with all the comments about how this entire process violates freedom of expression.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-78621816977947440382008-01-08T12:11:00.000-05:002008-01-08T12:11:00.000-05:00The apparatus of the State *is* subsequently engag...<I>The apparatus of the State *is* subsequently engaged, and the State has authority to enforce the law, but that's not what KC said.</I><BR/><BR/>that is exactly what KC said, you're just too fucking stupid every i must be dotted and every t crossed otherwise you dont understand the simplest of points.<BR/><BR/>go ahead and hate steyn, who gives a shit what a dumbass like you thinks about steyn, steyn has a massive worldwide readership. but steyn has a right to be wrong - trust me if being wrong and stupid was a crime, you'd be in for life. <BR/><BR/>i dislike many pundits and columnists, but i would support them if they were to be punished by the state for having published an "illegal opinion". that's because the principle of freedom of speech is more important than anything that can be said in a column, however hate-filled.<BR/><BR/>also if your head wasnt so deep up your ass you would see that very few posters here defend Steyn himself, it's not about what Steyn said, it's about his right to say it. If you cherrish your freedom to crap on Steyn all day, and I support your right to shit on him all day and all night, you should consider that this is a bigger principle than mere partisanship, which you seem to be completely poisoned by.<BR/><BR/>No one said anything about being free from challenges or criticism, it's exactly the opposite. Shit on him all you want, debunk him, rebutt him, that's the point - just dont silence him.<BR/><BR/>In the end I dont give the slightest crap about what you end up thinking, but just know that its not about support for steyn, its about support for freedom of speech.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-10335247961421464862008-01-08T11:16:00.000-05:002008-01-08T11:16:00.000-05:00KC seemed to be responding to your claim that Stey...<I>KC seemed to be responding to your claim that Steyn's article didnt attract the attention of the state.</I><BR/><BR/>That's because it quite plainly <I>didn't</I>. The human rights complaint process is <I>complaint</I> driven, and this one was brought by a group of citizens.<BR/><BR/>The apparatus of the State *is* subsequently engaged, and the State has authority to enforce the law, but that's not what KC said.<BR/><BR/>Some of you think that simply restating, over and over again that you have the right to say whatever you want is all that's required to participate in discussion.<BR/><BR/>It isn't, and maybe most of you should spend more time becoming better informed about things (history, the law) you know nothing about and work on better articulating what it is you're trying to say rather than spend so much time proving your brilliance by yakking.<BR/><BR/>I'll restate this...I despise Mark Steyn, and there's no force on Earth that's going to make me express the slightest degree of support for him, and that's my freedom to do so. If you don't like that, that's too fucking bad.<BR/><BR/>There's no shortage of wingnut loud-mouths willing to defend the fucking ponce at any rate. That you all do it so <I>badly</I> is significant. This isn't about freedom of expression anymore; it's about the freedom to be a moron and a hate-spewing bigot and to be free from being challenged or criticised in any significant way.<BR/><BR/>The articulate, unwingnutty defense of the principle involved here has already been made by people like Alan Borovoy and I don't need to hear it yet again from some under-educated online anony-tard.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-22624825710624381252008-01-08T10:35:00.000-05:002008-01-08T10:35:00.000-05:00tiguy you're hopeless. you cant understand a poin...tiguy you're hopeless. you cant understand a point and wouldnt get a nuance if it slapped you across the face.<BR/><BR/>the point kc was making was that at the end of the day, HRCs have the full backing of the state and if you disobey their orders, you can go to jail (if you're in contempt) or they can seize your assets (if you owe money). That is the coercive power of the state - the knowledge that ultimately, you have to obey or you go to jail or have your assets seized. the law wouldnt work without that ultimate promise. that is also why "international law" is a scam, because no one can enforce it, so countries are free to ignore it.<BR/><BR/>KC seemed to be responding to your claim that Steyn's article didnt attract the attention of the state. His point, which was entirely correct and completely missed by you apparently, is that regardless who brought the complaint, now the state is looking at the speech in question and will regulate it and enforce its decisions with coercion if need be. That was not an opinion, it is a plain fact. Try and prove it wrong if you can, instead of just falsely claiming it lacks nuance.<BR/><BR/>Is this why the left feels the need to censor dissenting opinions? Because it's incapable of articulating responses to opinions it dislikes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-46724745137060995862008-01-08T09:27:00.000-05:002008-01-08T09:27:00.000-05:00ok tiguy this is too much the coercive power of th...<I>ok tiguy this is too much the coercive power of the state is a coined phrase, its not like kc just made that up.</I><BR/><BR/>It's decidely lacking in <I>nuance.</I> Coercion implies limiting the exercise of freedom of conscience and action, which is an exceedingly narrow interpretation of the role of the State (particularly in a democracy) and of the law.<BR/><BR/>It's propaganda.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-75185799373456903752008-01-08T00:55:00.000-05:002008-01-08T00:55:00.000-05:00"I dont really see why any private individual/grou..."I dont really see why any private individual/group etc should be able to suppress speech regardless of how poor or wealthy they are."<BR/><BR/>What private individuals are you referring to here? If it is to the private citizen who made the complaint, then that citizen has not supressed any speech - it is simply a complaint that a public institution acts upon. <BR/><BR/>That said, I happen to believe that racist, sexist and homophobic speech is a form of censorship as it operates to silence the subject of that speech.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-32753442687123042692008-01-07T23:13:00.000-05:002008-01-07T23:13:00.000-05:00ok tiguy this is too much the coercive power of th...ok tiguy this is too much the coercive power of the state is a coined phrase, its not like kc just made that up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com