The Shotgun Blog
Saturday, December 01, 2007
And Then They Came for Mark Steyn…Freedom is under attack in this country by a powerful alliance between human rights bureaucrats and a small group of self-appointed censors. As has happened so often in the past, laws which were written with a select purpose – in this case the protection of minorities and others from actual violence or incitement to violence – are being abused to an end which we were explicitly assured would never arrive. Human rights acts, commissions, and so forth – we were told – would never suppress genuine free expression or to declare certain thoughts illegal: and yet that is exactly what they are doing in this country.
Today brings the news that Maclean’s magazine, as thoroughly respectable and establishment a Canadian institution as one can find, is going to be hauled before the BC Human Rights Tribunal for printing excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book “American Alone.” The Canadian Islamic Congress claims that Steyn’s words were, “flagrantly Islamophobic” and that it, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”
Now, people complain about things all the time. As a general rule, there’s a whole class of professional whiners out there. The problem here is that they might win.
There are two problems here.
The first is the law itself – whose language is sufficiently broad to make practically anything negative written about anything to potentially infringe. If I write that that someone is a moron – regardless of the subjective truth of that statement (that is to say whether I believe it to be true and whether a reasonable person could believe that to be true) – then that could automatically infringe regardless of truth. Similarly, if I write that someone or something is a threat that could also, by hurting someone’s feelings, transgress against the law even if that someone or something actually is a threat.
The second is that the people who interpret these laws are, to put in as non-infringing a fashion as possible, morons. The law was ostensibly written to be adjudicated by reasonable and unbiased people, a description which is as far from fitting for most “human rights” bureaucrats as describing Liberace as “mildly flamboyant.”
Thus, it is entirely possible that the Commission – or perhaps some other body that someone else has complained to – will go out and brand Mark Steyn’s book as “hate propaganda” or whatever other menacing term they might devise. No reasonable person would think it but, as I have stated, we are not dealing with reasonable people.
For evidence of this, we need look no further than the case of Stephen Boissoin, which was decided yesterday in Alberta. Boissoin wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 in which he took issue with homosexuality in strong terms. For the most part I disagree with Mr. Boissoin’s position, but he expressed himself coherently and without calling for violence or anything else against gays – after all the newspaper selected it for publication. Yet, simply because he said things which gay advocates disagreed with, his letter has now been formally branded as “hate literature” and, therefore, illegal.
How long shall it be before some government bureaucrat orders me to dispose of my copy of “America Alone” – or my signed copy of one of Steyn’s anthologies? No one can say for certain. But can anyone say that such a day will not come in this country?
The larger danger here – and we see it in the Boissoin case – is that these legal actions will have a chilling effect on speech. The Boissoin case – over a letter to the editor in a local newspaper – dragged on for five whole years. That’s five years of expenses and anxiety. Less-brave people will opt simply to remain silent about controversial issues, rather than to risk the costs of protracted Star Chamber litigation.
These are not the only examples that exist. All Canadian lovers of freedom will know the sad chronology of oppression. The Toronto printer fined for refusing to make flyers for a gay group. The Saskatchewan man found guilty of quoting the Bible in a newspaper. The British Columbian teacher stripped of his qualifications for writing letters to politicians and newspapers. Brave men all – but courage has become a rare commodity in this country. Most of us don’t wish to be exposed to years of inaccurate ridicule in newspapers. Most of us don’t want to risk what we own and what we’ve earned to the capricious whims of kangaroo courts.
The Western Standard’s brave act of printing those Danish Cartoons –an international news story – cost them tens of thousands (and perhaps more) of dollars and helped to hasten the demise of the print edition.
But, if we fail to act, how long will it be before freedom is lost? It will not require that our opinions even be formally deemed illegal – no act of Parliament will have to be passed to enumerate a series of thought crimes. Instead, vexatious litigation will wear away the will of many. Soon, magazines won’t even try and print cover stories about Islam. Editors will throw away letters about homosexuality which don’t endorse the practice and excoriate Christianity. Indeed, much of this is already occurring. This entirely-legal form of harassment is enough to drive ideas – even popular ideas – to the sidelines of the forum.
Perhaps the time has come to act. To draw a line in the sand. I am not one for rallies. I am not one for shouting in public. I think that it’s uncouth, rough and, well, liberal. But, really, we seem to be running out of options.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference And Then They Came for Mark Steyn…:
Soon, the Thought Police will rule our country - not Parliament.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-01 7:35:55 PM
I am curious, I read the linked article to the Boisson case though I haven't found a copy of the original letter, but at what stage do you consider something "hateful" or a "hate speech"? Does it have to have a direct call for violence in it before it passes that mark?
What I am getting at is, that you don't have to call for violence to "imply" it. Again, I haven't read the letter, so I am not sure "how far" he has gone, but if he painted homosexuals as "lesser human beings" or something similar I think it is hard to argue that he is not inciting some form of hate towards them.
Of course the question would be if a society does need hate crime laws at all, and maybe that's at the root of it all, should we abolish the human rights comission as well as hate crime laws and just assume it'll work itself out in other ways.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-12-01 7:45:03 PM
And these same "useful idiots" would heap scorn on this 13 year-old Alberta entrepreneur:
"RCMP snipers test teen's bullet-proof invention"
RCMP snipers took aim at Darren Shulte's Grade 9 science project this week, firing at his non-ceramic bullet-proof plate to see if it could save lives.
Shulte, of St. Albert, Alta., created the plate five years ago for a junior high school science fair when he was just 13 years old.
Now, law enforcement officials are taking his invention seriously, with even Defence Minister Peter MacKay showing an interest.
AFTER ALL, teenagers have no business handling guns or anything related to them! (sarc.)
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-01 7:45:24 PM
You only mention examples of speech that a certain brand of conservative would engage in being supressed, so your defence of free speech runs the risk of looking self-serving. If you want credibility on this issue with people other than those who think Boissoin was basically right or that Steyn is not a bigot, then how about saying what you think about the "Little Sisters" case ( http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/jan94blackley.htm ). If you really mean what you say about free speech, then you should have no trouble saying that customs was wrong in this case, right? Whether it is Mohammed cartoons that Muslims don't like or gay erotica that homophobes don't like, speech is speech and ought to be free of legal restriction. Right? Or are you just pretending to support free speech. I look forward to your reply.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-01 7:54:32 PM
"I look forward to your reply"
. . . so I can tear you limb from limb - Fat Chick.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-01 7:56:58 PM
Here is a copy of Stephen Boissoin's letter: http://canadianpastor.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-01 7:59:01 PM
Let's see - did the Human Rights Commission look into Parizeau's statement, blaming the referendum's defeat on immigrants and "people" with money?
I didn't think so. He was a socialist, so there was no problem, right?
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-01 8:04:24 PM
1) I'm talking about censorship by Human Rights Tribunals and the like. I'm not aware of a single example of someone on the left side of the specturm being punished by such an organization. If you have one, I'd be interested in seeing it.
2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Little Sisters win in the end? I mean, that article is talking about seizures by Canada Customs in 1985. The public definition of obscenity has changed a fair bit since then.
3) Gay pornography and political expession are utterly unrelated concepts.
4) In any case, I'd be on the free-expression side in the Little Sisters' debate, even if I wouldn't be particularly moved by the justice of their cause. That is to say, if I was a court, I would rule in favour of Little Sisters but, as a private citizen, I am hardly moved to support their cause.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2007-12-01 8:11:12 PM
Here is a copy of Stephen Boissoin's letter: http://canadianpastor.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Fact Check | 1-Dec-07 7:59:01 PM
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-12-01 8:12:12 PM
Well, I would call the letter insulting to the core in some aspects, I also "enjoyed" his segway from homosexuality into pedophilia to "make his point". Another good one is that he doesn't seem to have a problem with two women kissing, but two guys, oh my, the world will end right that instant.
Was the ruling justified? I think people who are reading this could consider this a "call to arms", and I think that's where he made the mistake, if he would have been specific in how he thought "fighting back" should look like (e.g. via political means etc.), this may have ended differently.
Is the ruling justified? I am torn on it. On the one hand I thik the guy should keep spouting whatever he wants, but on the other hand I could see this as "inciting hate" and "call for violence", it really depends on how people read the letter.
Being sort of on the level with Yoshi, I always assume that the most stupid people will read it in the most stupid way.
Without really knowing the full text of the law, I deferr judgement.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-12-01 8:21:18 PM
1) You spilt hairs here. The expense of a 20 year battle with Canada Customs over the supression of free speech is the same thing as the WS financial burdon over Mohammed Cartoons, only moreso.
2) You are wrong. The case was decided against LS and only ended because they did not have the money to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
3) Utter bullshit. The supression of speech is the supression of speech, whether that speech is thought (by you) to be political or not.
4) If you are on LS side in their case, why not just say so and lose all the preceding comments that make it seem like you really don't mean it? One has to wonder if you care about the freedom of speech or just the freedom of speech you like.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-01 8:40:53 PM
The letter is at the level of obc off his meds (which is always) or of Adam when he rants about black great-great-grandmothers (a recent post he wisely deleted quickly). It is hateful and factually innacurate through and through. Does it violate hate speech laws? I'm pretty sure it does.
But the real point here (and Adam is right about this much) is that his letter shouldn't be against the law. The hate speech law should not exist. Even when it is used to tell idiots like Boissoin that they are truly hateful lunatics, it's still a bad law.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-01 8:46:53 PM
Pick my letter to pieces, debate my intentions. My letter is nothing compared to the damage caused to the children and youth of our nation by the Homosexual lobby. I stand by what I submitted according to my interpretation of it and my intentions, not the media's or the pro-gay agenda's. I would say it again the same way over and over.
It takes courage to state the truth, to take a stand against the odds. I thank God for the opportunity to stand for truth in this arena. Friday's ruling has not moved me at all. To insinuate that my letter had anything to do with the assault on a teenager or that it incites violence is ...simply stupid. I can't think of a better word. The simple truth is that those of us that believe that homosexuality is immoral, is dangerous ( like many other behaviours) are being forced to remain quiet about our views, regardless how they are stated, or face persecution, charges, fines even imprisonment.
Posted by: Stephen Boissoin | 2007-12-01 9:08:18 PM
Stephen B. ~
Courage! You have many supporters, even if they do not all speak up today.
If you are silenced, they will be emboldened and then go after the Clergy who sermonize in Church according to their beliefs and interpretation of the Bible.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-01 9:12:43 PM
An American Utopia
I have often been asked to outline by vision for the American future.
If the Chinese, or the remnants of the European Unionists, ever attempted to threaten the peace of the world again, they would simply be bombed into nothingness by orbital weapons.
I hope your soon to be released book is better written than this tripe. Geez and no giant spiders attacking us.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-12-01 9:17:53 PM
Why? Would you like to see an updated version?
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2007-12-01 9:48:12 PM
I just watched a DVD video called End Game by Alex Jones. I highly recommend you all familiarize yourself with it and with the Bilderberg group.
What is happening to our free speech and the breakdown of our society, individual rights, freedom of speech, loss of border integrity and much more, is all related to the New One World Government and the New World Order.
I am not a conspiracy wonk, but the evidence is overwhelming.
I have read Mark Steyn's book and I own a copy. I seek out and read all that I can find by this great author. If he is silenced, I cannot imagine what I will do about that, but I will not be able to sit still if that happens. That would simply be one too many for me.
I hope there are many who feel the same. We are in the fight of our lives on many fronts for our basic freedoms.
There are clips on Youtube if you want a glimpse of End Game. I bought my full copy on Amazon.com.
There are several other clips there as well.
Regarding Homos. I don't care about them. They are not necessarily pedophiles and are for the most part harmless and color coordinated, although there are indeed some homosexual pedophiles. They are usually not swishy types but rather the think pasty middle school teacher type.
Heterosexual pedos are much more common. I would prefer that the gays would choose to keep a lower profile in society since I think their goofy sex parades are scaring and confusing kids, but could be wrong based on what kids are exposed to in schools these days.
I don't see any reason for Hetros to put their sexuality on display either. We could all use a bit more modesty in this corrupt vile society we find ourselves in nowadays.
Posted by: John | 2007-12-01 11:23:45 PM
Who said, "It is good to strike the serpent's head with your enemy's hand"?
This means that whatever is against their law, is for our law. And whatever is for their law, is against our laws.
Therefore, the answer to the question of whether they came for Mark, is whether they would have gone after anyone, if that person exhibited the same intolerance for intolerance.
Mark may be the one who is on the line--but in reality it is all of our freedoms that are on the line. If they take down Mark--then we all lose.
And the thing that really bugs me the most, is that they have organized WITHIN our laws, to work against us.
If Mark is crucified, may GD help us, because we will have lost our faith in the legal process that has been defined under our Charter. There will be no doubt in my mind, that situations such as this will open the door to the notwithstanding clause.
Notwithstanding, the Charter shall prevail except on ocassions where the law is used to bolster the intolerant at the expence of intolerance?
Let us all hope so....
And Farouk CIC...bunch of caca maniacs!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-01 11:30:18 PM
>"Now, people complain about things all the time. As a general rule, there’s a whole class of professional whiners out there. The problem here is that they might win."
Yoshi, you're a British Columbian right?
You remember after 9/11 when Sunera Thobani claimed that Americans deserved what they got because of their "blood stained foreign policy" and Tobani was taken in front of the same BC Human Rights Tribunal and charged with the same thing right?
Well the judge in that case set a precedent by throwing out the charges on the basis that Americans weren't an identifiable group.
What makes you think that Muslims, who claim ALL people are BORN Muslim, are an identifiable group if Americans aren't?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-01 11:33:10 PM
Adam Yoshida, I agree with your description of the situation. I wish it were not so, but unless we make a major turn-around the end is in sight.
I read that CAIR is attempting a similar approach with Michael Savage in the US, and he is now suing CAIR. Good for him to refuse to be shut down by this outfit, and his law suit will expose their terrorist connections.
A start would be the restoration of free speech by revoking all hate crime laws and ending the so-called human rights commissions with their kangaroo courts. Otherwise we little different from living under a totalitarian regime, such as red China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. This could be done by any government with courage and common sense. While it will not solve all our present problems, it would be at least a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-12-01 11:47:03 PM
I just read the excerpt in MacLeans and Mark has more to say about Italians, Greeks and Spaniards than he does about Muslims.
I see the bit as a comment on demographics and world events that are quite factual. I see no hate speech there at all. There had better not be a conviction on this. This charge needs to be tossed as Speller pointed out, perhaps on the basis that Muslims are not an identifiable group any more than Christians are. They come in all colors and races.
I doubt I could pick out a Muslim man on the street unless he was in prayer mode and wearing middle east attire. Muslim woman might be easier since they look like a walking tent or they are not out of the household at all.
I don't actually hate them, rather I fear them. What can I say. I read the news.
Posted by: John | 2007-12-02 12:01:39 AM
>"I doubt I could pick out a Muslim man on the street unless he was in prayer mode and wearing middle east attire.
Posted by: John | 2-Dec-07 12:01:39 AM
You can pick out Americans by their car licence plates and Americans always cover their hearts with their right hands at parades when the Stars and Stripes pass by.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-02 12:14:33 AM
No doubt you'll all support Mark Lemire's constitutional challenge. Right? :)
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Support Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge to Overturn This Evil Law
Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !
• Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:
Canadian Association for Free Expression,
P.O. Box 332,
Posted by: DJ | 2007-12-02 12:14:45 AM
This news makes me feel sick to my stomach - but all of us who have stood up for Liberty and Justice (as we once had in the BNA Act), spoken up and been put down - saw this coming down the pipe a long time ago.
Mark Steyn is brilliant and blessed with a laugh out loud sense of humor. I read everything written by him that I can find. "Big Brother" does not like big thinkers - they like the small uninformed, fanatical types, called 'team players'. If the people of Canada are too weak to speak up against 'purges' to rid the country of people who speak up for what they think and for what they believe then we are offering ourselves up to a life in chains. Why should people like Rick Chandler and Stephen Boissoin be 'outlawed' by the Red Tories in Alta? If they think they are being progressive by not allowing people to state concern for certain dangerous activities then perhaps he should speak to the people who wrote his hate mongering legislation re tobacco smokers - I saw no 'tolerance' there!
If this country wants to marginalize all free thinkers then the tender lungs of ALL people will soon be polluted, not by tobacco smoke but by the smoke of burning books.
Posted by: jema54j | 2007-12-02 2:46:12 AM
All we need is to sentence the editor of the BC paper to 15 days in jail, then deportation, and we can show solidarity with the Sudanese in showing the world how to deal with anyone who dares to denounce Islam.
Does anyone doubt how close we are to something that absurd?
Canadians have made their bed, by allowing the takeover of our judiciary by the far left fascists, and now we are dealing with the results.
Get used to it, till we pull our collective heads out of our asses, and kick their asses out, it is only going to get worse.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-12-02 7:01:43 AM
The HRC process has been so insufferably abused by profiteers and lobbies, that it's really time we reassess the damage a quasi judicial tribunal (with criminal penalty powers) operating outside the protections of the charter has done to justice and civil society in Canada.
On the whole, reviewing the cases HRCs have run, more damage has been done to civil liberty and passive individuals than has helped truly discriminated minority individuals.
Surely we can cope legally with discrimination in Canada without throwing our charter rights to the wolves?
The bottom line is that criminal discrimination does not exist in such a virulent or violent for or volume in this nation to warrant the attack on the charter rights of the majority which the HRDC system creates.
The attack on free expression and charter legal rights ( ie: saying anything that may be unpleasnt but is either true or you believe to be true which creates no PROVABLE damage and the presumption of innocence of an accused and burden of proof going to the accuser)has not been worth it.HRC systems have undermines the fundamental justice and freedom of expression guaranteed in the charter.
Section 15(2) of the charter cannot be interpreted to mean that all other gusrantees of the charter are subordinate to "affirmative action" systems.
The HRC attacks on free speech by minority lobby groups is also having negative repercussions... putting that minority in wide public disrepute...as we see with the current zealotry of dogmatic Muslim activists trying to stifle free speech through the courts in ALL the western democracies.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-12-02 7:44:48 AM
BTW: Notice these foamy Muzzie groups are singling out Jewish media people? Steyn, Savage,...
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-12-02 8:25:23 AM
Despite the sound of his name, Mark is not Jewish.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 8:29:16 AM
"Let's see - did the Human Rights Commission look into Parizeau's statement, blaming the referendum's defeat on immigrants and "people" with money?"
The exact quote was "Ethnic votes and Money".
The Feds injecting illegally 3 times the money they were allowed to and the fact that New immigrants are voting without any knowledge of Quebec history and political situation.
He said what we call "the truth" but you neo-cons are allergic to that.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-02 8:53:35 AM
Are you sure you want to go 'ethnic' on this Marc.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-02 9:04:06 AM
Is the ruling justified? I am torn on it. On the one hand I thik the guy should keep spouting whatever he wants, but on the other hand I could see this as "inciting hate" and "call for violence", it really depends on how people read the letter.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 1-Dec-07 8:21:18 PM
Apparently one person who did read the letter and was under Boissoin's leadership read the letter in a way that meant go out and beat the crap out of someone because he is gay. No one in our society should live in this kind of fear, and so the decision by the commission was made.
It is a difficult line to define, for sure. But decisions do need to be made lest we end up in a post-modern world of no rules and ultimately anarchy. In this case the contempt within Boissoin for homosexuals crossed a line because someone actually got hurt. So the ruling is a message that you do have a right to your own religion and perspective on sexuality, but there is a limit that can be defined now and it is up to the leadership of the religious right to recognise this as well and bring a more moderate message to their flock.
We have to remember that the post-modern right is not really about free-speech, but about putting forth a very narrow and limited ideology.
And the "we are only caring for homosexuals as we believe in helping them with their infliction" is pure sophistry ... condescending and patronising. As I frequently read here, "care" is an infection of (the mythical) Leftoids, so when care is invoked to justify hatred the real meaning is transparent.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 9:24:08 AM
>"We have to remember that the post-modern right is not really about free-speech, but about putting forth a very narrow and limited ideology."
holographic | 2-Dec-07 9:24:08 AM
So you think free speech should be limited to broad undefined non-ideals bankrupt of any deeply held convictions.
What is it about 'free' you don't understand, holograpesack?
And who is the 'we' you are describing?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-02 9:35:35 AM
Mark conveniently forgets the 12,000 votes in Chomedey that were "disqualified" in the last referendum by Separatist vote "counters" - 12,000 in just ONE riding! Who knows how many others were rejected in other ridings without being caught. That referendum was not nearly as close as the Separatists would like to have us believe.
It will be the same in Venezuela and Russia today as the "official" tabulators ensure that these two dictators remain in power.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 9:43:38 AM
"So you think free speech should be limited to broad undefined non-ideals bankrupt of any deeply held convictions."
Speech should be limited if it crosses a line and leads to violence against innocent people. Boissoin crossed that line and was reprimanded for it. This line is not as drawn in as you might like to think. But people do participate in society and so lines must be drawn and rules must be made ... in this case say what you want about homosexual activity, but if that incites violence against innocents then you will have to face the consequences. I think this is a reasonable way for all of us to share a social space.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 9:49:24 AM
Chavez & Putin agree with you.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 9:54:51 AM
And what of your statement that speech should be limited if it is narrow and defined by ideology. holograpesack?
How is there a connection between specific ideology and a call for limiting any and all speech it produces?
Or was your 2-Dec-07 9:24:08 AM statement too narrow, ideology driven, and ill considered?
"Free speech for me but not for thee", eh holograpesack?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-02 10:00:05 AM
"Chavez & Putin agree with you."
Nah ... Chavez and Putin are infatuated with their own power, so I do not see the relevance of your comment ... a bit out in left field really.
This discussion is about the civil constitution of culture in Alberta and the way we should balance the rights of people to live without fear of targeted violence and the causes of this violence with so-called free speech.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 10:01:19 AM
"Nah ... Chavez and Putin are infatuated with their own power, so I do not see the relevance of your comment ."
LOL! This is the same infatuation that ALL Leftoids have when they attain any kind of power - like being appointed to a Human Rights Commission.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 10:03:44 AM
>"The Canadian Islamic Congress claims that Steyn’s words were, “flagrantly IslamoPHOBIC” and that it, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”
Phobia: An unreasonable sort of fear that can cause avoidance and panic. Phobias are a relatively common type of anxiety disorder.
Please explain, holograpesack, why fearing Islam, which means surrender and has a 1400+ year track record of being spread by the sword, is unreasonable and shouldn't be avoided by freedom loving people.
Would it be too much for you to comment on the CIC's claims in regard to Mark Steyn?
Feel free to get narrow and specific.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-02 10:11:05 AM
"And what of your statement that speech should be limited if it is narrow and defined by ideology."
I simply said that the post-modern right believes in free-speech as long as it suits a narrow ideology. Talk about it all you want, it is rather instructive to know what you think and helps understand where moderation ends and extremism begins. The lesson here is that when hated is incited and then acted upon a line has been crossed and will be held to account. The line drawn by the HRC is reasonable.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 10:11:36 AM
"the post-modern right believes in free-speech as long as it suits a narrow ideology"
Anyone who uses the term "post-modern right" is obviously a brain-washed university student or grad. SHEEESH!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 10:14:55 AM
So, holograpesack, you think that if one person acts out on someone else's speech the speaker is responsible for the actor.
You aren't much for individual responsibility are you?
By your reckoning there would be a lot of school teachers and College/University professors, not to mention Canadian politicians and celebrities, who should be hauled before the HRC for inciting hatred and contempt against President Bush, the United States of America, Big Oil, Alberta and or Albertans, and Christians to name but a few.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-02 10:21:11 AM
That's far too logical for homographic to grasp.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 10:24:26 AM
While I do not agree with Steyn's view of a general Muslim invasion, the extremist aspect of Islam has to be challenged ... by non-Muslims and moderate Muslims. Moderate Muslims are open to engagement with other moderate positions, Christian or not.
I have not read Steyn's book, but from the reviews it does not seem to cross a boundary toward inciting hatred, but it is perhaps approaching that line. The debate is important here as the commission will define that line. So from your perspective it is probably best not to inject hateful invective. Find a more moderate argument that appeals to a reasonable solution. Most people do not want this Muslim/ Christian conflict to escalate into WWIII. So at this point it is up to moderate Muslims and moderate Christians to keep the extremist phobic elements in line.
Have you ever spoken to a Muslim about a possible future?
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 10:36:20 AM
NO! What has to happen is the so-called moderates must speak out against the estermists.
If they dared to protest against their own and follow through with actions on their words, and do that as vehemently as they respond to words utterred against the terrorists in theirs and our midst, then and ONLY then will they be able to shirt the association.
And there are a few groups who have not walked away from speaking out against the terrorist elements--but they appear to be a minority. They need to make their voice a total majority and weed out the terrorists from theirs and our midst. That is their number one duty as citizens. Because if they cannot do that then they will be the second victims--while the roc (Quebec included) will be the first.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-02 10:41:55 AM
"By your reckoning there would be a lot of school teachers and College/University professors, not to mention Canadian politicians and celebrities, who should be hauled before the HRC for inciting hatred and contempt against President Bush, the United States of America, Big Oil, Alberta and or Albertans, and Christians to name but a few."
Possibly ... you can file a complaint.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 10:42:17 AM
"Moderate Muslims are open to engagement with other moderate positions, Christian or not."
More proof of college brain-washing!
There are NO Muslim moderates. The second they open their mouths, they are killed off by the extremists.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 10:42:17 AM
NO! What has to happen is the so-called moderates must speak out against the extermists.
If they dared to protest against their own and follow through with actions on their words, and do that as vehemently as they respond to words utterred against the terrorists in theirs and our midst, then and ONLY then will they be able to shirk the association.
And there are a few groups who have not walked away from speaking out against the terrorist elements--but they appear to be a minority.
They need to make their voice a total majority and weed out the terrorists from theirs and our midst. That is their number one duty as citizens. Because if they cannot do that then they will be the second victims--while the roc (Quebec included) will be the first.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-02 10:43:24 AM
"Possibly ... you can file a complaint."
But no action will be taken if you do - because Leftoids decide who is really the threat - and they won't prosecute their own.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-02 10:44:36 AM
"NO! What has to happen is the so-called moderates must speak out against the estermists.
If they dared to protest against their own and follow through with actions on their words, and do that as vehemently as they respond to words utterred against the terrorists in theirs and our midst, then and ONLY then will they be able to shirt the association."
I agree ... but the only way to engage moderate Muslims (sorry to puncture your paranoid delusion obc, there are many) is with reasonable and moderate solutions. Ranting, hateful paranoia against Islam is not helpful and in fact makes the situation worse. Deal with the people, talk with them, share with them. Hear their story and tell yours. There is a common ground if religion is embedded in humanity and humility.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-12-02 10:55:00 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.