The Shotgun Blog
« Norman defeats strawmen | Main | Who's stingy now? »
Monday, January 03, 2005
The company you keep
Kevin
You intervened in my recent exchange with Kathy Shaidle about this "half-assed country," about Cheryl Gallant's abortion statements and about saving souls as the goal of politics.
In your intervention, you chastized me and warned me about the company I was (not) keeping. I took your silence about her views as agreement with them.
I'd be pleased to hear if you don't agree with these views.
Might I also suggest, in future, that when you intervene in any of my exchanges that you dissociate yourself from all views with which you don't agree. Otherwise, I'll continue to interpret your silence as consent.
As to Steyn, his words speak for themselves. Simpson is against activist judges and supports the notwithstanding clause, which is part of our constitution. He supports constitutional supremacy. Steyn does not, which is why he attacked Simpson.
Posted by Norman Spector on January 3, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8346de59769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The company you keep:
Comments
With all due respect, Norm - these exchanges would be a lot more civil, and make some actual sense, if you would observe some standard blog etiquette.
First and always: provide the direct quotations. Cut and paste. Provide a link to the source.
For example, on this very post you refer to various statements by other bloggers with no supporting links whatsoever. Perhaps it's an artifact of your origins in "legacy" media, but in the blog world, sourcing your quotes with active links is the standard. The active link is a demonstration of intellectual honesty - inviting the reader to judge the original quote for themselves. Omitting supporting references is likely to incite a flamewar.
You wrote:
"Might I also suggest, in future, that when you intervene in any of my exchanges that you dissociate yourself from all views with which you don't agree. Otherwise, I'll continue to interpret your silence as consent."
This further suggests you may not understand this media very well. To expect each commentor disassociate themselves from views they do not agree with on something as loose and informal as a comment thread is simply impractical.
It's an issue of format - in the world of internet discussion, brevity is key. The number of readers who will continue the entire length of a comment is *inversely proportional* to its length.
So, when someone reponds to a post or a comment, and selects portions thereof, it's safer to assume they a) think they have nothing more to add b) have no strong opinions c) don't care d) think the comment will be too long or watered down.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-03 1:38:23 PM
Kate,
It's elementary logic that if you intervene on behalf of one side in a debate against another, you're agreeing with that side, unless you indicate otherwise.
As to your interpretation of blog protocol, the exchange in question is archived on this site and easily available if you care to intervene on the substance of this exchange.
I'm sure Kevin recalls what he wrote a few weeks ago. If you don't, do the grunt work yourself.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 1:54:06 PM
Well, actually Norm - no. If you expect your post to be taken seriously, provide the references. The onus is on you, me, Kevin, Greg - all of us as bloggers to show respect for each other by providing attribution.
This is an open forum, not a private email conversation between Kevin and yourself. (Actually, it's a little odd that you chose to reply to Kevin with a stand alone post. That interferes with archiving and thread continuity.)
That's the protocol. I didn't invent it. But it's a good one, because it helps to prevent the general deterioration and personalization of debate. It also prevents stupid mistakes - I've aborted posts a few times after searching a quote to source, because I realized it didn't support my position as well as memory suggested it did.
It's happening again and again here, and its' not healthy - lack of attribution is a typical troll "troublemaking" technique (see Meaghan and Robert). Not attributing your quotes is more likely to create suspicion than enlightenment.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-03 2:26:26 PM
Kate,
My recollection of what was written here is just fine.
If you're suspicious, you can look it up.
As to how I responded, it's precisely the way Kevin responded a few hours ago. Have you forgotten that too?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 2:40:27 PM
"Might I also suggest, in future, that when you intervene in any of my exchanges that you dissociate yourself from all views with which you don't agree. Otherwise, I'll continue to interpret your silence as consent."
You know, you could probably make a fortune writing EULAs if you ever decide to leave journalism. ;-)
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-03 3:06:18 PM
Sean
This must be a generational thing: what's an eula?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 3:13:19 PM
Tyrannosaurus Norm:
http://www.google.com/
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-03 3:18:02 PM
End User License Agreement -- the stuff that you automatically agree to when you open and use software. This usually provokes horror at some point down the road when you realized what it was that you agreed to. :-)
I think it's more of a 'geek' thing than an age thing.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-03 3:19:43 PM
Gotcha; I just mindlessly check "agree"
Speaking of geeks, have you tried MSN's new desktop search?
I'm amazed by its power.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 3:37:24 PM
Well Norman since you seem to be holding court on the issue of judicial activism; if you think its a problem, and we are stuck with the constitution, what is your solution??
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-03 4:25:35 PM
MikeP
The appointment of judges is critical. The notwithstanding clause must be legitimized--as an extraordinary and exceptional measure. The value of the Charter must be affirmed. All within the rubric of constitutional supremacy.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 4:33:09 PM
So I take from those comments that at present there is nothing to be done.
We have a court that is stacked with activists. Pro gay, feminist, abortion, manufactured group rights, etc. Some of the decisions so far have only furthered divisions in the country, i.e. native rights, gay marriage.
Next up after gays get through whining will be the poverty groups looking for equal rights.
And the bickering goes on and on. Sorry if I dont share your enthusiasm for the Charter.
What do we have now that we didnt have pre Charter days??
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-03 6:18:34 PM
I don't know, Rob't. You're something of a regular - does the question apply to you as well?
Posted by: rick mcginnis | 2005-01-03 10:40:46 PM
"Speaking of geeks, have you tried MSN's new desktop search?"
Nope -- I'm waiting for the Linux version. ;-)
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-03 10:43:06 PM
MikeP
You should not "take from those comments that at present there is nothing to be done."
However, there is no practical alternative now, or will there ever be, to winning power.
That's the ball you and others should be keeping your eyes on.
To pine for pre-Charter days is reactionary.
It is also to live in a fantasy world.
The Charter is here to stay because of the amending formula and because most Canadians like it.
Conservatives should rejoice in the Charter, which is a much better document than the American Bill of Rights because it has a notwithstanding clause written into it and to be used on an exceptional basis when the judges screw up, as they can.
The reason we have a notwithstanding clause is because our constitution is the product of a clash of titans in 1981.
Trudeau had to give way to Conservatives like Lougheed and Lyon, to Bennett and, yes, to Blakeney. And Canadians received a document of which we can and should be proud.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 11:25:47 PM
"The value of the Charter must be affirmed. All within the rubric of constitutional supremacy."
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
What value do wish to be affirmed? Personally, I don't think that it is worth the fine vellum it is written on.
It goes off the cliff in the second sentence, which says, you can pretty much do anything you want, until we say you can't.
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
About a third of the entire document is spent spelling out language rights specific only to English and French speakers - yet language is merely an ephemeral part of culture - languages change more often than nations come and go. But don't worry all you Mandarin speakers, that was all just for show anyways: "Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French." Whew. You can still do whatever you want, sort of, unless we use some other loophole to decide that you can't.
And the sections on minority language education are just plain weird. The charter already established the freedoms of speech, conscience, religion, thought, belief, assembly, association, etc. which would seem to permit the establishment of pretty much any kind of school you could want. Oh wait a minute - the charter is saying (without saying so) that we have the right to a *public* education - an education in English or French which shall be paid for by others whether they want it or not. We have the right to impinge on others' rights! Oh well, if no one will pay for your kids' education in Hindi, you could probably declare yourself a disadvantaged group and apply for free education using the equality clauses (see below) that is, unless someone decides that on the scale of disadvantageness, yours is insufficient compared to theirs.
The equality rights are absurd. You are equal before the law, but if someone is treated unequally, further inequalities may be promoted. Confused? I will summarize: you are to be treated equally, unless it is decided that you shall be treated unequally because some other person was deemed to have been treated unequally in order to benefit not you, but someone else who looked like you. Get it? No? Let me try again. The discrimination which that other person experienced was illegal, because the discrimination that they experienced did not come about as a result of some attempt to "ameliorate the conditions" of some other disadvantaged person. Not to worry - if I pass a law to discriminate against you in the name of helping a disadvantaged person, that automatically makes *you* a disadvantaged person.
And that property you own? Or rather that you thought you owned? That note ain't on the horn, as the jazzers say. Feel free to enjoy your freedom of speech as you rant from the balcony of your government-owned ghetto apartment, where you had to move after someone told Dalton McGuinty that a Loggerhead Shrike may have once lived on your property back in the 1800s. Unless you use the word "kemosabe" in your rant, in which case you will have violated some disadvantaged group's rights (we're just not sure which group).
And in any case, any legislature who wants can disregard any of the rights and freedoms they want to - no I am mistaken, they can't trample over *any* right, only the *fundamental* rights listed section 2 and sections 7 through 15. Relax, it's only your life, liberty and security of the person that are in jeopardy, and only for up to 5 years (indefinitely renewable). At least they can't legislate against their own right to postpone elections forever in the case of an apprehended insurrection. Given the looseness of the charter, probably any act whatsoever could be construed as a insurrection (even criticizing the charter).
I will summarize: it's a piece of junk, a paper tiger, a piece of mouldy swiss cheese, a dried-up fig leaf that protects you from neither judges nor legislatures.
You may take comfort from the fact that even the better-written and more thoughtful US constitution has been pretty much been turned into mulch over the years by stacked supreme courts and a general belief in the goodness of the state and the weakness and inherent evil of individuals.
Forget the charter of rights and freedoms (so called) and strive for liberty instead:
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
For the bandwidth challenged, in text here:
http://board.rapmusic.com/showthread.php?p=10272228
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-01-04 12:05:00 AM
Not Politically Correct:
Cigarettes.
Kemosabe.
Eskimo.
Cheryl Gallant.
Randy White.
Cripple.
Soldier.
conservative.
Blue.
Taxes.
Profit.
Western.
Standard.
Williams.
Newfy.
Abortion.
Your opinion.
My opinion.
White.
Black.
Red.
Yellow.
Gun. & etc.
In other words, speak our speech, you .... ....... .........., you.
Posted by: gg | 2005-01-04 5:55:06 AM
Any "constitution" which does not protect property rights, for one, is junk. Heck, the Soviet constitution looked quite appealing on paper too...all about equality and human rights, you know.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-01-04 6:42:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.