The Shotgun Blog
« The problem with poppies and Taliban insurgents | Main | White House web site's gaffe »
Monday, March 24, 2008
Jonathan Kay on Marc Lemire
In a column in today's National Post, Jonathan Kay wrote:
Marc Lemire is a former leader of Canada’s neo-Nazi Heritage Front. He helped distribute flyers informing Canadians that “Immigration can kill you.” On the Internet, he acts as webmaster for a variety of anti-Semitic organizations.
In short, he is a bigot — a poster-boy for all those who claim that racism is still alive and well in modern Canada.
But when Lemire faces off against representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) on Tueday, I will be rooting for him....
Find out why here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on March 24, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e551869f258834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jonathan Kay on Marc Lemire:
Comments
Ms. Karolak does not seem to realize that the gentlemen whom she calls free-speech absolutists condemn neo-nazism. In fact, these gentlemen contend that the arena of free speech is the best way to fight neo-nazism. I remember learning in my catechism days that the Roman Catholic Church's index of forbidden books in some (or many) cases actually popularized them. Someone else--either Mr. Steyn or Mr. Levant, I think--noted that Weimar Germany's suppression of free speech actually enabled Hitler to spread his propaganda without dissent.
Human language is a messy medium, and George Orwell's books should remind us of the problems that result when we try to restrict it. Not only is the medium always an inaccurate attempt at representation, but those using it--including those monitoring it--are themselves troubled by ignoble instincts. As the old saying goes, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Whether or not the esteemed gentlemen do, I do NOT regard myself as a free-speech absolutist. I'm not sure whether a free-speech absolutist can prohibit pornography, but I certainly would. Homosexual propaganda has no place in the schools.
I think that I would go so far as to prohibit blasphemy, e.g. in the fashion of the old laws that used to have it "bleeped" out on the radio. Since I am a Christian, blasphemy does not include pictures of Mohamed; and since the democracy of contemporary Canada is not Christian, my law will never become reality.
However, here's some much-needed legislation that I hope will some day have a chance: a law to protect pre-born Canadians from abortionists. What an irony that this identifiable group, with no voice of its own, targeted by the hate speech of those who deny the humanity or personhood of the human fetus, is also denied the advocacy of recognized citizens, e.g. the University of Calgary's recent attempt to stifle the Genocide Awareness Project organized by some of its own students.
What good are the h.r.c.'s? It's okay to kill a baby, but don't you even think of saying that the emperor has no clothes--or homosexual activists no shame. (Of course, the h.r.c.'s must work with the laws as they exist. There's no law to protect pre-born Canadians, but that's in part my point: what good are the h.r.c.'s?)
Posted by: Jon | 2008-05-03 10:40:38 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.