Despite what lying jackal Warren Kinsella has to say on the subject, the free speech movement in this country is winning. The wind is at our backs, and as Ezra Levant points out, we're well on our way to denormalization of the the Human Rights Commissions.
The logic of the pro-censorship crowd is laughable. That, to not support the criminalization of hate speech, is akin to condoning hate speech. Or that, to not support "human rights" charges against a racist like Marc Lemire is akin to sympathizing with, or outright sharing those racist sentiments therein.
Speaking of fools, what kind of fool runs around with logic like this? The last time I checked, leftist heros like Betty Friedan and Mohatma Ghandi, both opposed challenging Hitler and his holocaust. I must therefore conclude, that their pacifism, as well as the pacifism of the Swiss in this event, amounted to their tacit support, making them de-facto Nazis.
The bottom line: it's absolutely tenuous logic to suggest that myself, Ezra Levant, or Kate McMillan have any sympathy for neo-Nazis in this country. In fact, the continued attempts to suggest as much in certain corners of the left-wing idiosphere, constitutes nothing less than complete and utter, intellectual bankruptcy.
On that front, I find the absolute obsession of Kate McMillan these days, by those on the left, to be quite humorous. Their concerted campaign to bring her down makes me smile. Partly because they think they're succeeding, and partly because it reinforces something they'll never admit: that McMillan is in control of the debate; they're only responding.
To be honest, I thought the lying jackal and others would be have more substance than simply making stuff up, about what I and other people think.
It's time for me to come to a realization I've long denied myself: that these tactics by the pro-censorship crowd only confirms they are wrong. Worse, it confirms they are devoid of human decency, and any real morality. I suppose for those types of people, you can't have much of those things, when your agenda includes throwing people in jail, sending them to political re-education camps, and rationalizing thought oppression.
I'll address both of your current blog entries Brock, first Kinsella likes to besmerch your name because you have class. After googling him I now realise why people tell you to ignore this man, he's not worthy of your time. Your are moderate in your opinions and not blindly loyal to conservative ideology and that's classy, you also take the time to educate yourself on the issues you blog about he apparently doesn't. He spends his time blogging about Conservatives whilst smearing their good name, the day will come when all those that find him a vile small minded boy will stand together and take him to task for his never ending smear campaigns. Notice he never smears the the big boys like Steyn or Ezra?
His obsession with Kate is frightening, really frightening to me as a female. I've been reading Liberal Discussion forums and I'm amazed at how uneducated they are regarding the issue of HRC and their employees' Brown Shirt behavior. They honestly have no idea of what has transpired, they use words like libel when someone quotes transcripts they are so uneducated and unintelligent they can't grasp the concept that the transcripts are the words and deeds of the people who have been involved in extremely unethical behavior. They'll never grasp the horror or anger that the Conservatives are feeling because they apparently lack the IQ or ability to investigate or educate themselves on this issue. Sadly the left need to be told what is the truth, they aren't apparently capable of finding out for themselves. They believe it's all a Conservative coverup or setup, how utterly scary these fools are. Their lack of knowledge is what their leaders and the socialist commies at the HRCs are counting on, their supporters just don't have the ability to investigate and form an independant opinion. They are part of the hive, isn't socialist ideology grand. NO it isn't, it's a desease of the mind.
I really like "lying jackal". I may steal it...
Why?
Did it ever occur to you that calling those who support the actions of the HRC as "pro-censorship" is about as silly as it would be for them to call you and others "pro-hate-speech"? It's like the ridiculous black & white terms that are thrown around in the abortion debate. They're manipulative and intellectually dishonest.
Did it ever occur to you that calling those who support the actions of the HRC as "pro-censorship" is about as silly as it would be for them to call you and others "pro-hate-speech"?
You know, I did actually think that. And if you read between the lines in all these posts where I use words like "fascist", to some extent, that's the very point I'm trying to make.
The abortion debate comparison is well-taken, but I don't really see the parallel. Certainly pro-life and pro-choice are politically charged phrases, but I would argue that while pro-censorship may be an overexaggeration of the intentions of supporters of Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, speech codes, and criminal hate speech legislation, you must concede that, by definition, "censorship" is exactly what that is; you are censoring hate.
You may think it's justifiable to censor hate, but it's still censorship nonetheless. You would be arguing that it's not your intention to be a censor, therefore you're not pro-censorship. I would be arguing that your actions and your political positions make your a censor by extension.
If you don't think it's censorship, fine.
Appoint me, Richard Evans, and Kathy Shaidle to the tribunal, let the complaints fly, and we'll see how fast the progressive worm turns.
Red T's position: The "correct" form of speech control isn't speech control at all, because it's "correct".
Who defines what is "correct"? Those controlling the speech.
The circle of the acceptability of censorship is complete. It's acceptable when they say its acceptable.
Warren is a self-described communist. That should tell you all you need to know about him. What I don't understand is why it's ok, maybe even 'cool', to be a communist but its beyond the pale to be a fascist when they are essentially exactly the same. Communism is responsible for more deaths and misery than any other ideology/system but there are still loads of people who are sympathetic to the cause.
Two good friends of mine are like Warren. There is no debate, logic to their arguments. Just accusations and 'feelings' and the like. What gets me is that these people think they are 'smart' and the rest of us are not enlightened enough to get it.
CTS-TV Michael Coren Show 8 pm Eastern, Tuesday, April 8 has subject of "Human Rights Commissions and their victims".
Know who the panel members are?
Warren is a self-described communist.
Really?
How about a link to that? Or is this another example of the right just making things up?
I think the term 'free speech' is an oxymoron and it is intellectual dishonesty to say not. In the real world of relationships what you say is never free of consequence. When Mr. Kinsella calls you "Chickenshit" his well choosen words are spewed out for effect: he uses words as weapons to hurt and kill and he ceases to become your friend as a result unless he apologizes then you should forgive him. So, of course, speech as consequences. Do I believe in censor? Yes! First, censor should happen by the individual before he/she opens the mouth. In a civilized democracy we need to be careful with our speech. Moreover, we live in community and if our speech offends: the community has the right to censor us and if we don't like it we can move. We are not an island. Should the state censor? Yes, for the sake of our children. How and when is the bigger question. So, what is 'free' about 'free speech'?
Moreover, we live in community and if our speech offends: the community has the right to censor us and if we don't like it we can move.
That's where your argument goes off the rails. The community does not have the right to censor anybody. What they do have is the right to ignore or speak out against opinions they don't agree with.
Or is this another example of the right just making things up?
Yup. They are, umm, imaginative, sometimes, I'll give them that. Thing is, I can't tell if it's deliberate lying or simply laziness.
Mike — Actually, I’m opposed to the current regime when it comes to “hate speech” and would prefer that the government drop Section 13(1) from the legislation. Nonetheless, I don’t think those who disagree with that position are “pro-censorship”. That's such a sweeping, indiscriminate term.
Hey DIkk, nice of you to show up - how's that lawsuit against me going? Still chicken I see....
And what did you want to sue me for again?
Rather amusing to see you talk about censorship dikk....
So fucknuts, when that lawsuit coming my way?
Gosh, my comment was nicer than that one, and it was still suppressed.
CWTF Before you get snarky, you should be aware of your facts. In a one minute search of Warren's site, there are two references of him being communist (January 8th and 21st 2008) and in his bio he lists Lenin and Malcolm X as two of his heroes. So, yes, he is a self described communist and it's not just the 'right' making things up.
Bizarre. Sorry about that, Mike--ccomments later than mine appeared first.
Let's hope if that litigious bastard does not sue me and hopes this is fair use
---
BITS AND PIECES, THIS AND THAT
Tuesday, January 8, 2008, 10:19 AM
• I dislike inquiries because, inter alia, they exceed their mandates all the time (cf. Gomery and his unasked-for, biased and partisan "roundtables;" Desbarats' Somalia probe and their repeated demands for extensions and money; Daniel Paillé looking at current federal polling expenditures, even when he wasn't asked to; and so on). Prof. Johnston can, indeed, exceed his mandate and recommend whatever he likes, with a single sentence: "While recommending against a judicial inquiry was not specifically part of my mandate, I feel it is incumbent on me to merely observe that such an inquiry is not needed at this time..." The notion that it isn't part of his mandate is immaterial, if recent history is any measure.
• Was Hilary's reaction emotion or manipulation? I don't know. I do know, however, that John Edwards sounded like an asshole when he sniffed that a "commander in chief" should be a tough guy all the time. Besides - in the United States, getting weepy on television happens so often, someone should enshrine it as an Article in the U.S. Constitution.
• During the 2000 Canadian general election, Francie Ducros, Cyrus Reporter and I were the only Grits prepared to state, on the record, that George W. Bush was going to beat Al Gore. Our colleagues, I can tell you, were simply horrified. Why did I reach that conclusion (and again in 2004)? Because, one, Republicans are way better at running presidential campaigns. And, two, Canadians have a collective tin ear when the subject is U.S. politics. Sorry, fellow Canucks, but it's true.
• Taxing emissions? Considering the source, I am now dead-set against it. If he is recommending it, it has to be a bad idea (and Messrs. Harper and Dion feel likewise, it seems).
• The Post has run a very nice-looking excerpt from The War Room in today's paper, found here. I liked the look of it so much, I took a picture of it for you:
----
http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?m=01&y=08&d=11&entry=entry080111-193139
He's got a few entries for January 21st - so you'll have to link that one up monkey boy....
From his bio:
Accompanying this biographical note is a unique photographic portrait of Warren. His heroes are Malcolm X, Christ, Raoul Wallenberg, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Joe Strummer, and his father. He's also pretty sweet on his wife.
Not sure how liking Malcolm X makes him a communist - Malcolm X as much as of a Conservative....
I think my snark is well placed...
Maybe you should e-mail Warren and ask him - I'm sure his response will be mildly amusing.
And yup, you don't get it....
"Or that, to not support "human rights" charges against a racist like Marc Lemire is akin to sympathizing with, or outright sharing those racist sentiments therein."
I don't know that this is the real "logic" used at the time the supposed connection is made. Would it be more like, "I can damage my opponent in whatever (politiacal) arena we are competing in by making an association with someone or some organization of poor character, etc."
So that perhaps they don't genuinely adopt the screwy logic, just try to sell it to the public, as it serves their purposes. Remember that the values of the communist world are different. For them the end justifies the means, so there are no rules of conduct. These "values" are not exclusive to communists, as we have seen in our modern world.
Regarding Ghandi, I believe he did not take as pacifist a view as you have him grouped with. He advocated suspending independence activism during the war as England was taking on Nazi Germany. I think I am remembering this from the biographical film, so not sure how accurate it is.
Jon Evan:
I think the term 'free speech' is an oxymoron
You are correct. All speech has consequences. The term 'free speech', however, specifically refers to speech which the state (or other entity in authority) can not prevent, discourage, or punish.
... would be have more substance than simply making stuff up, about what I and other people think.
This is his stock in trade Mike. He's very good at it. It's why people hire him for political campaigns. He recasts what people say just enough that it is offensive at first blush but not so much that it appears implausible.
Humor works better at deflecting the BS than anger. As soon as you get angry, he's won and you add sound-bites that are trivial to misrepresent. Find someone with a sense of humor who can draw comics. Do a funny one each week.
His weakness here is that he's out of step with an issue many ( most? ) people see as unfair. Your strength is that most people will see the actions of the CHRC as manifestly unfair -- even comical. Most people won't see hurt feelings as a charter issue. Most people will see entrapment for what it is. Most people will see HRC staff war-driving around in a black SUV as ridiculous.
There is an abundance of silly or extreme examples of HRC's going off the rails or completely frivolous claims. Move these to the front of the debate and stop fighting defensively from a position of weakness.
[post script] I appreciated the irony of the title for this post.
CWTF: Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov is Lenin's real (birth) name.
Shoulda' stayed in school, eh? Would'a saved ya' all that typin', eh?
EBD, you just don't get it do you?
Let me try to explain for the hard of thinking...
jwl claims that Warren is a communist because it's mentioned in his blog. The two dates mentioned surely don't have passages where Warren declares he's a communist - but hey someone some connies have said he's a communist so that enough for the brain dead to focus their bile...
Let's move one to the second "proof" that Warren is a communist... He has for heroes Lenin and Malcom X....
Yup, that's enough to be a communist.... It's a little like saying that if you admire Keynes or Queen that you are an homosexual...
Let's continue down the list of heroes that Warren list... By listing Malcom X, does that make Warren a Muslim a black or murder victim?
And what of his other heroes? Christ? Wallenberg, Joe Strummer? What do you deduce from those?
So EBD are you as terminally stupid as jwl?
CWTF I am wondering exactly what I don't get because I think I understand Warren, you and the rest of you useful idiots all too well.
I was wrong to put Malcolm X in that list, I thought I remembered him joining communist group after he broke with Nation Of Islam. However, as EBD says Lenin = Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and the links you are looking for are:
www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080121-131742
www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080110-135923
Terminally stupid it seems to be....
Warren was using irony here: www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080121-131742 and http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080110-135923
Still, given that you seem to project traits by some kind of osmosis based on their heroes, it really makes me wonder... and you have cherry-picked Lenon to call Warren a communist...
So what do you make of his other heroes? Really, that's the logic that you are using...
While I have little time for Kinsella (he a litigious airbag, well pass his prime IMO, that was lucky long ago), there are better ways to make him look ridiculous than calling him a communist.
Hey dikk, don't you find it ironic that you arguing free speech but have threatened to sue me? I'm sure that you can't even find something even the most bigoted right-wing lawyer would be able to use... Mike has my IP, it should be easy enough to track me down - so what are you waiting for? Are you all talk and no action? My god, you are ridiculous...
Still, given that you seem to project traits by some kind of osmosis
based on their heroes, it really makes me wonder... and you have
cherry-picked Lenon to call Warren a communist...
Well, the lying jackal seems to think I'm pro-Nazi by extension of my views on free speech, so don't expect me to come to the lying jackal's aid, insofar is it pertains to pointing out tenuous associations with no basis in logic—he's the worst offender of them all.
He calls me a "hate blogger". He suggests by extension I am anti-aboriginal. That, I, and others are racists and bigots. Why? Because we don't believe the state should lock people up for their words, no matter how hurtful they are.
By the lying jackal's own concept of logic, he must be a communist. For Ezra Levant, Jay Currie, Mark Steyn, Kate McMillan and myself to be white supremacists, using his logic, he must also be a totalitarian communist.
I mean, there isn't a single Nazi or white supremacist that I idolize. But apparently, according to him, I am one. So one must come to the conclusion using lying-jackal-logic, that if he idolizes communists, he must definitely be one. What other conclusion can we be led to in lying-jackal-logic?
Richard Evans: The community does not have the right to censor anybody. What they do have is the right to ignore or speak out against opinions they don't agree with."
I think censor should be progressive. Firstly, there should be a speaking out against opinions the community does not agree with. It can end there if the opinion is that the earth is flat, but NOT end there if the opinion is like that of Mr.Lukiwski's recent opinion that was caught on tape. If he failed to repent then I think progressive censor should include: loss of his job, kicking him out of his church, or being shunned by the community. The second part of your comment "to ignore" such an opinion would be irresponsible I think if Mr.Lukiwski didn't repent. The community needs to move quickly to protect those vulnerable from such a vicious attack. How far the censor should go depends on the outcry of the community as to how they perceive the offending opinion threatening individuals.
So Mike, you are ready to use Warren's faulty logic to justify yourself? I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to work...
Warren is a bully, and will use litigation instead of arguing his points - sure he has double standards (what else would you expect from a National Poo contributor?)
Yes, he seems to have backed down and then call you creepy... Followed by your admission that you are defaming him...
Warren is best viewed as a has-been, someone trying to relive some glory days of punk (nostalgia does not suit him). And I will argue with you that he uses twisted logic when it comes to his defence of Semites (he's keen on using the word anti-Semitic whenever he can). While I don't agree with your most of your views Mike, I think that Warren was quick to lump you (at that time) with KKKate.
"Hey dikk, don't you find it ironic that you arguing free speech but have threatened to sue me? I'm sure that you can't even find something even the most bigoted right-wing lawyer would be able to use... Mike has my IP, it should be easy enough to track me down - so what are you waiting for? Are you all talk and no action? My god, you are ridiculous..."
...working on a bigger fish right now... Do me a favor... Send me an e-mail c/w your real name and address and we'll get to you in due course... If you can't be bothered to do that simple thing, you can't bitch that it's taking too long...
"Richard Evans: The community does not have the right to censor anybody. What they do have is the right to ignore or speak out against opinions they don't agree with."
I think censor should be progressive. Firstly, there should be a speaking out against opinions the community does not agree with."
The individual is the cornerstone of the community for without the individual, the community cannot exist. Knowing that, it's "individual rights" and not "community rights" that reign supreme. Look, if you want to go and join some sort of Borg-like collective cult, you're more than welcome to do so but you have absolutely no right to force the same onto me... Not in a free society anyway...
dikk: all bluster, no balls, 100% chicken shit and 0% credibility,,,
cwtf What is 'ironic' about Warren calling himself a communist when his hero is Lenin. Why shouldn't I take him at his word?
jwl, he was kidding because he'd been tagged that by right-wingers.... hence the irony...
dikk, by bigger fish, do you mean exploring your man-boy love connections?
Oh and yes I can bitch because you loudly boasted that you'd be taking me to court but have been impotent ever since... like I said, chicken or just too stupid... either makes no difference because there was nothing that you could even take me to court on - it was empty bluster...
KKKinsella is a midlife juvenile who is noting but a balding no talent bass guitar owner lost in punk-noise heaven.
He is a bitter control freak whose misery is centered around the fact that, at this point in his sorry existence he hasn't amounted to much. His best days are behind him like his widening ass.
When it come to smarts, he couldn't carry Kate's brief case.
I do not know why anyone even pays attention to him. He argues at the level of Pee Wee Herman. He is a useful idiot of the worse kind who needs to be watched, but shunned.
That felt good. Sort of like a good molt.
John West, that's actually pretty good.
Too bad you choose to try and elevate KKKate.
She repugnant in her idiocy.
Hey Mike, arent' you a defender of free speech? Why the moderation?
Hey Mike, arent' you a defender of free speech? Why the moderation?
Out of control spam. Once you've been approved once, the blog should remember you next time, and automatically approve you in the future (unless you post from a different computer).
Mike, thanks for that -
I'm always posting from a different computer/IP....
I'll live...
dog pile crap
dog pile crap