64 Replies to “New On The Liberal Fascist Runway”

  1. never forget socialists are smarter than you and me and that is why they believe they can make all the rules for all of so we will all be happy and love wearing our rose colored glasses.
    They are smarter than us, aren’t they ?? Kinsella seems to think so. He wants to make the rules for us.

  3. Kinsella is in idiot and just another aging hippy with a bad comb-over. But he is entertaining and I have heard him refer to readers like me as haters, racists, bigots, mouth breathers, etc etc.
    I have added his blog to my favourites. There is something hilarious in watching a ‘tolerant liberal’ spit and curse at his betters the way he does.

  4. Re the link to the Betty Crocker comment and Warrens subsequent apology. He also recently aplogoized to Newfoundlanders for refering to them as Newfs. I’m seeing a pattern here.

  5. When even the media are afraid to publish anything but state approved articles where does that leave Canadian culture that the CRTC is so overtly protecting. Bland and uninteresting? Come to think of it never mind.
    Perhaps we can get the HRC to pre-approve articles beforehand to avoid these embarasing little episodes.
    I weep for what Canada has become.

  6. A good article. I’m might add that the achillies
    heel of our country is our inabiity to have reasoned discussions without partisan verbal war and political dirty tricks.
    We should not forget that these issues take place in the context of “culture”, which is the basic subject we need to discuss across our land.
    Without that discussion we will not have a free and happy society. In the world of the Kinsella’s we don’t need to work at or talk about anything that might get someones dander up.

  7. The Kinsella-Warman assault on “bigotry” is a one way street which displays a great deal of disingenuous discrimination in its targets.
    There is a great deal of difference between campaigning to convince people to make a rational conscious effort to make bigotry (ignorant intolerance) a sociallt unacceptable and running a an ad hoc statist witch hunt of fear and intimidation.
    Warman’s and Kinsella’s obnoxious statist attempts to “enforce” their dogmatics upon us all has made me more resolute than ever to stamp out their form of of obsessed uncivil statism.
    Threaten away boys I’m beyond intimidating and have just the motivation and resources to cut you both a new proctological opening if you ever try to stigmatize me with your slanderous taunts.
    This sword cuts two ways…using the words “racist”, “Homophobe”, “Bigot” or any other antisocial slur is about the clearest case of defamation actionable…watch who you tag these slurs to and be prepared to prove it beyond doubt to the courts.
    I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen some leftard brand people they do not know with these actionable slurs…time to haul in the “bigotry” of the left.

  8. Kinsella obviously feels all the traffic Kate sends him is worth the repeated ass kickings by a girl. Masochist.

  10. Let me see if I have this right: a prominent figure in the media advocates using nanny state to club haters. Which is to say, that there is an underlying belief that this prominent figure’s published words lack sufficient power to call out and marginalize the haters – that expressed opinion is not sufficient to neutralize the effect of the haters in our midst.
    Which is to say, that the media does not have the power to shape opinion.
    So why bother editorializing?

  11. When is he going to apologize to Kate and all her readers for offending us? A cold day in hell, I’m sure.

  12. I disagree with the main argument in Mike’s post.
    Civility and free speech are not mutually exclusive.
    By saying “polite people never make history” he seems to misunderstand the word polite.
    I have heard Nobel Laureates in science give talks that are exquisitely polite, yet it is the substance of the what they are saying that holds the real power to change minds.
    Margaret Thatcher by most measures “made history”, but most would argue that in general she was a polite woman, able to defend her ideas through strength and vision and courage, rather than rudeness.
    I would argue that civility is in fact in rather short supply these days – look at Kinsella for a perfect example.
    We live in a rather uncivil society, so by Mike’s argument free speech should be flourishing, no?
    The real problem as I see it is not the witch hunt against free speech per se, but rather the witch hunt against *speaking the truth* on subjects that are critically important to society.
    *THAT* in my mind is what will ultimately lead to a Big Brother Society, much to the joy of Kinsella and others.
    So when I look at Levant and Steyn, and many others like them, I see people who are fighting for free speech with the assumption that it will in general be used to tell truths.
    Free speech just for the sake of free speech in order to say anything one wants is a step backwards (the lyrics in rap music being a perfect example).
    My 2 cents.

  13. Liz made a comment that zeroes in on the real story. Kinsella is a master of creating cyber storms and ensuring other bloggers and surfers are looking his way. I am sure that is how he defines “success”.
    It’s hard to argue with that. Over time I think Kinsella may live to regret the time and effort he has invested in creating a sort of Vince McMahon persona for himself. He wants to be seen as a serious political commentator. I’m not sure you can be that and the blogosphere’s regulator general in the same lifetime…

  15. Serious question, I am not trying to slam Kinsella, but am I the only person to find his blog boring?

  17. At the end of the CTV observation we find this . . .
    **and actually debating relevant issues in the legislature.”**
    Now that would be a valuable rule.
    Otherwise, . . nothing!=TG

  18. Kinsella is getting a dose of hiw own medicine. It would be interesting to see him hauled into the kangaroo court because of his sexist photo, but of course that would be legitimizing the HRC which is not a good thing.
    The thought crimes continue!

  20. TJ: You make a most excellent observation that strong opinions can nonetheless be expressed with civility. In fact, if you’re really interested in trying to change minds — as opposed to sing to the choir — incivility is counter-productive.
    Coincidentally, I was reading some Hayek this morning (The Constitution of Liberty) and all through the session I was struck by the incomparable civility of this champion of liberty who was long marginalized by academia, and who therefore could easily have been angry and embittered.

  21. TJ @ 12:44 p.m. nails it. Above all else, leftists seems to fear truth. In fact, they fear the very possibility that objective truth might actually exist. Therefore, they seek to suppress anything that might shatter their illusion of being able to impose their ‘truth’ upon the rest of us, all while maintaining the impossibility of truth’s existence in the first place. Irrational, yes, but force is all that’s left to them in that case.

  22. What was its name again? wornoutcantsellit? Is that correct? Let the TRUTH be told! OVER and OVER and OVER…

  23. WK is a contradiction of rambling babble. Not worth another click, ever. He’s a little like an wanna-be artist who stacks a pile of garbage together and pretends it might have some significance, or that perhaps it has some deep meaning that only someone with superior intelect could possibly interpret. Of course, it remains a pile of muck.

  24. TJ: the point Mike Brock is trying to make, is that what is truly free speech is labelled as uncivil and therefore must be censored.
    Some say the muhammad cartoons are not appropriate in a civil society and thus should be banned.
    The word civil, in this context, means “adequate in courtesy and politeness”. By this definition, it is not civil to criticize or comment on someone else’s religion. Civil behaviour dictates that you do whatever possible to avoid conflict, which includes refraining from speaking your true thoughts.
    As a simple example, when you have dinner at someone’s house, it is not considered civil behaviour to criticize the food. In civility in general, criticism is inappropriate.
    However, occasionally a situation arises in which one must be impolite, one must criticize the behaviour of someone else because of the harm that it is causing.
    Back to the example, if you believe that the food may cause you to be ill, then you should abandon civility and stop eating the food that you have been served. If you wish to be very impolite, you might even go so far as to tell your hosts that their food is making you ill. You have gone beyond the bounds of civil discourse, and the reaction of the hosts is unperdictable. They may feel embarrassed or angry or both. Unless they also feel ill themselves, they will likely not take it well. You would be better off making up an excuse, an inexistent allergy for instance, than translate your thoughts into words.
    By the same token, many people believe that the words of Steyn and Levant should never be published because they are not civil. No matter how you publish the Danish cartoons, you have contravened the laws of another person’s religion and they will not be positive about it. In Steyn’s case, he has portrayed a religion and culture in a negative light, and that too will elicit negative reactions. But that does not mean that they should not be said.

  25. I wasn’t advocating against civility. Nor was it my intention to imply that civility was a bad thing. I think my argument was a little more nuanced than that.
    To be “civil” in a society is to conform to the cultural and political norms of that society. In a liberal democracy, what is “civil” is a very broad definition.
    What is civility in an authoritarian society?
    To go out and peacefully protest may be considered civil in our society, but not in another.
    Obviously we would all like to like to live in a civil society. All I am saying is that we don’t hold the banned of civility, higher than the banner of fundamental human rights, like freedom of expression. Because if we are justifying squashing those rights in order to maintain civility, then I believe we have crossed the line where they have become mutually exclusive.

  26. The Internet is allowing the people to pull the media wool from over our eyes.
    Kinsella and others do not like it one bit. They never saw it coming.
    ‘Just kids with no meaningful/productive lives’, eh ?
    Time to post that huge list again, Kate.
    sda, June 4th 2007 Mini Survey (that wasn’t so Mini)Archives
    I don’t remember seeing even one useless political backroom boy there. Just lots of ‘Butcher, Baker and Candlestick Maker’ types.
    In a Barter Society, which one do you think would be left out in the cold ? Telling.

  27. The truth is that people like Kinsella and James Carville..Karl Rove .. have and will play latge roles in politics. Knowledge is “politics is crooked” truth is understanding the mindset of spinners and others at work during elections. Kinsella, like a lot of liberals, never acknowledged that they lost. Anyone who read Primary Colours knows what I mean.

  28. This statement by Borovoy regarding HRC’s is a shining example of the lack of vision of Liberal idealists
    “Refreshingly, Alan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the chap who helped found these commissions in the 1960s and ’70s, was equally appalled. Writing in the Calgary Herald, he said “during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech”. Pointing to the empire-building frolic of the commissions, Borovoy advised that the legislation needed to be changed to make it clear that these commissions had no business investigating and making edicts about thought crimes. ”
    “We never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech”.
    Never imagined huh? One would think that should have been one of the first thoughts that would have went through the heads of the likes of Bovoroy.
    Leftists seem to never see the realities that lay beyond their flawed utopian ideologies.
    Looking forward to seeing Mr. Bovoroy help put the genie back in the bottle. Although his solution appears to be more legislation to correct bad legislation.

  29. Ha, if I knew Mike Brock was about to post I would have just let him explain his point about civility better than I ever could.

  30. So its impolite to say that anyone that worships a pedophile is sick? Or to follow a book that teaches its OK to lie to others as long as they are not of the same faith?

  31. I think WK has ‘issues’ with women. It is interesting that he uses surnames for males but Kate and Kathy are ‘wicked witches’, believes women should be home baking cookies and thinks it’s clever to call for the death of a young Canadian woman(Avril Lavigne Must Die).

  32. Kinsella feeling a need to apologize for a “baking cookies” comment, a “Neuf” comment, and what’s worse, people thinking that it was a good thing that he did.
    It’s getting sicker and sicker that the nanny state would attack someone for these comments. I’m no major fan of Kinsella, but neither is he my enemy.
    I guess that he’s getting attacked for attacking others over similar silly statements that get turned into “the reason I drink and haven’t worked for 15 years” ridiculous excuses.
    If these type of statements really affect someone, they should seek professional help immediatly.

  33. Kinsella removed the posting around midday…..
    Rather defend himself, he folded like a cheap suit. The hallmark of the journalism hack.

  34. Political Operatives are nothing more than Spin Masters. (A polite term for lying)
    sf and Brock nailed it.
    Liberalism, ok — but liberal with the crazyness ?
    Spin really got going with the CNN, Wolferwitz, Clinton thing.
    Some might say ignore them — don’t give them any credibility. But there is a Moral Hazard component here. At some point there IS a problem — music is ok, punk music is ok, punkiness is ok, pot is ok, cocaine is ok, meth is … ok?
    Fibs are ok, stretching it ok, spin ok, lies .. ok?

  35. Mike Brock wrote a good essay. However, his assertion that there’s no democracy without free speech is only partially correct.
    There’s no democracy without individual freedoms and rights…with free speech being one of the most important ingredients. But add to the mix religious liberty, freedom of association, equal protection of the law for all citizens, trial by jury, right to vote, right to privacy, freedom from cruel or unusual punishment, easy access to education and property ownership rights and that’s a recipe guarranteed to give rise to a strong healthy democracy.

  36. “So its impolite to say that anyone that worships a pedophile is sick? Or to follow a book that teaches its OK to lie to others as long as they are not of the same faith?”
    I am no expert in civil discourse, but I would say yes, it is impolite.
    To claim that a group of individuals is sick is impolite. Miss Manners would recommend that you keep your thoughts to yourself.
    That’s why we need free speech, so that you can say those things.

  37. God, Kate, you made me visit the Evil kinsella site.
    He is employing the same tired old lefty tactic of shouting racism in order to shut down debate. I think it should be a hate crime to accuse people of racism. His writing offends me as I am a freespeecher and not a racist, nor racist; he should be run up before an HRC somewhere. In fact, is this not libel?
    If “free-speecher” becomes a purgative… er pejoritive .. for the left, then there will be no more US flag burnings or something filthy being done with a Christian symbol, will there Warren?
    Popping over to rabble.ca, I see the leftists are employing their usual snooty-nosed attitude by discussing what is and is not the correct free speech, to be allowed us mere mortals.
    Fortunately, these aging hippies are just that.
    Once again, the left demonstrates it’s complete partiality and paucity in the thinking department.

  38. I can understand the klefties’ problem though. If you allow free speech, what will be next: Free-thing, goodness, even perhaps freedom of action!! The Horror! The Horror!

  39. Penny “Rather than defend himself, he folded like a cheap suit. The hallmark of the journalism hack”
    I think he folded because they were liberals that he insulted. To him there are no principles, it’s all about which side you’re on. If they were not liberals he probably would have retaliated with another defamation suit.

  40. Kinsella is the attack poodle of the Liberal Party — sort of a Stephane Dion minus the sentence fragments.
    I assume the lack of Executive Hair prevents him from getting elected. Perhaps he could grow a beard, gain another hundred pounds and then he could look like a genetic mutation of Phil Collins and Bill Blaikie.
    Follow you, follow me…

  41. Bob wrote: Warren Kinsella: The gift that keeps on giving because he is stuck on stupid.
    Yep he’s sort of stuck on auto repeat, he keeps screaming Racist or bigot at people who don’t agree with his beliefs (or lack there of) it never occurs to this snot and bawler that not all of us are white.
    Typical Leftard, they never do their homework and why should they that’s what the taxpayers’ fund CBC for isn’t it??

  44. There are ways to look through anyone*s surfing history on the net.
    Speaking non-specifically, I have run into some surprisingly spicy trails of those who would present themselves as dependable.
    Knowing there are teenagers using the computer, I must draw no fixed conclusions.
    Teens will explore some very dark corners at times. = TG

  45. I appreciated David Frum’s description in today’s Post of the Levant prosecution. Frum calls it “Canada’s first blasphemy trial since 1926.”
    Full article, mostly about the upcoming Islamist/Nazi hate-fest in Durban, is here.

  46. The internet has brought ” free speech” and all its warts, into our living room the same way TV brought war during the early 70’s (Vietnam), into everyone’s eyeballs. It was media that defeated America not communism. . If we back off and say well some of you can say whatever you want because you passed a “likely to ” type of test, we…are…screwed.
    The internet doesn’t really have anything NEW about it in terms of expressing ones-self . It is everyman’s press after all. ..it just has a lot more volume, ..in either sense of the word.

  47. Rather defend himself
    sf – thanks for correcting my typo, my old mind of mine races faster than the keyboard.
    Kinsella is the classic print packaged lefty spittle ranter that is fashionable in every newspaper heading towards oblivion. The dumb dolts don’t realize how over he is. Read Powerline’s hilarious take down over the past year of spittle ranting local paper Nick Coleman. And, then, there is the NYT’s Maureen Dowd. It’s eerily similar and pathetic.
    I’m half Irish and praying no one notices another grim connection. I see it. My Irish mother used to say that there were two kinds of Irish, the donkey dumb and the very smart with not much in between. If I’m out of bounds for my flippancy and the hurt feelings it is going to cause, too bad. Reporting me to the CHRC would be a sticky extradition problem.
    Warren K is a spittle raving dufus.

  50. Trent. I can’t be bothered to go to wornout’s site even if it is linked by a credible blog. Years ago I started to read his book kicking ass in politics, early into the pages i figured out what a clown he was and actually turfed it in the garbage.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation