Yalden wants readers to believe the Nazis were able to come to power and perpetrate the Holocaust in part because of “unfettered” free speech when in fact the opposite is true. Suppression of civil liberties in Germany, especially free speech, was essential to the Nazi’s successful acquisition and consolidation of power.
It’s a myth that Weimar Germany was a bastion of freedom and civil rights before being taken over by the Nazis. The Weimar Republic was no respecter of civil liberties and the rule of law – at least not consistently. Weimar “liberals” shut down newspapers when it suited them, they spied on political parties, they used plainclothes police or other surrogates to break up political meetings, they outlawed political parties – including the Nazis for a time, and they not only tolerated armed militias but in many instances encouraged their existence and activity while the judiciary turned a blind eye.
There is a lesson to be learned here, but it’s not the lesson that Yalden and his ideological compatriots are teaching. National Socialist Germany is not an example of what happens when hate is tolerated – it’s an example of what happens when hate is empowered. The uncomfortable fact is that the Nazis didn’t invent the apparatus of power or culture of repression in Germany, they merely took control of, and perfected, an apparatus and culture that had already been created and used by “liberals” to combat extremism.
RTWT.
Previous.
Update – Joseph C. Ben-Ami has dropped by to share further thoughts in the comments.
The Weimar Republic also initiated national firearms registration in Germany. Very convenient for the Nazis when they took over!
I am still waiting to hear from that bunch of craven cowards, Harper and the cons, the bunch I helped elect. If they are not willing to put their necks on the line for Canadian freedoms what right do they have to send other Canadians to fight and die for Afstan freedoms.
Could it be they actually agree with these kangaroo courts? And don’t give me all that garbage about a minority government.
One of the reasons for the firearms registration was there were a lot of soldiers with battlefield experience who didn’t have too many qualms dispatching people into the hereafter.
My paternal grandfather was among those putting down the mutiny of sailors in the port city of Kiel 1919.
The Weimar Republic was devastated by Wall Street Crash of October 1929 and the Great Depression that followed. The Crash had a devastating impact on the American economy but because America had propped up the Weimar Republic with huge loans in 1924 (the Dawes Plan) and in 1929 (the Young Plan), what happened to the American economy had to impact the Weimar Republic’s economy.
Both plans had loaned Weimar money to prop up the country’s economy – especially after the experiences of hyperinflation in 1923. Now America needed those loans back to assist her faltering economy.
Stresemann had died in 1929, but shortly before he died even he admitted that the German economy was a lot more fragile than some would have liked to accept.
“The economic position is only flourishing on the surface. Germany is in fact dancing on a volcano. If the short-term credits are called in, a large section of our economy would collapse.”
After the Wall Street Crash, America gave Germany 90 days to start to re-pay money loaned to her. No other world power had the money to give Germany cash injections. Britain and France were still recovering from the First World War and the Wall Street Crash was to have an impact on industrial Britain. Stalin’s Russia was still in a desperate state and embarking on the 5 year plans. Therefore, an impoverished Weimar Germany could only call on America for help and she was effectively bankrupt by the end of 1929 and quite incapable of lending money.
Companies throughout Germany – though primarily in the industrial zones such as the Ruhr – went bankrupt and workers were laid off in their millions. Unemployment affected nearly every German family just 6 years after the last major economic disaster – hyperinflation – had hit Weimar.
September 1928 650,000 unemployed
September 1929 1,320,000 unemployed
September 1930 3,000,000 unemployed
September 1931 4,350,000 unemployed
September 1932 5,102,000 unemployed
January 1933 6,100,000 unemployed
Most, though not all, of the unemployed were male. These men were almost certainly family men who could see no way ahead with regards to providing for their families. Money was required for food, heating a home, clothes etc. With no obvious end to their plight under the Weimar regime, it is not surprising that those who saw no end to their troubles turned to the more extreme political parties in Germany – the Nazi and Communist Parties.
My grandmother related the stories of 4 billion Reichsmarks to buy a loaf of bread.
The Weimar years also had pitched street battles and assassinations. At the height of the stupidity one of the ministers in government had recently been spirited out of the asylum!!
Yalden is out of his mind and doesn’t know his history, speaking too freely could have gotten you killed by either of the Nazi or various Communist factions.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Options For Disgruntled “Small-c” Conservatives – (with the corollary that the individual parties currently have less support than the Red-Greens):
The Christian Heritage Party of Canada: http://www.chp.ca
The Libertarian Party of Canada: http://www.libertarian.ca
The Western Separatists: http://www.westernblockparty.com
Oh, did I mention that the Western Separatists are splintering still further:
The Western Canada Independence Party ->
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canada_Independence_Party
The “Party of Alberta” goes quiet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Alberta
Income Trust flip-flop? “Separation if necessary, but not necessarily separation”?
Lamentations –> http://www.partyofalberta.org
they merely took control of, and perfected, an apparatus and culture that had already been created and used by “liberals” to combat extremism.
By Kate
I find that observation interesting, not so much due to the application of it in its time frame, (Nazi Germany) but rather its application to our current Canadian political atmosphere. As Harper and his peoples have torn not only pages from the old Liberal play book, but whole chapters and the consequences are rather distasteful, but somewhat humourous as well. The humour comes from watching the Liberal party turn itself inside and out bashing the Tories for having learned the game that they invented. Makes my fat belly jiggle.
Blend this with a heavy dash of US Republican smear campaign politics and voila….Ottawa as we now know it.
Yeuch..
Hugger
“Socialist Germany is not an example of what happens when hate is tolerated – it’s an example of what happens when hate is empowered.”
Another conservative. Another defence of the Nazis.
They werent bad guys. No. The real bad guys were the guys who put up the apparatus that the Nazis hijacked. The Nazis – we should have continued to allow them to shoot their mouths off. The problem isnt that they were propagating hatred, which, incidentally, was used as a recruiting tool whcih, evidently, worked only too well – yes people bought into a whole lot of trash they were saying about jews. But damn they should have the right to say it all the same right? Even if its patently untrue? Because God knows that didnt have any consequences.
Lets put it this way. The Weimar republic probably wouldnt have carried out a holocaust that was justified on the basis of a sinister hate campaign that started well before the holocaust began.
And I don’t know about the rest of you but to me, it’s hard to tell the difference between that White Pride parade and a Gay Pride one…
Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 17, 2008 2:22 AM
Good info, especially the unemployment numbers.
To add a thought or two; at the insistence of the government of France, Germany was required to pay war reparations. I don’t have the figures at hand as it’s been a while since I studied this stuff, but it was very significant. In conjunction with the facts you point out, this was a heavy contributor to the financial, social and political collapse.
It seems clear that these circumstances laid the foundation for the events that followed.
I have read the sentiment that WW2 was the continuation of WW1. The final chapter so to speak. Another thing that comes to mind are the words of my maternal Grandfather who was a British Veteran of Galipoli. He spoke of a good friend who was raised in Germany and sent to attend at a Military Academy in Prussia. This fellow had left Germany at first opportunity due to his experiences at this Academy and he spoke of the cruelty that he and most others had suffered there.
Such things bring to mind actions of those such as SS General Kurt Meyer, 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend at the Abbey Ardennes. I once knew a guy who was there in the vicinity of the Abbey. He never talked about it, but the scars on his face and neck, his missing fingers and his early and untimely death spoke for him.
Gunner 8th Battery RCA.
Lest we forget.
This is frightening. Could today’s progressives the world over be paving the way for, say, Communists and Islamofascists to take over the world, using our leftist-dominated state apparati to their advantage?
They don’t see it coming. But thinking people do, and are already warning the progressives to back off with their self-righteous fascism before it’s too late…
Abusing the power of the state to supposedly safeguard rights while only safeguarding some folks’ rights but not others’… this is the lesson of this post.
The progressives are setting us all up for something horrendous. They haven’t learned the lessons of history at all.
“Another conservative. Another defence of the Nazis”
Another left winger. Another demonstration of functional illiteracy.
I is almost as if once the progressives read the word Nazi they go into a preprogrammed response mode and neglect any attempt to understand the discussion. How about this:
The state should not be in the business of reducing or eliminating existing rights like free speech, free association, free press or removing private property (firearms). Even with the best of intentions this builds the foundation and framework that can then be “legally” exploited by tyrants.
Max Yalden is a dumb as a pick-ax. His view of the world is completely twisted. He is an ivory tower academic who hasn’t really done much in his life other than live off taxpayers.
You say that firearms were confiscated in Germany because of riots and citizen unrest,where was this same unrest in Canada when the gun registration legislation was passed? Registration makes it easier for confiscation to take place.Mr. Trudeau was adamantly opposed to putting property rights in the constitution as confiscation is extremely difficult with property rights.As it is your home and your money can be taken away at the whim of the federal govt.
Yalden has careerist interests in the newly mutated UNHRC directorate’s political agendas.
Part of it is using Human rights administrations as a social engineering tool to usher in UN actuated global kakistocracy.
His arguments are invalid sophistry and inverse reasoning. It is the limitation on political and governing power which stops genocidal despotism…not limiting free speech and the ability to speak truth to power.
Yalden’s a putz.
“Another conservative. Another defence of the Nazis”
Another left winger. Another demonstration of functional illiteracy.
Posted by: Kate at April 17, 2008 9:23 AM
-Oh, Kate, you’re too kind. I’d call it another leftist, another demonstration of steadfast refusal to use one’s brain.
Not that you need my help; you’re doing all right exposing the stupidity of the left vis a vis the tragic situations they’re bringing upon us.
And if anyone’s supporting the Nazis, it’s the progressives, with their legitimization of and support for “hate” speech by certain groups (like Islamic fascists, who we know were on the side of Hitler’s Nazis in WWII) and their fascistic crackdown on all criticism thereagainst.
Just look at what they’re doing to Brigitte Bardot in France right now…
Whoosh! The entire point of the article goes over bug’s head.
Well … another day another dozen or so examples of the failure of leftards to learn or comprehend the lessons of history.
When history does repeat itself it invariably does because ignorant fools can’t see it coming. For our current crop of tools European History begins and ends with the German Nazis. Most of them don’t know a damned thing about the rest of Europe at the time and even less about the decades running up to 1934.
Now just for fun imagine how things might have turned out if Kaiser Wilhelm had been left alone by Britain and the USA!
IMO – especially considering how they DID turn out after 90 years …. it might have been a LOT better for everyone.
I’ve nearly finished a book titled “What We Knew” by Eric A Johnson and Karl-Heinz Reuband. It’s an oral history of average Germans including Jews and non-Jews before and during WWII and the holocaust. Whereas most examinations of the holocaust up to now have addressed what the bigwigs knew (including Gita Sereney’s “Into that Darkness”, interviews with the commandant of Treblinka before his execution) this book deals with what the average German knew and when he or she knew it.
One theme keeps recurring throughout the book, and that is the fear of speaking out. This fear existed both during and before the outbreak of war and even before the rise to power of the Nazis. People were afraid of either the police, the thugs of various political persuasions who seemed to brawl openly in the streets or the organs of government. The result of this climate of fear was a profound isolation of the individual, a mistrust of one’s neighbors, and a paralysis in the face of tyranny. Because the state had control over so many aspects of one’s life, its capacity to punish was limited only by practicality.
Democracy is about the rights of the majority. Majority rule, or plurality rule in parliamentary democracy, is the best (not perfect) defense against extremism. But it assumes that the citizen is in a position to float an idea and test it in the public realm to determine wether or not he/she and fellow travelers are indeed in the majority. If one is not allowed to express an idea to have it tested in the first place, how then to determine what the majority opinion actually is? If, as the elitists would have it, “correct” opinion is to be determined by a minority, the obvious question is, which minority? There is potentially an infinite number of minorities. How is the minority to be chosen? How small may the minority be — ten, three, or . . . one?
Great discussion. Let’s learn from history.
OMMAG, a lot of people don’t know anything about the country they live let alone Europe pre 1934.
A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real, a survey shows.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/04/nhistory104.xml
A similar survey in any country might be just as unsettling.
One other thing. In the course of my internet cruising, the only appreciable difference I have seen between “leftards” and “Controlls” is the basis of their extremism. Both have an extraordinary ability to adhere to a common philosophy. “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”
They make damn good cheerleaders though.
Hugger
Exactly, DrD, the state had taken control of the actions of thought, of reason, of questioning. You weren’t allowed to think, debate, critique and come to your own conclusions. That is what is happening in Canada with the HRCs.
Essentially, the HRCs are part of a Big Government ideology which considers that the general population has no capacity (or right) to reason and think. This is a basic axiom of Big Government (Liberals/NDP). The general population are only fit for ‘beer and popcorn’.
Another example is Justice Beverley McLaughlin’s statement that the judges of the supreme court alone have a direct line to “Fundamental Truths’ and that their declarations therefore trump any laws from the legislature.
See the structure? An unelected group (judges, HRC) alone are deemed capable of reason. The general population, whether elected or the electorate, are viewed as incapable of reason.
With this ideology of a government elite, the bureaucrats, who alone can make judgments, ..and the general population who cannot make judgments…we see a system set up to enforce this oligarchic totalitarianism.
The HRCs are one example. They inform you what is ‘right’ to think; they will punish you for ‘wrong speech’. Above all, speech that questions, that criticizes, that dissents, is frowned upon. It will ‘offend’ someone. Remember, this system rejects the general population’s ability and right to reason.
Furthermore, the HRCs operate without any due process, any defense hearing. The most recent example is the Ontario HRC’s/Barbara Hall’s judgment that Maclean’s is ‘Islamophobic’. This conclusion was arrived at despite the open acknowledgment that the OHRC had no legal right to review the case, and despite the fact that no defense by Maclean’s was ever heard.
What do we have? A system that specifically declares that the general population is totally incapable of reason. This system declares that any opinions the population might have must be derived from Senior Govt Authoritieis. Remember, we citizens have no capacity to think. Any opinions we have must be monitored by this Senior Administration – and punished ..even without a hearing.
Result? well, we are not in a democratic nation anymore.
I’m still waiting for one of the bright lights posting here on this subject, to answer a question by the poster “pissedoff” at 0215 H. It’s question I have as well: why are the Cons so silent on this issue? The silence is as good an indication that they support these kangaroo courts and that they believe in the suppression of free speech, unless it is “PC Speech”. I like P/O’d above will not accept the “minority government” tactic of evading an answer. Anyone care to take a stab at it?
“The uncomfortable fact is that the Nazis didn’t invent the apparatus of power or culture of repression in Germany, they merely took control of, and perfected, an apparatus and culture that had already been created and used by “liberals” to combat extremism.”
Yep, that’s what I’m sayin’.
In fact, once you dig into the ideology a bit, our current “liberals” are differentiated from the Nazis primarily by how far they are willing to go to get what they want.
Oh, and our liberals can’t march in step.
Beyond that, there’s not much to chose between them, to my eye. Concentration camps are just a matter of time, pretty much. You can see the seeds of it in Britain already, where ubiquitous surveillance has a cop eye on every light standard in London, and where local councils are chipping garbage cans to catch recycling cheaters. Jail for not sorting your glass from you plastic? Why not, the planet’s at stake! Think of the children!
Cretinous trolls will please be clear, this is not a defense of the Nazis. Its a two by four to the head for liberals, Liberals, and all the other associated socialist nitwits destroying personal freedom in this country every day. You suck.
Judges request 10 per cent raise
OTTAWA — Canada’s 1,050 senior judges are seeking a 10 per cent pay raise. The requested raise, spread over four years, would be in addition to automatic annual cost-of-living increases, bringing the salary for the vast majority of federally appointed judges to $307,170. The nine judges on the Supreme Court would earn more.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=1901ec40-49e9-4eb5-b948-c423652bfdd3
Hugger
jt and p/o – Compare the immigration issue and this HRC issue.
Both deal with similar populations – immigration or minority populations. Both deal with empowering minority populations. No, don’t try the ‘de jure’ tactic of saying that the HRAct Section 3.1 definitions of discrimination refer to all groups. Use the ‘de facto’ reality that the Commission only accepts those cases referring to left-winged minority groups.
Multiculturalism is the overall rubric of these two areas: immigrantion and the Human Rights Commission. Again, kindly note that this HRC and Act doesn’t refer to what I would call genuine human rights: freedom to live, work and speak. It refers ONLY to acts of discrimination in work and employment – which acts are deemed viable only if you are defined as a member of a ‘minority group’.
And section 13.1 refers ONLY to the feelings you might have (not DO have, but MIGHT have) if a publication was permitted to exist.
Our immigration act has been set up primarily to bring in families, regardless of the individual’s capacity to work and settle in Canada. This, coupled with the ‘hands off’ attitude of the Liberals to the beliefs/behaviour of the immigrant group established huge blocks of immigrant voters glued to the Liberal largesse.
That’s because the Liberal multicultural policy specifically discourages integration, assimilation, and even, collaboration with other immigrant groups. It instead sets up an adversarial balkanization of immigrants, isolting each group into a frozen replication of ‘our old way of life in another space and time’. It funded these frozen clones by huge grants for private schools, community centres, fudning to assist their poor and the many relatives unable to work, unable to speak the language, religious centres and so on. These people, who always settled in the large cities, became extremely important to the Liberal vote.
The HRC system silences all debate; it’s part of the multicultural ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. It keeps those groups isolate but above all, it keeps them unintegrated; and it doesn’t permit or enable them to modernize. They remain ‘as they were’ several centuries ago.
The govt is trying to change the Immigration system to focus less on importing ethnic blocs of voters dependent on huge govt funds, and focusing instead on skilled ethnics. People who have skills that Canada needs, who can or will learn the language, who won’t move into dependency on welfare or indirect grants via the govt grants to these multicultural ethnic centres.
Result? The Liberals are screeching because they are afraid they are going to lose their mindless faithful immigrant vote. The immigrant group leaders are angry because they want to retain the money to their group, which comes in via a head count of the number ‘they serve’.
And the Minister of Immigration is receiving death threats.
The HRC is being dealt with by a grassroots campaign, from the bottom up. And from all sides of the political spectrum! [Ignore the trolls like Kinsella, Dawg, BCL.] It would actually harm its success if the CPC got involved, beyond those CPC who have of course spoken out against the HRC (eg, Kenney) and made it only a partisan issue. Then you’d have the Liberals/NDP etc coming out completely against it. So, leave it to the grassroots. Leave it to the people.
Cretinous trolls and other such anomalies.
Citizens of England have long lived in a much more controlled environment than was the norm in the Colonies. Nothing new there.
From the multiple streets of row houses, to their pay as you go utility vending devices. They also had flushes when most of us were still using the Eaton’s catalog.
You have to consider managing a country roughly the size of New Brunswick with a population of 50 to 60 million.
While in the realm of misnomers, here is an interesting link that provides figures on ethnic diversification etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_England
2005
Religion
* Christian: 71.75%
* No Religion: 14.81%
o “Jedi”[8]: 0.7%
* Not Stated: 7.71%
* Muslim: 2.97%
* Hindu: 1.06%
* Sikh: 0.63%
* Jewish: 0.5%
* Other: 0.29%
* Buddhist: 0.28%
Ethnic Diversity Compared
* England – 84.7% Indigenous, 15.3% Ethnic Minority
* Germany – 91.5% Indigenous, 8.5% Ethnic Minority
* Italy – 94.8% Indigenous, 5.2% Ethnic Minority
ET – immigration is not a partisan issue, as well as Afstan, immigration, or our shoot in the foot Kyoto plans? Con policy is distinct from the other partyies on these issues.
Free speech ranks right up there with our so-called democratic principles, IMO higher than the four that I just mentioned. Free speech vs PC free speech is just as partisan if not more so than all the aforementioned together, because it is obvious to me from even the grass roots under-the-radar scrapping, that certain political blocks are attempting to shut down & marginalize the PC Party’s support base via the blogoshere. Essentially to muzzle conservative speech and thought. They socialists have essentially co-opted our media to their cause, so if The Cons are not able to get their message out in the MSM, or the cut and thrust of debate of their ideas is shut down, where do they do so? Blogs.
I find it strange that the Cons will “partisanize” their policy on the above, but not do so on free speech. Every one of those issues could bring down the government if the opposition chose to do so. Are you implying that free speech is too hot an issue for the Cons to be partisan about, but it is OK for the Libs, Dips, BLOC and Greens, because it might really trigger an election? I can’t think of an issue that wouldn’t be more of an incentive to go to the polls over, rather than wait for October 2009. The Cons have some sort of death wish over this particular issue. If they are afraid of the issue, then why would I vote for any of the other issues of the day that the Cons seem to want to die on a hill for?
No, jt, immigration is not and never should be a partisan issue.
The Liberals have made it such by setting up immigration tied to voter blocs. They set up these voter blocs by defining the ‘bloc’ as isolate, non-integrating, and completely dependent on Liberal funding and goodwill.
Afghanistan ought not to be a partisan issue; the Liberals/NDP have made it such. It is a NATO/UN and humanitarian issue.
Kyoto? I don’t know what you mean. Kyotoism is a money transference scam and has nothing to do with the environment, so, I don’t know what you mean.
Free speech is not a partisan issue; it’s a fundamental right, basic to the West since the Magna Carta and the Reformation. It’s even defined as such in our aberrant Charter of Rights, Section 2. As a fundamental right it has nothing to do with partisanship.
But, the Liberals set it up as such by their HRAct and Commissions, which move free speech out of being a fundamental right and into the realm of multiculturalism. It did this by linking free speech with the effect of ‘discrimination’. That is, if someone feels ‘discriminated against’ by virtue of your speech, then this is deemed wrong. Of course, this denies the basic meaning of free speech!!
I see your point that the HRC’s are, in their support for minority groups, ie, those held by the Liberals, and their vigilantic attacks against the so-called non-minorities, are as a result attacking the Conservative ‘bloc’.
But I think it would be functionally disastrous to transform this from an argument in favour of free speech, regardless of the speaker and the result, to one in favour of ‘voting blocs’.
That is, what has to be done, is to cut the link between free speech and multiculturalism. Remember, that multiculturalism, understood as a system that keeps all immigrants locked into isolate and dependent ‘voter blos’ is a keystone of the Liberal electorate.
The Liberals/NDP etc aren’t talking about free speech as such a ‘voting bloc’ because to do so would imply that they want such rights only for ‘their voters’ and not for the great majority of Canadians. However, the fact remains, that they want the HRCs to remain in power! But they can’t say that in the House.
That is why this issue is not being talked about in parliament, but is a grassroots issue being fought in the blogs, and in the MSM.
There are powerful groups not just in Canada but in other countries that are pushing their Government to “tame” the internet. Our boy Lucy is strongly supported by one such organization. There concern isn’t so much that the discussion of Radical Islam or other groups is being discussed. Shutting down freedom of speech on other groups insures that there own particular group is not the topic of discussion as well.
Good thing the backbone of the ‘NET is in the USA
But I think it would be functionally disastrous to transform this from an argument in favour of free speech, regardless of the speaker and the result, to one in favour of ‘voting blocs’.
Disastrous for who and why? Would it be disastrous for the Liberals to be seen as purveyors of “state run thought police”? How aboput the Dips, would they attach their brand to this concept? The Greens think that the “science is settled”, like science projects are decided in courts of law. So, I guess they would not like to see any free speech on this issue, too?
Besides, that transformation has already been done. Certain Party aparatchiks infest the various HRC’s and they and their various supporters’ agenda are being promoted to the detriment of conservative free speech in this country with, I would suggest, the support of, not voiced but more paricularly by the loud silence of our provincial legislators as well as the current government. Besides, Mr Harper himself has sued the Liberal Party over their right to libel him on their Party website, so it is an issue, but not a Party issue?.
As for the grass-roots effort, that isn’t where the discussion should take place, especially restricted to just the blogosphere. I can’t say much but for what I read in the National Post or the local rag Calgary Herald, there is little discussion in the MSM and the “discussion” in the blogosphere has degenerated into pure hate speech with the resulting lawsuits being bandied about. The Post has been paying particular attention to this issue, lately. I am waiting for the Conservative government to stand up for the rights of all Canadians to express, report on, or direct people’s attention to issues of the day and have a healthy public debate over those issues. What is really happening is that certain groups in this country are attempting to stifle the Conservative discussion on topics of the day, to the point that our governing instituions are being used as a tool of enforcing their silence. There is a double standard being applied that needs to be addressed by the government of the day, including all the opposition parties, not just individuals within their respective parties. A lot of this ties right into the immigration issue as you have stated, and Afstan and Kyoto policies, because when I look at the situation these issues are all interrelated.
Public debate is being stifled and only a sanitized version, or PC version or “the science is settled” version is being presented and debate is basically shut down if any one seems to have a contrarian point of view, or they are being sued to shut them up. IMO the issue is already a partisan one, so what is the problem?
But I think it would be functionally disastrous to transform this from an argument in favour of free speech, regardless of the speaker and the result, to one in favour of ‘voting blocs’.
Disastrous for who and why? Would it be disastrous for the Liberals to be seen as purveyors of “state run thought police”? How aboput the Dips, would they attach their brand to this concept? The Greens think that the “science is settled”, like science projects are decided in courts of law. So, I guess they would not like to see any free speech on this issue, too?
Besides, that transformation has already been done. Certain Party aparatchiks infest the various HRC’s and they and their various supporters’ agenda are being promoted to the detriment of conservative free speech in this country with, I would suggest, the support of, not voiced but more paricularly by the loud silence of our provincial legislators as well as the current government. Besides, Mr Harper himself has sued the Liberal Party over their right to libel him on their Party website, so it is an issue, but not a Party issue?.
As for the grass-roots effort, that isn’t where the discussion should take place, especially restricted to just the blogosphere. I can’t say much but for what I read in the National Post or the local rag Calgary Herald, there is little discussion in the MSM and the “discussion” in the blogosphere has degenerated into pure hate speech with the resulting lawsuits being bandied about. The Post has been paying particular attention to this issue, lately. I am waiting for the Conservative government to stand up for the rights of all Canadians to express, report on, or direct people’s attention to issues of the day and have a healthy public debate over those issues. What is really happening is that certain groups in this country are attempting to stifle the Conservative discussion on topics of the day, to the point that our governing instituions are being used as a tool of enforcing their silence. There is a double standard being applied that needs to be addressed by the government of the day, including all the opposition parties, not just individuals within their respective parties. A lot of this ties right into the immigration issue as you have stated, and Afstan and Kyoto policies, because when I look at the situation these issues are all interrelated.
Public debate is being stifled and only a sanitized version, or PC version or “the science is settled” version is being presented and debate is basically shut down if any one seems to have a contrarian point of view, or they are being sued to shut them up. IMO the issue is already a partisan one, so what is the problem?
There’s a lesson here in dealing with the HRC fascists as well:
(via David Thompson)
Speaking of pious opportunism, here’s a piece by Robert Tracinski from 2006 on the lessons of the MoToons saga, which I think bear repeating.
[Republishing the cartoons] is not merely a symbolic expression of support; it is a practical countermeasure against censorship. Censorship — especially the violent, anarchic type threatened by Muslim fanatics — is effective only when it can isolate a specific victim, making him feel as if he alone bears the brunt of the danger. What intimidates an artist or writer is not simply some Arab fanatic in the street carrying a placard that reads “Behead those who insult Islam.” What intimidates him is the feeling that, when the beheaders come after him, he will be on his own, with no allies or defenders — that everyone else will be too cowardly to stick their necks out.
The answer, for publishers, is to tell the Muslim fanatics that they can’t single out any one author, or artist, or publication. The answer is to show that we’re all united in defying the fanatics. That’s what it means to show solidarity by re-publishing the cartoons. The message we need to send is: if you want to kill anyone who publishes those cartoons, or anyone who makes cartoons of Muhammad, then you’re going to have to kill us all. If you make war on one independent mind, you’re making war on all of us. And we’ll fight back…
————————-
Wondering if an Ad were placed in say, the NP, including the cartoon of Mohammad and signed off by bloggers united (hopefully hundreds of ‘free speechers’), whether the HRC would attempt to make a case of it?
Hi all,
I normally don’t write on blogs, but someone pointed out a few comments on this one and suggested that I answer a few of the comments, so here goes:
First, to bug – your “defence of the Nazis” comment may scare off some people, but not me. As it happens I’m Jewish and my father, an immigrant to Canada, was the sole survivor from his family. I was also Director of Government Relations for two years for the Jewish human rights organization B’nai Brith. I may disagree with my former colleagues on the wisdom of hate speech laws and human rights commissions, but that doesn’t mean that I disaprove of their opposition to stupid and dangerous ideas like those espoused by Nazis and their ilk. I’ve fought them and others like them professionally, at some personal risk to me and my family, by the way. What have you done?
The main point of my column is that protecting free speech is the best way to combat Nazi’ism and other forms of racism. You may disagree, but at least try to do so intelligently rather than reverting to the distinctly nazi technique of stereotyping and name-calling.
To Pissed Off – you are not alone in your disappointment that the current conservative government has not done anything about this issue. There are reasons for this. First, HRCs exist at both the federal and provincial levels. Eliminating them federally will not change this. Second, eliminating the federal HRC requires legislation. No bill of this nature has a chance of pasing right now. Three, although we haven’t done polling on this issue ourselves, I suspect that if we were to do so we would discover that most Canadians approve the existence of HRCs even if they are uncomfortable with their excesses. It’s politically problematic, therefore, for the government to try to simply dismantle the HRC. Fourth, even if all of these challenges can be overcome, there will be a series of legal challenges aimed at reversing the decision. In short, the matter is extremely complex and requires some thought and planning. It may surprise you to learn that no political party invests in such thought and planning themselves. Instead they rely on the bureaucracy to do it for them, and that bureaucracy is, of course, liberal and very supportive of the existing “liberal” government because its THEIR agenda.
Whew – that was a long explanation, but I don’t want to leave you with no hope. This is precisely the sort of policy work that we are now doing outside of the political process. The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies was founded by experienced former bureaucrats and activists to act as a counter to the liberal bureaucracy. We conduct research and develop policy from a common-sense, small c conservative point of view, and we then work hard to promote that policy among academics, decision-makers, political activists and thinkers, and the general public at large. What we are doing is critical if we are going to change Canadians’ programmed attitude that there is only one possible answer to every public policy question – the liberal answer. It will take time, but we’re confident that, together with so many others out there, we’ll be successful. My advice – be patient and if you can help by supporting the conservative organization of your choice, please do. Canadian conservatives complain a lot, but they don’t provide enough financial support for groups working to solve the problems to be as effective as they can be, if only they had the resources.
Finally, I note a number of comments touching on immigration. We just released a discussion paper on this April 16 and have now presented it to the overnment for their consideration. We’re doing more work in this area that will be made public soon as well as work on the HRC issue and health care. The immigration paper can be downloaded from our site http://www.policystudies.ca
Probably not, Irwin. The OHRC ran from the field of battle after discovering in it’s over-weaning zeal to punish those who dare speak the un-speakable truth, that they suddenly didn’t have the mandate to do so. The situation suddenly attracted too much flack for their sheltered bureaucratic lives.
Their retreat was covered by blowing out a smoke screen of “convicted by bureaucrat – in absentia”. They are so filled with self-righteous belief, that they felt that slandering the one’s who got away was perfectly within their power to do so. Guilty as charged, but no we won’t have a court case to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were “right”. Cluck, cluck.
Besides, according to some people in the know, their ranks were “salted” with certain people who had a vested interest in promoting their point of view and were all too willing to promote their version of the “truth”. Guess the sniffing dogs of the blogosphere would have outed them, so better to run away to fight another day.
Speaking of Britain and the loss of rights there…
I came across this website: http://eutruth.org.uk/
and this video: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3664960863576873594
a couple of days ago. The video is long – nearly two hours, but very interesting.
It has a bit of of a conspiracy theory feel to it, but the author has many original documents to back his claims. The video deals with the hypothesis that a British charity, Common Purpose, is a front for a group of EU fascists. Under the auspices of this charity, Common Purpose has been working to place their people into every influencial post in government and private industry in England. The author claims they have infiltrated local councils, the police, judges, the NHS, BBC,and quangos (quasi-non governmental organisations that operate all sorts of things in the UK).
The fellow speaking, Brian Gerrish, is a retired naval officer (submarines). As part of the Plymouth Chamber of Commerce he began asking questions of the local council regarding the spending of taxpayer money and discovered these links to Common Purpose. He has been researching and uncovering some rather disconcerting things since.
I can’t attest to the veracity of the things said. But, unlike most things we label as conspiracy theories, this is well-reasoned and logical. I didn’t once have to ‘suspend reality’ in order to take it seriously.
jt – no, I continue to disagree. The discussion and debate must take place in the ‘grassroots’. Why? Because we are the people. We are the ones who must make the decisions.
At the moment, the Liberal govt, over the past generation, set up a form of govt that effectively removed power from us, the people and moved it into the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
They set up an oligarchy, with an elite who alone have the right to Reason and Think. The rest of us, are ‘beer and popcorn’; we don’t have that Right. Or ability.
We must take this power and right to reason back from the bureaucrats. The debate is not merely in the blogs. It’s spread into the MSM, including the Globe and Mail and even, heck, the Toronto Star, and various other newspapers. And debates on Television.
Libel, by the way, has nothing to do with the HRC, although the recent public announcement by the Ontario HRC/Barbara Hall that Maclean’s is ‘Islamophobic’ might be liable to libel.
Again, I have no idea what you mean by trying to relate Afghanistan and Kyoto to this issue. Kyotoism is a money scam; Afghanistan is a NATO/UN mission. I simply don’t get what you are trying to say!
Joseph Ben-Ami: Thanks for your comments. Overall, I agree with them; the knee-jerk automatic response of a population, socialized, educated and brainwashed for a full generation into the Liberal mindset, means that taking down these HRCs won’t be easy.
There are vested interests in these HRCs, apart from the well-paid, well-pensioned bureaucrats who staff them. There’s the whole Liberal mindset of the federal bureaucracy which, because it’s been developed during the Liberal years in power, are firm believers in The Dogma.
The Liberal structure is built around that balkanized multiculturalism and the ‘title’ of Human Rights (heck, who could be against anything with that title?).
So, this grassroots gradual building up of attacks against the HRCs, for their sheer authoritarian violation of our Right to Reason, is an important phase. People have to grow out of the mind-numbing passiveness that the past decades have enforced in us. We have to take charge of ourselves – something not allowed within a Liberal mode of governance.
On a minor point, you said: “I’ve fought them and others like them professionally, at some personal risk to me and my family, by the way. What have you done?” I’m not sure of your meaning on this.
Surely you aren’t telling us that UNLESS one has ‘fought them..professionally..at some personal cost..etc. THEN, one cannot argue about these HRCs..?
Thanks for your comments.
JBS
I predict the same will happen to the US constitution when the North American Union is secretly rammed through. If the way freedom of speech has been heading in the EU, I suspect it will be the same for the NAU.
ET at April 17, 2008 3:34 PM
I have to disagree with your assessment of Afghanistan, as the evidence is heavily weighted in favor of the argument that it is a US mission, that most go along with in order to placate uncle sam. A mission I might add, where the US abdicated a good deal of responsibility to enable them to pursue their foolish quest in Iraq.
I would also present a broader view regarding our freedoms in respect to their erosion under liberal rule. I certainly wouldn’t argue that we are unjustly controlled in the manner you point out, but would say that it was no better under the Mulroney reign. Perhaps if one had the ear of the inner circle, your voice may have been heard, but for everyone else I suggest that was not the case. Once the Chin had moved on his American favoring Nafta agreement, chucking decades of agreements, many favorable to Canada and delivering his GST knockout punch, the People finally had a say.
Now the result of all of this, bearing in mind Newton’s law, was 13 years of liberal government which developed and honed much of what you now find so distasteful. Chretien was a politician, and I’m sure it took no time at all for him to make a choice between being allowed to have a 65 cent dollar, and going against the US and punting Nafta.
So, now we have a badly divided right and Mr. Chretien says, why should I get rid of this GST, it’s good for me, no? I look after my friends. So I tell them a little white lie.
All they had to do was remind people of Mulroney to make them thankful and compliant.
Are you old enough to remember the Mulroney years?
Before the usual Trudeau explanation comes about, I will just lump that all together with a summation rather than point by point. He bought the people’s votes with their own money, and he tried to do to much way too fast. Therefore he was in the end fiscally irresponsible. A social dreamer in some respects as well.
Flip side is, if big Brian didn’t think he was up for job, why did he take Karl Hienz’s money and dethrone Joe Clark? Easy. You dance with the one who brung you..
greg – what evidence? I disagree with you about your opinion of the Afghanistan mission. I consider it a UN/NATO mission (and the US is part of both)to deal with Islamic fascism – a terrorist movement that concerns us all.
Mulroney, as a Progressive Conservative, not a Conservative, was in my view, ideologically a Liberal.
Sorry, I don’t understand your reference to Mulroney and ‘you dance with…’ etc.
I assure you, I’m quite old enough to remember. Dementia comes next.
ET at April 17, 2008 4:52 PM
Dementia comes next. Lol
I hear ya. I have those was I going up the stairs or down stairs moments occasionally.
I don’t have a bunch of time at the moment, but I’ve been looking into this for some time. Starting at both ends as well as the middle. That’s current events and distant history to make my reference clear. No conspiracy theories, just historical fact and personal experiences.
I’ll give you a current link to ponder for now and more later.
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1049589.html
On the dance comment, do you remember Mulroney repeating that phrase?
[quote]I have to disagree with your assessment of Afghanistan, as the evidence is heavily weighted in favor of the argument that it is a US mission, that most go along with in order to placate uncle sam. A mission I might add, where the US abdicated a good deal of responsibility to enable them to pursue their foolish quest in Iraq.[/quote]
Greg,
Your anti-US stance “may” be true depending on your expectations. The Political debate last night had Clinton campaigning for a DECLARED “Nuclear Umbrella” (solution) that the US would protect Israel & other friendly states in the Middle East. That is very dangerous IMO, some idiot despot would test it & we would need to respond. It is better to keep such options under cover.
The “limited” Bush response in Afghanistan & Iraq is how “sane” states solve problems. The world’s problems don’t really have a political (left/Right) label. We expect the adults to step forward & be counted. If Canada wants to be an Isolationist Re:limited Action.. be my guest.
BTW: I have always wondered why the useful idiots demonstrate at the G8 meetings of world “leaders” but have such great faith in the UN, which are “controlled surrogates” of those same leaders. What makes Canada think a US controlled (veto power of the 5 Members) UN is not doing uncle Sams bidding. NATO is far more independent.
ET, I have no idea how extensive your knowledge on Afghanistan is, but I will provide some links for basic info as a jumping off point. Let me know if these are a little too rudimentary and I will step it up a bit.
Still pressed for time.
Main page
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/
Links contained on above page
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index3.html
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/articles/ussr.html
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/quotes.html
Sorry for not having more time.
Phillip G. Shaw at April 17, 2008 7:00 PM
Good points Phillip. Firstly I will say I’m not anti US per se. I have spent a great deal of time in the US and support the people. However, the record of the Bush administration speaks quite clearly, and so does their popularity ratings.
I agree with your sentiments regarding US influence on the U.N. The U.S. maneuvers at length to exert control and many Republicans actively campaign against it. They are perpetually late with payments, as example and use this as leverage.
I’m afraid the limited involvement concept makes my skin crawl. In a word, Vietnam. Look at the similarities.I reject this is purposely limited and advocate it is an army of occupation.
If the U.S hadn’t ventured off on its intentional course of Imperialism…(yup, there’s that flag), then Canada would not be required to maintain a presence which has far exceeded original statements. It’s not isolationism, its practicality. When the History, Culture, Religion and social issues of the region are considered thoroughly, Hilliers statement of 20 years looks tremendously optimistic.
Briefly on Clinton. She’s lucky she didn’t get whacked by that sniper fire in the Balkans. Lucky girl.
Joseph Ben-Ami, I appreciate your filling in the blank on the CPC “silence” regarding the CHRC. Its the same answer pretty much that I got from my MP who is all over this.
As to fighting the Nazis, in this country they are a bunch of dorks and not worth lifting your boot to kick. They are already disgraced, and very rare.
The people I like to fight are the ones who promote Nazi ideas under the guise of “social justice” or “public health”.
In battling the likes of Wendy Cukier the gun control propagandist we are battling EXACTLY the infrastructure that allowed the Nazis to kill their millions. In taking on free speech “limitations” from the likes of Warren Kinsella we do the same.
Any time you fight some nanny state feel-good policy, that’s who you are really fighting. Warren and Wendy are not Nazis themselves (obviously), but they are paving the road for those who follow.
An unrestrained bureaucracy is much more dangerous than a nuke, if the twentieth century is any example. A nuke can only kill -one- city.
good post, phantom, thanks.
greg – I continue to disagree; I think that the situation re tribalism confronting the modern world has to be dealt with. The Al Qaeda agenda is to return to 10th c tribalism; it can only do this by force. So, our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is not ‘occupation’ but is a fight against the enforced enslavement of people within tribalism.
As for the UN, I also disagree; it isn’t controlled by the US. The UN is a corrupt morass.
Mr. Ben-Ami,
Bravo! That was one of the most thoughtful articles I’ve read in defense of free speech. Thank you for your insight.
Another powerful article was just published by the editors of MacLeans magazine:
Free To Speak
Now the human-rights-violating fascists are going to need to need some major intellectual firepower in their corner. Unfortunately for them, all they have is kinsella.
Now it’s time for Harper et al to sprout a pair and shut down the travesty run by Commissar barbara hall and her deputy lucy.
[quote]An unrestrained bureaucracy is much more dangerous than a nuke, if the twentieth century is any example. A nuke can only kill -one- city.[/quote]
Phantom,
The unrestrained bureaucracy in Canada is the profound problem. The bureaucracy has been engaged in self- serving (feather bedding) that has resulted in unrestrained power that is not vetted by the democratic process. I think this was a blunder, and not by any intelligent design.
Although P.E.T. may have deliberately construed laws that allowed senior civil servants discretionary control with out oversight. In the US we have a particular socialist Senator, from Maryland, that always wants to empower department heads to make future decisions without congressional approval. This hand cuffs the succeeding Congress to those provisions in the bill/law and denies normal oversight. He is reminded, by other Senators, that Congress has constitutional duties.
IMO Canada needs to demand democratic oversight over all forms of Government, including Justice! The ugly, self appointed, dictators will magically disappear
ET: The state of the UN is the result of our two-headed diplomacy. The UN is now corrupt and serves no useful purpose. Those that have veto Power RULE… and we have failed.
Greg,
I should have used the term “Measured Response” or more specifically “Troops on the Ground”. I reject the nuclear option on humanity grounds but I may not be in the majority. In the US these issues don’t fall on “Main Stream” political lines. The polls reflect the opinion of whom ever pays the bill. Clinton & Obama are feeling “real American “culture shock in PA …that’s a no punches pulled crowd.