Now this is pretty scary stuff.

"The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists. The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday.

This would, in fact, place the power to silence whistleblowers from being able to expose abuse by government officials into the hands of those very officials in the case of police abuse, for instance."

No doubt this measure is really intended to control the reports of "unemployed French youths" rampaging through the streets of France burning up cars at a phenomenal rate. Very scary stuff, indeed. And, it seems, not reported by our media in this country.

I think people are free to take whatever action they want, which includes

1) Kate your and Kathy's opinion
2) Jason's and Warren's opionion that He Who Shall Not Be Named should be run out of town.

free country do what you want, your blog even more so.

I actually have sympathy for point 2 but respect point 1 because you and Kathy are consistent, even if I have some disagreement. I would say that JC and WK are less consistent in their application of their "principles"

For my part. The NDP is quite capable of defending their own honour. If they want to keep people like that on the blogroll using their brand that speaks volumes. MAke your statements face the consequences good or ill....

Personally, that blahg is a mess, the person who runs it appears to be a mess and should be left to stew in his own juices. Jason can chase him if he wants, I prefer letting him go out in a blaze of obscurity.....Would that JC and WK spend as much effort publically sitting on the tail of the group in their own party that went after Bob Rae's for marrying (shock) a jew.

The leader issuing a letter doesnt cut it....but hey thats JC's and WK's own personal accounting to keep....who am I to judge?

I think if blogs are to remain valuable, then they have to remain uncensored. That is not to say that censure is out of the question. Have a yell or a laugh at him if you wish, but don't go forming any lynching mobs.

Welcome home glad all is finding you safe and sound.

Well said Kate!

I wish Robert Mclelland were still speaking for the NDP and driving more votes away from them. He is more of a detriment than an asset.

It's better to let such people say what they're thinking (so we know), than to drive them underground.

On 2007-03-06, EBD wrote an excellent comment here at SDA - tinyurl.com/398s8x - in which he asked, "anyone want to place a bet on how many days it will be before a Warren Kinsella column using McClelland's latest face-chewing episode to argue for more control of the blogosphere appears in the National Post? [...] Two days? Four? Next week?"

Two days. The column is now here - tinyurl.com/2omxua - except he doesn't argue for more control, he argues that organizations should take more care of their brand. If McClelland had the (presumably trademarked) NDP logo on his site, then the NDP is justified in requiring him to take it down on their terms. I agree.

On the other hand, if anyone is suggesting that McClelland should be prohibited from expressing his opinion under his own brand, then I disagree with them.

free speech is not neither free, nor absolute. some countless brave souls have paid a heavy price for the privilege to speak freely, but i doubt they made their sacrifice in order for wanton hatred to go unabated and unchecked. part of the problem with the abuse of free speech is that, in time, those whose voices are protected by it are eventually silenced.

Who cares what anyone says at all?

So long as they are not inciting violent action against anyone, or action that will result in the supression of anyone's free expression (so called hate speech laws).

I don't care about the Stalinists, holocaust deniers, anti-troops, anarchists, anti-capitalists, NDP Marxist bootlicks, etc. They can rant as long and loud as they want, but when they ask their "digital brownshirts" to go out in the streets and commit acts AGAINST Christians, conservatives, etc or abuse the legal system to "shut them down" that is a problem that may be solved only by revolution. They may have to be booted out like the redcoats were booted out of America in the late 18th century.

*
agree totally with kevin above... there is a huge difference
between censored and censured.

mcclelland's mouth will self-regulate his constituency...
at some point... it will be just him and his dopey,
brown-shirted pals.

the more he spews, the faster it'll happen.

*

Some quotes (sorry for the length):

Re: Kate and Kathy's position - "It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." Thomas Jefferson

Liberty required because: "The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters." Frederick Douglass

However: "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But RIGHTFUL liberty is unobstructed action according to our will WITHIN LIMITS drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Thomas Jefferson

Also: "It is incorrect to think of liberty as synonymous with unrestrained action. Liberty does not and cannot include any action, regardless of sponsorship, which lessens the liberty of a single human being. To argue contrarily is to claim that liberty can be composed of liberty negations, patently absurd. Unrestraint carried to the point of impairing the liberty of others is the exercise of license, not liberty. To minimize the exercise of license is to maximize the area of liberty." Leonard E. Read

And one final caution: "Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe." Edmund Burke

You should be free to express yourself, but you must be ready to face the consequences of your actions. Rights and freedoms that are tempered with responsibilities, is what makes a society work.

Speaking of offending, Iowahawk hosts a "discussion" between Ann Coulter and Bill Maher on the deterioration of civility in American politics. (Warning for language)

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/03/lets_tone_it_do.html

oops, just noticed Kathy Shaidle already posted above link.

It is true that Kinsella's NP column today didn't ask for some kind of policing of blogs, and I'm pleased. But France is pushing for it and how long before someone here starts the push?

Interestingly, Kinsella doesn't tease out the implications of his call for political parties to be vigilant about what their members say on their personal blogs.

What if someone complained to the Liberal Party that Kinsella was too rude on his blog to this or that person, or just ranted and raved so much he made the Liberal Party look bad?

Then what? Well he'd tell them to get lost, I assume. But then what is the point of this official party vigilance except as an exercise in busywork?

We all know how quick Kinsella is to call in his lawyers against bloggers.

Kathy, I understand your point wrt party vigilance. But having just read the article I was favourably impressed (I'm not a big Kinsella fan). I think his more important point, if I'm reading correctly, is that the "left" needs to stop harping on Israel and being so one-sided in their discourse on the topic. Wasn't it the Ontario Teacher's Association which recently voted on a motion to condemn Israel? I know the motion was voted down, but how ridiculous was it that the motion was even tabled?!

True Smitty. Anti-semitism has become second nature on the left, which is one reason so many "neo-cons" converted from liberalism and the Left starting decades ago.

It is pretty sad that it takes the left 20 years to notice and start working on a problem like this, while they have no difficulty embracing dubious global warming science based on a flashy movie by a boring has been...

Anti-semitism is a cancer on the Left. Just go to Rabble.ca or any number of US "progressive" sites for evidence. Hope they get their act together.

*
the leftbots have just about lost their minds. i
saw sid ryan on tvo the other night... briefly,
because i had to change the channel or puke...
and i was surprised to see he wasn't wearing
a burqa.

*

Kate nails it as usual. But over at Oraf's a commentor writes this:

"Robert may insult my sensibilities, but Jason endangers my liberty. I know which of the two worries me more."

A scold like Cherniak or a scold with a public platform like the liar Kinsella were the natural place for the NDP to go to set about disowning McClelland. Not because they are particularly influential; rather because they would be counted on to wave the finger at McClelland and agree that, why yes, political parties should control the bloggers who blog for them.

I write about the bland at my site. (/shameless plug)

Robert McClelland is just a blogging poster boy for the NSDAP.

New Socialist Democratic Aryan Pulpit

He can have any opinion he wants, and it doesn't necessarily have to reflect even remote reality.

Let him shout into the wind all he wants. Everyone has the right to exercise his Charter right to freedom of speech.

There is nothing in the Charter freedom of speech that suggests ones opinions need be sound or well thought out.

In short, one has the right to be stupid as long as it doesn't interfere with others right to be stupid.

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

The Argument Sketch

From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"
Originally transcribed by Dan Kay (dan@reed.uucp)
Fixed up and Added "Complaint" and "Being Hit On The Head lessons" Aug/ 87
by Tak Ariga (tak@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu)

The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument
R= Receptionist
Q= Abuser
A= Arguer (John Cleese)
C= Complainer (Eric Idle)
H= Head Hitter

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

I'd like to add three more quotes to Eeyore's list:

It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships that they give credibility to the opinions they attack.
-- Voltaire

The whole drift of our law is toward the absolute prohibition of all ideas that diverge in the slightest form from the accepted platitudes, and behind that drift of law there is a far more potent force of growing custom, and under that custom there is a natural philosophy which erects conformity into the noblest of virtues and the free functioning of personality into a capital crime against society.
-- H. L. Mencken

There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
-- James Madison

(PS to Hans: It's toffee-nosed, a Britishism that means snobbish or pretentiously superior. The argument sketch is available here: youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k )

Speaking of free speech and the right to be speak your mind:

http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2007/03/07/vagina-now-suspend-me/

and

http://myblahg.com/?p=1950

Ted

stephen - the problem with Jason's actions was not that he had an opinion that McClelland should be 'run out of town'. It was that rather than, on McClelland's blog and/or on his own - arguing against what was going on at McClelland's blog, Jason went to an official system, the NDP party, asking them to 'sanction' McClelland. That's censorship of free speech.

I think that blogs are, by virtue of being electronic, different from face to face debate. The electronic spatial separation of the internet enables interaction without rebuttal, interaction without immediate confrontation, and even, anonymous interaction.

That moves speech out of a situation where the statements of person A can be argued, confronted, debated by person B - into a situation where Person A's opinions might move into Dogma. Into statements that are not open to refutation and argument.

So, I think that blogs have to be moderated, because the capacity for debate and discussion on blogs is very high - as long as all participants are open to interaction, questioning, accountable response. When this breaks down, the comments move into one-way dogma.

McClelland didn't moderate the blog until late - but Cherniak had no right, in my view, to go for censorship by a Higher Authority. That's Big Brother Liberalism - and the opposite of free speech.

The right and necessity of free speech, which includes debate about all opinions, is a vital part of democracy. Cherniak's action was in violation of this right.

"I think that blogs have to be moderated, because the capacity for debate and discussion on blogs is very high"

Hunh?

Surely, you mean just the opposite, don't you?

Nice try Kate, but you're just as bad as Chernyuk and Klownsella. Do I really need to remind you that you ran to the CBC mommy to have them remove one of Idealistic Pragmatist's posts from the CBC Roundtable Blog?

Almost everybody here is sticking up for your right to make a fool of yourself in public, Robert, and you come here to complain? No wonder people think so lowly of you.

"Jason went to an official system, the NDP party, asking them to 'sanction' McClelland. That's censorship of free speech."

Nope.

If I start a little blog, say "deaner's computer corner" and paste an IBM logo in the banner, IBM has every right in the world to demand that I remove it - whether I ever say anything actionable or that would harm their reputation or not, although particularly if I do. The Dippers are in the same position; while Robbo is free to say whatever (typically stupid) thing that comes into is head, he is not free to do so while carrying someone else's banner into the fray. The fact that he is the administrator for the Blogging Dippers muddies that waters - but it's not the defining issue.

For better of worse, the NDP have not moved to protect their intellectual property over the past couple of years (perhaps becuase property is theft, eh?) and it exposed them to exactly this sort of problem. I have no doubt that Cherniak would dearly love to see Robbo's site shut down - but that's not what he called for: he wanted the Party to dissassociate themselves from Robbo, which they have now done. I don't know the arrangements for the other partisan blogrolls, but they may well face the same issues sooner or later.

Vitruvius - do you refer to that small handful of people that even think of marginal nutjob Robert?

Agreed, Deaner. Say I started a blog and called it smalldeadanimals.org and imitated this site's layout and logo. If Kate wanted to, she could make a case out of it. The standard of law is whether or not the public is likely to be confused by the adulterated product. In Robert's case there clearly was confusion, as indicated by some of the errors in regard thereto made by some commenters on this topic over the last few days. Ergo, it is the right of the NDP to make clear their disassociation from him, just as much as it is his right to speek freely as long as he is not maliciously misrepresenting the position of others.

Ted - I meant what I said - the capacity for debate and discussion on blogs is very high. That's because it is easier to present uncommon, or unpopular opinions, when you are speaking from the isolate cave of your own computer - than it is to present that same opinion face to face with others.
That's the importance of blogs - they enable thorough, deep discussion of issues which one might feel uncomfortable debating in a face to face interaction.

Plus, in a face to face situation, one or the other debaters might give up in exhaustion or anger, but on a blog, someone else will 'pick up the fight' and continue the debate.

Deaner - I see your point, but that means that anyone who has a blog that represents their political perspective, eg, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and openly admits this perspective and support by a logo - well, that blog then becomes under the titular control of that political party. I don't agree with this.

What if the blogger supports the troops? Does that mean that the Canadian Military has the right to control commentary? And so on...

IBM is different; it doesn't operate within a political party perspective.

Jason, in my view, was wrong with his Big Brother censorship. He should have commented on his blog, should have commented on McClelland's blog - and that's it.

Robert McClelland - as Vitruvius pointed out, most of us are here arguing for your rights of free speech and your right, therefore, to make a fool of yourself. You've done your usual - alight here, post a brief ignorant and insulting remark - and have flown off. Remarkable. But, even fools have rights - to remain as such.

ET,

You may well be correct that the "proper" thing for J would have been not be a tattletale...so be it. It isnt censorship for him to go and complain to "mommy". It was a political act, legal and within his rights.

Was JC being weasally....I am not as convinced but if he was to be consistent he could have commente on his blog and made an oficial complaint and have been satisfied at just that....which is what happened when his own party had this issue.

I have no trouble with what Jason did, only because He who shall not be named made such troglodyte comments that are oh so close to the line. The certainly say lots about himself.

I just wish JC and WK were consistent in their application of their outrage, aprticularly to those trogs who were dragging their knukles around the liberal convention....Where are the regular posts hounding those guys....this just highlights that what JC did, whether it was the right thing to do or not, was solely a political act and one of convenient moral outrage rather than geneuine and consistent.

But I see your point that it was "tattletaleish"

I back up Kate and Kathey one hundred per cent.

I think that it was Voltaire who said "I hate what you are saying but I will defend to my death your right to say it". If people are afraid to say anything communication stops, hatred flourishes, people die for what others suspect they think!

The internet has allowed all people to be heard, we are becoming a thinking nation again - it is all good in my opinion.
People who write 'off the wall' childish rants will eventually be ignored by the people who wish to communicate - that is the way it goes in a Canada that has shed the Liberano/Dipper Freedom nappers.

Thank-you for this wonderful site Kate - and welcome back - I have missed your astute posts. No criticism of your very commendable site - sitters intended. They did a great job.

Hang on, ET, I'm not so sure any of those involved in this story to date are advocating "controlling commentary". As I see it, we all agree on the free speech thing, the outstanding issues are (1) the matter of control of intellectual property and (2) the matter of public disassociation.

If an individual, party, company, or any other association requests any other individual or group to remove use of said association's legal property, such as a logo, from their public presentation, that does not mean that said association has "titular control" of the individual or group. The Canadian Forces are quite within their right to control who is allowed to use their logo in public.

No one should be able to stop me from saying, "I support the Conservative Party of Canada", but it remains entirely up to said party as to whether or not they wish to grant or revoke implied license to use their logo and things like that, and/or whether or not they wish to publicly disassociate themselves from me (such as, for example, if I say "the Conservative Party of Canada agrees with me").

On the other hand, if some individual or organization, say, took Robert to a human rights tribunal to try to get an injunction against Robert saying what he wants to on his blog, I would again be standing up for his free speech rights. I don't believe in the concept of "hate speech" prohibitions. The only speech I'm willing to let the state legally proscribe are slander and incitement to violence.

(Insert segue here.) I admit, ET, I too was a bit puzzled by your "capacity for debate and discussion on blogs is very high" comment, but now that you've explained it further, I must say that your insight to the effect that "they enable thorough, deep discussion of issues which one might feel uncomfortable debating in a face to face interaction" is very sagacious. It's obvious in retrospect, yet I'd never really though about that perspective in that way before.

So thanks, ET, very much. It's not every day one gets new deep insight into anything from the static-filled hubbub of this medium. I owe you one ;-)

I support Conservatives partying in Canada!

Oh... wait a tick...

"Nice try Kate, but you're just as bad"

"Ain't no equivalancy hiiiigh, enough!"
"Ain't no relativism faaaaar, enough!"

The Supremes

Free speech and censorship arent at issue here, in the sense that a government body is not involved.

We have a right to free speech and action and that also means saying things that will attempt to suppress others. It may not be nice but it is legal and done all the time.

Just as Wal Mart has the right to not carry Snoop Dog's latest CD because of profanity the NDP can disassociate itself, remove its logo's etc etc. from some troglodytes website. Or in fact it would be perfectly legal for He Who Shall Not Be Named ISP's right to remove his access if it didnt like what he was doing or saying. As a business you should not be forced to enter contracts you dont wish to....clearly the limitation is acting unreasonably, meaning based on reace religon etc.

As a side bar the issue comes out in the Kinights of Columbus wedding banquest hall case....two lesbians rent a Knoghts of Columbus Hall for their wedding reception and are upset when the KoC revoke. Issue is did they disclose and can the a religously affiliated private club refuse service based on things offensive to their purpose. And is that thing reasonably offensive to them.

In fact, JC was fully within his rights to complain, what was said was offensive (not illegal) and the offending troglodyte blogger appears to be associating himself stringly with the NDP . At that stage it is up to the NDP whether they wish to act or not. JC can answer for his actions or inactions, depending on the circumstance.

However, it is a totally different story as soon as the coercive power of government is involved in regualting or shutting down speech. Anything else is fair game.

Once again, JC may have been a "tatletale". In this case the NDP should thank him for highlighting an association that they may not have wanted. But he was within his rights to do it and shining a light on troglodytes is never a bad thing. I just wish he would shine more light on the ones in his own party, would take some of the political nature of his actions away.

'Alice the camel' nailed it when she noted "Robert McClelland's comments were not offensive; they were wrong." What is the appropriate response to take in such cases? Kevin and 'neo' distinguish between censor and censure, conservatives apparently preferring the later, and liberal-statists the latter.

So, let's open the closet and dust the bones: why do conservatives support free speech? I understand why most libertarians do - it's axiomatic. Traditionalists, however, have never taken to worshipping very keenly at this alter, while the Christians are conflicted - reluctantly tolerant if they've thought about it, or defaulting to their most recent social conditioning if not.

Some idiot once said: "you can't legislate morality." On the contrary, this is the ONLY thing you can legislate. So, since we have some vague consensus that what McClelland said was wrong, ought we to push for a law criminalizing such talk? After all, there's a poor schmuck sitting in a German jail for a similar "crime".

My question then: is free speech an absolute? Or is it the lesser of the two evils?

The NDP has two choices available: 1) ignore Mc-la-la-la, or 2) disclaim any association - use legal instruments to protect IP around branding, etc. They're probably better off ignoring him - he's marginal, unknown to many, let him stay that way. Just stay away.

On the other hand, it looks like JC took the path to provoke response 2) above. Why? Why not take the path of ignoring this fool, or deconstructing. Why try to incite the NDP into action? Why a proxy for your own fight? I find that as objectionable as Mc-la-la-la's garbage - at least the garbage is visible, smells offensively, and you can walk a wide circle around it. The proxy fight is craftier, less obviously hideous.

While logic and free speech can effectively squelch clowns like Mc-la-la-la, draw your own conclusions about where use of proxies can go in the worst case scenario.

Sorry, that should be...

"conservatives apparently preferring the LATTER, and liberal-statists the FORMER."

Independent of any perceived or real flaws in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, clause (2) says: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.

So, logically, the question then is, what happens when freedom of expression conflicts with freedom of association? What happens if X is, under the rubric of free speech, claiming to or appearing to represent association with Y, when Y is unwilling to accept association with X?

Anyway, overall, I'd have to say that this whole thing has gone very well from my perspective. McClelland's credibility has gone to within epsilon of zero for far more Canadians, Cherniak has taken a deserved hit for his blog-whoring, and we're having a most excellent discussion on classic issues relating to the matter of liberty. It takes me back to the days when I was a founding member of the Libertarian Party of Alberta in 1972 (there were 21 of us, we lasted 18 months ;-)

As usual, when he isn't repulsive, he's uninformed.

I protested a post on the roundtable that approvingly linked to a malicious defamation site run by a left-wing head case (who has, among other stunts, attempted to appropriate my identity).

The CBC editors pulled it without my requesting they do so, and offered an unqualified apology, as did the original author.

I was wondering if it was that situation, Kate. Thanks for the information.

Note, everyone, the appearance of these critical words: "malicious defamation site" and "attempted to appropriate my identity". That's not allowed. That's not about free speech, that's about fraud.

Say one is about to kill someone other than in self-defence. Are you allowed to say "I am going to kill you" just before doing so? It doesn't matter, because you're not allowed to kill them in the first place. The issue of fraud is similar. Are you allowed to make fradulent statements? It doesn't matter, you aren't allowed to be fradulent in the first place.

(Assuming classic moral standards while making allowances for the failures of law and interpreting the word "allowed" in the philosophical sense.)

V,

Generally nobody can force you to accept a member, ie you are free to associate but others are free to not associate. You can always withold friendship, love, membership on reasonable grounds and some like love and friendship, on unreasonable grounds :->

So while someone may claim that they are a member of the NDP they may not be in a position to speak for the NDP or represent them in any formal way.

It is up to organizations to ensure that they have clear lines of authority and policy, and defend those, so that the "who" speaks for an org is clear.

Leaderhip and power vacumns in orgs cause these problems.

The link between an individual and an org can be sometimes tenuous or mistaken....think about Cherniak's run in with the over zealous Conservative and Ipsos employee who went one step too far. (Funny how JC seems to show up these a lot)

There IPSOS and the employee corrected it and made it clear he was speaking for himself and indicated IPSOS in "error". This is why you dont send personal letters on compay letterhead, or use company email to send this stuff.

Company IP addresses are another issue, which the company may say you shouldnt use but nobody has so far construed that to mean company endorsement....yet.....though many try.

I think people have a right to speak as they wish but also have the right to use private means at their disposal to suppress speech...as long as that doesn use public instruments...ie using my money to pay off a policeman to arrest someone etc etc

We make the mistake when we use the word censorship to broadly. All rights are meant to vis a vis the government as opposed to laws which are laregley regulations of our interpersonal/interorganizational comings and goings.

And Censure...yes I strongly believe in it, just like shame. In that people should be free to express those things....sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong (as in incorrect) to do but all too often individuals are told they arent allowed to comment. Untrue, and when you do you may find that there are lots of others who agree with you. This is how societies self regulate versus relying on police and tribunals and other coercive bodies.

Just because it is legal doesnt make it right and just because it is right doesnt mean it is legal. A more "moral" society is required...that doesnt mean school mams etc it means a society that is willing to engage in those discussions and express those opinions openly, without it being legislated or legal.

Troglodyte can say write what he wants, and face the consequences, the NDP is within its rights to either prevent association or disassociate itself based on its own values and the costs or benefits of those actions...IMHO

Always better to be your own brand, no ties...I think our hostess is a good example of that.

This is all a bit much, Kate and Kathy.

Kate, what about Robert's point? He's got the wrong blogger, but never mind--you threatened to sue the CBC for a post on the Roundtable series. Come on, people, your memories aren't that short. To get righteously indignant now about freedom of expression is ludicrous, not to mention a tad hypocritical.

[That being said, let no one claim that Cherniak and Kinsella didn't use the incident in question to settle old scores and beat the Liberal drum. No argument there.]

Anti-semitism has become second nature on the left,

Which is why, I suppose, that we piled on to McClelland like a pack of snarling dogs when he came out with the infamous "Comment #37."

When will they demand that McClelland be shipped off to Germany...?

*
UPDATE: 6 Mar 2007 - FREE MCCLELLAND so he can find the real anti-semites.

"You've gotta be pretty desperate to bring out the O.J. defence..."

*

'Freedom of association'? Oh? How about all those politicians on the left, who begin their statements with 'All Canadians want' or 'All Canadians don't want'... That gets me more than a tad upset. They are claiming something about me that is untrue; they are associating me with a perspective which I reject. They don't even bother asking Canadians. That's a form of intellectual coercion, this claim to speak for others.

That's a key problem of Dion and Layton - over and over, I hear them tell me what opinions I have or should have...

Speaking of Dion - he's now claiming that his party will 'take the high road' - claiming that Harper is 'taking the low road' ( with the so-called 'attack ads'?). Boy, Dion sure has a short memory; the day he was elected leader, he immediately started his juvenile name-calling of Harper (Harper is far-right, Harper is a control-freak; Harper is....). Some high road.

And he's now claiming that all and I mean all of Harper's ideas originate in the Liberal Party. A few weeks ago, Dion et al were claiming that all Harper's ideas came from Bush. If we follow this linearity, Dion is now linking the Liberals to Bush! After all, if they claim that Harper's ideas come from the Liberals and also from Bush - then, ergo, the Liberals and Bush are equivalent. Ahh, there's nothing like political logic.

Just so, Stephen. In addition to the words censure and shame, I'd like to add two more: ostracization and banishment. These are all the prerogative of free associations. The state need not be involved, and when they're not, it's not about the classic liberal notion of freedom of speech. One gets to say what one wants. Then I and/or my club get to say goodbye, or not. And then I get to vote, just like everybody else.

Actually, no Dawg - I didn't "threaten to sue".

And if you were as virulently anti-anti-Semitic as you claim, you'd have been piling on in equal measure against a significant number of "progressive" bloggers who expressed much the same sentiments during Israel's campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Give McClelland credit where it's due. He at least says what he means without resorting to the weasel words.

Actually Dawg, you're a bit much, as usual. Oh sure, one little blast from a bunch of progressives TOTALLY cancels out decades of anti-semitism on the Left.

I agree, ET, the way I would postulate it is that those who would claim to speak for all Canadians or any other largely non-volitional taxonomization are in violation of the principle of freedom of association.

Also, I do agree that it is rather majestically disingenuous for Mr. Dion to be claiming that (1) Mr. Harper is stealing the Liberal's position, while simultaneously claiming that (2) Mr. Harper is all wrong. However, I'm leery of straying too far off the topic to go into it further here.

Lastly, I'd like to note that I realize I've made a lot of comments in this thread, and that in so doing I'm skating close to the margin of Kate's admonition to "take your extended debates to private email", so this would probably already be a good time for me to shut up. Thanks for listening to my opinions, folks, and thanks, as always, Kate, for your most wonderful Small Dead Animals.

Speaking of free speech... are there limits in a blog? Some conservatives say "no" here but say "yes" over here:

http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2007/03/07/vagina-now-suspend-me

Put me in the "marketplace of ideas" camp. The web does not need to be regulated, but Cherniak calling for a denunciation is not censoring. That's a great thing about dialog on the web: no one can shut you down except you.

Ted

Funny, K & K: No examples, just assertion.

But seriously, I do know how the game is played. If you're opposed to Israel killing 1800 Lebanese civilians because a couple of soldiers were captured after the IDF captured two militants deep inside Gaza--you're an anti-Semite.

If you note that Israel used cluster munitions throughout the war--you're an anti-Semite. (Just stick to condemning the two home-mades from Hezbollah that fell on Haifa.)

If you point out that fleeing civilian vehicles, and Red Cross vehicles, were strafed by the IDF--you're an anti-Semite.

If you criticze Israel as you would criticize any other nation-state in the world--you're an anti-Semite.

Meanwhile, you people are coming out with this crap, and a h/t to Robert McClelland for exposing this on the very thread that led to his undoing:

Now more than ever, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” These are the terms of warfare today, as organized world Jewry, through ADL and also the Democratic party, is in a final offensive to end free speech and, with it, all opposition to its worldwide control. It is throwing all its weapons against traditional Christian civilization: filthy movies and TV, promotion of homosexuality and pornography, attack on the symbols, values, and beliefs of Christianity, encouragement of unrestrained immigration, and, not least, exhaustion of America in Mideast wars that benefit only Israel. More boldly than ever, Jewish activists introduce incredibly perverse and restrictive legislative attacks on freedom. Their goal is world control - soon.

Here's more on that ally of yours:

http://www.truthtellers.org/tedpikebiography.html

The fierce denunciations of anti-Semitism from you people will no doubt be coming soon. In the meantime:

*crickets*

God, I despise hypocrisy.

And good ol' McLelland, trying to prove a point perhaps about free speech himself and that he won't be policed, pipes in on the same said monologs in his usual "style": http://myblahg.com/?p=1950

Damn, you got me so pissed that I forgot the link:

http://www.outlawjournalism.com/news/?p=4253

Good one Dawg, but you need to select better evidence of Israel's perfidity otherwise some might misunderstand you and conclude that you are perhaps overly rigorous in your objective critiques. As an example, "... Israel killing 1800 Lebanese civilians because a couple of soldiers were captured after the IDF captured two militants deep inside Gaza ..." is a tad finely drawn.

Cheers

Gosh. What did I say that was inaccurate? Two IDF soldiers were "kidnapped" (captured); a bloody war ensued; 1800 Lebanese civilians died, a huge percentage of the population was made homeless, Lebanese infrastucture was reduced to rubble--and Harper called all this a "measured response."

Did I miss something?

"stephen - the problem with Jason's actions was not that he had an opinion that McClelland should be 'run out of town'. It was that rather than, on McClelland's blog and/or on his own - arguing against what was going on at McClelland's blog, Jason went to an official system, the NDP party, asking them to 'sanction' McClelland. That's censorship of free speech."

I disagree. McClelland and the BD's have no official association with the NDP and, as such, the NDP holds no power over either McClelland or the BD's... There was no censorship involved unless you count the progbloggers pulling his links and banning him from posting but that's not censorship either. They chose to not associate with him. They didn't tell him that he couldn't speak, just that he couldn't do it on their site.

If I remember correctly, Robert has been extremely quick to extend that same courtesy to commenters (who's opinions he doesn't like) on his own blog...

Hey, Dawg - you have a point, but the "hypocrites and brood of vipers" condemnation of a certain group of Jews was done by a better man than you a couple thousand years ago.

McClelland's "sin" was in failing to differentiate, and you fail yourself to make this clear. Yes, there are people (not necessarily Jews) for whom the slightest criticism of anything related to Jewry causes apoplectic cries of anti-Semitism. Such people are indeed snakes. But not all claims of anti-Semitism are false. The most insidious, of which you are guilty, is holding Israel to a higher standard (like the US is held to a higher standard).

As for this Pike fellow, nuts come in all flavours.

Did I miss something?

Yes, Dawg, you did - the other straws on the camel's back.

No, my failing is that I hold Israel to the same standard. Not to link-farm, but these are my arguments:

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2006/08/case-for-israel.html

I might only add that it is fair to hold nations to the standards that they themselves claim to uphold.

So, Dawg can't understand why the camel (Israel) would get its back broken over one little straw (2 kidnapped soldiers), eh?

No, no hint of anti-semitism at all. /sarc

I wonder where those poor Israeli soldiers are tonight.

I think Dawg is involved in extreme reductionism. Two soldiers kidnapped

The complex reality includes the Iranian arming of Hezbollah and Hamas; the constant barrage of missiles from sites in Lebanon and Gaza using these Iranian arms. The fact that Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately operate within civilian sites, preventing the civilians from leaving, using them as cover for their military actions. The fact that Hezbollah effectively rules that part of Lebanon, with the Lebanese gov't unable to control it. It's this infrastructure that Israel was involved in - and Dawg's focus only on the superstructure of numbers 2

However, I think it has to be said again and again, that criticism of Israel as a political state (and I strongly critique Israel frequently) has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with anti-semitism.

And, it is quite incorrect to merge the two (criticism of Israel and anti-semitism) - this merging is done, not simply by those outside of Israel, but by Israel and Jewish people as well.

Yeah, well Dawg, if I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say that criticizing Israel is not anti-semitic, I'd be...rolling nickels. Something that's less commonly heard, despite being far, far more true, is that every anti-semite criticizes Israel.

Which really does explain the extent of things. To determine who among Israel's critics is anti-semitic, and who's not, you don't have to look at the prurient detailing of instances, all you have to do is look at whether criticisms of human rights abuses are applied equally, across the globe, to that category of action. Critics of Israel, for some reason, are single-minded, like a pig on a truffle.

Obsessive focus on one offense, to the exclusion of all others, is surely a sign of something. Denying the visible-ness of such an approach doesn't work for the deniers. I mean, Saudi Arabia forbids a race of people -- Jews -- to even step foot on their land. Have you ever written a single sentence of outraged condemnation over that outrageous apartheid, Dawg? Could you provide a link, perhaps?

Palestinian preschoolers are taught that Jews are apes and pigs who must be killed; has this most egregious racism, which outstrips that of white Alabaman's in the 50's by a factor of ten, been a real issue for you, Dawg?

An educational docudrama widely shown across the ME on Memri TV during Ramada shows a hook-nose Jew slitting a child's throat and draining his blood into a shallow pan to make matzo; there are many such examples. Alert us to your previously posted outraged expressions against such continued, brutalizing, inciteful propaganda, Dawg.

Forget the ME, how about the Islamists in Thailand who murder and maim and bomb Thai civilizians -- you know, hyper-inflated lungs, deafness, skin torn off of heads by the pressure waves, that kind of stuff. Women and children. Have you ever repeated posted OT outrage about that on blogs? Did I miss that thread?

Realistically, there's only one thing these various groups of people have in common that they might escape the round, obsessive focus you place on Israel: They're not Jews.

I can't think of anything else. If there's some other explanation, if there's some particular reason why the actions of Jews have such a special, prurient, reiterative place in your pantheon of crimes against humanity, fill us in.

You can criticize Israel without being anti-semitic.

Boy, that's something that really needs to be said. A lot, apparently. And then, once it's been said, it needs to be said again and again. Wonder why it doesn't stick? Is it because of the Jews?

As I understand it, under the Geneva Convention, when a military force uses civilians as cover, in any fashion, civilian casualties are to be counted as though they were killed (in this case) by Hezbollah.

Was just digging through the Geneva Convention to try to find a reference - couldn't find one exactly. Anybody know if I'm right on this one?

Shane O,

Think your wrong. I don't think the Geneva Conventions were set up to keep score. Besides terrorists are not a "military force".

EBD raises, on the surface, a very interesting point, although on closer examination it has no substance. Why don't I spend an equal amount of time, he asks, condemning Iran, say, for hanging gay teenagers, or Taliban militants for killing schoolgirls, or Saudi religious police throwing kids back into a burning school for not wearing headscarves, or....

Well, I'll make EBD, and the others here who throw around that "anti-Semite" label a little too freely, this solemn promise:

I shall condemn any and all of these outrages with equal heat just as soon as people in the media, government and the blogosphere start defending them. As they do for every excess, every outrage, every brutal act of the Israeli state.

Deal?

dawg - it's you who defines all actions of Israel as 'excess, outrage, brutal act'.
Again, you are engaged in reductionism. You ignore the context.

I, for example, completely condemn the Israeli occupation, the illegal settlements, the Israeli refusal to recognize a Palestinian state, the insistence of many Israelis and Jews that there is not such thing as Palestine, assertsions that the land was empty in 1948, that Palestinians are 'really Jordanians' and should go back there (Jordan refuses). By now, after a generation of experiencing an untenable situation (the occupation and settlements) - both sides are trapped within hatred. I condemn the anti-arabism in Israel, and the hostile and often militant actions of settlers to Palestinians is well documented.

I think that Israel didn't want a Palestinian state, erroneously thinking that the Palestinians would be 'absorbed' by Jordan etc; Israel wanted the full land base.

And there is a very important issue that we are ignoring. I think that the other Arab states also don't want a Palestinian state, for it would be a democracy and one thing that these tribal Arab states don't want - is an arab democracy in their midst.

Then, on top of this situation, the recent years have added a second level of Islamic fascism, where the Islamic fascists have used the Palestinian fight against the occupation as a means to advance their fascist control in the area. That's a different agenda than the two-state agenda, and Iran is heavily involved in this fascist agenda, because it wants to control the ME.

So, the issue is far more complex than your simplistic reductionism.

The Iranian and Saudi internal actions are readily condemned because they are simple - a medieval tribal mindset versus a modern mindset.

But the Israeli-Palestinian situation is complex. I think this complexity needs to be articulated and examined. Automatic anti-or pro-semitism doesn't do that job.

Great debate, folks.

I certainly support Robbys' freedom to vent. In fact, we should consider such rants as a valuable education.
Years ago, I worked HVAC and maintenance at a federal high-security mental "hospital". Being exposed on a daily basis to everything from serial killers, baby-diddlers, down to temper-control cases was nauseating. After awhile, though, I realised I was getting a priceless education most people living in civil society never get.
We may not like the venemous snakes in the zoo's reptile cage...but they are, nonetheless, educational! In the same way, creatures like Robby Mc. should be viewed; but not interacted with...

;)

ET:

I was asked why I am more openly critical of Israel than those other countries I mentioned (and I could have mentioned still more). It is, as I said, precisely because of the defence, the free ride if you like, that Israel so often gets. All of those things that you condemn about the Israeli state are strongly supported in numerous other quarters, as you well know. But no one credible supports stonings, beheadings, hangings of gays, etc., so there is hardly a need to join the nearly universal chorus of condemnation.

That was my point, in response to the charge that I have a double standard with respect to Israel, which I assuredly do not. To then accuse me of "reductionism" because I didn't open up the discussion to the entire ME situation, is a bit disingenuous.

If you want to discuss that ME situation, in all of its undoubted complexity, that's another thread. Let me note at this point that I am pleased that the "Abdullah proposal" appears to be getting a fresh look.

No, dawg, I'll maintain my critique of your comments as reductionist.

You are the one who set up the data comparison of 2 soldiers vs 1,800 civilians, without a word about the reality of this situation and the Hamas/Hezbollah missiles and their use of civilians as cover. You set up the 'reduced to rubble' without a word about the Iranian arming of Hezbollah and Hamas. So, I'll stand by my comment.

Whatever.

So you don't condemn non-Israeli offenses because the media and the government doesn't defend those offenses? Your vaunted moral outrage over Israeli actions isn't determined by your own moral barometer, but by the media?

So...if you ever see the media defending Palestinian tactics and their murderous attitude and language against the Jews, you'll start condemning the Palestinians?

I don't think so. Substantial elements of the media already do defend, tacitly or otherwise, the Palestinian cause -- ever read the Star, or watch CBC (Nalah Ayad, say) or BBC?

I have just enough respect for you to not take your stated reason for your singling out of Israel seriously.

"Whatever."
Well thought out response.

...Mommy's almost home!!!

Yeaaaaaaa

;-)

EBD:

I and other observers haven't "singled out Israel." It's others who do that, by placing that nation on some kind of moral pedestal, by excusing what would never be excused if any other country acted like that.

When people like myself react, we're the ones accused of focusing, for no doubt malign motives, on one country. My point, perhaps poorly made, was that we are reacting to the special status accorded to Israel by politicians, the media and not a few commentators in the blogosphere, not creating a special status of our own.

So...if you ever see the media defending Palestinian tactics and their murderous attitude and language against the Jews, you'll start condemning the Palestinians?

I haven't seen anything in the Star defending suicide bombings of pizzerias recently. Perhaps you could supply me with a reference. In the meantime, I shall keep reacting to the "Israel's measured response" kind of hype, and be accused of "singling Israel out." Tant pis.