I agree that some actions will create fear, horror, and loathing in the observer. WK indicates and describes a few examples.

I also agree that, because of the above, we as Canadians get to place limits on our citizen's freedom of expression.

The question is how and to what degree. EL did not cross that limit. Person's who spraypaint "Death to Jews" on a school for children to find do violate that limit.

Where is the limit? How do we determine it?

Closed secret trials by faceless unaccountable women in suits is not a reasonable way in our free and open society.

Let's get it out there and discuss it, and subject it to rules of evidence, and the right to face accusers, and all those things that make common law acceptable to us citizens.

Warren starts off talking about "Ezra Levant's valiant struggle to defend those infamous anti-Islam cartoons..."

Why the dishonesty?

This is not about defending the cartoons. This is about defending the right to publish them... as well as defending the right to have opinions.

Kinsella is one big contradiction. He says that publishing the cartoons was "hateful". How can he make that judgement? And isn't that the crux of the matter? He is making a value judgement on what is in the heart of another person. That is what the "thought" police do. Why does he not make the same value judgement on the band "tit f-ck me jesus? Because it doesn't offend him. But what if it offends someone else? I'm not sure what he is saying here and I don't think he knows himself. Is he saying that the band is not being hateful toward Christians because it does not offend "him"?

This is an impossible situation. Kinsella doesn't see that. To him its ok to put Levant through the inquisition because he, Kinsella, has made the judgement that publishing the cartoons was "hateful". The band may very well have been hateful in choose their name. Shouldn't they be put through an inquisition? Sorry Warren, you can't have it both ways. But, isn't that the way of the leftard?

Re: "hateful"

I'd add: Hate is a feeling, and feelings can't be crimes.

Or shouldn't be. Unless you're a liberal...

Reading his rants, I can only say he suffers from serious cognitive dissonance. We rail against the dishonesty and racism of the Democratic campaign in the US- he sees hatred of blacks and women. We speak of the right to express oneselfin the face of a growing fascit threat, both from the Left and from islam- he sees a'struggle' to defend the 'infamous' cartoons. We defend Mr. Levant- he sees hatred of Jews.

Psychiatric care. Go for it, wk. Your projection is getting out of hand.

Very nice rationalization. He claims proudly the title of "censor", and I quite agree - censorship is a necessary thing. Unfortunately, that act of intellectual bravery seems to have exhausted him, because the rest of his whitewash is sophistic drivel. It is the arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical spew of a deaf, blind monkey. If he could be but mute, this trinity of tolerance might not consistently demonstrate the qualities of a fool.

Otter! You genius bastard you! You've nailed it! Projection!

WARNOUT IS A CYLON!!!!!!

So Warren wrote a nice sounding piece but said absolutely nothing. On one hand he said that the cartoons were offensive to some pious muslims...but didnt say they should be banned, however it is implied.

Next he says that he, as an apparently devout catholic is not offended by a series of....well lets call them them provactive statements from "punk" bands. He acknowledges that others might be offended but that he isnt.....and the question is SOOOOOOOO? does that mean he agrees with the censorship of the cartoons in a muslim context but not in a christian context.

And his Barney explanation, which was great theatre by the way, is highly misleading. The cartoons apparently have no poliical context, false, but the Barney comment does, which is true.

So I agree with Warren's comment that the Barney comment was fair game, applying his logic that the context matters then the publishing of the cartoons by Mr Levant (of which I am no fan by the way) is also fair game since it had an express political context and purpose as did the original publication of the cartoons in Europe. The challenge was to do something expressly to exercise free speech in the face of a challenge to the existing culture. Small point, remember the Europeans are the indigenous people of Europe, so you cant paint the melting pot or mosaic hue on Europe. Another hypothetical, would the Aboriginals have been justified in starving out the Europeans and pushing them back into the sea in the 1600's and 1700's....if not why not, if yes please explain how this applies if at all to modern Europe, papers due in a week.....

Now lets go onto Warrens turf. He claims that Tit Fuck Me Jesus doesnt offend him and therefore thats ok. I can imagine he would be suitably derogatory of anyone who claimed they were offended and wanted to take action against it. I mean he would lose all punk credibility, such as it is, if he didn't heep derision on them.

So lets now assume there is a Toronto punk band called Pig Blood on Mohammed and they have a minor hit with Wiping My Ass With the Koran, oh and the album is self titled and the cover depicts Mohammed covered in Pig's Blood.....

They are a Punk Band, doing waht Punk Bands do.....they are taken to the HRC because someone is offended, as is likely the case.

Does Warren

1) Write an article in the National Post and numerous articles on his blog on the issue defending the band and saying suitably derogatory things, as only Warren can, about the complainers

2) Write an article trying to explain why this offensive and Tit Fuck Me Jesus isnt, which should be interesting to see.....oh and call for everyone to get along and explain that while he isnt offended he thinks others have the right to be oh and a paragraph about his past glory taking down Stockwell Day.

3) Does he write an article explaining how Tit Fuck me Jesus is Punk but that Pig Blood on Mohammed are just skinheads and since he has been fighting Nazi's since before you were born he is correct...all argument by assertion by the way.

4) Does he just try and ignore the issue and hope nobody asks him in a public forum about it and risk offending a constituency that might vote for Dalton McGuinty.

5) Make snide remarks on other blogs under psuedonyms from his office and contribute nothing to the discussion.

I am just asking........

Being an atheist, I feel it is just fine to make fun of any person who bows down to any fairy tale. Couple that with the desire to blow one's self up, hoping to pop 72 virgins, well, the humor writes itself.

WK is a hypocrite of the first order, and he can go f#$% himself.

I will insult any and all religions as I see fit.

hiding behind freedom of expression in order to willfully incite hatred towards muslims is what's at issue here. hypocrites.

jeffy makes an appearance!

Yet another who projects. IF you really gave a damn, jeffy, you'd be railing against the hatred your kind aims at Christians on a daily basis.

Explain how there is a willful incitment of hatred against muslims?

None of the cartoons showed crusaders slaughtering muslims or had the words kill muslimes, or hate muslims.....once agian look at the context of the publication, both in Europe and North America....as well as look at the context of the reaction, the time lapse from the time of publication, its manufacture etc.

Can this issue be used to do that for sure....but it isnt the issue, you cant always choose who agrees with you, but that doesnt change the fact that the issue is real.

There are limits to free speech but this didnt cross those lines. I am concerned when people of good conscience choose to follow proscribed political trenches rather than see the issue for what it is, government overstepping its bounds and trampling on a cherished right in the name of ensuring the house stays quiet.

Ignore Jeffie - he's a racist.

Kinsella's argument is embarrassing.

He makes the flat assertion that the Mohammed cartoons are hateful and should be censored as a result.

He then makes a second assertion that the name of the band is hateful as well. But not only does he fail to call for censorship of the band's name he instead publishes the name himself.

So Kinsella passes judgment on Levant ("guilty") and then repeats the "crime" himself. Never mind how stupid the entire argument is... how the hell does he not see the irony of committing the "sin" in the very act of denouncing it?

Everyone who understands liberal politics knows why Mr. Kinsella has chosen to take this position. A majority of Muslims in Canada support Sharia Law and represent a significant voting block for the liberal party. The liberal party and all of its apparatchiks have no alternative but to look the other way. This is the politics that has kept the liberals in power and that Mr. Kinsella knows very well.

See, Jeff agrees with other lefties:

Certain feelings should be criminal.

When all of us were in high school, reading Brave New World and 1984, how many of us EVER imagined that the totalitarian mind set depicted and warned against in these classics books would one day be championed by...

the Left?

KINSELLA, THE NATION'S SELF APPOINTED "CENSOR"

Oh Kaye, Kate, Kate...why do you torture me so..why must I read the the demented sophistry of this pathological public wanker Kinsella?

In his latest spew however, he has hit 2 sore spots with me so here goes..fair comment seeing how he has assailed the public with his apologist pablum. (even though he has a displayed pathology of trying to silence fair comment and rebuttal)

1) Freedom of expression and the Levant case> as always Kinsella talks around the issue and offers a diversionary strawman instead of a intellectually honest argument...he can't really as there is no defense for the thought crime tyranny the HRCs engage in these days....let's deconstruct some of the larger untruths this rumourmonger spins;

"I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, persuade people to kill."

>> This is pure sophistry of the highest order, people kill people, and words also have the power to defend, heal and persuade people to abandon violence just as easily...in a free and civil society it is not the government's job to arbitrate in the free exchange of ideas...words also convey truth and lies and only free open public dicourse can determine which are which under peer group scrutiny. We do not need Kinsella's dystopian ideal of having philosopher kings ban "words" from public discourse because the debate itself "offends" someone...that is an act of masochistic altruism which substitutes intellectual dishonesty for the truth.

There are NO provable damages in most HRC cases and in Ezra's case there has been NO instance of muslims being "swarmed" abused or lynched because the cartoons were printed...the only evidence we saw of these images causing that kind of violence is from the unreasonable and uncivil acts of radical muslims rioting....I do not intend to devolve the level of free, open national debate to placate it's lowest common denominator....a fringe element prone to violence.

2) Lastly, Ezra's charges do not stem from any factual occurrence of damage being done to the plaintive by the publishing of a news worthy image...the HRC tribunal inquisitor has put on trial what Ezra was "THINKING" when he decided to publish....NOT the tangible effects of a crime.

As evident in the AHRC interview, they allege it is the thought that is the crime not any physical act. We do not have though crime star chambers in this nation and we never will as long as I suck air...as much as authoritarian apologists like Kinsella may want them, I defend his right to say so and to be wrong...I also defend the right to debate the issue...and that is what Kinsella and his HRC cronies are all about...partisan censors who want to shut down debate on political issues they can't possibly defend in open public discourse.

Finally: A small diversion from Kinsella's morality exhibitionism, we see one glimmer of truth and a toxic hypocrisy...he states:

"Firstly, let me say that I am a censor."

Yes Warren you are.....and "reasonable" to a zealot like you is not reasonable to a rational person....we all make these censoring and discriminatory decisions all the time... I decide who I will and won't associate with or what I read or hear...NOT YOU...and I certainly will not have you using the coercive force of the government to pass moral dictums on what you "feel" somebody may be thinking!!....so how moral is that? Just how moral is it ruining lives and obliterating ancient freedoms as a sanctimonious quidnunc?

Perhaps the Salem witch hunters could have used a lawyer to convict on hearsay and superstition of thoughts...Kinsella was their boy.

The rest of his spew is litted with similarly dishonest justifications such as how his duality is moral but Ezra's isn't and on and on...

As I say If it weren't for Kate forcing me to read Kinsella's anti-intellectual sophistry I might never expose myself to such toxins. ;-)

His convoluted reasoning, hanging out there for all to see, is the result of the feelings of invincible moral superiority that many if not most liberals share. Free speech is fine for the high-minded, but not for those of us who are the great unwashed.

An unwise liberal-type lawyer whose thoughts run in the same vein would clearly enjoy seeing Levant disbarred for daring to speak up to the HRC.

why would anybody care what w.k. has to say? you just feed him when you post his drivel!

Stephen at January 15, 2008 8:59 AM

This is an amazing post. I hope WK reads it and comes back with his usual tripe.

I enjoy reading WK during election campaigns as I find he usually is bang on, finger on the pulse. Outside of that, purely delusional.

I like that comment I saw the other day on ThePolitic blog that mocked his band by calling it Poop from Purgatory.

Too funny!

I have only one response to those who argue that "words have the power to wound and kill".

Harry Potter was not a documentary.

Hey! Poop From Purgatory is a great name!

Thanks, fellas!

"I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, persuade people to kill."WK

Obviously Kinsella misses Ezra's strongest point.
The HRC and likewise WK will try to blame the cartoons for Islams violence.
Islam's reign of terror began long before the printing press, and spread in spite of the press.
Ezra's battle is not with Islam at this point...it is with the 'thought police' at the HRC.
Too deep for WK
Are we supposed to be impressed because he calls himself Catholic and is so 'open minded' that he is not offended by the repulsive name of a punk band?
royalist...WK needs to be exposed for the shallow media manipulater that he is.
This is the least we can do.

Let us see,
The guy states ….A couple of conservative bloggers - who claim they favor free speech .... it would appear that those who favor free speech are only those noted above. This character is really some sort of socialist moron, this is not an insult, it is an observation.
Apparently the free speech is conditional, as per your ideology.
The thing with free speech is that it will insult someone somewhere, every time it is applied. Perhaps Kinsella should be taken to the ‘star chamber’ of his own creation to answer his hatred toward those that value free speech as much as Islamists value their religion. Don’t bloody go on about free speech being a religion.
The would be illustration about the girls hockey team is nonsense, the girls play hockey. Who they are where they are from, what religion they do matters not, they play hockey. Seems, only one preoccupied with choosing who and what is racist will cook a soup like that.

Since the guy is a censor by his own admission, he can be dismissed as a useful idiot in his socialist cause.

….. words and images have power …. This is commonly known as communication, apparently it escapes the author. It will hurt someone who wants to be hurt, someone may even designate him/her self as a victim, as silly as it may sound, some like victimhood more than life itself. Victim, also is a powerful word, that can be effectively used in many and variety of instances to take those that you are uncomfortable with, to HRC and get some cash out of it.

I believe…… whatever, others not so much as believe different, they know different.

The bands name does not offend him. It for example offends me. Though there is nothing that I will do about it other than call it stupid, ignorant, hateful …….

A suggestion would be the Islamists do likewise.

Don't blame Kate for posting this -- it was me :-)

Since Kinsella has a National Post column, presumably some people care about what he has to say.

I've told him myself: I quite enjoy it when he writes about his family; it can be quite touching and inspired.

But stuff like this is so...

It is clearly ridiculous to suggest showing the Mohammed cartoons incites hatred against Muslims. Nobody would hate Muslims by looking at cartoons. It certainly offends them, but that's not the same thing as incitement to hate.

What does incite hatred of Muslims is when they try to limit our cherished freedoms.

What seems to be missing in all this is that LEVANT DIDNT DRAW THE CARTOON'S.They were DANISH cartoons that he reprinted in his newspaper.They were printed in a country with freedom of the press and freedom of expression.They were reprinted in a country where he THOUGHT that there was freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

I'll admit I didn't read the whole screed. I stopped when he talked about the children playing hockey. It's all about the children playing hockey.

If we all play nice, say nice things, keep the idiots over there on the right quiet, it will be ok, oh, except for a plane full of women and kids killed from time to time when things get hot back home.

I will go to the barricades with Muslims if they are prevented in some way by the state from practicing their religion. I will protest and scream when the social engineers of the state try to re-engineer their families. I don't want the state telling me how to worship or run my household.

But I will also go the barricades to support those who want to break sharia law and criticize islam or the prophet, or apostasize by joining another faith. My faith is ridiculed all the time. My uncle was pursued by mobs incited by the local priest in Jonquiere Quebec the year of my birth. They didn't like what he said. On the streets. In Canada.

Kinsella lives in an imaginary world that really doesn't exist. He wants to extend his imaginary world, no not extend, force others to live his imaginary world. Not criminal process of course, that would be mean. Cops with guns and things. Doesn't look right. Administrative process. Human Rights Commissions, without lawyers, nice people trying to force people to get along. Somewhat like denying liquor licenses to people who don't say the right things. Hmm. Look it up. It is illegal. In Canada.

Derek

Let me get this straight. The cartoons, which are rather benign, are offensive to him but a punk band in Toronto with a truly blasphemous name(and intent)are not offensive. How sad this creep has four kids that he propagates with his psuedo-intellectual drivel. Would sombody be willing to take this Toronto hate/punk band to a Human Rights Tribunal...my feelings are hurt...seriously!

It may be a challenge, given his obnoxious rants, but Kinsella really isn't worth a pittance of our time.
Who is he really, beyond a condescending Liberal hack and self-appointed and sometimes designated shit disturber?

Kinsella should lose whatever pathetic job he has, he should be fined for spreading hate against Christians and any mention of Christians by him should be worth 5 years in the slammer.

Oh wait thats different theres different laws for Christians and socialists to promote ,... equality!

arg,

I just hope, that when the house of cards come crashing down, we will still be free enough to point out to Mr. Kinsella that he was on the wrong side from the beginning. I doubt by that point that even that much freedom will exist.

Great post Derek.

Can you explain the liquor license part? I don't follow you?

The problem for progressives seems to be that they can't separate the issue (free speech and free press) from the players (Ezra and the Muslim community). That is the reason for the contortionist style reasoning.

They are so anxious to attack their conservative rivals that they will allow Canadians basic rights to be trampled. For example, if they truly believed in free speech and free press then they would support the offensive speech of even those they do not agree with. Conversely, if they truly believed that religion is to be held above all criticism and debate then it would have to apply to all religions including Jewish and Christians.

Instead they try to rationalize it by adding all kinds of qualifiers and exemptions. I guess it's easier than being honest.

Punk Rock is to music what wiping your ass with the Koran is to Islam.

It is the alleged music of angry children who will not grow up and learn to play real music. That would require talent and commitment.

Anyone with a thumb and a couple of fingers can be in a punk band.

Child-Kinsella goes to 'band practice'. Is that where you practice your belligerent attitudes? because you certainly don't need to practice playing that idiotic childish noise. Just get amps that go to eleven and stuff a cucumber in your pants.

"Tit fuck me Jesus" offends me and I am atheist. Child-Kinsella you are the tit who needs to be f**ked.

Everything about Warren Kinsella is passe.

The brave new world is here and it's conservative.

Reality always is.

Isn't Warren really just saying; a band named "T_T F__K me Jesus" is okay, but a band called "T_T F__K me Mohammed" is not?
It sure reads like that to me.

It took a moment to sink in, but I finally understand what WK is getting at ... he's brilliant really ... an intellectual giant among us.

If uttering TRUTH offends a religion ... then uttering truth is wrong and must be quashed by the state.

Warren must be stinging from the lastest polls that show despite the constant blather from CBCpravda the libs especially Borat Dion arent cutting it.

being excluded from the halls of power will have Kinsella in a Kiniption.

Christians put up with all sorts of stupid stuff such as the “Piss Christ”, Christ depicted with an erect penis, etc. yet most Christians don’t go around blowing stuff up because they are angered at the disrespect shown to whom they consider to be the Son of God.

Similarly, Jews put up with all sorts of nonsense espoused by skin head neo nazis. We don't see Jews getting into pitched street battles with skinheads even though they are rightly offended.

Some rioting Muslims should get a thicker skin. Ezra Levant was correct in publishing the cartoons.

I believe the old saying: “Stick and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” are instructive in this regard.

Moreover, the whole controversy is so stupid as the so called Mohammed depicted is wearing what appears to be a Sikh turban!?! The cartoonist is clearly lampooning those who take their faith to violent extremes by denoting a stick of TNT in the turban.

For those who seriously consider their faith a ‘religion of peace’ the depiction unmistakably takes aim at the extremists who would use their faith as justification for clearly violent political aims.

I would think only the “hotheads”, who are already unstable, would be provoked.

The more mature people of an ostensible ‘religion of peace’ would shrug this off as the stupidity of the ignorant.

In this regard the HRC is completely off base. One does not promote a dialogue by shutting down dialogue.

Either the HRC values freedom of speech or it does not.

Free speech is exactly that, speech that costs nothing.

Next we will be banning social commentary songs like the one by Bruce Coburn which contained the lyrics “I wish I had a rocket launcher”.

Should the HRC launch an action against Bruce Coburn for incitement to violence. Now everyone is going down to the corner store to buy rocket propelled grendades (RPGs)?

The only good thing about these fundamentalists whack jobs and the idiot kinsella is that these nut jobs like to shit in their own back yard,meaning toronto will see the results of allowing these mongers to practice their screwed up sharia law first.One would hope that kinsella is within blast range.

William Hughes:

Spray painting "Death to the Jews" on a school IS NOT FREE SPEECH IT IS VANDALISM!

Sheesh!

A lot of thought going on here about WK. Just another thought to add to the list. WK's blog has unearthed a great truth here, this "wannabe punk rocker" was once a mentor and advisor, (perhaps still is) to the Liberal party of Canada and we wonder why this country is in the state of decay that we find today. If WK and JCher. et al keep writing their blogs perhaps, just maybe, the 'useful idiots' that they have been leading for the last couple of decades will finally wake up and see that the "Emporer has no clothes". Then we will see a country with a two party system, with the LIBS and DIPPERS in one corner where they belong, and we can hope that the CPC can keep them there for a long time.

Looks like the readers of the Post dont much agree with Warrens righteous stance either. He gets taken down a notch or two rather nicely

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/14/warren-kinsella-and-people-wonder-why-i-don-t-have-comments-on-my-own-blog.aspx

Warren's rants are simply a child-like striking-out because it is slowly sinking in that the decades, centuries even, power of the media thing is being torpedoed by the new media.

Hey guys, I will be bringing a doll to the set tomorrow -- that will define the campaing coverage. AG, senate appointments to come. So run with it.

Hey guys, I will announce the kick off to the campaign tomorrow --- they want faith based schools, we don't. So run with it.

Don't worry, Rueters and AP will drive the line(lie) so it will appear as common place values in all media.

Vandalism vs Hate

Slogans on a wall are vandalism.

However, if the spray painter puts up a slogan that says "Barney Loves You", or perhaps some incomprehensible balloon text symbol, it arouses a feeling of resignation, or disgust, or perhaps head shaking as they reach for the paint to wipe it away. I cleaned some wierd mark off my garage door this summer and felt nothing but disgust and resentment about some people's kids.

Spray painting that specific phrase states that there are people out there who want you dead. That your children aren't safe, even in a school. It is a threat. That inspires fear for your safety. They were right here and they might come back, perhaps when the kids are there. I have never felt that way and never want to.

It is right that the law is more severe for the second offence than for the first. Free speech is not un-limited.

William

The "wise" lawyer and Kensalla and their partisans made hate crimes as "a legal remedy against egregiously discriminatory provocation and insult"

Of course, as a liberal creation, they get to define what constitutes a hate crime. And, surprise, surprise, it's what their ideological enemies, those who are opposed to hate crimes, say.

Somehow, only right wingers and libertarians can do hate crime.

As a lawyer, I can only wonder that "ol' wise-arse" lawyer http://wiselaw.blogspot.com/2008/01/ezras-law-levant-file.html does not find the process abhorent. Instead, he weighs in wuith personal invective towards Ezra.

BTW I enjoyed the ambivelance surrounding Chief Hackenaw's (sp?) amongst the liberals; after all, as an aboriginal, he's one of our guys. So now, he's getting off, eventually, by saying the hateful thing he said was said in order to promote hate.

Did anyone, anywhere, after looking at the cartoons commit acts of hate or did most people just have a good chuckle over the humour ?

The only people who got wound up and exhibited hate were muslims around the world because they felt insulted . . well too frik'n bad. If ya can't take joke it doesn't mean you get to kill people. Not in this country.

The cartoons certainly did not get people to hate muslims, we were all too busy laughing to get angrty.

It was the muslims who got the hatred thing going on. They should be the ones in front of the AHRC Star Chambers.

wrt Warnout Kinsella et al .. he's just a typical pea brained Liberal who believes he has a justifiable way to prove to a minority that they are being treated equally and fairly, which in Liberal PC speak means being granted special status and needing protection from the majority.

The plan is to suck up to them and get their votes.

Quite cynical actually.

Warren Kinsella is calling for the institution of Sharia Law?

Kinsella is tacitly agreeing that because under Sharia Law the "insult of the prophet" is punishable by death so he wouldn't publish the cartoon, but insulting Jesus carries no such penalty so that means it is okay?

The pope imposes excommunication for those Catholics that severely break the rules - he doesn't impose the death penalty (although I suppose it is the moral (not physical) equivalent).

I guess until the Catholics, Jews or whomever else get really serious and impose the death penalty for offences their religion doesn't really need to be respected.

How are people to know then what might offend others, if some are offended, and others are not. This guy is a Christian and isn't offended by the band's name, but another Christian may be offended, and what, this Christian should be able to take it to a HRC to complain? How come Christians never even bother? Maybe because Christians believe God is alive and can take care of himself, and others for that matter in any which way he pleases. I guess Mohammed is dead and can't protect his reputation, so somebody else has to? Don't Muslims believe Allah will take care of things for them, or is it because Allah doesn't take care of things for anybody, that they are concerned about? I don't know, but does Allah answer prayers?

My question is how did Muslims recognize Mohammed in those cartoons? I personally would never have known.

How can you charge someone with inciting hatred, when there is no act to follow? Muslims fear death as the consequence from other Muslims, but they are not going to get that from westerners, so they had to downgrade to hurt feelings.....wah! Sissies, the whole lot of them.

What you are talking about is not free speech. It is already a criminal action.The operative word being action. I think Ezra's HRC videos explains some of the other limitation of free speech. Ones that are libelous, direct other to commit murder or violence, infringes on copywrite etc.

What Ezra is on "trial" for is words and opinions that have historically never been illegal. He republished some poorly done cartoons that offended a religion. He is being censored over hurt feelings not actions.

There is a huge difference. The HRC is a unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy that is taking away rights by reinterpreting our free speech laws. Complete with closed door hearings and a punitive financial liability to the accused but free to the complainant. It is a horrible system that is easily abused and used to promote a progressive agenda through the backdoor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/13/nalien113.xml

Here is a good article in a newspaper in the UK about a British man who goes back to the neighbourhood he grew up in and what it has now become. A very good read.

Whatever hatred there exists against muslims has been caused by their own actions - destructive acts of terrorism around the world, that we all see in the news on a regular basis. What significant additional hatred could these cartoons possibly inspire?

Wha. .? WK? Eyes roll. = TG

I see that Warren does'nt allow comments to be posted to his site. I can begin to understand why. Who would want to be told by that many people just how full of sh_t he is. Kind of brings a guy's spirit down, ya know.

Warren

Poop from Purgatory is appropriate. You have become redundant squared and no amount of self promotion will change that fact.

Your specious arguments only serve to further expose your lack of intellectual and motivational depth.

BTW...did you know one can drown in as little as six inches of water.

Your apparant stupidity would sugest that both tubs and toilets are areas where you should not go unsupervised.

Sincerely

Syncro

p.s. I would have posted this at your site but it seems the overwhelming number of "Canadians"(tm) prefer to absorb your bullshit without comment. Sez you.

randall: If it were only acts of terrorism. The fact is that Muslim doctrine, that is it's written text, is barbaric. Islam, when practiced devoutely, is everything that liberal democracy is not. That is why WK is so wrong ... he has no grasp of what he speaks.

I oppose Islam because of its doctrine just the same as I oppose fascism, communism, totalitarianism, etc.

WK's arguement comes down to saying that you can't lampoon or mock fascism because it offends Germans.

The man is a political animal, but a philosophical midget.

the hateful thing he said was NOT said in order to promote hate.

Free speech is not un-limited.

But, who acts as arbiter, my friend? You, me, the state? That's the point.

Yelling fire as a prank in a crowded theater isn't free speech. Burning Mohammed in effigy or, as offensive as to me as it is, the US flag is free speech. I have no right that says I'm not allowed to be offended.

I believe that there are times circumstances where a pointed and purposeful hatred is entirely appropriate!

Kinsella's a lightweight.

He's demonstrated he knows little about the new media - which was supposed to be his gig at the post.

Notice too the change in the Post, and the fact they actually have an unemotive professional (Karen Selick) writing much column space on legal topics.

And the frequency of column inches Kinsella has.

This turd don't float.

I'd venture a guess he's 6 months away from back to begging government for more business to his business.

And in the meantime, will get more provacative for the sake of exposure and readership. To paraphrase: 'I don't care what's written about me, as long as it's written"

People should ignore this gerbil, and focus on writers who are at the very least, sincere. Not a failed 'new media' commentator.

You're getting strung along...

To paraphrase: 'I don't care what's written about me, as long as it's written"

To parapharase: There's no such thing as bad written.

We did not elect *Censor WK & Liebranos*, remember?

The last thing Canadians need is WK/liebrano censorship keeping us in the dark.

What you do not know can surprise you and slit your throat.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_fatah/20060210.html

Cocky, daring, Levant brought us the STORY, not simply the cartoons.

It would be nice if the AHRC would stick to human rights abuse and not PC appeasement.= TG

Heh.

It must be quite a mind-blower for Kinsella to read a blog where the average blogger is 100% smarter than the entire power group of the present Crooked Liberal Punk Party du Canada.

"Although most people have heard of the growing Christian Rock industry, less is known about emerging Christian Punk Rock. A direct counter to the anti-Christian attitudes of modern Punk Rock, Warren's counter band, Poo Poo from Heck, promote a positive message of individual responsibility and cleaning up after yourself."

"Less is known about the just formed band, Mammary Love Me Saviour."

Joanne at 12:45, Kinsella may have been born into a Catholic family, but I don't think he claims to be Christian by belief or persuasion. Certainly, anyone who is persuaded of the Lordship of Jesus Christ would find the very vulgar name of his favorite rock band to be extremely offensive. That he doesn't is telling.

And Kate, I have to agree with WL Mac Redux, who do yoou tortue us by linking to his site? If you link, I'll invariably read it, but he doesn't derserve the attention and it only encourages him.

Rick, actually he does claim to be so. From his page, and I quote:

"I'm a church-going Catholic, and that band's name doesn't offend me in the slightest. Nor the stuff found on the covers of Black Flag records, nor the songs by my beloved Bad Religion."

I can provide the link if necessary, but I would rather not give him traffic.

I think that makes it even more disturbing.

Myself, as a church-going Catholic, the band's name offends me. As well it should.

A little late to the party but I think it is needful to realize that the cartoons in question were not offensive to Muslims until Denmark embarrassed some potentate from the Middle East. Just like it was ok to name a teddy bear Mohammed until Britain embarrassed some potentate in Africa. Since that time Muslims in the free west have exploited the "outrage" to their political advantage but we as free thinking people need to be aware that the only outrage Muslims feel is when their way in this world is thwarted. That we should even consider losing our freedoms because some petty tyrant somewhere in the world can get his people to riot is down right idiotic.

"Reading his rants, I can only say he suffers from serious cognitive dissonance...Psychiatric care. Go for it, wk."
Posted by: otter at January 15, 2008 8:54 AM

Actually, Otter, I think he suffers from a particularly virulent strain of Tourette's syndrome. There is some virtue to linking, only occasionally mind you, to his site, just to display to your readers how unhinged the Canadian left has become. Other than for occasional didactic purposes, however, it would be better to keep him outside the public discourse until he has successfully completed therapy.

Just heard Adler explaining Kinsella's position while interviewing Levant. My question is if a horde of enraged Catholics threatened to violently riot every time someone offended Christ, would Kinsella support disallowing such freedom of expression? Absolutely ridiculous!

'They' say the true measure of a man's belief in freedom of speech is how far he will go to protect those rights for another man who is saying something he strongly disagrees with.

In that sense,WK seems pretty damn wishy-washy to me.

Although it disgusts me some think that putting a crucifix in a jar of piss is art,I do not want to see that freedom lost.
Although I feel like sh*t-kicking some idiots burning a flag to protest the very soldiers dying to give them the freedom to burn that flag,I know I must restrain myself.
And when someone wishes to draw cartoons of a 'symbol' of a religion to editorialize their opinion of it's inherent hypocricies,I say well done.

For it is most often those who cry oppression loudest that have the worst records for denying others' freedoms.

I think we should all be careful when referring to the "Left" here.

I would think the ones usually refered to as the 'left' --- those that put a roof over our heads (carpenters, ect) have nothing to do with WK types. More the 'latte', 'basket-weaving crowd', I would say.

Johann - I too am a practicing Roman Catholic and yes, I am offended with the band's name. At the same time, living in a free society, I respect their right to name themselves whatever they want. I hope that no one launches a human rights complaint over something so stupid but, guess what, there are people stupid enough out there to do just that.

hiding behind freedom of expression in order to willfully incite hatred towards muslims is what's at issue here. hypocrites.

Posted by: jeff davidson at January 15, 2008 9:07 AM
-----

Do you have some evidence that hatred towards Muslims was incited by the publishing of the cartoons? If disrepect towards Muslims was generated -and it probably was among those previously not familiar with the history of Islam - it was generated by the reaction of some Muslims to the publication of the cartoons.

Kinsella says Muslims are entitled to respect. He doesn't explain why. Is it because Mohamed , while taking Aisha as his bride when she was 6, didn't consummate the marriage until she was 9?

Is it the numerous accomplishments of Muslim scientists? ( if this is what he's thinking he's confusing Muslims with Jews.) Or perhaps he has in mind the stellar human rights records of Muslim nations? Or the peaceful manner in which Muslims resolve disputes.

Or maybe he thinks women should not have the same legal rights as men? Or perhaps he thinks that people who leave a religion should be subject to execution.

Warren Kinsella doesn't understand than any religion that demands respect isn't entitled to any.

Poor Warren. All that education and he thinks like he someone who just fell off a turnip truck .

Maybe he's determined not to lose his head over Islam? As if that hasn't happened to anyone recently who criticized this religion of peace.

Warren Kinsella is a poster boy for what happens when one submits (i.e. lamicizes) one's intelligence to political correctness.

Islamicizes

Rat on! Warnout Kinsella does a column for the National Post- I just cancelled my subscription........

wk .... Canadas first official Islamocrat .

"Spray painting "Death to the Jews" on a school IS NOT FREE SPEECH IT IS VANDALISM!"

Therein lies the problem...

"Spray painting "Death to Muslims" on a school IS NOT FREE SPEECH IT IS A HATE CRIME."

Liberals like Mr. Kinsella do not get the irony. It doesn't fit with their cloistered world view.

Kinsella said,

"...what Muslims seek from the rest of us is not anything we do not already seek from them... a modicum of respect for the things they hold closest to their hearts"

Hmmm.

And I thought it was the jizya. Who knew?

As usual, jeff davidson swaggers in with the dumbest of comments. Re-read Hans Rupprecht's 11:42am posting and then try to string a sentence together that doesn't make you look like a moron, jeff. See any Christians killing muslims over serrano's "piss christ"? Or, for that matter, calling for kinsella's execution over his "barney" slander against Stockwell Day?

Well, that's another New Year's Resolution down the tubes: mustn't...feed...the trolls...

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

As always, Kinsella misses the point by a mile.

This isn't about "respect" and consideration for each other. OF COURSE we should be nice to each other; that's called Polite Society. The point under debate is whether the government should be allowed to regulate our speech, and what that does to our fundamental freedoms.

You'd think a fifth grader would understand this distinction, but Kinsella doesn't get it. Therefore, I choose to exercise my freedom of speech by proclaiming him a complete and utter bonehead.

Did THOSE words hurt, Warren? Stick and stones...

It's OK to make fun of evangelical Christians because it entails no personal risk.

So much for those moral relativist attempts to equate Christian fundamentalists with Muslim ones.

If the two really were the same, no "artist" would dare come up with something like "Piss Christ" or "Tit Fuck Me Jesus" for fear of being murdered by an irate Pentacostalist.

As the young uns say; "It's all good." I guess. But this back and forth about who is the goofier goof in the never ending nah nah nah na na of free speech vs censorship is sort of a waste of time a little bit. Kinsella is interested in his own notoriety. A few commentors have pointed that out. So 80 plus comments will be very pleasing to him, I'm sure.

My other point is this: we often resort to longish words to write things that can be written in shortish words. For example: "I don't like Islam." is shortish. So is "I don't like Christianity." That's me done.

Yes, but... those 80+ comments are HERE. All the traffic is HERE.

He gets squat aside from a few paltry visits, and deservedly so.

Careful, kids, Warren's comin' after you:

http://warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080115-222529

Kinsella has a burr under his ass BIG-Time !! He sees it all falling apart, so he lashes out, while riding along with other middle-aged punks. Literally and figuratively.

So Warren, all commenters at sda have a nothing-life, eh?

Well, for most of MY life, 'I' was the one who put food on YOUR table. Literally ! Next time around you can kiss-my-ass !

This era, the Internet/blogs era, is a first. Ever since the Printing Press was invented by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440, the Media has had the advantage over the citizens.

Spin-Masters, such as Kinsella and Billary, in the pocket of Media Orgs, got away with murder. Literally and figuratively. (think Medicare)

What's Warren got against people who clean bathrooms?

What's with all the hateful writings on his blog? I think he should take advantage of some of the services that mental health professionals offer. Might help him out of most of issues, but there's no known cure for being a hippie Liberal in your fifties.

The reason he's so pissed off of course is that ALL these blogs strike a nerve, not just this one. Remember, he's still nostalgic about his Barney the Dinosaur stunt the same way Al Bundy remembers scoring 4 touch downs in one game of high-school football. Bundy, of course has more excuse.

When its pointed out that the asskicker of Canadian politics got his ass kicked in Canadian politics(remember BC?). When he settled out of court for a libel suit because of his anti nazi book.(right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Kinsella)

And of course when Kate delivers some emasculating humiliation...get the point?

A Confused Liberal
-------------------------

Warren Kinsella made an inelegant attempt to discredit "canadian infidel" on the "Fullcomment" site by employing the Liberal method of drive-by slagging. Our "canadian infidel"made note of some pejorative history related to Mohammed and the adherents of the Muslim religion. Mr. Kinsella took great annoyance at this in a posting on "Fullcomment" which he used to note why he didn't allow comments on his personal blog.

Previous to this, on January 14, 2008, Warren Kinsella's item, "Cartoons and Islam" also appeared on the "Fullcomment"site. Some of his comments from that column are noted below:

*"Expressing hatred about someone else's spiritual beliefs is not free speech. It is hatred, and it is almost always calculated to cause pain and hurt."...

*In early 2006, at a band practice, we were talking about another Toronto punk group, called - and I am not making this up - T** F*** Me Jesus."

*"I'm a church-going Catholic, and that band's name doesn't offend me in the slightest. Nor the stuff found on the cover of Black Flag records, nor the songs by my beloved Bad Religion."

*"But that's just me. And I can understand how someone else could be offended - really and truly hurt - by something like a band called T** F*** Me Jesus. And, just because I'm okay with that, doesn't mean that someone else has to be, ..."

*"And, when all is said and done, what Muslims seek from the rest of us is not anything we do not already seek from them. Which is, mainly, a modicum of respect for the things they hold closest to their hearts."

*"I say they deserve that respect. And, if that makes me a censor, I'll wear that insult with pride."

It would be beneficial to Warren Kinsella and his soul, (You still do believe in a "soul", do you, Mr. Kinsella?), and educational for the rest of us, to have someone such as Father Raymond De Souza tease out the tenets of Warren Kinsella's Catholicism. Currently, Warren Kinsella comes across as a kind of "cafeteria Catholic". Other "buffet snackers" of the Liberal ilk being the corrupt Paul Martin (Raymond De Souza: "Post" 06.01.24), and the theologically confused McGuinty brothers. What we seem to have here is a fuzzy notion of Catholic/Christian theology. At least. (Is there something adulterating the holy water in the Catholic churches in the Ottawa Valley?) But, I welcome clarification on this.

Mr. Kinsella sees comments which are made about the dark eras of Muslim history as being a source of "hatred" which engenders "pain and hurt". He rushes in to essentially advocate for silencing, through censorship, those who make such comments about Muslims.

Warren Kinsella, "a church-going Catholic, encounters a group with a derogatory name, a group which attacks his religion, by demeaning the essence of Catholicism (Christianity); that is, Jesus, the Son of God. But Mr. Kinsella is not offended by this!

Since he acknowledges that "... I can understand how someone else could be offended - really and truly hurt ..." by the punk rock band's name, does Mr. Kinsella think that that band and its name should be sanctioned by being silenced? Should someone who is "offended" make this out to be a case to take to the Ontario Human Rights Commission or one of its similar incarnations across the country?

Given Mr. Kinsella's attempts to silence comments made about Muslims so that Muslims do not experience "pain and hurt", does Mr. Kinsella, a lawyer, not feel some obligation to voice similar concern, and then take some substantive action, to silence those who would engender "pain and hurt" to Christians? Should not Mr. Kinsella feel obligated to rid us of groups who are voicing "hate" against Christians by legally pursuing those who are violating our (seeming) hate laws?

So, what has Mr.Kinsella, an officer of the court who is pledged to uphold the law, done about eliminating this blatant injustice which is being perpetrated upon Christians through the use, by a certain group, with a punk band name of "T** F*** Me Jesus", and others employing "Black Flag" album covers, and certain songs by "Bad Religion"?

Let us take a Warren Kinsella comment, a lawyer's comment, and substitute one word.

Warren Kinsella: "I say [Christians] deserve that respect. And, if that makes me a censor, I'll wear that insult with pride."

What do you intend to do about this, Mr. Kinsella? How are you, as a lawyer, going to see that Christians get that respect in regard to the matter at hand?

Otherwise, Mr. Kinsella, you are culpable.

(Note: The original posting on the "Fullcomment" site by Warren Kinsella about his not allowing comments on his blog, and in which he attacked "canadian infidel", drew about two dozen postings from readers who totally hammered him. Curiously, Mr. Kinsella's entry and all the approximately twenty-four condemnations of his entry, have been removed from the "Fullcomment" site at this writing. It should also be noted that sometimes, for whatever reason, some entries come and go on the "Fullcomment" site without explanation. However, his kickoff to the whole discussion, "Cartoons and Islam" still remains.)

******