January 26, 2008

New On The Liberal Fascist Runway

No thought-closet is complete without this year's creative little insult - snark so trendy it deserves its own logo:


A linguistic toupée for the receding intellect! Use it today, and not even your friends will forget you're stupid.

Posted by Kate at January 26, 2008 9:20 AM

never forget socialists are smarter than you and me and that is why they believe they can make all the rules for all of so we will all be happy and love wearing our rose colored glasses.

They are smarter than us, aren't they ?? Kinsella seems to think so. He wants to make the rules for us.

Posted by: Fred at January 26, 2008 10:23 AM

Kinsella needs to be ignored, he's an egotistical boob head and we're playing into his game.

Posted by: Liz J at January 26, 2008 10:31 AM

Kinsella is in idiot and just another aging hippy with a bad comb-over. But he is entertaining and I have heard him refer to readers like me as haters, racists, bigots, mouth breathers, etc etc.

I have added his blog to my favourites. There is something hilarious in watching a 'tolerant liberal' spit and curse at his betters the way he does.

Posted by: Jim at January 26, 2008 10:36 AM

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

Posted by: ward at January 26, 2008 11:20 AM

When even the media are afraid to publish anything but state approved articles where does that leave Canadian culture that the CRTC is so overtly protecting. Bland and uninteresting? Come to think of it never mind.

Perhaps we can get the HRC to pre-approve articles beforehand to avoid these embarasing little episodes.

I weep for what Canada has become.

Posted by: Kevin at January 26, 2008 11:22 AM

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

Posted by: melwilde at January 26, 2008 11:36 AM

The Kinsella-Warman assault on "bigotry" is a one way street which displays a great deal of disingenuous discrimination in its targets.

There is a great deal of difference between campaigning to convince people to make a rational conscious effort to make bigotry (ignorant intolerance) a sociallt unacceptable and running a an ad hoc statist witch hunt of fear and intimidation.

Warman's and Kinsella's obnoxious statist attempts to "enforce" their dogmatics upon us all has made me more resolute than ever to stamp out their form of of obsessed uncivil statism.

Threaten away boys I'm beyond intimidating and have just the motivation and resources to cut you both a new proctological opening if you ever try to stigmatize me with your slanderous taunts.

This sword cuts two ways...using the words "racist", "Homophobe", "Bigot" or any other antisocial slur is about the clearest case of defamation who you tag these slurs to and be prepared to prove it beyond doubt to the courts.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've seen some leftard brand people they do not know with these actionable slurs...time to haul in the "bigotry" of the left.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 26, 2008 11:36 AM

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

Posted by: bud at January 26, 2008 11:48 AM

Is not the Jim that added Kinsella to his favourites!

Just wanted to make that clear ;)

Posted by: Jim at January 26, 2008 11:49 AM

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

Which is to say, that the media does not have the power to shape opinion.

So why bother editorializing?

Posted by: Shaken at January 26, 2008 11:57 AM

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

Posted by: Soccermom at January 26, 2008 12:35 PM

I disagree with the main argument in Mike's post.

Civility and free speech are not mutually exclusive.

By saying "polite people never make history" he seems to misunderstand the word polite.

I have heard Nobel Laureates in science give talks that are exquisitely polite, yet it is the substance of the what they are saying that holds the real power to change minds.

Margaret Thatcher by most measures "made history", but most would argue that in general she was a polite woman, able to defend her ideas through strength and vision and courage, rather than rudeness.

I would argue that civility is in fact in rather short supply these days - look at Kinsella for a perfect example.

We live in a rather uncivil society, so by Mike's argument free speech should be flourishing, no?

The real problem as I see it is not the witch hunt against free speech per se, but rather the witch hunt against *speaking the truth* on subjects that are critically important to society.

*THAT* in my mind is what will ultimately lead to a Big Brother Society, much to the joy of Kinsella and others.

So when I look at Levant and Steyn, and many others like them, I see people who are fighting for free speech with the assumption that it will in general be used to tell truths.

Free speech just for the sake of free speech in order to say anything one wants is a step backwards (the lyrics in rap music being a perfect example).

My 2 cents.

Posted by: TJ at January 26, 2008 12:44 PM

Liz made a comment that zeroes in on the real story. Kinsella is a master of creating cyber storms and ensuring other bloggers and surfers are looking his way. I am sure that is how he defines "success".

It's hard to argue with that. Over time I think Kinsella may live to regret the time and effort he has invested in creating a sort of Vince McMahon persona for himself. He wants to be seen as a serious political commentator. I'm not sure you can be that and the blogosphere's regulator general in the same lifetime...

Posted by: Johnny Maudlin at January 26, 2008 12:50 PM

Yes, TJ, I am in complete agreement. It really is ALL about TRUTH.

Posted by: Doug at January 26, 2008 12:51 PM

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

Posted by: trent at January 26, 2008 12:58 PM

So if Kate is the Wicked Witch of The West does that make Warren Dorothy?

Or is he just a "friend of Dorothy"?

PS. I guess WK is missing this reference #9

Posted by: Stephen at January 26, 2008 1:04 PM

At the end of the CTV observation we find this . . .

**and actually debating relevant issues in the legislature.''**

Now that would be a valuable rule.

Otherwise, . . nothing!=TG

Posted by: TG at January 26, 2008 1:24 PM

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

Posted by: sf at January 26, 2008 1:54 PM

Warren Kinsella: The gift that keeps on giving because he is stuck on stupid.

Posted by: a different Bob at January 26, 2008 1:56 PM

TJ: You make a most excellent observation that strong opinions can nonetheless be expressed with civility. In fact, if you're really interested in trying to change minds -- as opposed to sing to the choir -- incivility is counter-productive.

Coincidentally, I was reading some Hayek this morning (The Constitution of Liberty) and all through the session I was struck by the incomparable civility of this champion of liberty who was long marginalized by academia, and who therefore could easily have been angry and embittered.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at January 26, 2008 2:00 PM

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

Posted by: Linda at January 26, 2008 2:06 PM

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

Posted by: FREE at January 26, 2008 2:13 PM

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

Posted by: David at January 26, 2008 2:13 PM

TJ: the point Mike Brock is trying to make, is that what is truly free speech is labelled as uncivil and therefore must be censored.

Some say the muhammad cartoons are not appropriate in a civil society and thus should be banned.

The word civil, in this context, means "adequate in courtesy and politeness". By this definition, it is not civil to criticize or comment on someone else's religion. Civil behaviour dictates that you do whatever possible to avoid conflict, which includes refraining from speaking your true thoughts.

As a simple example, when you have dinner at someone's house, it is not considered civil behaviour to criticize the food. In civility in general, criticism is inappropriate.

However, occasionally a situation arises in which one must be impolite, one must criticize the behaviour of someone else because of the harm that it is causing.

Back to the example, if you believe that the food may cause you to be ill, then you should abandon civility and stop eating the food that you have been served. If you wish to be very impolite, you might even go so far as to tell your hosts that their food is making you ill. You have gone beyond the bounds of civil discourse, and the reaction of the hosts is unperdictable. They may feel embarrassed or angry or both. Unless they also feel ill themselves, they will likely not take it well. You would be better off making up an excuse, an inexistent allergy for instance, than translate your thoughts into words.

By the same token, many people believe that the words of Steyn and Levant should never be published because they are not civil. No matter how you publish the Danish cartoons, you have contravened the laws of another person's religion and they will not be positive about it. In Steyn's case, he has portrayed a religion and culture in a negative light, and that too will elicit negative reactions. But that does not mean that they should not be said.

Posted by: sf at January 26, 2008 2:14 PM

I wasn't advocating against civility. Nor was it my intention to imply that civility was a bad thing. I think my argument was a little more nuanced than that.

To be "civil" in a society is to conform to the cultural and political norms of that society. In a liberal democracy, what is "civil" is a very broad definition.

What is civility in an authoritarian society?

To go out and peacefully protest may be considered civil in our society, but not in another.

Obviously we would all like to like to live in a civil society. All I am saying is that we don't hold the banned of civility, higher than the banner of fundamental human rights, like freedom of expression. Because if we are justifying squashing those rights in order to maintain civility, then I believe we have crossed the line where they have become mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Mike Brock at January 26, 2008 2:17 PM

The Internet is allowing the people to pull the media wool from over our eyes.

Kinsella and others do not like it one bit. They never saw it coming.

'Just kids with no meaningful/productive lives', eh ?

Time to post that huge list again, Kate.

sda, June 4th 2007 Mini Survey (that wasn't so Mini)Archives

I don't remember seeing even one useless political backroom boy there. Just lots of 'Butcher, Baker and Candlestick Maker' types.

In a Barter Society, which one do you think would be left out in the cold ? Telling.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at January 26, 2008 2:18 PM

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

Posted by: John W at January 26, 2008 2:21 PM

This statement by Borovoy regarding HRC's is a shining example of the lack of vision of Liberal idealists

"Refreshingly, Alan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the chap who helped found these commissions in the 1960s and '70s, was equally appalled. Writing in the Calgary Herald, he said "during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech". Pointing to the empire-building frolic of the commissions, Borovoy advised that the legislation needed to be changed to make it clear that these commissions had no business investigating and making edicts about thought crimes. "

"We never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech".

Never imagined huh? One would think that should have been one of the first thoughts that would have went through the heads of the likes of Bovoroy.

Leftists seem to never see the realities that lay beyond their flawed utopian ideologies.

Looking forward to seeing Mr. Bovoroy help put the genie back in the bottle. Although his solution appears to be more legislation to correct bad legislation.

Posted by: ward at January 26, 2008 2:30 PM

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

Posted by: sf at January 26, 2008 2:33 PM

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

Posted by: FREE at January 26, 2008 2:36 PM

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

Posted by: jwl at January 26, 2008 2:39 PM

Kinsella feeling a need to apologize for a "baking cookies" comment, a "Neuf" comment, and what's worse, people thinking that it was a good thing that he did.

It's getting sicker and sicker that the nanny state would attack someone for these comments. I'm no major fan of Kinsella, but neither is he my enemy.

I guess that he's getting attacked for attacking others over similar silly statements that get turned into "the reason I drink and haven't worked for 15 years" ridiculous excuses.

If these type of statements really affect someone, they should seek professional help immediatly.

Posted by: Pat at January 26, 2008 2:47 PM

Kinsella removed the posting around midday.....

Rather defend himself, he folded like a cheap suit. The hallmark of the journalism hack.

Posted by: penny at January 26, 2008 3:08 PM

Political Operatives are nothing more than Spin Masters. (A polite term for lying)

sf and Brock nailed it.

Liberalism, ok -- but liberal with the crazyness ?

Spin really got going with the CNN, Wolferwitz, Clinton thing.

Some might say ignore them -- don't give them any credibility. But there is a Moral Hazard component here. At some point there IS a problem --- music is ok, punk music is ok, punkiness is ok, pot is ok, cocaine is ok, meth is ... ok?

Fibs are ok, stretching it ok, spin ok, lies .. ok?

Posted by: ron in kelowna at January 26, 2008 3:16 PM

Mike Brock wrote a good essay. However, his assertion that there's no democracy without free speech is only partially correct.

There's no democracy without individual freedoms and rights...with free speech being one of the most important ingredients. But add to the mix religious liberty, freedom of association, equal protection of the law for all citizens, trial by jury, right to vote, right to privacy, freedom from cruel or unusual punishment, easy access to education and property ownership rights and that's a recipe guarranteed to give rise to a strong healthy democracy.

Posted by: Martin B. at January 26, 2008 3:20 PM

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

I am no expert in civil discourse, but I would say yes, it is impolite.

To claim that a group of individuals is sick is impolite. Miss Manners would recommend that you keep your thoughts to yourself.

That's why we need free speech, so that you can say those things.

Posted by: sf at January 26, 2008 3:26 PM

God, Kate, you made me visit the Evil kinsella site.

He is employing the same tired old lefty tactic of shouting racism in order to shut down debate. I think it should be a hate crime to accuse people of racism. His writing offends me as I am a freespeecher and not a racist, nor racist; he should be run up before an HRC somewhere. In fact, is this not libel?

If "free-speecher" becomes a purgative... er pejoritive .. for the left, then there will be no more US flag burnings or something filthy being done with a Christian symbol, will there Warren?

Popping over to, I see the leftists are employing their usual snooty-nosed attitude by discussing what is and is not the correct free speech, to be allowed us mere mortals.

Fortunately, these aging hippies are just that.

Once again, the left demonstrates it's complete partiality and paucity in the thinking department.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at January 26, 2008 3:29 PM

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

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at January 26, 2008 3:31 PM

Penny "Rather than defend himself, he folded like a cheap suit. The hallmark of the journalism hack"

I think he folded because they were liberals that he insulted. To him there are no principles, it's all about which side you're on. If they were not liberals he probably would have retaliated with another defamation suit.

Posted by: sf at January 26, 2008 3:36 PM

Kinsella is the attack poodle of the Liberal Party -- sort of a Stephane Dion minus the sentence fragments.

I assume the lack of Executive Hair prevents him from getting elected. Perhaps he could grow a beard, gain another hundred pounds and then he could look like a genetic mutation of Phil Collins and Bill Blaikie.

Follow you, follow me...

Posted by: Gilligan's Isle at January 26, 2008 3:46 PM

Bob wrote: Warren Kinsella: The gift that keeps on giving because he is stuck on stupid.

Yep he's sort of stuck on auto repeat, he keeps screaming Racist or bigot at people who don't agree with his beliefs (or lack there of) it never occurs to this snot and bawler that not all of us are white.

Typical Leftard, they never do their homework and why should they that's what the taxpayers' fund CBC for isn't it??

Posted by: Rose at January 26, 2008 4:01 PM

Winkie got his hairshirt in a knot again?

Posted by: Bernie at January 26, 2008 4:31 PM

Whats to become of the truthers

Posted by: John West at January 26, 2008 5:33 PM

There are ways to look through anyone*s surfing history on the net.

Speaking non-specifically, I have run into some surprisingly spicy trails of those who would present themselves as dependable.

Knowing there are teenagers using the computer, I must draw no fixed conclusions.

Teens will explore some very dark corners at times. = TG

Posted by: TG at January 26, 2008 5:40 PM

I appreciated David Frum's description in today's Post of the Levant prosecution. Frum calls it "Canada's first blasphemy trial since 1926."

Full article, mostly about the upcoming Islamist/Nazi hate-fest in Durban, is here.

Posted by: Bart F. at January 26, 2008 5:48 PM

The internet has brought " free speech" and all its warts, into our living room the same way TV brought war during the early 70's (Vietnam), into everyone's eyeballs. It was media that defeated America not communism. . If we back off and say well some of you can say whatever you want because you passed a "likely to " type of test, we...are...screwed.

The internet doesn't really have anything NEW about it in terms of expressing ones-self . It is everyman's press after all. just has a lot more volume, either sense of the word.

Posted by: John W at January 26, 2008 5:51 PM

Rather defend himself

sf - thanks for correcting my typo, my old mind of mine races faster than the keyboard.

Kinsella is the classic print packaged lefty spittle ranter that is fashionable in every newspaper heading towards oblivion. The dumb dolts don't realize how over he is. Read Powerline's hilarious take down over the past year of spittle ranting local paper Nick Coleman. And, then, there is the NYT's Maureen Dowd. It's eerily similar and pathetic.

I'm half Irish and praying no one notices another grim connection. I see it. My Irish mother used to say that there were two kinds of Irish, the donkey dumb and the very smart with not much in between. If I'm out of bounds for my flippancy and the hurt feelings it is going to cause, too bad. Reporting me to the CHRC would be a sticky extradition problem.

Warren K is a spittle raving dufus.

Posted by: penny at January 26, 2008 6:25 PM

John, did you make that fake Maclean's cover yourself? Neat!

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 26, 2008 7:34 PM


Yes I made it up in a photoshop program for fun.


Posted by: John West at January 26, 2008 8:06 PM

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

Posted by: Rob C at January 26, 2008 8:19 PM

"Yes I made it up in a photoshop program for fun."

Good stuff, John West.

Posted by: dean spencer - fox at January 26, 2008 9:16 PM

Seriously thinking that this fella has some gender or mommy issues unresolved, amongst other things.

Posted by: ldd at January 26, 2008 9:56 PM

It would seem that most Canadians support some form of law against "hate speech" and crimes in general that are based on hate.

Most Canadians are wrong...well intentioned but still wrong. Any law that attempts to control thought or the expression of thought (no matter how reprehensible that thought might be) is masking a totalitarian agenda that must be resisted vigorously.

Imagine for a moment that some guy is standing on a street corner. He's standing up on a soap-box and holding a megaphone. He's talking about how he believes that pedophilia should be made legal.

What would you think? What do you think would happen to this guy? Well, first of all, it's a no-brainer that people would indeed take notice of him...but probably not in the way he would want. In very short order, everyone would find out who he was (name, address, and known history). The guy would lose his job quickly and would have one helluva time finding a new one. No one would want anything to do with him. Heck, people wouldn't even want to be seen sitting at the table next to him in a restaurant. In short, the guy would be labeled a freak and would be ostracized generally by society.

And all of that done without a single "pro-pedophilia speech law" on the books.

The point is: Just because there are moral norms that 99.9% of society can agree on, it doesn't mean that we have to create laws to try and enforce those norms. The society takes care of it for us.

Similarly, if some freak is standing on a corner and spouting off about his hatred towards some group of people who belong to a particular race, religion, or creed, the society at large will see him for what he is and no one will want to associate with him.

And this is where the real rub comes in. Leftists don't trust the general public to be able to shrug off the remarks of someone with a racially-based bug up his rectum. Why? I dunno. Maybe because the leftists themselves like to categorize people according to these superficial generalizations and they are just worried that others might not come up with the "correct" stereotypes.

And that is what all "hate" crimes are really about. It's not that they want you to AVOID having any preconceptions based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It's that they want to make sure that you have the right preconceptions (the ones that they come up with).

Posted by: bryceman at January 26, 2008 10:27 PM

bryceman: One minor flaw in your argument. You imply that our society has some eternal unchanging moral code. This is incorrect. Our society has purposely rejected such codes and as such the pedophile advocate may well be the “martyr to the cause” that tips public opinion in favour of the practice of pedophilia.

How long would it take before the pedophile then takes his case before a Human Rights Tribunal because his employer fired him or his landlord evicted him or the pastor from the church next door says that children should not be the victims of a sexual perversion that the adult will not control himself?

Then of course people who share WK's view on state sanctioned speech will assail the pastor as being some kind of freespeecher.

Posted by: Joe at January 26, 2008 10:46 PM

Joe said:

You imply that our society has some eternal unchanging moral code.

Not true, Joe. I never said or implied anything about any moral codes being "eternal" or static. Moral norms are what they are at any given time. Thoughts and perceptions change over time and I recognize that.

What I am saying is that norms exist because of the way that a society is at any given point in time. Morality cannot be legislated and attempting to is foolhardy and can only lead to a totalitarian regime where acceptable thought is imposed - rather than being left to evolve in whatever manner it will. Moreover, it is pure vanity for activists or the state to even try to impose some sort of moral code.

Because, the question will always be, "Which dictator's code do we follow today?"

Posted by: bryceman at January 26, 2008 10:59 PM

Kevin Jaeger said... [ on Brock ]

Nice post, Mike, but you make the mistake of taking anything Warren says seriously or as if it were offered with intellectual honesty, consistency or good faith. None of those things apply to anything he writes.

When you have one of those annoying, yappy little mutts chewing on your shoelaces and humping your ankle you don't try to reason with it. The only reasonable thing to do is to punt it off, hopefully into passing traffic.

9:07 PM
[ A masterpiece, Kevin ] = TG

Posted by: TG at January 26, 2008 11:04 PM

What will happen if somebody attends a demonstration carrying a placard that says -


Just asking.

Posted by: Equality of Opportunity at January 26, 2008 11:51 PM

"What will happen if somebody attends a demonstration carrying a placard that says -


People would look on with a perplexed look, similar to the one I have now trying to understand whether you have a point. Then they would carry on with whatever they were doing before.

Posted by: sf at January 27, 2008 12:14 AM

John West, too bad they wouldn't use your 'made up' photo-shop creation, very appropriate. Might even be tempted to subscribe if they did. Won't hold my breath mind you...

Great job though.

Posted by: ldd at January 27, 2008 12:21 AM

An interesting thought Bryceman:

"Because, the question will always be, "Which dictator's code do we follow today?"

I refer you to the bureaucratic POS that is the Canadian Constitution, the first line:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom guarantees the right and freedom set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.

So yeah, we are pretty much at the mercy of the tyrant of the day. We have allowed morons like Kinsella to give us a constitution that isn't worth the paper it is printed on and is hardly fit to wrap your chips in.

This is why the Yanks codified their morality in their constitution and are loathe to change it for the special interest groups of the day. We need to do the same. Spell out our rights and values specifically and commit them to law, and to hell with the radical moslems, the militant homosexuals and the looney fringe groups that might be offended. As it is, we have allowed guys like Kinsella to deprive us of our morals and ethics because they might offend somebody. People that are offended by our society and morals should not be living in this country.

Posted by: jim at January 27, 2008 12:33 AM

Re: A linguistic toupée for the receding intellect!

LOL. Brilliant. Not sure why you do not have Warrens job at the NP Kate. Am guessing the pay might not be that great. Also SDA is way more fun.

Posted by: concrete at January 27, 2008 8:02 AM

Mike Brock said:

"I wasn't advocating against civility. Nor was it my intention to imply that civility was a bad thing. I think my argument was a little more nuanced than that."

>> Civility is the social nuance which refers to all the free choices we make outside the scope of criminal activity. Civility in any society should be a self policing thing you do of your free will following your moral compass, not under fear of force. Our self policing should be evolved enough to govern our speech so as it does not hurt guiltless civil people. However, when civil purity is lost in the acts and words of public figures...when their actions and intents are less than civil, reciprocal fair comment is also civil...such fair ciomment on compromised civility needn't spare these people hurt feelings...all that really matters is telling the truth as you see is infinately civil to "offend" someone who has iffended you with simple words (sticks and syones break bones words do not harm you) an uncivil society people who piss other people off are horse whipped or stoned by mobs...If you take the opetion it insult an insulter away with censorship, then there is only one option left to people you piss off...that is the sticks and stones option...remember that WK.

"To be "civil" in a society is to conform to the cultural and political norms of that society. In a liberal democracy, what is "civil" is a very broad definition."

Well it is a tad more complicated than that Mike....suffice to say that "conventional social wisdom" echoes cultural norms..."political norms" are manufactured and injected into societies and cultures by posers...many of these injected political "norms" are socially and civilly disruptive and anathema to "conventional wisdom"...this is the realm of the social engineer shaping cultural norms...mainly through propaganda but there is an element of intimidation through the force of the state imposing criminal sanctions on non criminal personal choices...this form of social change is "uncivil" because society has not changed its conventional wisdom by rational self realized has been lied to and intimidated into compliance of having criminal law expanded to effect non criminal thought, expression and all victimless political crimes....this is the water the Kinsella-Warman junta tread...and anyone with the capacity for critical independent thought will see their anti-civil constitutional subversions for what they are...and have the right to say so....publicly ...and in the most uncivil manner....regardless of who is offended.

I do, and I think it's moot if they feel my free expression of what I believe to be fact is civil or not.

It's up to messrs Warman and Kinsella to counter my arguments in the theater of public opinion....but obviously Warman is too frightened to go there (for obvious reasons) and Kinsella thinks public opinion is only there to spin.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 27, 2008 8:50 AM

Can someone read that and agree with it, and still think that we ought to have laws prohibiting gay marriage?

Posted by: Arthur A at January 27, 2008 5:16 PM

I agree with the "wornoutcantsellit" comment. Maybe it should be Wornout Kan'tsellit to maintain the correct initials. This guy is way past his best before date and reminds me of a Naval Signal sent to someone who screws up - "My only regret is that if we were at War, we would be on the same side." I think many Liberals are thinking that about good old Wornout right now, and cringing. Of course I could be giving them more credit than they are due.

Posted by: commsguy at January 28, 2008 1:39 PM