Couldn't have done a better job myself.

Kate? What is this "quote attribution" of which you speak? The HRC's don't need no stinkin' quote attribution to know it's the truth!

Kinsella is a chit stain on Canadian politics.

Hmmm. He is also a chit stain on Canadian music too.

Coincidence? Methinks not. The lad is nothing if not consistent.

I wonder if - 'Ian Fine, senior general counsel and director-general of dispute resolution at the Canadian Human Rights Commission'
- has clued into the dilemma the HRC has to deal with?

Who will "dispute resolve" this one for the Canadian HRC?

Brean again, eh? Notice the structure of the piece giving the Star Chamber the last word and therefore creating an overall sympathetic portrayal. It's clear Brean is OK with the Star Chamber. He's a "young person" I gather, and utterly out of his depth on the issue of free speech?

Despite the reticence on major questions, it was clear that the free speech criticism is familiar to the CHRC's top operatives, and they are confident their efforts are in line with the modern conception of human rights as interdependent, interrelated, and never absolute. As Mr. Goldberg described it, their work is a "balancing act."

"Hatred is as old as the world," he said. "Hate on the Internet is just one aspect of hate activity that goes on in the world, and it's not something we expect is going to end tomorrow, but that's not a reason why we stop trying to deal with it."

And oh yeah, the Star Chamber "believes" in what it does. Oh well, in that case ...
Arrogant shits!

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=423135

"Rights group defends itself.....

Facing calls for its abolition or reform, commission moves to rebut 'misinformation'

"We believe that the processes we've employed in these cases are appropriate, and that's about all I think I can say on that issue," Mr. Fine said......"

Did you get that? The processes are fine.

Clueless.. twit and, that is a LAWYER?? They just don't get it. Cut these ar**holes loose.

paul

""""Clueless.. twit and, that is a LAWYER?? """"

I'v had to use lawyers a few times in my life, most are lieberals, and most are clueless twits, goes with the territory:-)))))

I just cannot believe the crap that is going on here in Kanada.

These are the same "Peoples Tribunals",and this is the exact same shit that went on for decades in the Soviet Union,East Germany,Nazi Germany,Communist Poland,Cuba and all the other commie/fascist totalitarian states.

And we just sit back while they walk all over us because we say something thats hurtful,or hateful or politically incorrect?

Freedom of speech is just that,"FREEDOM".

These Human Rights Tribunals are just trying to take away our freedoms.

They need to be closed down.

'Breach of privacy'??? How about criminal theft of communications facilities???

“We believe that in our society there should be limits on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, …. We are comfortable with what we do."
“…. infringement of the right to free expression, is "actually the predominant view among most of the states of the world. The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."
“… the 100% conviction rate for hate speech cases that have reached the tribunal is not a sign of a flawed system, but a testimony to the commission's efficiency.

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,

"The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."

I gasped at that.

People like this shouldn't be allowed near the controls of a motor vehicle, much less the levers of the state.

That's gonna leave a mark....

All of a sudden the CHRC doesn't have a choice but to dismiss the case against Stein...

"The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."

Kate,
The appellate Court hearing re: FCC vs. Broadcast Networks (Offending language fines) was a classic. The Judges actually mocked the FCC by deliberately using the vulgar language, from the Bench, in open Court. The FCC didn't do well.

Censorship is a slippery slope!

"The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."

Kate,
The appellate Court hearing re: FCC vs. Broadcast Networks (Offending language fines) was a classic. The Judges actually mocked the FCC by deliberately using the vulgar language, from the Bench, in open Court. The FCC didn't do well.

Censorship is a slippery slope!

Your attribution of those racist words to Ian Fine is dishonest, as the linked story clearly states. You must consider your readers to be very stupid.

How do we know Fine didn't say them? How do we know for sure he doesn't think them? I think a polygraph test should be given to all hrc employees, and their serial plantiffs. I think if you are going to be an employee of the thought police, it is important you harbour no impure thoughts. How do we know Fine hasn't tapped into someone's wireless network, went on a website, and typed those exact words. It has been proven the hrcs use underhanded methods to guarantee their 100 percent conviction rate.

And N Todd shows their utter ignorance of the context of this blog entry and the entire case against Steyn.

Well done!!!

Too bad for Ian that he won't have any right to a fair trial. But he's just fine with that.

I note that Fines "quotes" were examples of hateful speech against Jews, minorities, and the disabled.
He did not offer an example of such speech against Islam? Intentional or not is the mystery.

"if a newspaper publishes hate speech when quoting a CHRC official quoting a white supremacist, would the CHRC accept the complaint?. Should ask Macleans about that."

A rebus for the gurus of hate and the identity group political dystopia to answer.

IF they are linear with the criteria they use to attack bloggers and internet BBS operators with, then YES, the Nat Post should be convicted on section 13(1) because it is responsible for what others say in it's pages.

The CHRC lawyer reading this statement to the Post reporter is also guilty of hate communications as per Steacy's testimony on what constitutes actionable hate offences.

Round 'em all up and fine 'em all!!....and I'm sure they would be, if the CHRC's star section 13 complainant not gone into hiding recently...maybe he's in the CHRC witness protection program?

Mr Fine effectively quotes Popeye....I Yam what I Yam.....

If the rules were that clear then the defence of we are a creature of statute would be true. The fact that there is ALWAYS bureacratic choice in implementation means he has to take responsibility for how the statute is exercised.

It does mean they take all complaints....it doesnt mean they reject some for spurious reasons and co-operate with some defendents by opening up eveidnece and facilities to them.

On one level this has NOTHING to do with the goals of the legislation and everything to do with administrative incompetence and abuse. Would someone from the PCO please start to investigate and discipline their charges......The area of goals and scope of the legislation is parliaments responsibility, the administartion, fairness and procedure are the responsibility of the PCO. Abuse of privacy, lack of procedure, lack of consistent procdure etc...Mr. Fine runs a horribly leaky ship and a good case could be made for releaving him and others based on administrative incompetence...i.e. with cause....nothing beyond statutory notice.

Where is the Chief of the Privy Council, he should be embarassed about this and the PM is fully within his rights to ask him about these apparent abuses of procudure. That is NOT political interference but proper management, respecting the proper roles of political side and administrative side of government.

The PM can then decide what he wants to do about the HRC seperate from these abuses of administration.

Mr Fine is engaging in the time honoured tradition of bureacratic moles and pushing responsibility elsewhere. He shoudl take responsibility for the ADMINISTRATIVE problems on his watch. What a tool

Your attribution of those racist words to Ian Fine is dishonest, as the linked story clearly states. You must consider your readers to be very stupid.

N Todd is quite right, of course. Fine wasn't the author of those words; he was merely quoting another CHRC goon who posted them somewhere.

Incidentally, N Todd, can we take it that you're on Mark Steyn's side, who is being haled before the People's Court for the crime of repeating the words spoken by another?

Or, conversely, that you feel Ian Fine should be haled before the People's Court regardless of who authored the words he spoke?

From the article, quoth Mr. Fine: "Because to be quite clear about it, we do believe in what we do. We believe that in our society there should be limits on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, that there is a line, not one that we draw, but one that must be drawn nevertheless. We are comfortable with what we do."

Oh, you belieeeeeeve in what you do? Well, that's all right then!

I belieeeeeeve people like Mr. Fine should be put in a very small box with a rabid ferret on crack. Shall I just go ahead then? Make it two ferrets?

Can you say "police state apparatchik"? Sure you can! Say it with me now...

N. Todd and Darrell: no, you're both quite wrong. Smarten up and get with it.

You may go to Mark Steyn's or Ezra Levant's websites to find out what Kate's point is here, made with her usual panache and brio.

From your humourless, literal reading of this thread, it seems that you either misunderstand irony--or don't know the facts. It seems that maybe you'll need to look up the meaning of "panache" and "brio" too. Good luck.

Phantom, I like your belief: my morning smile! Thanks.

N Todd at April 6, 2008 5:24 AM: "Your attribution of those racist words to Ian Fine is dishonest, as the linked story clearly states. You must consider your readers to be very stupid."

Obviously, as others have pointed out, you haven't been following the CHRC case against Mark Steyn, who's been accused of saying nasty things about Muslims.

Well, guess what. What Mark Steyn was "quoted" as saying, which has got him in trouble, were words HE was quoting by a Muslim Imam.

'Get it? 'See why Kate presented it the way she did? If you come to SDA, you've gotta have context if you want to be critical.

To the back of the line. Listen up.

N Todd and Darrell: Please direct your limited attention to the very last line in the post, repeated here: "*Editor's Note: This post was written according to the Warren Kinsella Rule Of Quote Attribution - "We reduce honesty by cutting out the middle man!""

Read the linked document and then use whatever functioning brain cells you have to think about the issue.

If you need help with figuring out the answer (hint, it involves sarcasm), please let us know and we'd be happy to help.

Thanks Lookout. Nothing like a nice rabid ferret or two, I always say. ~:D

I wanna give Mr./Ms/Whatsit N. Todd a smack too, while we are on the subject.

Quoth N. Todd: "Your attribution of those racist words to Ian Fine is dishonest, as the linked story clearly states. You must consider your readers to be very stupid."

That's self serving and poisonous even from a humorless, literal reading of Kate's remarks. As has been pointed out numerous times above, Mark Steyn and Maclean's are being called before the CHRC for EXACTLY what N Todd is saying here.

It is my belieeeeef that N. Todd should be beaten about the head and shoulders with his left arm. Given Mr. Fine's statements regarding his "duties" as a government official, shall we consider it ok to just get on with that then?

I think I've flogged that horse about to death now. Time for another cappuccino!

Phantom, add a little hooch to your cappuccino; flogging a dead horse is HARD WORK...

Skål!

Kate said: "People like this shouldn't be allowed near the controls of a motor vehicle, much less the levers of the state."

[engage rant mode]

Kate, that's true from the perspective of somebody who wants to live in a free country. Trouble is, we've been conquered in stealth by people who consider freedom a perk for the favored few.

Mr. Fine can be found at all levels of government from city bureaucrats to the PMO. He's the reason my property taxes are going up 4.7% this year and have gone up 3%-5% every year since forever. He's the reason we have a gun registry, Kyoto, same sex marriage, taxpayer funded abortion on demand, socialized medicine, set belt laws, three year jail sentences for murder, and of course the CHRC.

People are stupid. Mr. Fine is just using his superior, university educated intellect to make the world safe for us knuckle dragging morons. Civil service = civilian control.

Which is why we need to de-fund the Leviathan. The whole monster from root to tip is composed of guys like this. You can't root them out and replace them with "reasonable" people, you have to starve the monster down to a size where individuals have some hope of fighting it when Mr. Fine comes calling.

HEY CPC!!! Tax cut NOW please! Start with the budget for the CHRC.

[rant mode off]

babt, Irish cappuccino? Hmmmm... that could be damn near fatal. I'm going to go try it! ~:D

Sincere thanks to N Todd and Darrell for providing me with my morning dose of irony.

Phantom, I LOVE your rant: altogether justified and I quite agree. Thanks again!

Incidentally you guys, re-read Darrell's fine comments.

N Todd.

Like others who have posted, let me repeat:

Steyn is being hauled before the Human Reichts Commission because words said by others quoted by him are now being attributed to him. Kate used the same model to accuse Ian Fine. Goose. Gander. Sauce.

She assumed her readers were erudite, not stupid.

You are right to point out the dishonesty and stupidity of such a tactic. However, your distain should be directed to the HRC and its complainers, not SDA.

"Incidentally you guys, re-read Darrell's fine comments."

Ah yes. Poor Darrell was actually trying to clarify things for N Todd.

"The view in the United States [that the right to free speech is near-absolute] is really a minority view."

He's right - there are far more countries that squelch free speech than ones that have enshrined it.

Now, I'm just a knuckle-dragger but even I can see that Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. are not something to be admired and copied.

Based on the examples provided by Fine in Brean's article of what constitutes prosecutable speech under section 13, Robert Fife's "knuckle-dragger" comment on the CTV National News this week, constitutes a prosecutable offence under section 13. Referring to an identifiable group as "knuckle-draggers" is a slur against the Christian right liable to incite hatred against an identifiable religious group, and as such, is indistinguishable from the same complaints accepted for anti-semitic comments.

Therefore, I believe offended individuals should, quite rightly and legitimately, file a section 13 complaint against Robert Fife, Lloyd Robertson, CTV, and the network's owners. It would be interesting to see the commission dismiss many complaints about the same event, and what their rationale would be.

Knuckle-dragger does suggest sub-human, doesn't it?

Ah, but the left must have its pejoratives or it couldn't sleep at night. Those who believe that the human foetus is worth something are "anti-choice"; those who believe that children just might have a right to a mother and a father are "homophobic"; and those who aren't willing to bow their knee to the unbending god of Tolerance are "knuckle-draggers".

It helps them sleep at night.

Ummm...I re-read Darrell's postings at Phantom's suggestion...I swear I didn't see the second comment. So, perhaps I should retract any sarcasm directed toward Darrell. Sorry.

Phantom - I agree that Darrell's comments were fine but do we have to read them a "third" time? LOL

They should be fired for incompetance, the breaches of proper conduct are a result of poor and shoddy leadership, I wonder how the three village idiots would feel if we set them up with manufactured evidence and then preceded to persecute them for their ethos, or lack of them apparently?

In my opinion they've done more harm than good with their evasive answers and their non-wavering support of Seriel Snot and Bawler Warman.

The public should demand their immediate dismisal and a full investigation into all the HRCs, we need to know how deep the corruption is and how prevalaint the incestuous relationships are with minority groups like the CJC and CAIR?

Finally what do they call the section of the HRC department that manufacture evidence, do they get special grants or training sessions on how to type hate filled bigoted posts? I don't believe a word that comes out their socialist mouths, I deem every piece of evidence hence forth to be manufactured against the complainant by the very organization that investigates Section 13. When I read the article the phrase "Hitlers final solution" ran over and over in my mind. Their unlimited power to persecute people should be illegal in a democratic country. Why isn't it?

It seems I've spoken WAY over the heads of lookout, batb and eeyore in my responses to N Todd. My apologies. I shall now simplify my points -- at least to the degree that my limited attention span, inability to comprehend sarcasm, and diminished mental capacity will allow -- for their benefit.

(Those of you who require no such clarification -- which seems to be everybody else -- may skip to whatever posts follow this one. Special thanks for the moral support to all who offered it.)

1. In my first comment at 8:40, I gently poked fun at Mr. Fine by suggesting that the horribly racist comments forwarded to him came from one of his colleagues. (This was an oblique reference -- perhaps a little too oblique -- to Mssrs. Warman’s and Steacy’s history of posting likewise horribly racist comments in misguided attempts to manufacture racism. I invite you to visit the sites you referenced, i.e., Mr. Steyn's and Mr. Levant's, to learn more details about this case.)

2. I noted that what N Todd was accusing Kate of doing is precisely what Mr. Steyn is accused of by Mr. Fine and his comrades, to wit, posting hateful words spoken by another, and attributing them to a poor sod who repeats them, regardless of context.

Since Mr. Fine went on to repeat hateful comments uttered by yet somebody else, I thought N Todd ought to consider the absurdity of this situation, or at least have it pointed out, so I asked if he/she felt that a) Mr. Steyn was being maligned, or b) if Mr. Fine ought to be held to the same standard.

To summarize this last point: It seems to me that one cannot suck and blow at the same time, so I was asking N Todd if he/she was sucking or blowing.

Please let me know if any further clarification is required.

Rose says: "Their unlimited power to persecute people should be illegal in a democratic country. Why isn't it?"

That, as they say, is an EXCELLENT question Rose. And the answer is, because certain people have found that your rights as a citizen of a free, democratic country are, shall we say, inconvenient.

Remember, this isn't limited to speech. You do -not- have the right to own property either. The Canadian state has the power to jam a law through Parliament that transfers ownership of every single possession Rose has. That's not restricted to expropriating real estate kids. That includes your computer, your chesterfield, any firearms you may be dumb enough to have told them about, your car, the entire contents of your bank account, and etc.

And possibly your spare kidney. Ontario currently has designs on your spares upon your demise. No reason to expect the "progressives" to wait for you to die forever, that wouldn't be progress, would it?

Depends if a kidney is considered property or not, I guess. I can imagine how Mr. Fine would rule on that one.

eeyore, sorry, I didn't see your post until after my last, or I would not have referred to you. Thank you!

Darrell, I don't recall commenting on your comments. I do recall commenting on N. Todd's.

So, leave me out of your condescending "explanation" of what you did, or didn't, say.

Thanks.

batb, indeed you did not. My apologies.

This all reminds me very much of Monty Python's Life of Brian. John Cleese as the judge reads the charges against a blasphemer and says the blasphemy (Jehovah) the sinner is being stoned for and is thus himself stoned.

We've come such a long ways in 2000 years!

Checkmate.

We need to raise money to buy Warren Kinsella a puke-proof suit of clothing. He simply cannot stop throwing up on himself.

Warren Kinsella, you will need to lift your leg a lot higher if you want to piss with the big dogs. Mark Steyn is as big as they come.

AND PUNK ROCK IS NOT MUSIC! It is noise adolescent boys make in the basement to annoy the adults.

Phantom, you are in fine form today, no pun intended.

Great rant and oh, so true.

Darrell, thank you. I accept your apology.

On this whole red-herring of "taking out the middle man", as Kate sarcastically puts it, Warren Kinsella seems to be the only one who understands that the whole "he said/she said" thing is divisive and petty. He has every right to attribute the words that Steyn quoted directly to Steyn, because obviously people are increasingly realizing that those words are typical of the sort of things Mark Steyn would say. The fact that a Norwegian Imam said the words first before Steyn typed them out is completely irrelevant, because it's one thing for an Imam to say them, but it's another thing for a hater to type them.

Warren Kinsella is a non-hater -- I think everyone would at least agree with that -- who should be allowed to use every tool at his disposal to show people that Mark Steyn's rag is being hauled in front of a commission for one reason only: Mark Steyn is a hater. If he isn't a hater, he wouldn't have put the Imam's words in his article, right? Obviously. So why shouldn't Kinsella be able to point out what Mark Steyn wrote without having to drag some Imam into it? Should Kinsella have to promulgate the Muslim-bashing just to please the bigots?

If the Imam says something, and then Steyn quotes it, why should the Imam have to be brought into it again by a third party like Kinsella? Is the Imam twice as bad as Steyn, or something? And would we then have to mention Steyn again? Is that what you people are getting at? Where would it all stop?

The question you all need to ask yourselves is, why is it relevant who Steyn was quoting, when it's Steyn who wrote the words in that column? See what I mean? Does that even make any sense? Okay? Do I make myself clear?

BTW Kate, Ian Fine DID NOT say those things, and it's dishonest and prurient and stupid for you to say that he did.

Phantom: "babt, Irish cappuccino? Hmmmm... that could be damn near fatal. I'm going to go try it! ~:D"

Are you still with us? Irish cappuccino could REALLY get you going... ;-)

Where the H*** has "Dr. Libby Raoul" been?

Too little, too late, el doctor/la doctora...you've missed the boat...it left the dock a few days ago...

Raoul - you are obviously part of the cast of crew leftards that consider themselves the "higher moral authority" in our country. You say Steyn is a hater because he quote the Imam. Is it not the Imam that is the hater? It is absurd for you to draw the conclusion that Steyn is the hater because in making his case against extremism in Islam he quotes hateful words by an Imam. Am I missing something here? If someone wrote a column about the hate filled preaching of Rev. Wright and quoted him directly, would that make the author guilty of hate.

The statements you make in your post betray a serious deepheld belief that the extremist are the normal everyday people and the critics are hateful. You are some screwed-up, man.

Warren - is that you?

Dr. Libby,

What the hell are you a doctor of anyway. You write like a teen-ager. Your view are so adolescent and twisted that you should stay in your room forever.

You are not worth debating. You are just too stupid.

"Dr. Libby": How do you propose that anyone report on hate speech if the hate speech itself cannot be reported? "trust me, it was bad, what he said".

Yours is perhaps the most absurd comment I have ever read.

because it's one thing for an Imam to say them, but it's another thing for a hater to type them.

The soft racism of low expectations.

I wonder if the rest of the bureaucracy is on pins and needles watching this train wreck.

After all the CRTC is having hearings on letting HBO into the country and competition for our specialty channels. Those guys are the quintessential censors in Kanada and with dept call letters so similar to the CHRC they could easily get caught in the cross-fire of a waking giant. The Canadian public who once roused may anger and rout the cushy pencil pushers.

Strangle their cash flow and power.

Ok, so wishfull thinking here but I can dream.

And another Fine rant, The Phantom. Yuk yuk.

Thought: Can you imagine the abject fright if Steyn were "convicted" and then just said: "I'm not paying any fine". Is there any chance at all that the "authorities" would follow through with contempt of court and, if ignored, prison?

Referring to an identifiable group as "knuckle-draggers" is a slur against the Christian right
But doesn't the law cover only a "protected" identifiable group? Which would leave out say heterosexual white males, Christians, people of colourlessness, people LEFT of the Ontario/Manitoba border?

Oh wait, I take that back "Dr. Libby"... this is the most absurd comment I have ever read:

The Liberals just need to convince Canadian voters to feel the funding, instead of trying to trace it or put a dollar figure on it. Reasonable people know that you can't put a monetary value on what the Liberals mean to the country. Because what's the dollar value of say, national unity? Or women, or the environment? Aboriginals?

Be kind to N Todd folks! He/she/it obviously comes from the left generated nanny state and is used to being spoon fed ideas, preferably in point form.

The concept of determing context based on style and content is likely very foreign to N.

"Warren Kinsella is a non-hater -- I think everyone would at least agree with that".

And you would be wrong.

Warren Kinsella exhibits animus, if not hate, every time he posts about either Kate or Mark Steyn.

It looks like "hater" is becoming the new pejorative -- left-speak for, "someone who disagrees with us".

The left has all the best pejoratives because anti-hominem is what they do best.

this fits perfectly - and it is attributed to c.s.lewis -

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

"...the left must have its pejoratives or it couldn't sleep at night. Those who believe that the human foetus is worth something are "anti-choice"; those who believe that children just might have a right to a mother and a father are "homophobic"; and those who aren't willing to bow their knee to the unbending god of Tolerance are "knuckle-draggers".
It helps them sleep at night."
Posted by: Richard Ball at April 6, 2008 10:52 AM

Richard, that's a good start, but you've barely scratched the surface when it comes to the vast array of soporifics employed by the left to help them sleep. If you believe that people should take responsibility for their own well-being, you are "depriving them of dignity"; if you believe they should be accountable for their behaviour you are a "hater" (see reaction to Kate's earlier post about the miscreants in the Station20 West area); if you believe in dealing forcefully with terrorists or their state supporters you are a "warmonger"; if you think that "Earth Hour" is a bunch of sanctimonious nonsense, you are "anti-environment"; if you believe that your own history and culture are worthwhile, you are a "racist"; if you love your country's flag, you are offending someone somewhere; if you keep porcelain pigs on your window sill, you are "insensitive" and worthy of prosecution etc. etc. And there are new ones being discovered almost every day!

Kinsella get KKKudos for honesty on his latest blog entry.

"SFH? Well, SFH sucked. Folks were kindly, afterwards, but a couple of us weren't convinced. Two of us thought we stunk, big time. Thanks, in any event, to James, Michael, Dawg, Rosie, Patrick, and plenty of others who came out.

Daisy - yes, that is her name - was there all night, and shooting some footage of the proceedings. I may or may not be posting some of that in the days to come. Depends.

In the meantime, the SFH show at Barrymore's has been relegated to the dustbin of history, where it indisputably belongs. Won't be doing that again, anytime soon."

In all their glory

"Mark Steyn [...] who is being haled before the People's Court"
++

No he's not.
The complaint is against Maclean's.

1) Darrell, I apologize for including you with N Todd. In a hurry, I didn't read your second post carefully, which I should have done.

2) At first, I thought DLRaoul was serious, and then I thought, "This is crazy". Half way through, I actually looked for a "sarc/off" at the end: not there. Then the post just got more bizarre.

I'd say tossing off the word "hater" to describe Mark Steyn is hateful: the lefties just keep doing what they claim to disdain. (But, even though I detest such ignorance and hypocrisy, DLRaoul has a right to his/her opinion and to express it. Then we demolish such dangerous idiocy in our comments.)

By the illogic of this cretin—who obviously subscribes to Kate’s witty “Warren Kinsella Rule of Quote Attribution: ‘REDUCE HONESTY BY CUTTING OUT THE MIDDLE MAN!’" (emphasis mine), let’s see who some of the greatest criminals of the 20th century would be: Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King Jr., Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Mahatma Ghandi, Stephen Spielberg, Nelson Mandela . . . the list of dastardly criminals goes on.

I’ll add myself. Hitler said, "They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honoured title to us." So, I guess I’m now the barbarian.

DLRaoul, if you really believe the utter tripe you’ve posted here, it is my considered opinion that YOU ARE CRAZY AND YOUR IDEAS ARE SUBVERSIVE AND DANGEROUS.

Please feel free to quote me because then you’ll be agreeing with me that you’re crazy and your ideas are subversive and dangerous. (Hey, this is fun!!)

P.S. If Mark Steyn, the “hater” had not quoted the imam’s words, would that mean that those words are NOT hateful? And, if they’re not hateful, then I guess Mark Steyn’s not a “hater” and . . . My head spins . . .

As the Professor in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe said, “What DO they teach in schools these days?”

Kate at 1:55 a.m. re: American free speech.
Exactly, and that's what makes the USA such a great country. Perhaps a few of the pro-censorship group would like to live in China? Item yesterday re a Chinese journalist sentenced to several years in prison for 2 articles and 3 interviews. Only his wife and one other person were allowed to watch the "trial". It's a crying shame. Literally.

lookout, thank you.

dizzy, you're quite right, although the thrust of my point, I believe, stands.

Dr. Raoul, I would like to remind you of the cardinal rule of Internet discussion, which I've amended slightly because I think you're a special case:

If you think you might be too high on airplane glue to post, you are too high on airplane glue to post.

Thank YOU, Darrell.

Previous comments by Libby Raoul at SDA:

"I have no doubt that if Ahmadinejad wasn't dark-skinned, but was, say, German -- you wouldn't be so quick to condemn him."

"Global warming can also result in global cooling, alright? If you people don't even get that, then what's the point? See what I mean? Okay?"

Kate wonders if this might be a Warren K. sock puppet.

Well, history suggest it's DUMB enough to be Warren, that's for sure.

As I recall from previous posts, Libby Raoul is a master of sarcasm. I suspect that this post is also sarcastic, but much too close to what real live leftards say, thus confusing.

I would suggest we read Libby's post with a huge grain of salt.

I love Libby Raoul's "See what I mean?" style.

With Libby's permission, I would like to appropriate it.

See what I mean? Does that even make any sense? Okay? Do I make myself clear?

Love it!

Fun, Richard Ball, and thanks! Reading your post gave me an idea. It seems to me that DLRaoul's candy floss style is another form of the dreaded "uptalk".

You know, when someone's making a statement but inflects up as if it were a question?

Honestly, I think the ghastly "uptalk" is a symptom of the lack of confidence the sock puppets have in our civilization. Notice how many MSM faux-professionals use it.

Ironically, considering the entitled "youth" (of many ages) who use uptalk, it's a non assertive and sissy way of speaking. What a crew of cheese eating surrender monkeys!