Thanks for helping promote our event, Kate. It was an amazing success. I still can't get over it -- a standing room only crowd to hear Ezra, Salim and I.

I should hire BigCityLiar to be my publicist -- by spending his time (at his workplace computer, no less) blogging about what an evil white supremacist I am, he gave us all free publicity and inadvertently helped bring out 600 people -- a full house according to the theatre owner, who was mighty impressed.

PS: there wasn't a single protester or heckler to be seen or heard. I was kinda disappointed!

I asked Ezra (during book signing) which Canadiaan MSM gave the most editorial support to the HRC fight.

REPLY "Mostly the NATIONAL POST"

I've always wondered.... isn't it actually racist to assume that the only people who are "unauthorized immigrants" are not white? I mean, realistically, there could be many Caucasians who are illegal too, but nobody assumes that when illegal immigration is discussed.

A common strategy to deter unwanted speakers is to threaten violence. The university then increases the security for the event and charges the sponsering group for the extra cost. The sponsering group then cancels the speaking engagement because they can't afford to pay.

It sends a clear message - threats of violence work. It stands for the exact opposite of what a university is supposed to represent.

Before the baby boomers destroyed western civilization, their parent's generation shot rioters on campus.

The hippy boomers still whine about it.

Time to bring back the old ways...

The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that our universities are no longer capable of hosting free speech. Kathy speech was free of disruptions because it was held at a private venue far away from a university.

When (not if!) Kathy, Ezra and Salim get invited to speak at a university, there -will- be protesters, and probably violence.

Make sure to hurt 'em when you hit 'em, Kathy.

Warwick you are onto something there.

The Baby Boomers of the West spent a little too much time in bed with Grima Wormtongue, and now they've pretty much cocked up the entire flippin' universe - from the UN to education, to the global balance of power, and so much more. As thier belated apology, they're going after the world economy in the name of fighting climate change.

I hope God is going to forgive them, because me and my kids sure ain't...

What ever happened to strike busters? We'd probably have to change their name a bit, just to spice up the branding.

Maybe "Free speech facilitators".

Next time just hire the NOI for security.

Not to say the Boomers haveen't spawned more footsoldiers - the Orcs of Mordor breed thick and fast, and are on the move!

Do your patriotic duty: smack a hippie in the face today :0)

I was shocked and amazed to see a line up into the parking lot when I arrived at the event.

It was a great evening. The conversations in the foyer were also very inspiring.

Kathy was definitely the most fun.

Great. This means that the Social Engineers, who shall remain unnamed, but who work for the Liberal party, and the HRCs, and the NDP as well (mustn't forget them)...are whistling to the wind.

What these social engineers, enbalmed in their leftist ideology of 18th c. elitism, forget - is that it isn't simply their elite class that has the right to govern and think. No, the truth is that all people have the capacity for Reason. We are not, as these elitists insist, living lives based around 'beer and popcorn' and we do not require the authoritarian guidance of these Elite Rulers.

Thank goodness, people are starting to fight back against these 18thc elitists.

Thanks to all of them for fighting against 18th c Elitism and for freedom of speech and thought.

Nice going, geniuses! What's your next trick gonna be? - Kathy Shaidle

Guess one could say they got "Mooned" Kathy.

I am an academic who has taught university, served as the deputy head of a department, and managed to pinch off a doctoral dissertation while working full time.

The biggest problem with the product being turned out by universities today is the downstream impact of injecting ignorant know-nothings into the white-collar work force.

Children who graduate from these ridiculous programs do so with attitudes instead of knowledge. They have heads full of cant, dogma and nonsense; they don't actually know any history, philosophy or logic (let alone freaking science or mathematics). On top of this, they've been programmed with gobs of patent nonsense.

As Reagan said, it's not just that they're ignorant - it's that they know so much that ain't so.

People who spend time studying marxist economic theory, critical theory, deconstructionism, post-modern political theory, international institutionalism and so forth, as though these things actually applied to reality, come out of their programme equipped only for a fantasy world. Not only do they not know any history (and therefore have no context in which to understand current events) - they have been fed a fantasy version of history, in which motivations have been "reinterpreted" by professional grievance-mongers of various stripes, to the point that they bear no relation to historical fact. The only difference between spending four years studying "the feminist interpretation of herstory" and spending it studying Asterix and Obelix comics is that Asterix and Obelix occasionally offers some relevant historical facts. Like Julius Caesar used to be important, and vikings had names like "Olaf Grossebaffe."

These kids end up talking about crap like "the ICBM gap as a study in phallic competition" or how the UN is going to replace governments as the state "withers away." Anybody notice any states withering away lately? Universities who teach this garbage should be sued for malpractice.

And on top of all that, by the time these superannuated grade-schoolers get to us, they're so codependent on MSWord spellchecker that they can't actually spell or write a coherent sentence.

Gah.

Encore...Encore...

If anyone feels strongly enough, please let Tyler and his bosses know how you feel about his thuggish and anti-democratic tactics.
here is their contact information.
The is public information that can looked up on the UNC website
romlpub@unc.edu Tyler Oakley, Editorial Assistant, Publications
mjones11@email.unc.edu Mary J. Jones Administrative Manager (his boss)
larking@unc.edu, Larry King, Department Chair (his boss' boss)
chancellor@unc.edu, Holden Thorpe, Chancellor, UNC.
(etc.)

To prove DN's observations: just watch Jay Leno's 'Jay Walking'

The next big waste of four university years is studying "Green Issues" so you will be prepared to get rich with one Obama's "4 million Green Jobs" schtick.

They'll be qualified to empty the deep fryers at Mickey D's and rake leaves in a park.

Of course, they'll need the Feminist Victimized Green Studies as well.

Great post, DN. You nailed it.

Warwick and bcf, how do you define "Baby Boomer", "Hippy Boomer" and just plain "Boomer"?

I just want to know whether I should be insulted or feel guilty or something because of the year I was born.

glasnost

I slag boomers, everyone else slags people from Ontario...

Face it, although not all boomers (and younger) are wankers, the percentages of wanker-to-population starts to rise with the boomers.

There's also a high wanker component to my gen and an even higher one to the kids of the boomers (I'm in between.) If the boomer's parents were incompetent, the boomers were worse. Their kids are the ones like the idiots in the story above...

I agree, DN, you nailed it.

The fact that the MSM in general does not support the message (by those growing masses of people tired of being told what to think or believe..) is that they are afraid.They do not want to be seen as the coalescing agent that brings all these people of like mind together.They are afraid that people of like mind will interpret their reporting as tacit approval.

The leftist MSM is scared of losing control of the message.

Mister-in-between (aka Warwick @ 12:00 PM), I guess you were born during a very select, and short era. Neither a boomer nor a wanker.

The only fault I found with Shaidle's speech is that it was too short.

bcf said:

"The Baby Boomers of the West spent a little too much time in bed with Grima Wormtongue, and now they've pretty much cocked up the entire flippin' universe - from the UN to education, to the global balance of power, and so much more."

Here is an exhibit of "and so much more":
Brainwashing of Canadian youth, aided/abetted by the MSM/intellectuals, et al.
...-

Dr. Jane Goodall Visits Algonquin College - April 15th « Green ...
Posted by greenlivingottawa under Ottawa, arts and culture, flora and fauna, media ... To view a live web cast of Dr Goodall’s speech you can register here ...
greenlivingottawa.com/2009/04/09/dr-jane-goodall-visits-algonquin-college

DN - great comments. Exactly right.

Hell freezes over: college bigwigs apologize to Tancredo for "fiasco"

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/higher_education/story/1487656.html

I read that a Hispanic student group was in attendance and vehemently opposed Tancredo's views. However, they had the good graces to try to shut up those who were trying to disrupt the talk. Anyone hear anything else about this?

"The only fault I found with Shaidle's speech is that it was too short."

I'll second that. She's not always my cup of tea, but her speech was f*cking outstanding and should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in HRCs and freedom of expression.

Very well said DN.....

Hey, pretty quite here, where did all the brilliant lefty contributors go?

"Fascists are fascists," Tancredo said. "Their actions were probably the best speech I could ever give. They are what's wrong with America today. ... When all you can do is yell epithets, that means you are intellectually bankrupt."

Glad to hear of the success of the evening.

Also DN comment must be Comment of the Year so far.

Glas

As a generation, the Boomers display an unreal amount of irresponsibility. They’re belief that "they" know better than everyone else in history gave them the balls to "redefine" society. It seems reasonable to lay the destruction of the "traditional family" or at least the values at the feet of this “know it all” generation. The trickledown effect has been epic in all factors of our lives. From too many women working in fields that are not productive but demanding wage parity with productive sectors, to the large number of kids without two parents, to the decrease in our military funding, to the fat epidemic, to multi-culturism and every other Liberal goodie that can PROBABLY be laid at the Boomers feet.

This rant isn't directed to individuals born in a certain period, but in general to a generation that cultivated this misguided culture for decades, and today hangs on for dear life expecting future generations as far as the eye can see to “bail them out”. As for those that claim they fought this leftarded dream, YOU DIDN”T FIGHT HARD ENOUGH! Under your watch the “War on Christmas” begun for Obama’s sake.

BTW IMO the BIGGEST F'UP by the Boomers is: Not having enough babies! This boarders on betrayal; the Boomers created an entitlement society and then didn't replace themselves. Instead of doing the work, they've chosen to sell out their country to our enemies so we can pay their pensions and health care bill.

glasnost

lol. Put it this way, of all the people in the world you respect least, how many of them are boomers. Exactly.

And as I said, there are plenty of wankers in my gen, too.

Boomers get more blame for two reasons. First is their numbers. Second is they're in charge.

What I find delicious about Shaidle's "speech" is her completely unaware irony when she states that the Civl Rights act and the HRChas resulted in people "gathering into victim identity groups" which then fight for "favored victim status" -

The she goes on to say that the issue of the HRC comes down to "highly privileged white liberals against less educated, working class, blue collar [see, they're not just working class, they're blur collar, too!], "reactionary" whites, who insist onspeaking to each other about topics like immigration, using old-fashioned, poltically correct language." [I think we can guess on just what type of language that might be!}

See? She's arguing in her whiney, maudlin, pathetic way that those other 'victim identity groups' can't be real victims, 'cause she and her 'blue collar' racist dopes are the REAL victims - 'cause all those mean educated liberals says they can't say n****r anymore!

Boo-hoo-hoo! Wahhh!

DN

Have you ever heard of John Taylor Gatto?

Dumbing Us Down

http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/Gatto/Gatto.html

Excellent post DN!

Er, would you agree with me, contra ET, that Obama is a Marxist (tho not a marxist scholar)? Even a marxist thug? If not, I'm good with Bolshevik gangster!

Obama-Ayers-Anenberg Foundation: all that dough ($150 million?) was spent on marxist indoctrination much of which is centred on "ethnic [hate whitey] studies" and of which the over-arching theme is shame of your own country, america-hatred, reverence for the 3rd world saintly other who of course is poor because the US is rich. End result: no measurable improvement in actual "freaking" learning to which you so eloquently allude.

Yeah, know nothings are are gonna be pissed when they go out into the world; indeed that is the very plan! Have them pissed when the world "marks them to market". No wonder they hate capitalism. Damn insulting is the market.

DN, if I was to quote you on my blog, would you be upset with me? I only ask because your comments completely delineated the self-importance and ultimately the ignorance and arrogance of the brain-trusts being drummed out of institutions today. Bravo!

"What I find delicious about Shaidle's "speech" is her completely unaware irony..."

Marxists don't actually debate conservatives. They just notice "irony", the mere existence thereof, in their parallel universe anyway, sufficing to negate conservative arguments.

The straw man argument ie them thar liburuls wanna take my rights! that inevitably follows usually makes more sense than anything coming out of their mouths, somewhat ironically.

Little late bleet, but thanks.

bleet - you are quite incorrect.

I'll leave out your personal opinions of the manner in which Ms Shaidle speaks (whiny, maudlin, pathetic) because, after all, this is just your view and is not only without substantiation but reeks of an ad hominem agenda.

Where you are incorrect is to deny that the HRCs gather people into 'victim identity groups'. If you read the Human Rights Act, Section 1.3 says, with reference to discrimination:

"For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted." And then, there is the famous Section 13-1,

"It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. "

I hope you notice the phrase 'likely to expose'; that is a very specific phrase. It removes actual facticity and moves into pure speculation.

And, these acts of discrimination are based around identifiable groups - identified by the HRC.

The administration of these HRCs is indeed by 'highly privileged liberals' against people without the privileges, the money and the expertise to fight back against these HRCs.

You can see that in the majority of cases dealing with section 13, where, as I'm sure you know, the complainer pays nothing; his legal fees are covered by the government - while the 'accused' has no legal protection, need not even cross-examine his accuser. Oh, and truth is not a defense!

And, any action of 'feeling hated or viewed with contempt' may never have even occurred! Therefore, there is no 'hurt victim'! Who is thus the real victim? The person who is accused of 'saying something that might possibly but hasn't yet, hurt someone's feelings' or caused someone else to 'view them with contempt'.

I'm sure you wouldn't conclude that such a process is an example of justice. Or would you? Do you accept virtual worlds?

no, bleet, you are incorrect.

The HR Act specifically sets up identity groups as victims. You can read the definition of these groups that are subject to discrimination in the HR Act Section 1.3.

And you can read the infamous section 13.1 where it specifically defines speech that refers to any 'identifiable group' in a manner that 'is likely to' expose them to 'hatred or contempt' as a symptom of their victimization.

Please note, bleet, that the focus is not on truth about the individual who is a member of a group, for truth is not a defense. And please further note that the focus is not on any actual experience of hatred or contempt. The affected victim need not be exposed to such emotions. No, the focus is on speech that is 'likely to'..not 'actually did'.

And who decides? Exactly as pointed out, a set of bureaucrats, highly privileged liberals. And who are their victims? Most certainly it's not the individual who is a member of that 'identity group'. Remember, no act of hatred needs to occur.

Who is the victim? Exactly as pointed out and you can read the cases yourself. The majority of cases are against people without the background, expertise or funds to defend themselves against these accusations. Oh, and the govt funds the lawyer of the accuser, but the accused has to fund his own lawyer. And the accuser need not face the person he accuses, need not be cross examined, need to be examined for the veracity of his claim.

So, you are incorrect. The real victims are the people accused by this set of privileged bureaucrats.

richfisher

"A little late"? Howso? People discussed Shaidle's speech at 1.17 and 1.39, I posted at 2:14. How's that "late"?

Credit where credit is due:

Nothing in my post would even give you a foothold to delcare me a "Marxist". Care to say why you'd invent such a baseless falsehood?

Oh, I know - it's an attempt to invalidate what I'm saying without actually dealing with what I'm saying.

Don't like my use of the word "irony"? How about "hyprocrisy" - as in it's hypocitical, maudlin, pathetic and self-pitying for Shaidle to bitch about other groups claiming victim status as she whines about how her little group of racists is being oppressed by nasty educated liberals.

Care to explain how that's not what she's saying? Care to explain - or debate - how she's not being hypocritical in denying victim status for others while claiming it for herself?

The one thing college culture instills in it's indoctrinated political quislings is barbarous soviet conformism.

This is what "progressives" do- deny people their chance to be heard. I see this all the time. Whenever someone has something to say which will be inconvenient to the agenda of the "progressive" liberal left, the community organizers spring to action, get on the phone, rouse the rabble, and send 'em to the location of the speech to see to it that the speaker cannot possibly have a chance to speak.

I see this censorship being practiced by the left in various forms every day. They're selfish bullies, to put it simply.

And the Big Media condones this Brownshirt-like behavior. If the Big Media didn't condone it, they'd expose it and bring shame upon those loony progs.

I see bleet has ignored my advice to grow up. Son, people would take you more seriously if you actually had a well thought-out, rational and logical argument to present. But you far-left types operate on emotion only, not brain power, so I'm not surprised. BTW, you never answered my question as to whether you have ever lifted a finger to help your fellow humans and the society around you in a fashion that required altruism and abnegation. Your silence seems to indicate that like all far-lefties, you're a taker, not a giver, i.e. an egotist who hears only the sound of his own prejudices. Productive members of society are too busy doing their bit to mock others...

Here's good link from one of David's commenters, on the matter of "net neutrality" and speech codes, etc.

"The Liberal argument: shut up"

http://www.corrupt.org/news/the_liberal_argument_shut_up

Oh man, that's priceless. I especially liked the idea of throwing Lefty talking points straight back at them. How about we start shutting down Lefty Lovefests too?

'Free speech warrior' Kate censored my last comment.

Grow up, bleet - compared to the fascists on rabble.com and other "progressive" and far-left sites, Kate is a paragon of free speech. For you to be censored, your post must have been filled with scatological obscenities. At least Kate remembers this is a family blog, unlike the cess-pools peddling "progressive" garbage, priding themselves on being as vulgar and ignorant as possible. It seems that ignorance is a badge of pride for leftists... I wonder what deprived childhood that comes from...

"'Free speech warrior' Kate censored my last comment."

I'm sure we weren't missing much.

You can look above, Chairman, it's now been re-instated.

In all it's scatological glory, Tanker!

And no ET, I'm not incorrect (incorrect about what? You never specify). It's all well and fine whether the HRC defines minority groups as victims. My point is that in spurning that tyoe of 'victimhood', Shaidle is then being a pathetic, maudlin, hypocritical whiner in wanting to claim victimhood for herself.

Her point seems to be "I'm being victimized for attempting to victimize Arabs by calling them 'violent retards' and calling Muslim children and Native people 'parasites'! Poor me! Boo-hoo!"

Uuummm... Eeerrr.... bleet, could you show me the money quote where Kate actually calls Arabs 'violent retards' based on their race. If not, then according to my new methods for dealing with Lefties: why you're a fascist, violent, racist mud-crawler who seriously deserves the Karma comin' your way. Or you could just grow the f**k up and debate the issues.

Otherwise, well I am now officially thinking thoughts I can not write or say, as I wouldn't want to be hauled before some HRC having subjected you to "likely ridicule and negative feelings" or whatever the hell the tossers at the HRC (God strike them all dead slowly of an unmentionable STD!) are currently doing in our name with our money...

bleet - I did specify how you are incorrect. My post said that you were incorrect in denying that the HRC defines people into 'identity groups' subject to discrimination.

And, you deny that this sets up a process where these identified groups can complain to the HRCs about 'feeling hated' even when such an act has not occurred.

This sets up a new group, unprotected by law, who don't fall into a definition of a 'group' and don't operate as a group but who are victimized by being called, by these HRC bureaucrats, 'proponents of hatred'.

Why shouldn't one spurn the definition of 'victimhood' as somehow entrenched with being a member of a minority group?

And why does arguing against a pseudo-legal process that rejects the category of truth as a defense, that focuses on acts that have never and may never happen - why does criticizing this mean that one is a member of a 'discriminated group'?

Are you seriously suggesting that criticism of untenable government procedures is not allowed?

Are you suggesting that if one is accused by these HRCs, and found 'guilty' - that such a decision cannot be analyzed and criticized? After all, look at the Act and the fact that it rejects any actual experience of 'feeling hated'. Do you accept living in virtual worlds?

I pointed out to you the definition of 'hate speech' and I'm sure you can see, as readily as anyone else, the problem in this definition. Are you suggesting that there is nothing wrong with this section?

Bleet:

A blog owner has the same right to restrict postings as a newspaper has to choose which letters to the editor they will run. It's called freedom of the press.

Gee ET

You enjoy speaking in a professorial manner, but you really don't have much on the ball, do you?

I didn't deny that the HRC defines people into identity groups at all. That's not what I said, or even inferred, in my post.

I noted Shaidle's observation that the HRC does this, then pointed out her hypocrisy in then trying to claim victim status for herself.

The policies of the HRC were not even the subject of my post. My subject was the whiney, maudlin, pathetic, hypocritical manner by which Shaidle demands to be treated as a victim for voicing her hateful, racist gutter-talk.

A tip, ET: if you want to respond to posts you should read them, rather than imagine or hallucinate stuff that isn't there.

Bleet, for someone who doesn't see the inherent problems of human rights commissions, you're awfully arrogant.
What free society would allow special interest groups to bankrupt and demoralise citizens for speaking their minds? There are victims and it's not who you think.

"My subject was the whiney, maudlin, pathetic, hypocritical manner by which Shaidle demands to be treated as a victim for voicing her hateful, racist gutter-talk."

Do you think you're immune to this as well bleet? You could be thrown in front of these kangaroo courts if you make the mistake of speaking your mind in front of an oversensitive person belonging to one of these "victim identity groups". Remember, it doesn't matter if what you said was truly offensive or not. It doesn't matter if you were serious or joking. The only thing that matters is how it is perceived by the accuser. Would you still be disagreeing with Kathy? Would you see yourself as the true victim when we supposedly live in a country where individuals are free to believe and say what they want?

This is interesting. bleet actually had a cogent thought. It must have hurt, you didn't get very far with it.

Yes bleet, Kathy IS saying that -her- group, white, straight, working class to middle class, Christian, aka most people who live in Canada, are being targeted for punishment by a government agency. Punished for saying words. Or sometimes posting them on the web, like what you are doing today.

In other words bleet, the government agency in question is abrogating the rights of certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual preference or religion. They create the groups, they decide which ones are in favor and which should be punished, they pick the individual targets to make an example of, to encourage the others.

Normally this is called "bigotry" when an individual does it, but when a government agency does it we call it "oppression" instead.

ET was too polite to call you an idiot, so I'll do it for her. You're an IDIOT.

I think bleet just wants to insult people. He doesn't have any valid arguments.

His description of Kathy Shaidle is his own personal opinion and since it is merely personal insults, without legitimacy. His description of her 'talk' is equally subjective and without validity.

The strange thing is, that bleet attacks Kathy for name-calling, and yet, he behaves in this manner all the time! He is constantly bad-mouthing people!

So - it's obvious that his personality is to reject argument and instead, to just name-call.

He ignores that cases filed by the HRC against individuals set up those individuals as victims of the HRC! That's because the HRC's criteria for making judgments are not empirical actual evidence but are subjective opinions. So, no-one need to be 'hurt' by someone's name-calling in order for the HRC to accuse you of 'hate speech'. Such a situation is akin to living in a virtual, fictional world. Doesn't that bother bleet? Obviously not. Why not?

Equally, bleet ignores that the HRC sets up certain groups as subject to discrimination. Any words used to describe these groups in any but a laudatory fashion are, according to the HRC, not permitted. That's not a world of freedom and is of course, it's a violation of the Charter.

It violates not only freedom of speech but equality of treatment. Why are some individuals defined as immune to chastizement and criticism, if and only if, they belong to a particular group, whereas another individual in a different group is not considered immune to criticism? bleet doesn't address this issue and probably, doesn't understand it.

bleet, name-calling is easy. How about an argument based on reality and facts?

Phatnom

ET likely didn't call me an idiot because I've shown that she stated I said something I did not say. A fact which is so easily provable by looking upthread that one wonders why she would make such a misstatement. I would imagine she feels a bit shamefaced as a result.

This seems to be a recurring characteristic of you far-right types. In this thread, 'Credit where credit is due' accuses me of being a 'Marxist'; nothing I've posted here gives rise to that idea; he's merely saying the first thing that floats into his head as a way to try to invalidate my comments. On another thread 'mhb' says I'm trying to censor him when I've never said anything of the kind.

What's up with that, Phantom - this invention of things never said, these bizarre baseless accusations? Are they deliberate misstatements or a sign that you folks just don't care about the facts - or that you aren't quite 'with it'? Care to answer on behalf of your ideological comrades?

ET

My description of Shaidle's talk isn't merely 'personal insults' or 'subjective' and I'll show you why.

Shaidle states that the HRC amounts to "class warfare...with highly priveleged white liberals against less educated, working class, blue collar, "reactionary" whites, who insist on speaking to each other about topics like immigration using old-fashioned, poltically incorrect language."

I stated that this is maudlin: this is seen inher description of the poor, poor whites who insist on using racist words: they are not only 'working class' but 'blue collar'. Aw, isn't that too bad? Why, they deserve to use racist words as a reward for all their hard, hard work!

As well, I said it's whiney and pathetic. We're supposed to take pity on the victimhood of these poor, uneducated whites. Hey, I thought you conservatives were against victimization! Shaidle certainly was quick to reject the "victim identity groups" earlier in her speech. Now she claims these poor, poor whites are victims. That brings us to my other description of her speech as hypocritical.

It's not an 'insult' to observe that when someone condemns the behaviour of someone else, then adopts that behaviour themselves in the same speech, it's hypocrisy: that's merely a statement of fact.

But beyond that: what's the deal with assuming that the HRC is specifically targeting working-class whites, as Phantom agrees? Why do you-all assume that all working-class whites make racist comments? Isn't that rather condescending/insulting on your part?

I know a lot of them, and it isn't true at all. They watch TV like everyone and know the world has moved on. They know that the "old fashioned...language" as Shaidle so euphemistically puts it is 'old fashioned' in the sense that 'Whites Only' drinking fountains inthe South are 'old fashioned' - meaning that they're well behind us.

It's only people who are trying to keep a steady gig with a site that appeals to clingers to 'old fashioned language' who think otherwise.

bleet - your argument still has no validity.

First, your description of Kathy Shaidle is most certainly personal and subjective. Terms such as 'whiney, maudlin, pathetic' are qualitative terms ,based only on your personal view and as such, are subjective. You don't seriously think that such terms are objective, do you?

Second, 'working class' and 'blue-collar' are synonyms of each other.

And she is not talking about such workers 'using racist words' but is referring to them criticizing religious or social or cultural ideologies. The HRCs are quite clear that such comments 'are likely to' arouse feelings of 'hatred or contempt'. It is the HRCs that define these terms as racist or 'likely to cause contempt'.

And our opposition to the HRCs is hardly the same as our opposition to setting up groups as 'victims'. You are making a deliberately false analogy.

Equally false is your attempt to equate the identity groups-as-victims, a status set up by the HRCs, with the HRS's victimization of anyone who dares to analyze and criticize these groups.

Our opposition to the HRCs is that they are setting up 'identity groups' as immune to analysis and criticism. And, legally punishing anyone who does analyze and critique these groups.

Do you agree that anyone who critiques the ideology and behaviour of such groups should be punished?

What a silly statement you've made - the supposition that we assert that 'all working class make racist comments'. What nonsense. Try to base your comments on evidence and logic.

Again, think about these HRCs and their violation of our freedom of speech and our rights to equal treatment before the law.