Nick Packwood covers the debate--such as it is--outside of the committee. (Well worth the read in full, but for those of you in a hurry, start at 7:15.)
7.57: State censorship should apply to the "racist fringe of the internet." Funny, the only people I can thing of who post to racist fringe internet sites are all employed by the Canadian federal government.
...
8.03: Moon observes some of the "most vocal and outspoken critics" of the HRCs have engaged in a "smear" campaign. Worse yet, these smears have been reproduced by the mainstream media (this despite well-known, rigorous editorial processes of the MSM). Falsehoods! Spread by right-wing bloggers! The man is turning red in the face. Is that spittle? I stand to get a better view. I think that was spittle. Specific right-wing blogs and specific falsehoods strangely unelaborated upon. Smearer, smear thyself.
...
Grant Huscroft points out the intervention of (presumably right-wing) blogs has been "amazingly effective" in bringing the HRCs into public debate, saying "a bit of hyperbole was necessary for that to happen." Though in a poorly worded aside says "who cares" if the Crown impinges on free speech of fringe internet Nazis. So much for Spectre of Voltaire. This. Is. Canada.Posted by EMG at October 6, 2009 12:34 PM
Condensed version of Mr. Moon's comments: "They're meany POOPY HEADS!!! WAAAAA!"
I note at this time that even Mr. Moon's thousand-buck-per-page super duper official government paid for report recommended Sec. 13 be repealed.
Posted by: The Phantom at October 6, 2009 1:59 PMHere's your money quote response from Philippe Dufresne: "Whether the (hate speech) laws were effective enough in Germany, I can't speculate."
Yes, that's a direct quote. The outcome being so ambiguous there is so much room left for speculation. But then, my views are less nuanced.
Too funny. Loved this bit of nuanced sarcasm. Gosh if Mr. Dufresne takes that inability to speculate much further, well . . .
Could somebody please explain to me how one might conduct a nuanced discussion about freedom of expression? It seems to me that this is one discussion that would beg, no require, nay forcefully demand a lack of nuance.
Posted by: Jan at October 6, 2009 2:33 PMA classic.
Posted by: Blazingcatfur at October 6, 2009 3:45 PMOnce again, the committee members always seem far less informed/concerned than seemingly everyone else in the country outside the hallowed halls.
Steyn and Levant were great, as usual, but as long as the Liberals, Bloc and NDP outnumber the Conservatives there's little chance of parliament doing anything about Section 13.
Posted by: EBD at October 6, 2009 6:23 PMYes, EBD that was my impression. That some wee voices in the Canadian wilderness can be better informed than the Members of Parliament, who supposedly represent us all having been granted the privilege of serving on the Justice Committee, is absolutely disgusting.
They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but of course, they are not.
Posted by: Jan at October 6, 2009 6:56 PMBefore submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. Thankyou.