Try your luck with this Skill Testing Question:
Since the Nazis imposed state censorship over speech they deemed offensive, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission imposes state censorship over speech they deem offensive, does this mean that those that use the CHRC to impose state censorship over speech they deem offensive are “Nazi sympathizers”?
Send in your answer and receive an entry in a draw for a free Canadian Human Rights Commission Reaction Figure!
 * |
A perfect choice for the unsympathetic Jew on your Holiday gifting list, designed and recommended by Danish cartoon censorship advocates everywhere. |
Update – Ouch.
The rise of soggy-assed relativism has brought us to a point where putative spokespeople for parties and groups regularly insist on conflating, as if it’s a human right, completely different things. For example, the common-sense, obvious observation that it’s inappropriate for a journalist to collude with a political party to manipulate parliamentary proceedings which the reporter then reports on are regularly met with a sneering “Oh, so you’re saying that reporters shouldn’t ask questions…” and other such “arguments.” The lack of accountability to reason is betrayed by the apparent belief that reasonable interlocutors will be forced to say “touche”.
And now we’ve got Kinsella suggesting that someone who defends free speech is a hypocrite if he has ever taken legal action — and submitted the challenge to due process, not some kangaroo court — against the publication of false statements damaging to his reputation.
It’s apparent that Kinsella doesn’t know the difference between an argument and an assertion, or an argument and a cheapshot, and that he measures the cogency of whatever case he’s making by the amount of foam that builds up in the corner of his mouth when he’s making it.
Alas, it’s only other people who can see the foam, so he’s probably the only one who doesn’t understand that the National Post was doing him a favour when they wiped the spittle off their site.
“Some might say Ezra Levant is not fit to carry Richard Warman’s water bottle. I won’t.”
Well, as Me No Dhimmi pointed out, you did say it. And pretty much everyone says that Warren Kinsella is a craven, would-be tyrant who is prone to juvenile, self-destructive public meltdowns that he mistakes, remarkably and publicly, for personal victory and renown. In terms of convincingness, nothing Kinsella’s ever typed out in his life would come up to Ezra Levant’s proverbial ankles; is it even possible that Kinsella doesn’t understand that? You wouldn’t think so, and yet he goes and writes a piece like that. It’s like Joel Gray challenging Vladimir Klitchko to a fist fight. Go figure.
You can always count on Kate McMillan to confirm Godwin’s law. For those who are not familiar with this law, it states:
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Godwin’s law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, especially fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.” – From wiki
“Ezra has launched a fullisade”??! wtf is a fullisade and how would one go about launching it? you’d chuck it like a spear or fire it from a cannon?
The rise of soggy-assed relativism has brought us to a point where putative spokespeople for parties and groups regularly insist on conflating, as if it’s a human right, completely different things. For example, the common-sense, obvious observation that it’s inappropriate for a journalist to collude with a political party to manipulate parliamentary proceedings which the reporter then reports on are regularly met with a sneering “Oh, so you’re saying that reporters shouldn’t ask questions…” and other such “arguments.” The lack of accountability to reason is betrayed by the apparent belief that reasonable interlocutors will be forced to say “touche”.
And now we’ve got Kinsella suggesting that someone who defends free speech is a hypocrite if he has ever taken legal action — and submitted the challenge to due process, not some kangaroo court — against the publication of false statements damaging to his reputation.
It’s apparent that Kinsella doesn’t know the difference between an argument and an assertion, or an argument and a cheapshot, and that he measures the cogency of whatever case he’s making by the amount of foam that builds up in the corner of his mouth when he’s making it.
Alas, it’s only other people who can see the foam, so he’s probably the only one who doesn’t understand that the National Post was doing him a favour when they wiped the spittle off their site.
“Some might say Ezra Levant is not fit to carry Richard Warman’s water bottle. I won’t.”
Well, as Me No Dhimmi pointed out, you did say it. And pretty much everyone says that Warren Kinsella is a craven, would-be tyrant who is prone to juvenile, self-destructive public meltdowns that he mistakes, remarkably and publicly, for personal victory and renown. In terms of convincingness, nothing Kinsella’s ever typed out in his life would come up to Ezra Levant’s proverbial ankles; is it even possible that Kinsella doesn’t understand that? You wouldn’t think so, and yet he goes and writes a piece like that. It’s like Joel Gray challenging Vladimir Klitchko to a fist fight. Go figure.
Btw, Doug: Amen. You absolutely nailed it.
Me No Dhimmi at December 19, 2007 12:21 AM said:
refuse service to blacks, gays, etc.
Look! Look! MND is advocating discrimination against minorities! See? See how evil these conservative-types are?!
[my apologies in advance]
Me No Dhimmi at December 19, 2007 12:21 AM said:
refuse service to blacks, gays, etc.
Look! Look! MND is advocating discrimination against minorities! See? See how evil these conservative-types are?!
[my apologies in advance]
Kinsella.
Typical Liberal.
The grasp for power, rather than the grasp for a rope.
Brilliantly argued, EBD.
@rightwingpaulie:
You seem naive, actually, or perhaps untutored. Your statement reminds me of the tongue-in-cheek observation about Baby Boomers: they think they’re the generation that discovered sex.
For your information, the right to free speech has had statutory recognition since 1960 at the latest, through the Canadian Bill of Rights. Here’s the bulk of the text of it:
To all: please look at it very closely. By my reading, any subsequent statute – meaning, a statute that was passed after 1960 – that contravenes this law is ultra vires, regardless of whether or not it was passed before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Has anyone here read the Canadian Bill of Rights? It was passed in 1960, and applies to any statute of Canada that was passed after it had received royal assent.
Canada’s Human Rights Commissions are a fine example of how little backbone Canadians have. Mass protests? Naw. A sternly written letter to SDA passes for action these days. Does that make Kate an enabler? It certainly exposes Canadians for what they are. Luckily, Canadians enjoy their myths. And their Mommy government. Apparently the Conservatives do also. Oh right. You can’t have principles in a minority government.
Ever heard of Shaidle’s Law?
“The first person to mention Godwin’s Law AND/OR Wikipedia in any online debate proves himself to be a basement dwelling, masturbatory bore.”
Kinsella should give his poor brain a rest… take off eh, go beat the drums or whatever he beats in his band “Shit From Hell”.
It’s tough these days being and defending Liberals.
Liberal/Lawyer, double whammy.
By the way,this Minority government has principles, they’re difficult to enact with desperate for power Opposition playing the mugs game.
🙂
Now I don’t care who ya are that’s funny!
Shaidle’s Law!
Sounds like a good working title for a 1/2 hour sit-com in the new cleaned up CBC
Nice………….
Another law: The more earnestly a liberal believes that they and others like them are the only ones who can save the world, the less likely they are to comprehend the use of sarcasm, and analogy. Just in case you all need it spelled out, Kate was posting to point out Kinsella’s stupidity in accusing everyone of nazism at the drop of a hat.
Calgary Herald – Wed/19th
Has a nice editorial as regards the Human Rights Commissions. The public/organizations really must become increasingly engaged on this one.
As a right-wing Jew, I have conflicting feelings about this issue. First, let me be clear that I believe that the HRC has become a corrupt and negative force on our society, and we have no choice now but to seek its complete dismantlement.
I believe that the HRC has been given noble roles at times. Sometimes, it’s so obvious that a person or organisation is evil, that we don’t mind if they don’t get the due process that we would insist upon for ourselves (Neo-nazis, the KKK and NAMBLA come to mind).
Unfortunately, once the HRC crossed the (perhaps a bit intangible) line between helping society and hurting society, they and all future organisations like them lost their mandate forever. You just cannot, in a free society, have rogue organisations like the HRC running around causing trouble for Canadians who just want to speak their minds.
Levant, Kinsella or Warman….is it possible for all three of them to lose?
Kathy Shaidle wrote:
“Ever heard of Shaidle’s Law?”
Nope, never heard of you or your law. That probably says something about you.
…does this mean that those that use the CHRC to impose state censorship over speech they deem offensive are “Nazi sympathizers”?
This statement is an example of the use of excess verbiage. There is a superfluous word here: ‘sympathizer’.
A number of folks seem to be under the mistaken impression that the HRC is some sort of judicial body providing due process. False.
The commissions are quasi-judicial bodies whose rulings have been allowed the punitive weight of law, but with laughably low, even non-existent standards of proof. “I can prove discrimination, because I CHOOSE to FEEL discriminated against.
This is why you see Warman and ilk going to these hermaphroditic panels. In a real court of law the burden of proof would preclude them even getting their petty grievances heard, let alone garnering a financial windfall as outcome.
As an aside, that thing that is now using these kangaroo courts to take on the ndp for refusing to allow he/she as a candidate is also a serial and successful abuser of Canada and Canadians. It got $40,000.00 from us via a specious complaint against the military.
Go figure.
Merry Christmas, everyone, and
Cheers!
I have stated before:”the only ones reporting the truth are rappers.”
I understand that almost all of you hate rap, and don’t like the content; but like others, rappers are exercising free speech and telling stories based on their life experience.
The left has jumped all over this in the past twenty years because rappers will often express ideas that do not fit into their framework for suitable opinions. Unfortunately the right has gone along with this for the simple fact that they HATE rap.
Rap promotes critical thinking and your kids are listening to it. You may agree or disagree with some of the opinions stated by these artists, but at least the are speaking to something, instead of nothing (Y2Kyoyo).
My generation will be the saviors of free speech because you “boomers” have “sold out” for “$$ over principals” or should I say for “convenience over hard work.”
Police task forces in the U.S.(NYC) have been assembled for the sole purpose of monitoring the actions and dealings of rappers so that they can be charged and thrown in jail to shut them up (see the “hip Hop Police documentary by BET, its shocking). This is the new tactic because the Hip-Hop community has not circum to the political pressure they have been under for decades.
Stand Up for Free Speech!
Even if you don’t agree with that person speaking, because if you don’t YOU WILL BE NEXT!
Barry: you should read more. You might start with something less difficult to understand than SDA though, like, say, an “Archie” comic.
Basically, Kinsella is the Frank Burns of the blogsphere. You might well think that would make Cherniak Hot Lips. I couldn’t possibly comment.
I used to know a guy like Kinsella growing up. He’d score a dozen goals in a road hockey game and basically brag that he deserved to be in the Hockey Hall of Fame.
As a writer, he makes a good lawyer…
Regrets for the de facto double post. The first one had gotten trapped in the spam filter; I had assumed that “held for approval” was a polite way of saying “try again; the one you tried to slip in is now in the digital answer to the morgue.”
WL Mackenzie Redux wrote —
What would make the good title? “Shaidle’s Law” or “Basement dwelling, masturbatory bore”?
I think “Basement dwelling, masturbatory bore” may already be taken as the internal code name for “The National”.
James Goneaux @2:10
Attention Kate! Now that’s an “ouch”!
Barry @12:34
Good call on Godwin’s Law because you demonstrated how it works. By the way, it doesn’t apply as you think it may.
Cheers
likmuffn, how about you shuddup.
Ugh. Sorry, Kate, that didn’t read what I thought it would read like!
My point was that the fella didn’t seem to be able to grasp SDA, and should start a little bit further down the literature scale. Maybe matchbook covers first, then Archie, then the MSM, THEN he’ll be educated enough to know how high-quality SDA is.
As the song goes, “you’ve got to go through hell before you get to heaven…”
Yeah, that’s more like it…