More.
Update: It’s like an IQ test for the HRC-cheering section of the Canadian leftosphere, really. When even Glen Greenwald gets it, it speaks volumes about those who don’t;
Here are the noxious fruits of hate speech laws: a citizen being forced to appear before the Government in order to be interrogated by an agent of the State — a banal, clerical bureaucrat — about what opinions he expressed and why he expressed them, upon pain of being punished under the law. This is nothing short of stomach-turning…
“Interrogation” is a good word but I like the word “Inquisition” better. I think it better describes what is happening here.
Please make sure to put your money where your mouth is. As a “sustaining donor” to the Conservative Party of Canada I have redirected those funds to Ezra levant then they will go to Mark Steyn when his case comes forward. It is vital that these heros of freedom have the funds to take this fight all the way for us. Until such time as a government of this country does away with the Human Rights Commissions I will continue to help those who are fighting for the rest of us. No government will get another donation from me until that time.
It’s your choice, eliza, and quite reasonable. However, as a minority governmant, the CPC couldn’t abolish the HRCs, even if it wanted to.
I think contributing to the coffers of the CPC, in order to help it get a majority government, might be a very wise thing to do. If the Conservatives were in charge of the vote, I think we’d see a lot of substantial changes in Canada. At the moment, their hands are firmly tied by the four lefty, socialist parties that can outvote them. Political realities usually call for compromises.
One way to make the CPC take notice is to write them cheuques and then call your bank and stop your cheuque! They will call and wonder why. Then tell them you have redirected the funds to help support Ezra and Mark!
from the greenwald blog:
“Just like Bush followers who bizarrely think that the limitless presidential powers they’re cheering on will only be wielded by political leaders they like, many hate speech law proponents convince themselves that…”
In support of tomax 7, who has questioned Levant’s modus operandi, I’m repeating part of some of a previous post I made.
Despite my FULL support for Levant’s—and our—cause and my belief that the HRC’s “smelly little [Liberal] orthodoxies” (Orwell) need to be strongly challenged, I believe it should be done without bombast, histrionics, or ad hominem attacks. E.g., By all means call the HRCs “thug organizations”, but avoid personally attacking the commissioner hearing the case by calling HER a “thug”. The same point is then made without Levant coming across as a bully. There IS a very important public relations side to this: the in-the-middle, uninformed—usually squeamish about confrontation—Canadian needs to get on side. IMO, it’s important not to carelessly squander the good will of the public by coming across as brutish.
On the other hand, hitting the HRCs VERY hard with the unsavoury FACTS of the matter—by all means, use powerful words like “inquisition”—is an excellent strategy. But, remaining civil in demeanour should be a priority. It works for our side and is double jeopardy for the HRCs.
Again, consider Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons”: Thomas More’s eloquent defence of himself, when he finally had no choice, in the face of a repressive and arbitrary state, was lethal in its logic, intelligence, vehemence, and clear moral imperative. However, he never stooped to banality or rudeness. That both magnified the dignity of the man and made his statement all the more powerful.