The Alberta Liberal Party just rose a few notches in my estimation. No, the other Alberta Liberal Party – the one that isn’t in office. Ezra exerpts the relevant passages;
The Alberta Liberal Party supports Mr. Levant’s freedom to express his opinions and to maintain, what the American Supreme Court termed, “the marketplace of ideas”. If citizens and publishers don’t maintain the limits of their freedoms it would bring about a chill in fundamental freedoms which could adversely affect all Canadians. The Alberta Liberal Party shares the opinion expressed in Ross v. New Brunswick School District No.15; when discussing the importance and limits of expression, Justice La Forest opined in s. 2(b):
“…[freedom of expression] is not restricted to views shared or accepted by the majority, nor to truthful opinions. Rather, freedom of expression serves to protect the right of the minority to express its view, however unpopular such views may be…”
Contrast that with new information from Al Seibring;
It appears the Harper government doesn’t have the political stomach right now to engage in any kind of major defense of free speech rights in Canada. NoApologies.ca has obtained a copy of a document circulated to all Conservative MP’s from Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s office late last week.
It’s a tough position to be in, no question – job one on the Conservative agenda is achieving a majority in what could be a spring vote. There’s the media wing of the Liberal Party to contend with, for one thing. In the way that Kim Campbell once advised that an election is no time to be talking about issues, the National is no place to be debating them. It doesn’t take an imagination to picture Joan Bryden clickety-clacking along on her heels, “Mr.Kenney – has the government launched an investigation into the neo-Nazis working in the PMO?”
If “freespeechers” want a decent shot of pushing CHRC reform forward successfully, those hopes rest with a government that isn’t legislating with a hand tied behind its back.
That said – it hasn’t stopped the Alberta Liberals from taking a position, and a little political courage can go a long way towards demonstrating that principles still matter. And with a growing number of MSM editorials questioning the legitimacy of these tribunals, it would seem that political cover is there to be had, if selected Conservative MP’s were given the nod to take the debate forward.
Read both links.
(As an aside – a google search on “stormfront Joan Bryden” returned 199 hits. I don’t know what to take away from that.)
Good point – “You might want to ask why the Harper government is more committed to building a $100 million Museum for Human Rights than to ensuring real, live freedom of speech in the here and now. “
Because it’s easier to worship symbols than it is to uphold principles.
WRT to your comment about the CHRC you have thrown me in with a group I do not agree with. Pasted below is my comment posted earlier today:
“Fortunately for the CPC and unfortunately for the Liberals there is only one correct stance on many important issues. Since the Liberals have abandoned the “middle right” of the political spectrum, they are having a very difficult time being on the right side of any issue since the CPC have already taken those positions. If the Liberals are going to take the lead on this issue it is in the best interest of the CPC to lay low. The Manley report has shown that when Liberals are on side with CPC positions, it does major damage to the Liberals when they attempt to oppose the government on those very issues. Dion will have to crack the party whip on this issue, until then I can support any Liberal MP who wants to help dig the hole the Liberals have leaped into.”
Please forgive my age, the music I listen to, and the fact the I think “Aqua Teen” is the funniest S**t going. I’m talking about what I see as inevitability; and I fear that you are probably right, 20yrs may be an optimistic guess (it’s 10 and counting 4 me). I do not buy your lightweight heavyweight argument since you have not backed it up with anything but the aforementioned punch line.
Do you still concur? – Posted by: Jon at February 12, 2008 5:04 PM
Of course Jon – I am a separatist. I believe Western Canada should (have) seperated from the Confederation. I have no illusions that this federal system will ever represent the totality of view nor interests of Alberta equitably. The discussion here today on such issues as electoral triangulation reveal just that.
Curiously, what people in here have not stated is that the presence of a further right political party could actually further the agenda. While revealing friction in countries with multiple parties, I know my views (libertarian in general) will never be accepted through the political process we have – as greasy and money infected as it is.
I don’t understand why he’s doing it so quietly, but he’s moving in the direction I’m interested in. Posted by: The Phantom at February 12, 2008 5:51 PM
He’s so quiet about it – because he wants your support and donation, and doesn’t want to have to actually say it out loud, or do anything. You are being used.
My apologies to commentor siczela. I nuked your post by accident! Feel free to repost.
“There’s the media wing of the Liberal Party”
Perhaps that should read:
“There’s the media, a wing of Liberal Party”
Speaking of principles, where are all of yours (hardboiled and a few others excepted)?
Remember when the CPC first got elected? All the smug boasting around here about how nice it was to have a party that “governed according to principles, not polls”? And about how a Conservative government of Western Canadian origins was just what was needed to sweep Ottawa clean? How Harper’s leadership would finally usher in an enlightened era of policy-making driven by conservative values rather than the self-serving quest for power (which you all associated with only the Liberals)?
What happened to all that principled talk? Suddenly you’re willing to abide a Conservative party that would suspend and compromise its ideological principles solely for the sake of self-preservation? That would pander to the vote-rich middle of the spectrum — a group whose political values and opinions you don’t share — because it means more governing power?
You would abide this because, what, the status quo and the alternative are worse? Where are your principles, that you would prefer a Liberal-in-Conservative-clothing to nothing at all?
Jeff wrote: In my life, I would rather loose by my principles that win without them – I expect nothing less from the elected officials I vote for.
That’s what I was raised to believe a Conservative Politician stood for, sadly I keep hearing blather about wait until he’s got a majority. I don’t think so, he does not deserve my vote, a brave man stands behind his convictions he doesn’t sell them to the highest bidder (Immigrants and Quebec) to get elected. I would never compromise my morals or beliefs to benifit myself personally at the expense of my family. I expect no less from a Conservative PM, he’s not conservative he’s just Liberal Light with a side order of Socialist Propaganda. Watch the new TV ads for Diversity, no mention of Christians in a Diverse Canada just Muslims, Jews and Gays etc. That ad spoke volumns to me, apparently the foundation which Canada was built has no place in the New World Utopia of Harperism. Christians aren’t part of a diverse Canada, but Muslims are. Can he be more sickenly obvious with his State paid for propaganda.
I refuse to become blindly loyal to the Conservative Party, there is only one God in my life his name is Jesus. I consider Harper to be Judas.
Question: If Harper’s CPC is so opposed to the CHRC, why are they not only leaving s.13 intact, but also repealing s.67 instead, which would have the effect of expanding the coverage of s.13 legal protections (among others)?
Strategically standing still on s.13 for the sake of the election is one thing, moving in the opposite direction on s.67 is entirely another. ET’s right that disengaging from the s.13 debate is necessary if the CPC hopes to win a majority. The question is, how far and for how long a shift to the middle would a true conservative be willing to put up with in order to get that majority. And assuming that the CPC wins it, how confident would one be that they’ll be as eager to shift back to the right?
This would almost make me consider voting Liberal next month, but since we already have a liberal Premier in office…
While it is understandable that in minority position you can’t go around beating your chest saying ‘I’m going to change the world”
The election campaign is the place to come up with a program. Some say you can’t do it this time, that time or another time. That somebody will clobber you with that. Seems that there is a lot of fear that if you start talking about it, you lose.
The abstract is, that you have to know, as opposed to believe, that what you are doing is the right thing to do.
If you decided you know, then you keep with the program as they say, hell or high water.
Consider one of the battles of Alexander the Great. The guy set out to do what he wanted to do, to punish Darius, it never occurred to Alexander that he may loose, never. After a particular victorious battle, Alexander and one of his officers called Parmenio stood up on a hill looking at the enemy in a mad retreat. Alexander turned to Parmenio and asked him, ‘Parmenio, should we go after them?’ Parmenio said “I would not if I was Alexander” to which Alexander replied “I would not either if I was Parmenio’ and of he went after the enemy.
You want to win, you go after them, if you are afraid, stay home.
siczela:
“Suddenly you’re willing to abide a Conservative party that would suspend and compromise its ideological principles solely for the sake of self-preservation?”
Because the conservative party is pointed in the right direction, and is making progress, little by little.
Taxes are lower. Not a lot lower, but lower. If the Libs were in power, they would be the same or higher.
There is not national daycare program. If the libs were in power, we would have ourselves another national social program soaking up our incomes and telling us how to raise our children. I am pleased with the fact that for the time being, national daycare is dead, I believe that government should not play a role in the raising of children, that is what parents are for.
There is no national drug program. There would be with the libs. The military is slowly being rebuilt – with the libs it would almost non-existent by now. The country now has a sensible foreign policy, not the self-platitudes and suuport for dictators that we had with the libs. The justice system is being revamped with new tough-on-crime bills instead of the liberal revolving prison door policy. There is less corporate welfare, despite the whining by Mcguinty. Harper refuses to hand cheques to business, instead he sends aid to economically depressed towns and regions. With the libs, your tax money would continue to flow to Power Corp and Bombardier.
The conservatives are moving in the right direction. They continue to fight to kill the gun registry and the Canadian Wheat Board. Since they are a minority, they have not been able to get the votes to finish them off, but they are working on it.
Would I like to see more consveratism? No doubt. But for the time being, I am happy just to see less liberalism.
Politics is the art of the possible. If the conservatives were to mention the HRCs they would provide untold ammunition to the lefties in our society. Therefore you don’t mention HRCs. You quietly weed out the most egregious actors on the HRCs and once they are no longer have an active voice in the media you cut the funding. Years down the road everyone asks why we have HRCs and you eliminate them.
To use another analogy. A prisoner is not wise to use a jackhammer to escape his prison. The tool is too big and too noisey to hide. He is wise to use a dull knife and silently whittle away at the wall that surrounds him. Carefully and methodically worry the blocks until they weaken and give way.
From the National Post:
Muslim leader drops Ezra Levant cartoon complaint
Western Standard publisher plans to launch a civil lawsuit
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=303895
What happens now?
“You quietly weed out the most egregious actors on the HRCs and once they are no longer have an active voice in the media you cut the funding.”
Except that Harper himself appointed Jennifer Lynch, a women’s rights pioneer, and David Langtry, a strong multiculturalism supporter, to the Chief Commissioner and Deputy Chief Commissioner positions, respectively. The two most recent appointees, Sandi Bell and Yvonne Boyer, also share activist roots. Hardly the pushover types.
sf…I agree again with one exception:
I want to see MORE liberalism (scrap the long gun boondoggle,scrap the HRC, reduce taxes and , scrap Nanny state programs)
and I want to see less of the Liberal Party.
I believe the CPC are at work as The Phantom has suggested, but they aren’t using the media as testing ground.
That did not take long.
Ezra responds:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/syed-soharwardy-wants-a-hudna.html
“You might want to ask why the Harper government is more committed to building a $100 million Museum for Human Rights than to ensuring real, live freedom of speech in the here and now.”
Because a museum is where you keep interesting artefacts from dead civilizations.
“There is less corporate welfare, despite the whining by Mcguinty. Harper refuses to hand cheques to business, instead he sends aid to economically depressed towns and regions. With the libs, your tax money would continue to flow to Power Corp and Bombardier.Posted by: sf at February 12, 2008 9:49 PM”
Bull sf – note the Frazer institute report on subsidies, and Prentice’s retreat.
$19 billion went out the door in 2004, with departmental spending up 19% since. The CPC is on track for the highest level of corporate teat feeding since…the Libranos.
check facts first sir/madam – nothing has changed.
I have links, and the story, on my blog. Please, inform yourself. Ignorance is not cool.
Rose said “I consider Harper to be Judas.”
Really? I shall be blunt. Rose – you are committing idolatry. Political idealism is your god. Have you prayed yet for your legions of angels?
(Forgive me, but sometimes a brick is the only thing that works)
As Christians, we are permitted to consider whether we have the means to accomplish the task (see Luke 14:28-32).
You may indeed freely withhold from Harper your support. To call him Judas is to judge another man’s servant and to bind his conscience.
Repent.
Interesting questions here. Siczela asks “Where are your principles, that you would prefer a Liberal-in-Conservative-clothing to nothing at all?”
What kind of principles are we talking about here? The political kind or the -real- kind?
I’ve been watching BNN tonight, the market strategy guys are coming on saying “Sub-prime is just the tip of the iceberg, behind that there’s credit card debt, car loans, standard mortgages, blah blah blah, this could get REALLY ugly so I’m shorting banks.”
The sub-prime crisis is the direct, inescapable result of too many people living beyond their means.
All through my adult life I’ve marveled at the people I’ve known who always had a new car, had a nice house, nice furniture, etc, working the same job as I did. I’m driving 15 year old junk and renting. How the hell do they do that?
Well, they do it on CREDIT. They don’t own the stuff, they just make the minimum payments every month. How long can you do that?
Exactly this long. Now, suddenly, the magic inflating house prices are DE-flating, you can’t re-fi the house anymore, and those minimum payments are masking fact that you own $100 credit card kilobucks at 20% interest, baby. PLUS the mortgage.
Why did this happen? Because bankers decided that principles were no longer important. The principl ethat you pay back the money you owe is passe, you just roll it over on the next greater fool you come across and leave them holding the bag. Well, the music just stopped and the banking industry is left holding the potato. And its getting hot. Principles matter.
Here’s another principle that Liberals have decided is passe, getting what you pay for and paying for what you get. We have socialized medicine in this country. It doesn’t work, because the system is set up to give away services and the customer never pays for them.
People expect the Marcus Welby MD heart transplant for 95 year old alcoholic Uncle Joe, and can’t understand why they are getting Nurse Rached with an aspirin and the bed in the hallway instead.
Principles are like gravity. They never go away, they never stop working and they effect everyone.
Those are the kind of principles I’m interested in the CPC following. If they sink the HRCs under cover of darkness, I’m good with it. If they talk like Liberals and cut my taxes on the sly, I’m good with it. If they do like Ed Stelmach in Alberta just did when he reneged on legal contracts with the oil companies, that I’m not good with.
I don’t understand why they do things the way they do them. As long as the ship is moving in the right direction, or even is stopped dead, I’m votin’ CPC.
Like spoilt children stomping THEIR feet and holding thier breath. I WANT IT NOW.
Come on kiddies, grow up.
Harper is still the best PM I have seen in my lifetime.
Canada is a big ship and it takes a long time to turn a big ship around.
Only an idiot would short Canadian banks. They make money in all environments. I hope he isn’t telling clients to do that.
The sub-prime issue is way overblown, which is typical behaviour for speculators who don’t understand the value of holding quality investments long term, instead they prefer suffering the day to day stupidity and inefficiencies of stock markets and “analysts.”
I’ll be glad to lend some bank stocks – just put the difference in trust, so I can get my hands up when speculation blows up in their face, when I want my stocks back.