Readers may detect a familiar pattern here. If someone is invited onto campus to discuss a controversial subject – say, illegal immigration– the most righteous response is not to refute that person’s arguments, which would entail some effort and minimal civility. Good lord, no, there’s no time for that. (And why run the risk of hearing new information – and worse, rethinking one’s own position?) Instead, simply ensure the guest cannot air any argument at all. Then there’s not much to refute. One can simply sloganeer triumphantly and, of course, paraphrase. Call what the speaker would have said “hate speech,” then no-one will be curious and people will stay clear.
That’s not to say it always works – “Nice going, geniuses! What’s your next trick gonna be?”
“‘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.