October 12, 2009

Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant testify about the completely out-of-control pursuit of hate speech in Canada.

I won't attempt to summarize. Listen to the testimony before Parliament's Justice and Human Rights Committee. What has gone on in Canada is truly revolting. The procedural abuses are astounding, and to think that it was all done for a goal that is itself illegitimate — crushing offensive speech.

ADDED: Steyn:
Why is this relevant to Americans? Because the superficial fluffily benign language of multiculturalism that comes so naturally to our rulers provides a lot of cover for the shriveling of free speech....
As Canadians have discovered, liberty is lost very quietly and quickly. And trying to get it back is slow and painful — particularly at a time when artists, universities, publishers, and others who congratulate themselves incessantly on their truth-telling courage find increasingly pre-emptive self-censorship the better part of valor.

76 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Andrew Sullivan will be the first complaintant the day Obama and his Democrat Congress order this Civilized Speech Conduct Code here.

miller said...

The sad thing is that people are willing to give up their right to free speech in order to protect their easily offended feelings.

Just pointing out flaws in the current Boy President, for example, is seen as hate speech or racism. Pointing out that he has done precisely NOTHING to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize is hate speech and is unAmerican. And so on.

I remember a time in the hazy past when dissent was patriotic. Not now, of course, not with the Obamessiah in office.

The Drill SGT said...

a new fairness doctrine.

declaring Fox isn't legitimate

self censoring cartoons

calling any critism of Obama racist



America is headed the same way

chickenlittle said...

Maybe we'll have to liberate Canada afterall.

Freder Frederson said...

Mark Steyn needs to talk to talk to some aboriginal Canadians, who as late as the 1970s were severely beaten just for speaking their native language.

Or maybe he should talk to my first boss, an African American from Oxford, MS, who remembered his grandfather being called "boy" when he was growing up.

Or perhaps he should rent The Magdelene Sisters if he can't identify with brown people being oppressed

chickenlittle said...

Mark Steyn needs to talk to talk to some aboriginal Canadians, who as late as the 1970s were severely beaten just for speaking their native language.

-bunk

Or maybe he should talk to my first boss, an African American from Oxford, MS, who remembered his grandfather being called "boy" when he was growing up.

-irrelevant

Or perhaps he should rent The Magdelene Sisters if he can't identify with brown people being oppressed

-anti-catholic bigotry

John Lynch said...

I think the root problem is the gradual redefinition of rights from things government can't do to you over to things government must do for you.

So, we have people prosecuted for speech in order to protect others from hearing it. The right to be left alone to say what you wish is replaced by the right to have the government silence your enemies.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hey Freder, its not 1970 anymore. You might want to make a note of it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Or perhaps he should rent The Magdelene Sisters if he can't identify with brown people being oppressed

I'm sorry Freder but do 'brown people' have a monopoly on being victims of oppression? I mean I know that's the standard liberal narrative but it does kinda fly in the face of historical facts.

rhhardin said...

Mark Steyn needs to talk to talk to some aboriginal Canadians, who as late as the 1970s were severely beaten just for speaking their native language.

French?

Paul said...

"Mark Steyn needs to talk to talk to some aboriginal Canadians, who as late as the 1970s were severely beaten just for speaking their native language.'

Hell, he could talk to members of the arts community in The United States Of America as recently as 2008 who would lose their employment if they were discovered to have voted for George Bush.

Freder Frederson said...

-bunk

You might want to research accounts what happened in the residential schools in Canada (and similar schools in Australia and this country for that matter) before you dismiss it out of hand.


As for "bunk" and "anti-Catholic bigotry", both the Canadian government and the Catholic Church have formerly apologized for the abuses in the residential schools (in Canada) and the convent "schools" (in Ireland). The Canadian government has even set up a reparation fund

Freder Frederson said...

I mean I know that's the standard liberal narrative but it does kinda fly in the face of historical facts.

I'm sure Cedarford will be here in a few minutes to tell us how the Jews are behind it.

Alex said...

Does this mean that Canada will prosecute Americans who say "fag" on the intertubes?

Alex said...

Interesting that Frederer needs to bring up ancient history to justify his anti-freedom measures. Fuck it, I want the freedom to say hateful things!

traditionalguy said...

Outlaw all speech that makes any group feel singled out for dislike. That also outlaws the Bible since sinners as a group have noticed that the opinions expressed therein are not favorable to their chosen lifestyle.

Freder Frederson said...

Interesting that Frederer needs to bring up ancient history to justify his anti-freedom measures.

Maybe I'm just an old fart. Hell, I was born in 1961! But I don't consider things that happened in my living memory "ancient history".

Derek Kite said...

Freder:

Odd you bring up aboriginal issues. Yes there have been serious abuses, and under an administration as close to stalinism that exists on this continent, they suffer still.

As for free speech and aboriginals, the first reaction to anyone, in academia, media or otherwise, who bewails the current state of affairs is to call them racist and their ideas hate speech.

Are you suggesting that these issues not be talked about? Or that we leave them in the gentle hands of the current Indian Affairs department? Or maybe you prefer the current situation, where there is a client group dependent on government for the basics of life, hence giving enormous power to a very large and well remunerated bureaucracy and companies that service them?

In writing these things, with details and names of corrupt individuals that benefit from the current regime, could very well be considered to be 'likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.' (from the legislation governing speech)

Do you take responsibility personally that your support of coercive limits on freedom of expression actively prevents the exposing of injustice towards millions?

Derek

Fred4Pres said...

Hate speach should be denounced. When I hear someone spouting racism I denounce it. It is just not a job for the government to do.

Which leads me to my Canada joke of the day:

Q. How do you get 200 Canadians out of a swimming pool in 2 minutes?

A. Ask them to please leave the pool.

Bonus Canada: And no one will be trampled or drowned in the process.

Which is my point--Canada is not some hot bed of vicious hate speach. They have a few skinheads in Vancouver (like a few dozen or so), who get no traction there. The only way to get Canadians riled up is to blurt out something nasty about their Hockey heroes. So Canadian Islamic Jihadis need not worry that Mark Steyn will hurt their feelings--and they sure as hell do not need the Canadian Civil Rights folks to step in.

John Lynch said...

But if abuse ended in the 1970s, how does that justify government violation of rights today? How are the two connected? The abuse ended 30 years ago without having to resort to speech restrictions, so why do we need them today? Using the past to justify future restrictions makes no sense.

Peter V. Bella said...

It is coming here. Harry Reid has twice used his official office in attempts to stifle free speech. Not a peep from civil liberties people. Instead of being censured or impeached he is lauded.

Others now are doing the same. Our elected officials believe that all criticism, dissent, and redress through expression must be marginalized, demeaned, debased, and outlawed. Why do you think they want hate crime bills? To protect certain people? Once the barn door is open, free speech will escape.

edutcher said...

Steyn showed everyone that something I long suspected was actually true: that the so-called hate speech laws were a leftist blind for the suppression of free speech. I don't use words like "nigger" or "spic", or, for that matter, "kike" and will object when I hear other people use them, but this is something the culture has to regulate as a mark what a good person is, not the government.

Andrea said...

Under hate crime laws Freder Frederson's implications that people here are racist could get him jail time.

Ah, what am I thinking -- of course they won't. He'll probably end up on the New Committee To Promote Vice And Prevent Virtue. He'll make sure no one says a bad thing about brown people ever again!

On a side note -- the Magdalene Sisters was about the abuse of unmarried Irish pregnant women by Irish nuns and priests. So unmarried Irish pregnant women are now honorary "brown people"? Who knew? But for an accident of birth (I was born in the US, not Ireland) and an unfortunate tendency to a life of self-control, I could have been a brown person and gotten myself some of those sweet, sweet accolades!

Derek Kite said...

There is always some fool that supports limits on freedom of expression, and always digs up some example in the past of some injustice.

What these fools don't recognize is that freedom of speech is something governments want to take away from citizens. And they will jump on any excuse to take it away, saying how dangerous it is to gays, african americans, or some other group that has borne the brunt of oppression at some time or other.

Interesting what has happened in this instance in Canada. Ezra Levant was charged with a hate crime (the state expresses it differently) for publishing the Danish cartoons. Steyn for quoting a Norwegian Imam who had the gift of radical expression.

Levant, who said that to carry this fight he had to summon his 'inner asshole', has been attacked by Law Society complaints, and about half a dozen libel suits from various participants in the rights industry who don't like criticism. They don't like free speech because it can subject them to contempt and criticism, and must, MUST use the full power of the law to stop anyone from saying what they consider mean.

So Freder, be careful. You are treading paths very well worn in history. The ends are obvious and clear, and despicable.

Derek

edutcher said...

Freder, while you're at it, why not go back to "No Irish Need Apply" and the fact that the Union Army lost the battle of Chancellorsville because the WASP officers refused to believe a "damned Dutchman" (German) when he told them Stonewall was moving up on Hooker's unprotected flank.

EDH said...

What does remedying a history of forced relocation of indigenous children into indoctrination schools by the government have to do with the justification for that same government curtailing the free speech of its citizens in public life?

Derek Kite said...

Freder: You mentioned Magdalene sisters.

Do you realize that under the full expression of the canadian human rights act, exposing the details of what happened in those places would be illegal?

Do you know that exposing those things have subjected people in Canada to prosecution? Not recently, but in the '50s and '60s in Quebec. There was a hard and long fight, many court cases and a fight for a bill of rights to stop the abusive power of the state.

Steyn was prosecuted for quoting a Norwegian Imam, word for word.

Derek

Freder Frederson said...

On a side note -- the Magdalene Sisters was about the abuse of unmarried Irish pregnant women by Irish nuns and priests. So unmarried Irish pregnant women are now honorary "brown people"? Who knew? But for an accident of birth (I was born in the US, not Ireland) and an unfortunate tendency to a life of self-control, I could have been a brown person and gotten myself some of those sweet, sweet accolades!

Now of course, that wasn't what it was about. But this reveals a lot about Andrea. Good girls are entitled to free speech. If you are of questionable morals. Well then--you deserve what you get. And shut up slut!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Maybe I'm just an old fart. Hell, I was born in 1961! But I don't consider things that happened in my living memory "ancient history".

No it just kind of makes you a dumbass though. Unless I'm reading you wrong, what you're saying is Steyn should STFU because Canadian aboriginies were beat up 40 years ago?

bearbee said...

Hate speach should be denounced. When I hear someone spouting racism I denounce it. It is just not a job for the government to do.

How 'bout the UN?

The Obama Administration is now promoting curbs on free speech at the UN, backing a UN Human Rights Council proposal to restrict speech that is offensive to other religions or is deemed "hate speech."

Slow, insidious and leading ultimately to choking the First Amendment?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Steyn was prosecuted for quoting a Norwegian Imam, word for word

And this is what I will never understand about the absolute knee jerk reaction that liberals have in defending what is hands down the most intolerant, bigoted and mysoginistic religion on the planet from any criticism.

Portray the Vigirn Mary covered in dung or the crucifix immerged in piss and the left applauds it as 'art'. Portray Mohammed as a terrorist in a cartoon or make fun of Islam and the left trips over their dicks to denounce it as racist, bigoted, culturally insensitive. The self loathing is breathaking to behold.

Freder Frederson said...

Steyn was prosecuted for quoting a Norwegian Imam, word for word.

Steyn was sued, and the case dismissed, in a civil type proceeding.

Almost every election year in this country, the Congress entertains an idiotic flag burning amendment to the Constitution.

kent said...

if he can't identify with brown people being oppressed


Free speech "oppresses" "brown people, " now, does it?

Really?

Explain the mechanism by which this awful tragedy takes place, please; and why "brown people" are thus "oppressed," specifically.

Show all your work.

Derek Kite said...

Freder: you are changing the subject.

Publishing a story such as the Magdalene Sisters has subjected people to prosecution in Canada. Under a strict reading of the current law, it would now.

Discussing aboriginal issues outside of current government policy direction is considered racist and hateful, and subjects you to prosecution.

If I quoted your statement about a man being called 'boy', and published it in a newspaper in Canada, it would be subject to prosecution.

In the US, with a history of vigorous debate and discussion of almost any issue, it is hard to imagine how much of public policy discussion is simply beyond the pale of rational debate in Canada. And it is not a good thing.

Derek

Freder Frederson said...

Unless I'm reading you wrong, what you're saying is Steyn should STFU because Canadian aboriginies were beat up 40 years ago?

No, that makes you the dumbass. The point is that the threat to free speech has always been, and continues to be from, the right. Steyn feels put upon because he thinks he is being picked on. Well, welcome to the world of holding an unpopular opinion! At least he can be pretty sure that if someone tries to lynch him the police won't be in the lynch mob.

My God, Mark--and Hoosier, Grow a spine! People don't like it when you criticize them for their religion or race, and just because you're a white Christian doesn't mean you're going to get away with it all the time anymore. They are going to fight back now and maybe even use the court system. I know it sucks, but deal with it.

Methadras said...

There are multitudes of examples how Canada has completely destroyed their freedom of speech by instituting these human rights commissions charters and through section 13.1. It's a horrid manifesto of how a country has nullified an speech that it deems to be counter to its dictums and that of those it provides shelter too. True Marxism in action.

kent said...

People don't like it when you criticize them for their religion or race, and just because you're a white Christian doesn't mean you're going to get away with it all the time anymore.

The fact that you actually typed that, blissfully oblivious to the patent irony therein, only makes it all the more deliciously revealing.

rcocean said...

The whole concept of "Hate Speech" is illegitimate and should be done away with - but won't be. We'll probably end up where Canada is in 10 years - never underestimate the cowardice and stupidity of the average American.

traditionalguy said...

Freder...There are laws aplenty about abusing people. The point is that Free Speech abuses no one. Free speech allows for a political resolution without violence because you learn where everyone stands. That allows for a peaceful accomodation and a resolution. Viloence happens when speech is forbidden as the best method to NOT HEAR from the other group that you are planning to abuse and steal from.

Derek Kite said...

>Steyn was sued, and the case dismissed, in a civil type proceeding.

There was a case many years ago in Canada, where a businessman, owner of a lounge, paid bail of those arrested for hate crimes against the Catholic Church in Quebec. The premier of the province took away his liquor license, a purely administrative, 'civil' function, fully at the discretion of the authorities having jurisdiction.

A civil suit was taken all the way to the supreme court, and the premier was ordered to pay some money in recompense to the businessman due to his abuse of power in this instance.

Civil law, administrative proceedings. Just normal, everyday events. Nothing to see here.

I'm amazed at how fast free speech opponents put on the short pants and start strutting around.

Derek

Synova said...

"They are going to fight back now and maybe even use the court system. I know it sucks, but deal with it."

So, using the courts to fight back at people who *criticize* is legitimate in your mind?

What do you think free speech is? Why do you think it is important? No one ever objects to unobjectionable speech or approved speech.

You want to take the *basis* for fighting against oppression, the thing to point to as a standard to prove that the oppression of people for their religion and ideas is wrong... and you want to throw it out?

That's irrational.

Hoosier Daddy said...

No, that makes you the dumbass. The point is that the threat to free speech has always been, and continues to be from, the right.

Um...really? You mean all those hate speech regulations and speech codes on campus are being proposed by the right wing?

Steyn feels put upon because he thinks he is being picked on. Well, welcome to the world of holding an unpopular opinion! At least he can be pretty sure that if someone tries to lynch him the police won't be in the lynch mob.

Wow. Such enlightenment from a liberal. Holding an 'unpopular opinion' is a green light to be sued and brought before a human rights tribunal or even lynched. Wow. Just wow.

My God, Mark--and Hoosier, Grow a spine! People don't like it when you criticize them for their religion or race, and just because you're a white Christian doesn't mean you're going to get away with it all the time anymore. They are going to fight back now and maybe even use the court system. I know it sucks, but deal with it.

Oh my goodness Freder. Grow a spine you say! What a fucking hypocrite you have finally shown yourself to be. I guess with hypocrites like you, free speech is only for those who want to denigrate white people, or Christians. But wait, poke fun or criticize the religion of peace and the Freders of the world will set that whole free speech thing aside and haul your ass to court. Yep just deal with it.

Thanks for finally showing what a hypocritical piece of shit you really are Freder.

Maguro said...

Thanks for finally showing what a hypocritical piece of shit you really are Freder.

Finally?

Synova said...

Quite seriously... this is one of those "liberal" things that conservatives have supposedly co-opted.

Maybe it makes things easy, to identify threats to freedom of speech, not on the basis of laws (that could be applied differently if political fortune shifts) but on the source, so that by definition no matter what liberals do, no matter what laws are passed, no matter how involved the government becomes in regulating speech... it doesn't count!

Wheeee!

The other day someone asked for a recent example of people on the left adjusting their beliefs as whatever is opposite of the conservatives.

This is one very good example.

There is no stand on *principle* here... (at least not from Freder, lest I slander the other liberal and leftish commenters to this blog)... it's not about civil liberties at all... it's about getting to be the oppressor this time around "and just because you're a white Christian doesn't mean you're going to get away with it all the time anymore."

Because it's someone elses TURN.

TURNS are only FAIR you know and today's so-called liberals value fairness above all else. (Hey, I didn't make that up... someone did a study.)

Andrea said...

Now of course, that wasn't what it was about. But this reveals a lot about Andrea. Good girls are entitled to free speech. If you are of questionable morals. Well then--you deserve what you get. And shut up slut!

Actually Freder, that reveals a lot about you. You don't believe in free speech because that means people you don't agree with are covered under that right as well. You're just another totalitarian wannabe who can't wait for his new job as party apparatchik when the Revolution comes.

Leftists are the most intolerant people on earth. Muslims are amateurs compared to them.

LarsPorsena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LarsPorsena said...

FF:
"...The point is that the threat to free speech has always been, and continues to be from, the right.."

"Hate-crimes legislation", "Campus Speech Codes" , "Broadcast Fairness Doctrine" "Employee Free Choice Act" ..Orwellian concepts from the right?

John Lynch said...

I think Steyn feels put upon because the Canadian government wanted to make his speech criminal. I think that's a good reason to feel put upon.

tdotTim said...

Freder,

Just wanted to extend congrats on you winning BOTH the Useful Idiot and Misogynist Asshole awards for this thread. A rare feat to take both home.

And thanks for exposing your pathologies, it's nice to see the argument for censorship is so multi-layered. Now shut up slut (to quote one of your pithy lines).

Elliott A said...

Al Gore is responsible for this problem! He actually did champion political correctness in the 90's when it first reared its ugly head. PC was the father to all these euphemisms which punish free expression. This level of restraint on public discourse sends everyone to their computer where they can assume a pseudonym and have at it. Probably why many of us are here.

Elliott A said...

I don't use a synonym.

chickenlittle said...

Al Gore is responsible for this problem!

@ElliottA: That's interesting to me because I left the US for three years, returning in 1993. The whole notion of "PC" was one of the first things I noticed new on college campuses.

chickenlittle said...

I don't use a synonym

I wanna live
with a synonym girl
I could be happy
the rest of my life
With a synonym girl.

wv: "emuluto" get out of here

Methadras said...

bearbee said...

Slow, insidious and leading ultimately to choking the First Amendment?


And if the 1st Amendment fails, then the 2nd become all the more important. There is a reason why the 1st Amendment became the first rather than the 2nd Amendment becoming the 1st Amendment. It's because the founders knew that the ability to express and speak freely was a fundamental use of the will of ones mind. To speak freely without the fear of political punishment is the binding premise that enables all free peoples to enjoy liberty and freedom without the fear of tyranny and if that 1st Amendment should ever fail, it is backed up by the 2nd Amendment. And that is why you will consistently see the erosion of the 2nd Amendment, because if it falls before the 1st Amendment, then the 1st Amendment will fall shortly thereafter since it will have no backup.

Eric said...

Steyn was sued, and the case dismissed, in a civil type proceeding.

This is wrong. Steyn wasn't sued - a form was filled out and submitted to the Canadian HRC. It's free and subjected the filer to no risks, financial or legal. And then Steyn (or, hopefully, his publisher) had to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending himself in a proceeding that was eventually dropped for lack of substance.

People on the left used to yammer on about "chilling dissent" whenever they were criticized until it became a running joke. Now that we see cases of actual chilling happen, where the machinery of government is used to stifle somebody's right to free expression, they're nowhere to be found.

Pogo said...

Canada is a fascist country, but with PC smiles and mono-multicultural imperatives rather than swastikas and pogroms.

Pogo said...

Ich bin ein Edmontoner.

Oligonicella said...

Freder Frederson --

"No, that makes you the dumbass. The point is that the threat to free speech has always been, and continues to be from, the right."

And that makes you, sir, a liar.

Synova said...

I'm listening... they're talking about holocaust denial... the parliment guy asked if Levant supported hate speech laws outlawing holocaust denial.

The government denying speech actually legitimizes the hate speech.

"What is he saying that is so dangerous that the State won't permit him to say it?"

Quasimodo said...

Shorter Freder:

40 years ago, free speech was denied to people I claim to champion

therefore

Today, it is OK to deny free speech to those I disagree with

because

Those I like are doing it today and those I do not like did it then

Elliott A said...

Pseudonym

6p00e54fa4c7fe8834 said...

" Freder Frederson said...
Unless I'm reading you wrong, what you're saying is Steyn should STFU because Canadian aboriginies were beat up 40 years ago?

No, that makes you the dumbass. The point is that the threat to free speech has always been, and continues to be from, the right. Steyn feels put upon because he thinks he is being picked on. Well, welcome to the world of holding an unpopular opinion! At least he can be pretty sure that if someone tries to lynch him the police won't be in the lynch mob."

And Freder never met a communist he did not like.
Freder read a little history, more often than not cops were dressed in their cute little klan outfits and were members of the lynch mobs.

Now let us try to understand leftist logic: hate speech is bad because it leads to oppression by the state so let us empower the state to suppress hate speech lest they oppress us again.

kent said...

Now let us try to understand leftist logic:

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

cubanbob said...

"kent said...
Now let us try to understand leftist logic:

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things. "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

10/12/09 3:20 PM

Well put, Kent.

Triangle Man said...

Ich bin ein Edmontoner

I've use HP toner and Epson toner, but never tried Edmontoner. Any good?

Kirk Parker said...

chickenlittle totally wins this thread @ 1:08 PM!!!

Pogo said...

"I've use HP toner and Epson toner, but never tried Edmontoner. Any good?

Yes, because smears are illegal.

Gen. Sir Charles Napier said...

I remember reading you first when you were undecided between Bush and Kerry. I remember concluding that it was mostly due to your being only moderately interested/involved in politics.

Looks like you've chosen wisely.

kentuckyliz said...

I suggest y'all start reading the Samizdata blog. It will clue you in to what to be on alert for.

Sorry for ending that sentence with a preposition. My mother used to tell me, "That is something up with which I shall not put!" (said in a very stern English accent)

I am a refugee of the People's Republik of Kanada and happy to be a frostback stealing American jobs.

kentuckyliz said...

Under the hate speech code in Canada, would it be a HRC offense to say:

"You don't go in the out door!"

I could see how that could tie Canadians in knots.

Dewave said...

Bureaucrats who will attempt to outlaw speech and opinions they disagree with are the new public enemy #1. They must be resisted with every scrap of will we possess.

If we lose this battle, they will control the rules that define the battlefield.

The freedom to say things others may find hateful, bigoted, or offensive, is one of the foundations of a vibrant and free society.

Ah, who am I kidding. I think a board of experts should be able to define all acceptable speech and political discourse. As long as I get to pick who is on the board, of course.

Revnant Dream said...

Fight like hell to stop hate laws or these quasi-Inquisitions from blooming in America like poison mushrooms..
Its not Impossible. Just keep on your representatives case, day by day.
Ezra Levant & Mark Steyn made them a laughing stock in Canada. When this first broke about these star chambers most Canadians had no idea they existed. Now most despise them , left or right.
As Ezra says you have to De-normalize these groups for what they are. Political police for political fads. Thought cops with a political grudge.
The phony human rights racket detracts from real individual Natural liberties to collective none sense laws. That take away from the real ones.
Lots of us are fighting back & winning. Thanks to a few brave
souls who have stood up to the bullies.
They usually prey on the weak or those in financial trouble.
It becomes a way to introduce semi legal laws that try to take over the real justice system.
If stoic Canucks can fight back you yanks ought to be able to rabbit these bigots out of there political holes double quick. Before they befoul your Natural rights as Americans.

kent said...

Still no answer to the following:

Free speech "oppresses" "brown people, " now, does it?

Really?

Explain the mechanism by which this awful tragedy takes place, please; and why "brown people" are thus "oppressed," specifically.

Show all your work.

The shock. My heart.

Beth said...

Sorry for ending that sentence with a preposition. My mother used to tell me, "That is something up with which I shall not put!" (said in a very stern English accent)

Liz, I think that great saying your mom used is intended to show that the preposition rule should be ignored when it results in a sentence like that.

By the way, how are you doing? Feeling good these days?

Revenant said...

Or maybe he should talk to my first boss, an African American from Oxford, MS, who remembered his grandfather being called "boy" when he was growing up.

Apparently the reasoning here is "Americans used to be racist, so we shouldn't worry about censorship in Canada".

That the above line of reasoning actually makes sense to some people is probably cause for worry.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That the above line of reasoning actually makes sense to some people is probably cause for worry.

Consider the source of the quote.