Althouse: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

April 11, 2008

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

Canadians have what they call "human rights."

(Link via Instapundit.)

86 comments:

Hoosier Daddy said...: Clearly the irony in such a statement is that a 'Human Rights Commission' views freedom of speech as an American concept, rather than a human right.

Good job to the lefties who continue to show that Goldberg's book is right about liberal fascism.; 4/11/08, 8:02 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Agree with Hoosier. The Left doesn't beleive in freedom, however, because freedom is an American Virtue that most Americans believe in, they are force to pretend that what they do is about freedom. So you have double-speak, i.e., the humaan rights commission, or comments like I heard an executive producer at CNN recently say to me at a party "a slave may actually be more free in one country than a free person in another who is poor, uneducated, and discriminated against..."

HOW MANY FINGERS WINSTON?; 4/11/08, 8:17 AM
Unknown said...: Canada seems to have reached the point where anything associated with the U.S. is automatically suspect. Except our money, that is.; 4/11/08, 8:19 AM
knox said...: cream puff rights; 4/11/08, 8:34 AM
Fen said...: These are the people that the Left wants approval from - ditch freedom of speech so we can "repair" our reputation and be "popular" with the world.; 4/11/08, 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: It's aboot dignity! It's aboot freedom of speech! It's aboot...What's so damn funny? What are you laughing aboot?; 4/11/08, 8:36 AM
ricpic said...: My congratulations to Nick [Nick Packwood, Canadian blogger (Ghost of a Flea)] for breaking away from a life of living in fear. Many are unable to. Anyone who thinks career based self-censorship is not a way of life here [the U.S.] has probably not worked in academia, or lived in a town like Berkeley.

I'm shocked! Academia a prison?! What say you, Althouse?; 4/11/08, 8:36 AM
TMink said...: No freedom of speech = no human rights.

Got speech?

Trey; 4/11/08, 8:38 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Don't forget the New improved UN Human Rights Commission that has only two long term goals
-Condemnation of Israel
- white-wash of 3rd world dictators

they recently appointed a unreconstructed US communist 911 truther who believes that Jews=Nazis to investigate Israel.; 4/11/08, 8:38 AM
KCFleming said...: They may be unable to speak freely, but at least they have national health care.

More liberal fascism. Just like in Cuba and the Soviet Union, they speak of their great freedoms (health care, a daily wage), but lack the liberty our Founders demanded.

Candaians better get used to it: the government owns you, and can tell you to do whatever it wants, by whatever petty whim of whatever vile low level bureaucrat.

They say 'jump', and you have the freedom to say 'how high?'.; 4/11/08, 8:51 AM
Trooper York said...: It's those filthy Canadians that are the real problem not those hard working Mexicans. As least the Mexicans come here to pick lettuce and wash dishes and do drywall and clean our houses. Those freakin' canucks only give us cold fronts, snow, toothless hockey players and lame comedians. Those douches don’t want to be Americans and they don’t want to be brits. They have been getting a free ride for way to long. A lot of them are descended from Tories who ran out on us when we were fighting those snaggle tooth limey assholes. And half of them are Frogs. I say we build the fence around Canada and keep those snow bringing, american bashing, caribou fucking hosers in the icy hell of Canada where they belong.; 4/11/08, 9:00 AM
Trooper York said...: I hate Canadians.; 4/11/08, 9:03 AM
ricpic said...: Maintenant, maintenant, les Quebecoises sont tres chic, n'est-ce pas?; 4/11/08, 9:04 AM
John Kindley said...: So much for emigrating to Canada if things get too oppressive here.

Not that this is a new revelation for me. I was appalled years ago when Canadian pro-life activists described to me the contemptible legal strictures under which they're forced to operate, and the wholly unjustifiable legal sanctions that have been levied against them. Freakin communists next door.; 4/11/08, 9:17 AM
Richard Dolan said...: According to the article, most of these suits before the Canadian Human Rights Commission are brought by one Richard Warman, who seems to be funded by the Canadian Jewish Council. Very strange. It's hard to decide whether the better comparison is with a pogrom or an inquisition. That the CJC has found a pogrom/inquisition of which it approves is a remarkable turn of events. As in past versions of this sort of thing, however, its targets may be motivated to vote with their feet and head south. Canada's loss will be America's gain. Perhaps the Canadians will come to their senses before permanent damage is done. But that is equivalent to hoping that academics pushing speech codes will see the folly of their ways. I wouldn't count on it, either with academics or Canadians.; 4/11/08, 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's see - the wingnuts in this country have done the following in the past few years:

1) Applauded as the Bush Administration has led a crusade to put pornographers in jail.

2) Cheered as a student was tasered for asking a question

3) Mocked a woman who was killed at an airport by security guards when she started to yell about how she needed to get on a flight.

4) Supported the imprisonment of 3 soldiers for sodomy

5) Supported constitutional amendments that make it illegal for gay people to exchange wedding vows

6) Advocated the prosecution of people for purchasing sex toys.

Republicans hate freedom.; 4/11/08, 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...: And lets be honest - Freedom of speech is about 1/1000th as important as the freedom to have sex with another consenting adult. Yet Republicans think it's perfectly ok to not only micromanage people's sex lives, but advocate imprisonment if they don't approve of who you're sleeping with.

Republicans think their lives will come to an end if they can't advocate for incinerating Jews. But they think nothing of telling gay people that if they have gay sex - ever - they will be imprisoned, as our President still advocates for to this very day.; 4/11/08, 10:34 AM
Synova said...: DTL, you're boring.

No one, not the president, no one is advocating putting homosexuals in jail for having consensual sex.; 4/11/08, 10:42 AM
Palladian said...: Don't take the bait, Synova.; 4/11/08, 10:43 AM
Trooper York said...: Canadian's have sex with baby seals and then they club them to death. Those dirty bastards.; 4/11/08, 10:46 AM
KCFleming said...: Freedom of speech is about 1/1000th as important as the freedom to have sex with another consenting adult.
Probably the stupidest thing I have read this year. Well, next to every other comment by DTL.

Republicans hate freedom.
[insert Hillary cackle here]
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."; 4/11/08, 10:46 AM
KCFleming said...: Is mockery the same as taking the bait?
If so, I'll stop.
It probably only encourages him anyway.; 4/11/08, 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: You're a wrong Synova.

Bush not only advocated imprisoning gays - quite publicly in a 1994 speech - but he DID imprison them. Lawrence v. Texas, of whose repeal he favors, after all, was a lawsuit against the state of Texas and a law Bush supported and helped keep in place.

Republicans are very anti-freedom. They also favor torture - even before a trial has even taken place.

Maybe we should concentrate on having more liberty in this country - before we attack countries that enjoy much more freedom and rights than we do (such as Canada). The US took an innocent Canadian citizen and tortured him. But oh - you're silent about that.

So I can't advocate for the Holocaust in Canada, but unlike this country, at least I can get married there.; 4/11/08, 10:49 AM
Palladian said...: I think mockery encourages him as well. He's a negativity vampire, and seems to feed on any sort of attention, the nastier and uglier the better.; 4/11/08, 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Here comes Palladian - Better guard your Doritos from him . . .; 4/11/08, 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/11/08, 10:51 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: And lets be honest - Freedom of speech is about 1/1000th as important as the freedom to have sex with another consenting adult.

Wow. What a statement. It's caveman politics.; 4/11/08, 10:51 AM
Trooper York said...: A Canadian sex toy is an ice cube with a hole in it. That's where the term cold-cocked first came from. It was popularized by Grantland Rice the sportswriter when Canadian Tommy Burns won the heavyweight championship on February 23, 1906. Rice thought he was a comedian cause Tommy was famous for sticking his member in a bucket of ice. The pervert.; 4/11/08, 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Palladian always has to take a legitimate discussion and start with the personal attacks.

It is truly sad.; 4/11/08, 10:53 AM
Palladian said...: Ah yes, the fat jokes! OMG I'm so hurt! Cry Cry Cry!

I'd be happier with blinis and caviar. I don't eat Doritos like people do in whatever trailer park spawned you.

Hey, DTL, tell everyone how you were too chickenshit to come out of the closet until you were in your 30s! The gay rights crusader, giving furtive blowjobs in back rooms and restroom stalls, shaking with fear that he'll be found out! Now you reap the benefits of being a faggot while the rest of us who weren't mentally unstable cowards actually faced real danger and real discrimination because we didn't hide like you did.

How's Thailand?; 4/11/08, 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: So please never have sex again Sloanassaurus. And no masturbating either. Tell us how easy it is.

I promise never to advocate for incinerating Jews. I somehow don't think I'll lose sleep over that, or have trouble upholding that promise over the course of my lifetime.

Yes - freedom to have sex is 1000 times more important that trivial restrictions on hate speech (restrictions I DON'T favor by the way); 4/11/08, 10:56 AM
KCFleming said...: DTL always has to take a legitimate discussion and start with the litany of the haints.

I'd rather chew glass.; 4/11/08, 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Palladian - Either contribute to the discussion or go away.

Your personal attacks are childish.; 4/11/08, 10:58 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Archie Bunker: You're supposed to be the big bug on the Constitution, right? Well the first amendment guarantees that baby the right to bear a machine gun?

Mike Stivic: The first amendment guarantees free speech.

Archie Bunker: Same thing, buddy boy. If you got a gun in your hand, you're free to make any speech you want to.; 4/11/08, 10:59 AM
Palladian said...: I know, Pogo, and then the pathetic feigning offense when other people play his filthy game.

I think he's sexually excited by all of it.; 4/11/08, 11:00 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Oh Christ- is that still OK to say- DTL is back with his terrible two tantrum again; bwaaaa! I want my rights. Bwaaaa! Give me my rights. Bwaaaa! Contribute to the conversation about my pathtic rights. Bwaaa! Bwaaa! Bwaaa!; 4/11/08, 11:01 AM
John Kindley said...: Get over yourself, downtownlad. I grant that the Republican Party is antithetical to freedom. But so is the Democrat Party, every bit as much, if not more so. Recognize that the enemy is the State itself, and not just the half that fails to enact your preferred oppressions.

I don't know many Republicans who think it's okay to imprison people for being gay or acting gay. Did you just make that up about Bush (who it should be clear I dislike also) advocating imprisonment for gays?

"Freedom of speech is about 1/1000th as important as the freedom to have sex with another consenting adult."

It's difficult to deplore and condemn the above sentiment as much as it deserves. Let me just exercise my natural right (as opposed to constitutional recognition of that right) to free speech by advocating the incineration or at least imprisonment of anyone guilty of the crime of suppressing free speech through coercive State measures.; 4/11/08, 11:03 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: I say we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and invade Canada.; 4/11/08, 11:04 AM
SGT Ted said...: Just like in Cuba and the Soviet Union, they speak of their great freedoms (health care, a daily wage)

They confuse "freebees" with "freedom".

YEa DTL it's so hard to find porn or a shop that sells sex toys these days. And all those gays languishing in the camps, unmarried.

Those Waskily Wepublicans!

Nevermind that the Dems on the National scene have never voted in the majority for those precious issues. It's all the Republicans fault.

Such a Drama Queen you are DTL.; 4/11/08, 11:05 AM
Palladian said...: John K., he's not worthy of your measured and thoughtful response. But thanks for saying it anyway.; 4/11/08, 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm not a Democrat John K.

Bush advocated in favor of Sodomy Laws in 1994. Look it up.

I get sick and tired of Republicans talk about how they favor freedom, when they have done so much destroy liberty in the United States.

And yes, I will continue to point out this hypocrisy every time I see it.

I really don't care if some people don't want to reminded of their hypocrisy.

And no - the Democrats are NOT worse. No Democrat is calling for hate crimes for speech.; 4/11/08, 11:11 AM
Trooper York said...: "I say we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and invade Canada."

Now we're talking! Let's put an end to all those freaken' cold fronts that come in from Canada and mess up my spring. Let's fry those greasy canucks in oil. In fact there is a lot of oil up there. We can take it off their hands and send them over to Europe with the rest of the weenies who want to bow down to those bureaucrats in the freakin' EU and UN and whatever other freakin' initials they can come up with. We already invaded Canada twice, let's make it stick.

And by the way, the Blue Jays suck.; 4/11/08, 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sex toys are illegal in Alabama. Try buying them there. But it's ok - you can still rally people to lynch black people there- that's ok. Just as long as you don't follow through with the lynching.; 4/11/08, 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Regardless of the hate crime laws - Canadians enjoy more freedom than Americans do.; 4/11/08, 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: And why does Palladian spend all his time trying to police my speech and censor me?

Oh that's right - because he's a failed artist who has a lot of time on his hands.

Nite nite.; 4/11/08, 11:18 AM
reader_iam said...: From the Constitution Act, 1982 (Schedule B), Part 1 (sections 1 & 2):

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Here's one snippet of Constitutional Law analysis:

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. Freedom of expression promotes certain societal values, as noted by Professor Emerson in 1963: "Maintenance of a system of free expression is necessary (1) as assuring individual self-fulfillment, (2) as a means of attaining the truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by the members of the society in social, including political, decision-making, and (4) as maintaining the balance between stability and change in society." Our constitutional commitment to free speech is predicated on the belief that a free society cannot function with coercive legal censorship in the hands of persons supporting one ideology who are motivated to use the power of the censor to suppress opposing viewpoints.

The Canadian approach to freedom of expression allows for a wide conception of "expression" within s. 2(b). The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a wide and inclusionary approach to the interpretation of the Charter's free expression guarantee is to be preferred (see Ford v. Quebec, and Irwin Toy). Thus, in Irwin Toy, Chief Justice Dickson explained that "'expression' has both a content and a form, and the two can be inextricably connected. Activity is expressive if it attempts to convey meaning. That meaning is its content." Not only is there a freedom of expression, there is also a freedom to not express. As Justice Beetz said in National Bank of Canada v. R.C.U. [p. 377 text], "all freedoms guaranteed by s. 2 of the Charter necessarily imply reciprocal rights: ... freedom of expression includes the right to not express."

There are of course limits to free speech and free press guarantees, as the Canadian Supreme Court is quite ready to point out (see CBC v. A.G.N.B., below). For example, even though the press enjoys core constitutional rights of access and publication, they do not have protection for all operational means and methods the press may choose to adopt. The press does not, for example, enjoy immunity if they run a pedestrian down in pursuit of a new story under the guise of "freedom of the press". ..."; 4/11/08, 11:38 AM
Synova said...: "Regardless of the hate crime laws - Canadians enjoy more freedom than Americans do."

So did Iraqis under Saddam.

Some of them.

So do the Chinese, so long as they agree with their government.; 4/11/08, 11:41 AM
SGT Ted said...: I don't recall a Constitutional right to sex toys.

Alabamans can order them over the intertoobs, or the phone. How oppressive.

Drama Queen.

Democrats authored and passed a resolution condemning the free speech of Rush Limbaugh just last year, because he pointed out that antiwar loons were posing as Soldiers or were using phonies claiming to be former servicemen to legitimize their anti-Americanism, As well as actual veterans who were lieing about warcrimes.

Bill Clinton blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on Conservative talk radio.

And it sure the hell isn't Conservatives or Republicans who bring thought crime charges on College campuses or enforce "diversity" rules which punish people for disagreeable speech.

You demented Drama Queen.; 4/11/08, 11:42 AM
Synova said...: "Don't take the bait, Synova."

You didn't see the post I deleted.; 4/11/08, 11:45 AM
reader_iam said...: It seems to me that freedom of speech has been an essential tool of the gay rights movement, as it has with other civil rights movements. Where suppressed, it has been a setback. Has there been a single instance of progress to which the exercise--the ability to exercise, as well as the exercise--of freedom of speech has not been a key factor?; 4/11/08, 11:55 AM
John Kindley said...: Freedom of speech is extremely important to me, because one of my favorite things to do is pointing out that laws are only as legitimate as they are just (rendering most legislation either superfluous or invalid), and that we have no moral duty to obey unjust laws; and advocating that people disobey as many unjust laws as often as they can get away with it, and in certain circumstances even ones that they aren't likely to get away with. If the government starts infringing on our natural right to free speech, speech of the type I just uttered would seem to be a likely candidate.; 4/11/08, 12:09 PM
reader_iam said...: To get back to Canada, what's so alarming about the latest chapter of the saga is that now you have someone who is suing based on the idea that decrying the abrogation of free speech rights by, for example, calling someone a censor for doing so, is itself a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act!

So, there are things you aren't allowed to express, and one of those things, if the plaintiff has his way, is criticizing that idea if it involves accusing someone of being censorious? How much scarier does it have to get before people wake up?

Volokh says it better; for example:

Yet the Canadian justice system not only allows the suppression of certain viewpoints, and excludes them from free speech restrictions. With this case, it also tries to deny critics the right to label the speech they support “free speech,” and the dissenters they like “dissidents.”

The court is insisting that Canadians’ speech not only follows the government-approved ideology on the topic of race, ethnicity, and religion (an ideology that I agree with, but that I don’t think should be legally coerced). It is also insisting that Canadians’ speech follows the government-approved ideology and terminology on the topic of free speech itself. [Emphasis added.]; 4/11/08, 1:02 PM
reader_iam said...: I can see that interest in this topic, at least this thread, has waned. Is that because of DTL's digression?

Regardless, it's a shame. Because this is not a trivial issue, and because--in particular--it especially affects people on line and in the blogosphere. (It appears, by the way, that an aggregator has pulled its own plug because it links to/excerpts bloggers, etc., and therefore--as aggregators tend to do--contained in its databases some of the material to be litigated. More cascading, torturous, downstream implications!)

Oh, well, I guess.

To close, here's the relevant part of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Canadian Human Rights Act
PART I: PROSCRIBED DISCRIMINATION
Discriminatory Practices

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.

Source.; 4/11/08, 1:14 PM
KCFleming said...: Canada's liberal fascism is simply the Soviet Union's history of totalitarian communism, repeated this time as farce.

But I suppose the Canadian schoolmarms disallow those ugly words, too.

I truly fear that we are going down this path ourselves. Our lurch toward national health care should carry with it the dire warning that the ends desired often dictate the means.

And the means in Canada primarily involve force.; 4/11/08, 1:18 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: trooper york... send them over to Europe with the rest of the weenies

Do we send them to France or England?; 4/11/08, 1:55 PM
Trooper York said...: Send them to Frankfurt, that's where weenies come from.; 4/11/08, 2:11 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: We send them in the holds of merchant ships. Screw them. They do not deserve air travel. We have to find a few more countries; depopulating Canada would be a monumental task.

Africa is a good sized continent and there is still lots of land.; 4/11/08, 2:18 PM
reader_iam said...: I don't hate Canadians (or Canada). I fear for them, in some ways.

I'm hopeful that the likes of Warman carry within their own actions the seeds of their own destruction.

We shall see.; 4/11/08, 2:31 PM
Trooper York said...: Nah, the Africans have enough problems with Bono running around there and Sally Struthers eating all of the food. Besides, if we crack down on them, those lousy canucks will come around right quick. They are like rebellious teenagers, give em a smack and they start crying "Oh I didn't mean it, don't get mad, you're not fair, I'm sorry, I won't do it again."; 4/11/08, 2:47 PM
Trumpit said...: You reactionary homophobe, SGT. TED. Time 4 U 2 do your duty to god and your country and ship out. Take a few sex toys with you to Iraq to while away your hours when your not killing and torturing innocent Iraqis. We know your proclivities for kinky macho military sex and for going off half-cocked. You demented homophobes make me sick!; 4/11/08, 3:48 PM
KCFleming said...: Trunpit,
It's unwise to drink the sanitary hand cleanser. Even though it is 52% alcohol, it doesn't tend to show you at your best.

Whatever that might be.; 4/11/08, 4:07 PM
Fen said...: Canadians enjoy more freedom than Americans do."

If we were Canadians, I could falsely accuse you of racism and have you hauled before a court. The burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence. You'll pay 100k+ just to defend yourself, and you have no right to confront your accuser (I'll be off skiing while your life is being destroyed).

Yah, lets pretend Canadians have more freedom. Maybe we can get more Moonbats to flee the US.; 4/11/08, 4:24 PM
Revenant said...: Canadians enjoy more freedom than Americans do.

I can name a lot of things I'm allowed to do that Canadians aren't.

Aside from "work as a prostitute", I can't name a single thing Canadians are allowed to do and I'm not.; 4/11/08, 4:41 PM
Cedarford said...: Ezra Levant, the Jewish man sued by Muslims for publishing the Danish Cartoons, and by Richard Warman, a man funded by the Candadian Jewish Congress and B'nai B'rith said this:

On this point, I agree with Mr. Soharwardy and Mr. Elmasry: I blame the Jews.

A generation ago, illiberal elements in the "official" Jewish community pressed Canadian governments to introduce laws limiting free speech. The targets of those laws were invariably poor, unorganized, harmless neo-Nazi cranks and conspiracy theorists such as Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra — nobodies who were turned into international celebrities when they were prosecuted for their thought crimes.

Levant said the main driver of the orginal thought crimes legislation was lawyers from the Canadian Jewish Congress. Who were simply emulating past radical Jewish success in suppressing incorrect thought in the Soviet Union, then in Europe, post WWII.

Apparantly, the Jews seeking to banish "hate thought" are not done. Bernie Farber, President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, with Warman, has petitioned Harvey Goldberg, lead investigator with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to censor foreign websites. Their writ seeks to have "human rights defenders" monitor inappropriate web traffic then sue under the new proposed law to heavily fine ISPs and by blocking Canadian Internet users from accessing them. It was an attempt to replicate the Orwellian "Great Firewall of China" that the Chinese Communist Party uses to stop politically incorrect websites from reaching that country.

The Candian Jewish Council also has funded Warman's lawsuits against columnist Mark Steyn and a dozen conservative Canadian bloggers. Which they seek to shut down over issues like reporting on Labor Party scandals and favoring aboriginal claims over other Canadians including title-holders and possessors of multi-generational commercial fishing and crabbong licenses...

Some in the Jewish Congress think it has gone too far because Muslims have succeeded in barring Israeli officials from visiting Canada if they have "defamed" their occupations "legitimate armed resistors".

There ought to be a law that Jews keep their noses out of making laws or bypassing democracy through the courts - attempting to control or suppress other people's thoughts or business. Even a good portion of Jews think there has been too much Jewish-led PC lawsuits, speech codes, and war on Christian symbols and holidays.; 4/11/08, 4:46 PM
John Kindley said...: "Canadians enjoy more freedom than Americans do."

Everyone is naturally as free as everyone else. A government doesn't make you free or give you freedom. However, certain populations appear more submissive to government coercion and oppression, and willing to use government coercion and oppression on each other, than other populations are. Americans are way way more submissive and coercive than is consistent with human dignity and our own historical ideals, but I'm not aware of any other populations that are any better. That's sad.

Saddam Hussein was first and foremost the Iraqis' problem. Now that he's gone, it looks like the Iraqis are on track to establish and acquiesce to a regime every bit as oppressive.; 4/11/08, 5:01 PM
Fen said...: it looks like the Iraqis are on track to establish and acquiesce to a regime every bit as oppressive.

I walked in the public street and observed the faces of the people I passed by - those sprawled on the sidewalks, selling goods, those who make their livelihood in the souks and the parking lots, and the beggars. I imagined them five years ago. I might not see a great change in their appearance, but there was something written in their facial features that showed that these people have their freedom to deal with things. As one of them said to me, no one comes and scatters their wares, or chases them away, or demands bribes. They come when they will and leave when they will.

"At the start of my journey I stopped by the newspaper seller to ask how he was after five years of change. He said: I will sum up what you ask in a few words. Despite everything that happened and is happening, I feel pride in the fact that the years of dictatorship are gone. There were no worse years than those, when we were afraid of our own shadows and our own children. I won't claim that the situation now is ideal, but compared to the past, it is much better, without any comparison… Despite the sorrows I find in our present situation, I feel relieved. In the days [of the dictatorship] I didn't feel optimistic. Now, I am optimistic about what is to come. What is happening now is passing; while it has gone on long, it will end - it could end in the twinkle of an eye.

"I called a friend who lives in Sadr City and asked him how things were under the traffic ban in force now for a week. He said: I feel love, and then laughed, and continued: There are some things I fear, but I do not fear the coming days. People [here] are in a lamentable state and are afraid of evils that may befall them, but they are not despondent. They are awaiting a change for the better.

"You see that people, despite their proud grief, are talking about hope, and optimism, and the happiness to come. Despite the confusion, the anarchy, and the unconceivable occurrences, you hear the words: the breakthrough is at hand. They speak of the democracy that they had misunderstood, and they emphasize that these five years have taught them a lot and enriched their experience."; 4/11/08, 6:01 PM
John Kindley said...: That is encouraging. More than likely I spoke of what I do not know. I do hope that good may come of evil, although doing evil in the hope that good may come of it is still evil, and almost invariably leads to unintended consequences.

Perhaps it's the anarchy itself, the relative absence of a coercive government that has attained the illusion of legitimacy among the people, that is the source of their hope, in spite of the violence and uncertainty. Perhaps that hope may diminish with the victorious ascension of one of the religious factions now vying for supremacy. Perhaps the concern with establishing a stable and authoritative government is misplaced, and against the Iraqis' best interests.; 4/11/08, 6:24 PM
blake said...: Freedom of speech is about 1/1000th as important as the freedom to have sex with another consenting adult.

Yeah, I think it was Ben Franklin who said that.; 4/11/08, 6:57 PM
Trooper York said...: "Freedom of speech is about 1/1000th as important as the freedom to have sex with another consenting adult.
Yeah, I think it was Ben Franklin who said that."

Well he was in the bathtub with a skanky french broad at the time and he only said that to get his end wet, well wet in a more enjoyable way.; 4/11/08, 7:20 PM
Revenant said...: he was in the bathtub with a skanky french broad at the time

Just one? Man. It is a sad day when you realize your heroes weren't all that you thought they were.; 4/11/08, 7:51 PM
Trooper York said...: Rev, he was 80 freakin' years old at the time. Don't you have HBO?; 4/11/08, 7:57 PM
Fen said...: I do hope that good may come of evil

Its the beginning of the end for radical Islam.; 4/11/08, 9:21 PM
reader_iam said...: Fen, it's true that I'm tired after a very long week, and therefore ... all which that implies.

That said, I can't pinpoint the origin of your latest italicized reference. Either it's pointing to a source I'm currently (and, in that case, I hope temporarily) too stupid to identify, or it's your paraphrase of a snippet from one of my own comments earlier.

Would you please help me out here?; 4/11/08, 9:45 PM
John Kindley said...: Reader,

He's quoting my comment just a couple comments up.; 4/11/08, 9:53 PM
John Kindley said...: See what you're missing by automatically skipping any comments starting with "John K. said...":); 4/11/08, 9:55 PM
John Kindley said...: "Its the beginning of the end for radical Islam."

But Saddam, of course, while a murderous thug, was not a radical Islamist. During his reign of secular terror Christians were pretty much free to practice their religion in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. This is not my area of expertise, but on its face it seems that his defeat was if anything a welcome occurrence for radical Islam and its agenda ... both by providing an occasion for recruitment and by creating a vacancy for a potentially more radical Islamic dictator.

It's the whole unintended consequences thing (though I don't see how our fearless leaders could have not seen this logical permutation of their invasion). Josef Stalin was the big winner in WWII.; 4/11/08, 10:15 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Trooper York said...
Besides, if we crack down on them, those lousy canucks will come around right quick. They are like rebellious teenagers, give em a smack and they start crying "Oh I didn't mean it, don't get mad, you're not fair, I'm sorry, I won't do it again."

Oh, OK, so we send some tough Chicago and NYC cops to invade Canada, bitch slap the Canucks, and we win. Sounds like a plan.

But, we would have to intern Alpha Liberal and Down Town Lad. They would protest to high heaven any actions that would abuse those dirty, shifty, lazy, Canucks.; 4/11/08, 10:36 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Trumpit said...
You reactionary homophobe, SGT. TED. Time 4 U 2 do your duty to god and your country and ship out. Take a few sex toys with you to Iraq to while away your hours when your not killing and torturing innocent Iraqis.

There is no such thing as an innocent Iraqi. They are like the Canadians. Guilty as charged.; 4/11/08, 10:39 PM
reader_iam said...: john k: I'm not skipping anyone's comments, including yours, for any reason, much less on principle. (I still read everyone's comments, as diligently and with as much fairness and respect as possible. And I wouldn't use a "block-commenter" functionality even if it were available, or possible, here, though I do appreciate the usefulness of that functionality, and would support it as a matter of choice for the benefit of others.)

I do get tired, however--and in this case I specifically DON'T mean tired of, just, you know, plain old everyday pedestrian tired.

That's just how it is, and so it goes.

Thanks for the pointer!; 4/11/08, 10:48 PM
Revenant said...: Oh, OK, so we send some tough Chicago and NYC cops to invade Canada, bitch slap the Canucks, and we win. Sounds like a plan.

But then we're stuck with Canada. We've already got ONE Minnesota, do we really need two of the damned things?; 4/11/08, 10:51 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

Not so, Bozo.

Constitution Act, 1982
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms as Summarized by Chip Ahoy with salient points emphasized.

1. blah blah blah

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

3. So on,

4. So forth,

5. etc.

6. more stuff

7. just like the U.S.

8. 'cept difernt

9. all the way down

↓ to

↓ oo

↓ oo

34. here.; 4/11/08, 11:18 PM
Synova said...: "We've already got ONE Minnesota, do we really need two of the damned things?"

Hey!

I'm from there!; 4/12/08, 12:25 AM
reader_iam said...: Hey! ...

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

***

(Quip: n.

1. A clever, witty remark often prompted by the occasion.
2. A clever, often sarcastic remark; a gibe. See synonyms at joke.
3. A petty distinction or objection; a quibble.
4. Something curious or odd.); 4/12/08, 12:32 AM
blake said...: "We've already got ONE Minnesota, do we really need two of the damned things?"

Hey!

I'm from there!

So are the Coen Brothers, right? Don't they refer to it as "Siberia with family style buffets"?; 4/12/08, 12:54 AM
Fen said...: But Saddam, of course, while a murderous thug, was not a radical Islamist.

Right. But you're talking about the liberation of Iraq from Saddam.

I'm talking about the reformation of radical Islam through a liberated Iraq.; 4/12/08, 2:28 AM
Synova said...: "So are the Coen Brothers, right? Don't they refer to it as "Siberia with family style buffets"?"

*blink*

Dang. They're good.; 4/12/08, 6:23 PM