Mark Steyn: I hate to say I told you so. Actually, I don’t. I love it

As I have said, section 13 is not a right-left thing

I hate to say I told you so. Actually, I don’t. I love it.

Richard Warman (photo by Tony Fouhse)

“Coloured people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it.”

Thus, Ray Bradbury in his prescient 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451. On June 6, the day after Bradbury’s death at the age of 91, the House of Commons passed Brian Storseth’s private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Fahrenheit 451 draws its name from the temperature at which books burn; Canada’s Fahrenheit 13 is its frosty northern inverse—the temperature at which the state chills freedom of expression. Free speech is the lifeblood of free societies, and, as this magazine has learned over the last half-decade, our decayed Dominion was getting a bad case of hypothermia.

We’re not alone in this. In Britain, Australia, France, Denmark, the Netherlands and many other places, democratic societies have become far too comfortable in policing the opinions of the citizenry. But even by comparison with our Commonwealth cousins and Western Europe, Section 13 and its provincial equivalents are repugnant—practically, philosophically, and operationally.

As a practical matter, an extremely narrow licence to combat the mortal threat to Canadians of 1970s answering machines effortlessly metastasized into investigating the country’s most-read magazine for publishing an excerpt from a No. 1 Canadian bestseller. Which was entirely predictable to everyone except genius jurists on the Supreme Court—because make-work bureaucracies are never going to content themselves with being a little bit pregnant.

Philosophically, it was a cure worse than the disease: Ian Fine, the senior counsel of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, declared that his organization was committed to the abolition of hatred—not “hate crimes,” not even “hate speech,” but hate—a human emotion; you know, like the human emotions the control-freak enforcers attempt to abolish in Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Stepford Wives. Any society of free peoples will include its share of hate: it could not be human without it. And, as bad as racists and homophobes and Islamophobes and whateverphobes may be, empowering Mr. Fine’s ever more coercive enforcement regime to micro-regulate us into glassy-eyed compliance is a thousand times worse.

Operationally, Section 13 was stinkingly corrupt. There are some 34 million Canadians, yet just one individual citizen had his name on almost every Section 13 prosecution of the last decade. Just as Matthew Hopkins appointed himself England’s Witchfinder General in 1645 and went around the country turning in raven-tressed crones for the bounty of a pound per witch, so Richard Warman appointed himself Canada’s Hatefinder General and went around turning in shaven-headed tattooed losers in their mums’ basements for far more lucrative bounties of tens of thousands of dollars. He filed his complaints as a supposedly “offended” and “damaged” private citizen while an employee of Her Majesty’s Government. And, in fairness to Matthew Hopkins, he didn’t personally put on a pointy black hat and ride around on a broomstick. Whereas Mr. Warman joined Stormfront and other “white supremacist” websites and posted copious amounts of hate speech of his own, describing, for example, Jewish members of cabinet as “scum” and gays as a “cancer.” That’s how “hateful” Canada is: there’s so little “hate” out there that the country’s most famous Internet Nazi is a taxpayer-funded civil servant.

For Warman, there was little risk: you paid his costs, and the dice were loaded. After Hosni Mubarak was “re-elected” with 97.1 per cent of the vote, he was said to be furious with his officials for stealing too much of the election and making him look like one of those crude ham-fisted dictator-for-life types like Saddam and Kim Il-Sung. So next time round his officials arranged for him to “win” with a mere 96.3 per cent of the vote. Canada’s “human rights” commissars had no such squeamishness: until the tenacious Marc Lemire won his landmark victory in 2009, Section 13 prosecutions had a three-decade 100 per cent conviction rate even the Soviets might envy.

That wasn’t even the most basic affront. Until Maclean’s intervened in 2008, Lemire’s Section 13 trial was scheduled to be held in secret. I couldn’t quite believe this when I chanced to happen upon the “judge’s” rationale, and I suggested en passant that we should get Maclean’s estimable QC Julian Porter to file a whatchamacallit, a brief or motion or whatever, referencing precedents and other jurisprudential-type stuff, and put a rocket up these totalitarian buggers by treating their dank outhouse of pseudo-justice as a real courtroom subject to real law. Secret trials are for Beijing and Tehran, yet in the name of “human rights” they were introduced to Ottawa.

The line that sums up my objection to the racket was formulated by the Toronto blogger Kathy Shaidle: “You’re too stupid to tell me what to think.” In recent days, the last lonely defenders of the Canadian thought police have all volunteered to demonstrate Miss Shaidle’s proposition. The Opposition critic for “public safety,” Randall Garrison, bemoaned the demise of the commissars’ “power to educate Canadians.” “We do have a serious problem,” said Garrison. “If you take away the power to take [websites] down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even talk to people about it and educate them about it.”

Unlike Canada’s government-in-waiting, I don’t want the state to have a “mandate” to “educate” the citizen about his opinions. Generally speaking, re-education camp hasn’t worked out so well in those systems that have adopted the Garrison program. Yet joining him, inevitably, in a final desperate defence of Section 13 is Bernie Farber, former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress and Barbara Hall’s rumoured successor as Ontario’s Chief Censor. Capt. Farber is determined to go down on the Good Ship Stupid. As evidence of the need for Section 13, Mr. Farber excitedly tweeted that “when Nazis rejoice we known [sic] something must be very wrong.” Section 13 is all that stands between you and jackboots on the 401!

Just for the record, the last “hate crime” conviction secured under Section 13 was an Internet post read by just eight people, which works out to 0.8 per cent of a Canadian per province, or, if you include territories, 0.6153 per cent of a Canadian—most of whom were undercover civil servants playing dress-up Nazis. Indeed, at least one of those 0.6153 per cent of a Canadian was Mr. Farber or one of his colleagues, since the CJC was an “interested party” on the suit and presumably, if they were that “interested,” they actually read the thing.

But nobody else did.

There is a tragic quality to the obtuseness of what Ezra Levant calls Canada’s “official Jews.” Europe is awash in explicit Jew-hatred on a scale unseen since the Second World War: synagogues are burned, schools are attacked, children are murdered, and, even on quieter days, Jews are enjoined to walk around Toulouse and Amsterdam and Malmo without any identifying marks of their faith. In Calgary, demonstrators of a certain, ahem, religio-cultural background march under placards proclaiming “Death to the Jews!” In Toronto, their comrades stand on sidewalks and express enthusiasm for a new Holocaust. But, as long as there’s one last penniless loser neo-Nazi getting his swastika tramp-stamp touched up at the tattoo parlor in Redneck Junction, Bernie knows his priorities. Canada’s “human rights” regime is less than useless against real threats to social tranquility, but it does enable cardboard crusaders to enjoy cosy sinecures pursuing phantom enemies.

Meanwhile, Warren Kinsella, whom older readers may recall as Jean Chrétien’s attack poodle, began his column bemoaning the end of Section 13 by asserting that people would now be free to use the words “Kike. Nigger. Faggot. Paki. Chink.”

Actually, lots of people use those words all the time. Mordecai Richler used to refer to his favorite berth at Le Mas des Oliviers as “the Kikes’ round table”; there is nary a gangster rapper for whom the epithet “nigger” is not as omnipresent as “moon” and “June” were in less attitudinal ditties; and the best-known comedy sketch of Canada’s acclaimed Kids in the Hall has just one word in the script, recurring over and over: “Fag.” As for “Chink,” a couple of years ago Kinsella himself was forced to make a grovelling apology to “the Chinese community” after an ill-advised jest about ordering the cat at his favourite restaurant in Ottawa: even the most censorious of politically correct enforcers occasionally forget themselves and accidentally behave like normal human beings. Kinsella made the mistake of assuming that, just as rappers can sing Strictly For My N.I.G.G.A.Z and gay comics can do fag jokes, so a Liberal of impeccable Trudeaupian credentials is free to engage in feline Sinophobia. You would think, after the Chinese cat got his tongue, that Mr. Kinsella might be somewhat chastened. But no, he too is determined to go down with the Good Ship Stupid:

The boy stood on the burning deck

When all but he had fled

Denouncing ev’ry naughty word

Emerging from his head.

“You weren’t hurting anyone, you were hurting only things!” wrote Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451. “You were simply cleaning up. Janitorial work, essentially. Everything to its proper place. Quick with the kerosene! Who’s got a match!” Toss ’em on the bonfire—criminal words, illegal cat jokes, they’re only things.

I wish Randall Garrison and the other defenders of censorship and secret trials and 100 per cent conviction rates understood. As I said here years ago, it’s not a right-left thing, it’s a free-unfree thing. And I’m glad the Parliament of Canada is finally on the right side of that divide.




Browse

Mark Steyn: I hate to say I told you so. Actually, I don’t. I love it

  1. Great article Mark, funny, and educational..

  2. You can’t find a more revealing dividing line between those who value freedom and those would would like to control free debate and expression than their opinion on Section 13. Some of these nanny staters have a political goal in mind (hi warren!), and others just think they know how society should be controlled. Nice try, losers.

    • “Control free debate”…that about describes harper, doesn’t it

      • Harper may control his side of the debate but you are free to disagree and espouse your opinion in any manner you choose. Just turn of the CBC and get off the couch and try it some time.

        • If Harper doesn’t accept any debate from within his own party why exactly would have he to accept it from anyone else?

          Harper is king and we better not forget it.

          • You could be right but open debate and discussion are not about changing one persons view point but to engage the many. This is how you move the obstinate by going around or through them. The emperor never realizes for himself that he is nude.

  3. Hear Hear ! Once more you nailed it Mark ! Thanks for putting your oar in our muddy antipodean waters on behalf of Andrew Bolt . Kindest Regards ..

  4. “…it’s a free-unfree thing. And I’m glad the Parliament of Canada is finally on the right side of that divide.”

    I wish I could believe that. I really do.

  5. It’s not black and white (or left/right, free/unfree) at all. There’s a middle road – but the partisans are too entrenched (and interested in hurling insults at eachother) to notice.

    • So what’s the middle road? Policing speech on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays through section 13?

      Or perhaps using the criminal code to deal with hate, with attendant protections of the rule of law and procedures of open court, in cases where there is clear and present danger to actual citizens, is the middle road. In which case, we are now firmly on it.

    • That’s the problem, you fool. Couldn’t care less if you are “godless” but if you are a lawyer you will have been taught about “essentially contested concepts”.

      • I think you are the fool if you believe that involving lawyers and the law is a solution. There wasn’t a problem to solve. We don’t need anyone to tell us what we can say or think. Any effort to do so will always result in the same things: curtailment of basic personal freedom and governments attempting thought control. WHile you might not like the idea of people thinking and saying nasty things I don’t like the idea of you, or anyone else telling me what I can say or think. thousands of years of history don’t seem to have much of an impact on some people’s awareness. Or are you confident that Mr Harper and his crew (hell, lets throw in the opposition genius’ as well) have greater wisdom than all those other men who thought they ought to determine what other men could
        think and say?

        • Sorry, the “fool” bit was angry and my comment ambiguous. What I meant was that EVEN a lawyer ought know that there are things that people will inevitably and always disagree about, and ONLY a lawyer would suggest that there must be some “middle road”, and that of course a lawyer or judge will determine where that line is drawn. Lawyers have become a blight in the West. They have a bum education, lack insight into the damage they cause and don’t care anyway, as long as there’s “more work for lawyers”.

    • If the cause of Levant and Steyn were truly just, they wouldn’t have resorted to demonizing the idea of tribunals themselves (which is EXACTLY what they do) and lying about the result of cases.

      • QED

      • The tribunals and the bad laws are of one entity.

      • Is it “just” to sit back and fight a corrupt process on its own terms?

        You miss the point entirely. The very idea that they were forced to defend themselves from the system is itself an injustice. The issue wasn’t that their writing was or wasn’t Islamophobic, it was that the government has no business in deciding what opinions a free citizen is allowed to hold.

        And certainly not using the murky, back-room, oppressive Human Rights Commissions, where you can use the force of government (unrestrained by our inheritance of common law) to bury your opponents under the cover of secrecy.

        The only reason that they won (while 100% of the other victims of this scam lost) is because they challenged the legitimacy of the wretched institution at its core and did not fight under the unfair and corrupt terms of section 13.

      • They lied? Examples please. The tribunals are the point. Arguing about the specifics of their cases would have suggested that the tribunals were legit. I don’t think you have followed the story very closely if you haven’t even figured out what it is that Levant and Steyn are actually fighting.

        • examples can be found by reading the Datt case, esp. and comparing what Ezra Levant wrote about it. From there proceed to the supreme courts decision in Taylor, who lays out the effectiveness of the tribunal system.

          • Except that a commission judge found the process he was administering and applying unconstitutional.

  6. I thought I left Soviet Union for a country where I can finally think freely… Looks like I was wrong… Hello Comrades!

    • Welcome to Harpanistan. Long live our Great and Glorious Leader.

  7. But if it’s a free-unfree thing, then it’s obviously not a left thing. The left, by definition, hates freedom, and we all know that it was the left that made Section 13 what it is today. Why are we trying to deny this? Because some on the left have woken up to the danger? Pfft.

    • Yes! Because if there are any people who love freedom, it is right-wingers like Mussolini and Pinochet, right?
      I always remember the great work right-wingers did for women’s rights, gay rights, the civil rights movement, etc! Such freedom loving people!

      • Not that I agree with that wing nut up there, but slavery in the US was ended by a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, and womens suffrage in Canada was passed under Robert Borden, a conservative Prime Minister.

        • I don’t think those are fair arguments. By the time the conservatives in the early 1900s were enacting women’s sufferage laws, they had already lost the public-opinion battle over the issue. They were the last sector to embrace the idea.
          As for Lincoln, the Republicans were considered the leftists in US politics until the 1940s. At lincoln’s time, the democrats were the right wingers. The Republicans ran elections on strongly opposing free trade, and demanding government start a public education program. The Democrats were demanding tax cuts and free trade.

          • So the repubs were to the left of the dems, eh? Who knew! I bet Honest Abe would have been surprised by that.

            But while you’re making up facts, you might want to rewrite history on the civil rights act: opposed by democrats. De-segregation: also opposed by democrats. The KKK: a racist organization populated with democrats, even to the point of having one of its own honored with US Senator status (robert byrd).

            The left is at constant war with the citizens of the US, stripping out freedom and private property rights through the EPA, and various left-wing statists such as mike bloomberg with his fatwa on salt, transfats and sugary drinks. Eric Holder, worst AG in the history of the US, is taking extra efforts to disenfranchise citizen voters with his “catch, release & vote” immigration policy, heralded by Maobama. Holder is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds via operation Fast & Furious, set up to strip US citizens of their second amendment rights.

            Keep spinning, poyani

            mhb23re

          • whatever retard!

            You go on believing that Lincoln, the man who ran AGAINST free trade and
            state’s rights and for a massive increase in public spending was a
            crazed right-winger like you.

            Meanwhile, for the rest of society, it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that before
            the 1900s the Democrats were CONSISTENTLY known as the right-wing party
            in American politics.

            Anyone who knows anything about concepts like for example the “Solid
            South” knows this already. Only a few half-wits, you included, believe
            otherwise.

          • You are right mhb.

            If any party is racist against blacks and affiliated with the KKK in the US it is the party lead by Barak Obama!

            Stupid Moron!

          • The Demo Nazis have enslaved blacks with entitlement,class and race resentment and by becoming defacto father to fatherless black families.Should any black,like Rice,or West stray off the Plantation they are vilified for thinking for themselves.

            And speaking of “retards”-nice jab,Leftard-How do you keep the point on your head so sharp,Pinhead ? Do you use a file or a knife ?

          • Yes! Because if there is one thing the actual Nazis were all about, it was entitlement. You are such an idiot that it is hopeless to cure you. Enjoy the rest of your life as a janitor or homeless person or whatever else it is that you do.

          • I employ 59 people,Leftard.Don’t bother applying for a job.Just keep sucking that public teat.

            “Because if there is one thing the actual Nazis were all about, it was entitlement.” What a clown statement.Fact and logic are Kryptonic to you.

          • So the repubs were to the left of the dems, eh? Who knew! I bet Honest
            Abe would have been surprised by that.

            But while you’re making up facts, you might want to rewrite history on
            the civil rights act: opposed by democrats. De-segregation: also
            opposed by democrats. The KKK: a racist organization populated with
            democrats, even to the point of having one of its own honored with US
            Senator status (robert byrd).

            The left is at constant war with the citizens of the US, stripping out
            freedom and private property rights through the EPA, and various
            left-wing statists such as mike bloomberg with his fatwa on salt,
            transfats and sugary drinks. Eric Holder, worst AG in the history of
            the US, is taking extra efforts to disenfranchise citizen voters with
            his “catch, release & vote” immigration policy, heralded by obama.
            Holder is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds via operation
            Fast & Furious, set up to strip US citizens of their second
            amendment rights.

            Keep spinning, poyani

            mhb23re

          • Ya whatever retard!

            You go on believing that Lincoln, the man who ran AGAINST free trade and state’s rights and for a massive increase in public spending was a crazed right-winger like you.

          • You also mhb23re:
            Mind your tongue in important debate…respect man respect!!

          • You’re too stupid to tell us what to think.

          • Ya whatever retard!

            You go on believing that Lincoln, the man who ran AGAINST free trade and state’s rights and for a massive increase in public spending was a crazed right-winger like you.

            Meanwhile, for the rest of society, it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that before the 1900s the Democrats were CONSISTENTLY known as the right-wing party in American politics.

            Anyone who knows anything about concepts like for example the “Solid South” knows this already. Only a few half-wits, you included, believe otherwise.

          • Poyani;
            Bite your tongue; don’t you know that there is no such thing as a retard anymore. Mentally challenged maybe!
            You lose all the points in your argument when such bad words are spoken especially at the start of your email. Please learn from this!!!
            Kevo

          • You’re too stupid to tell me what to think

          • The Republicans were leftist Fantasy-I don’t believe it-this canard has been debunked repeatedly.Keep hitting that Leftist Bong,cupcake.

          • I don’t care what you believe and don’t believe. It is not my job to educate the retarded. The fact of the matter is that the Civil was a war where the Republicans fought against the RIGHT WING idea of state-rights.

          • You don’t get to define States Rights as Right Wing,asshole.All you do is set up strawmen and knock them down.How old are you?15?

        • Do a little more research Abe Lincoln’s original position on slavery before you start posting about Republicans stance on social issues. And Borden originally opposed womens suffrage and had to be convinced, that like President Obama’s recent declaration on the Dream Act, that it was simply a good vote getter to back its passage. Lyndon Johnson ( Democrat ) showed real courage, in spite of being warned against it, when he initiated the civil rights act forcing the desegregation of schools in the deep south. An incredible accomplishment that he still does’nt get enough credit for.

          • LBJ did not desegrate the schools. The Supreme Court onder chief Justice Earl Warren in Brown vs. Board of Education ,Topeka Ks. declared seprate but equal unconstitutional overturning Plessy Vs. Ferguson.

          • Well at least someone’s paying attention.
            The long slow march to desegregation that Eisenhowser, Kennedy, and Johnson, deferred to their subcommittees, has Nixon, who knew what a potential political hornets nest it was, to thank for its eventual implementation.

          • And started the American slide into entitlement and fiscal oblivion.The JUST SOCIETY my ass.The Democrat Plantation Society.The average American Black is worse off now than before-infantilized by the Nanny State.

          • Just a little late to the party Gordy?

          • Gordy,
            your so cute when you’re being a perfect dickhead. you must be the life of the party wherever you go.

          • You’re really that big domed Ricky Warren aren’t you.Fact and Logic are Krtyptonic to Pinkos.

          • Gordy,
            Time to take your medication again. Come on now Gordy.. You know what happens when you don’t take the pills that your doctor prescribed for you. LOL

          • you are 12 aren’t you?you have the panache and repartee of my daughters hamster.Penis-breath.

          • Gordy,
            Lithium carbonate is frequently prescribed for psychotic cases like you. Although the downside is that they turn you into a brain dead zombie, you’re pretty much halfway there already. LOL

          • Fuck off you lamebrain nuisance troll.

          • Loser.

          • What an assnugget.Time to change the ol`vag cork,sweetie,you`re getting toxic.

          • Gordy,
            you were a dickhead in high school. the girls thought you were weird. and the only friends you had were losers like you. your own mother gave up on you a long time ago. these forums are full of anal retentive whiners like yourself who are trying to salvage what’s been an armpit of an existence. I’d tell you to get a life but you’d take that as a compliment.

          • I promise not to come in your mouth……really.r

      • You should read Thomas Sowell’s column on the subject of Socialism and Fascism. He has it right, and documents it: Socialism and Fascism are both leftist ideologies (seeking government control of the means of production by whatever means, and putting a choke-hold on the population) and were known to be so until Stalin decided that he didn’t want Communism associated with Fascism for political purposes of his own.

        • The powers of cognitive dissonance are amazing.

          Without meaningful definitions you cannot claim anything! and as long as you use ‘leftwing’ as a pejorative term you’re never going to come up with anything meaningful.

          Fascism is actually corporatism, so it’s not ‘Government’ control per se’, ironically it’s more akin to what we have today. Big business and organised vested interests having de facto control over Government agenda.

          When it comes down to it, the fact that both ‘wings’ often result in totalitarian regimes, says more about the nature of politicians than it does about ideologies.

          If you actually bother to look into the history of the terms you’ll be surprised at how their fundamental meaning has changed.

          • incorrect. Fascism is still governmetn control of the economy, the only difference is that the corporations are allowed to exist as a puppet of the regime. both are second nad rent seekers the opposite of freedom. Your grasp of the concept is based on, as Johnrhett says above, a distorting attempt by stalin to muddy the waters. either way you look at it, fascists and communists are the same ilk, anti-human and anti individual.

          • Fascism is a series of policies. They include but are not limited to:

            War and urge for more war.
            Jingoistic nationalism (usually marketed as “patriotism”)
            The use of the death penalty
            Severe punishments for either minor crimes
            Government powers such as spying on ones own citizens
            Homophobia
            Racism
            Hatred for religious minorities

            Currently ALL of these are the hallmarks of the right, not left. You want to see what fascism looks like? Go read Vic Taows internet spying bill.

          • What horseshit

          • Awwww! Did I shut your mouth for good? Yea! I think I shut your mouth for good. I’m sorry for that it hurts, but you are welcome for the education. Now you can go around proud of the fact that you are a fascist!

          • What a silly child.I enjoy debating stupid people.

          • Fascism is a series of policies. They include but are not limited to:

            War and urge for more war.
            Jingoistic nationalism (usually marketed as “patriotism”)
            The use of the death penalty
            Severe punishments for either minor crimes
            Government powers such as spying on ones own citizens
            Homophobia
            Racism
            Hatred for religious minorities

            Currently ALL of these are the hallmarks of the right, not left. You want to see what fascism looks like? Go read Vic Taows internet spying bill.

          • @poyani:disqus: We’ll use your definition (not that it’s correct) –

            All the items you listed were hallmarks of Stalin and Mao, communists by name and, therefore, fascists by your definition.
            Nazi = National Socialist, which you agreed was / is fascist.
            Fascism is when the state transfers private property from one party to another in violation of contract law (see GM bailout).

            Fascism is supplying weapons to criminals in a foreign country, without that country’s knowledge, with the goal of using those weapons to reduce the constitutional freedom to own firearms (see Fast and Furious).

            Fascism is bypassing the vote of the legislature and implementing the same policy by executive fiat (see recent immigration decision, refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage act, various EPA edicts).

            Fascism is forcing people to pay for a service they are not using (see unAffordable Care Act).

            Currently, these acts of fascism are hallmarks of the most leftist government in US history.

            The reality is Far Left = Far Right = Government control and coercion.

            The real spectrum is individual liberty vs. statism – the freedom to express your opinion without being labeled as some sort of phobe, the freedom to sell lemonade on the street corner without being harassed by government officials for not having permits, the freedom to start and run a business without being overwhelmed by regulations and the freedom to make changes to your property without having EPA thugs shutting you down while deeming that your flooded land you are trying to repair is somehow a wetland!

          • I am with you 90% of the way. Essentially you are defining fascism as any reduction in rights and freedoms. There are other aspects as well, such as jingoism, which in Canada I consider to be a trait of the right-end of the conservative party.

            But aside from that, I disagree with you on the notion that regulations against corporation is a form of fascism. In fact, I think most reasonable people would consider the corporate structure to be fascist. That is especially true of it is unrestrained. I can’t think of any better example of fascism in the western world than say when it was discovered in 2010 that Philip Morris was using about 6 dozen children as slaves on its farms.

          • Corporatism, as understood by fascists in Mussolini’s time, was government control (orchestration) of business, not business over government.

          • Just look ar history, which countries tried to control ideas and the state economy, which ones encouraged people to become members of the party and political activists even in their free time? Which countries tried to confound the government and ideology with the country and it’s people. That would be ussr, nazi Germany, fascist Italy, imperial Japan. Not even Pinochet, or Brazilian dictatorship went that far

          • Imperial Japan is socialist now? You people are idiots!

            And FYI every government in the world enforces its ideology on its people. That is especially true these days of free-market theologists.

          • Imperial Japan is socialist now? You people are idiots!

            And FYI every government in the world enforces its ideology on its people. That is especially true these days of free-market theologists.

          • Where did I say it was socialist ? To point out that that there are more similarities between nazi Germany and communist ussr bothers a lot of people, it is just that socialism tend to brainwash people in the same authoritarian state of mind as yours. And oh yeah, the USA is soo alike north Korea.
            Von meinem iPad gesendet

            Am 26/06/2012 um 4:58 schrieb “Disqus” :

          • I think it’s interesting that there are 27 dislikes for this comment. It really only points to the fact that people do not want to “look into” anything. The arguments here mostly point to people’s satisfaction with superficial knowledge and awareness; a few catch words and phrases that make one sound good at a cocktail party (or on a comment board). Talk about the “Gooodship Stupid”. While Mark Styne would accuse advocates of S13 of being “too stupid to tell me what you think”, the comments here demonstrate a case where some individuals are stupid enough. Obviously uninformed people who comment publicly do not help their own causes.

      • I think you are confusing left/right wing ideas with people. Once those people are in government, they have a vested interest in Government power, which is mutually exclusive to freedom.

      • Right wing – individual rights and freedoms, Left wing – state power. As dictators Mussolini and Pinochet are left wing as all powers are mandated by the state.

        If you review your basic history the Democrats fought against all civil rights and were the party of the KKK. Eisenhower, a Republican, called in the army to enforce civil rights in the southern US. He also ordered the complete desegregation of the Armed Forces. “There must be no second class citizens in this country,” he wrote.
        Why are the left so ignorant of facts and reason?

        • Using your definitions of right-wing and left-wing, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan must have been the most extreme left-wing presidents in American history. They were all about massive state-power.

          Same must be true of Stephan Harper in Canada. For example, Harper’s internet spying bill was among the most comprehensive legislation in favour of state power. His handling of the G-20 protests gave so much power to the police to levels unheard-of in Canadian history.

          Harper, in your world, must be a left-wing extremist!!! And I suppose the people who opposed him (the NDP) are right-wingers in your world.

          What nonsense!!

        • Given that right wing = individual rights and freedoms, then I guess the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell must have been a HUGE right-wing victory (especially given that the army is an arm of the state).

          Likewise, the Patriot Act must be one of the most left-wing pieces of legislation in American history.

          The death penalty (the ultimate in state power) must be left-wing. Opposition to the death penalty is therefore right-wing.

          In your world, I guess war (especially when opposed by the citizenry) is left-wing hysteria. The war on drugs is a form of EXTREME left-wing hysteria.

          Unless you are some kind of Ron Paul republican, your views are laughably incoherent.

      • Mussolini was a socialist,fool.Pinochet was a General in an army-not exactly the Right.

        • You are too stupid to live. If you had even read Mussolini’s bio on wikipedia (which you clearly did not) you would know that he was in fact banned from the socialist party for life. He hated socialists. He was horny for war. Kinda like you!

  8. A small cadre of predisposed, ideologically driven, busybodies have decided they know what and who is “hateful” and who is not. This is in itself is repugnant. However there is something else at work here that seems to go unnoticed, that is, motive.

    Is it not hateful to call for the death of gays as some Mullahs have done? Is it not hateful to contribute to a never ending tsunami of anti-Christian bigotry? So where are these self appointed caped crusaders on these matters?

    I oppose stazi like groups on any day. But let’s say they convince me of their necessity. Would it not be reasonable for me to ask that these laws apply equally across the board without bias? It seems to me that this is about controlling the message, as McLuhan would have it.

    What distinguishes the human animal from all others is our ability to communicate, debate, question and formulate opinions. If this comes under control of the wrong people the consequences will be a collective neurosis that stifles otherwise free and inquisitive minds.

    Please ask yourselves this: does this group of S13 defenders instill enough confidence in you that you will be willing to not only trust them with this ultimate responsibility but to pay them handsomely for it? If your answer is yes than I am left no choice but to see you as an enemy of free humanity.

    • The motive is to stop unsanctioned thoughts from entering the public space.

      The method is lawfare; the perpetrators are vile rats.

      The targets are victims, bruised or destroyed.

  9. Terrific eulogy for Section 13, the ‘Warman Payroll’ law. Dickie Warman must be apoplectic to see his waxy mug at the top of this story in Canada’s National Magazine!! Love it!! Dickie, you deserve every bit of scorn we can heap upon you.

  10. As soon as I heard that white supremacists were cheering the demise of section 13, I immediately wondered what Steyn would think.

    Ah.. that’s a lie. I knew damn well he’d be all for it. I just didn’t expect to seem him back in Maclean’s quite so soon after its demise. He must have been chomping at the bit all these years.

    • All kinds of horrible people are in favour of freedom, so am I. If that makes me a horrible person in your view then I’ll just have to find a way to cope with your disapproval.

      • So I should be free to piss on your lawn? Or swing my fist regardless of where your nose is? Should I be free to yell fire in a crowded theatre? “Bomb!” in an airport? Should I be free to set fire to a pile of tires in my back yard?

        Supporting blanket freedom doesn’t make you good or bad.

        It makes you an idiot.

        There are plenty of rational reasons why freedoms need to be restricted. Doing things that create a culture of prejudice are among those, IMO.

        A simple way to get an idea if a freedom should be supported or not is to take a look at who already supports it, and who opposes it.

        Both good and bad people support the removal of S.13, no doubt.

        Those who oppose it, though, are almost universally against racism and prejudice of any sort.

        • That’s great Thwim. No doubt you are in favour of puppies and opposed to snakes as well. I bet your Ipod is just loaded with all the latest hits, your closets filled with the latest fashions and your walls covered with tasteful copies of inoffensive art.

          You talk about “creating a culture of prejudice” as if you genuinely believed that prejudice is an invasive evil that was cooked up in the lab of some mad genius. And it’s up to superior folks like yerownself to protect & inoculate the innocent hoi-polloi by keeping their environment and their minds free from these invasive germs. Not only is this condescending rubbish, it is aggressively ignorant of all history.

          Prejudice is as much a part of human nature as is Anger, Lust, Jealousy or Greed (insert your favourite vice here). You can’t outlaw human emotions although you can (and should) outlaw specific acts which might arise from those emotions. But it’s kind of interesting that there are no laws against inciting lust, or anger, or jealousy. Only prejudice or “hatred,” among all human vices, is seen as such a toxic emotion that mere incitement can be illegal. Contrast with other human vices wherein entire industries have grown up around the incitement and satisfaction of those vices.

          So, no you can’t piss on my lawn, nor swing your fist anywhere in the vicinity of anyone else’s nose, nor can you release toxic substances into the air. But you are free to spout off your inane, second-hand, opinions and dishonest distortions as long as you like, so far as I am concerned.

          • Fact: Folks in the southern united states have more racist tendencies and racist activities. According to you, that’s just the way they are.

            I, on the other hand, believe that they’re actually good people who’ve simply grown up in an environment where that kind of behavior has not been made unacceptable.

            Saying “Well it’s always been that way historically” is great justification for things like oppressing women, the slave trade, blocking gay marriage, blocking interracial marriage, not using the automobile or the plane, and a host of other crap.

            “Toxic” is actually a good word for prejudice. Because unlike those other emotions, prejudice is a basis for belief. You don’t “Get prejudiced” and then go run it off or something. Anger, jealousy, greed, or whatever are specific emotions that come into play based on specific stimuli. Prejudice underlies those, and is in play in all your dealings. That’s why we don’t have industries that “satisfy” prejudice — because it’s simply not possible.

            As to your last paragraph, why can’t I? After all, supposedly what you’re in favor of is freedom. So I listed a bunch of freedoms, but you haven’t explained why those freedoms should be any more restricted than your freedom to distribute material claiming that mexicans are lazy or that jewish people will cheat you.

          • You need to read before you write.
            I am not writing to promote or celebrate prejudice, I am trying to explain to you that prejudice is not an external threat but rather an internal – inherent – part of the human condition. It resides in all of us, but in some more than others. (Please don’t mistake that for agreement with your offensive slur against southern Americans. Groups are never guilty for the sins of individuals within the group.)
            It’s my contention that the people who claim to be without prejudice are in fact some of the most stubborn bigots on the face of the earth. They are impervious to reason and perfectly willing to engage in all manner of dishonesty and distortion to protect their own precious self-images as morally superior people. If you’re wondering whether or not I’m referring to you personally, let me make it clear: I am.
            Your last paragraph is a perfect little gem of dishonest and despicable smearmongering. But, as I already said, I support you unreservedly in your right to speak and reveal yourself.
            The “freedoms” you listed are the inane petty crimes of an adolescent. They are crimes because they cause harm to others. Not indirectly, not incidentally, and not because they might “tend to incite” harm. If you can’t grasp the difference then you are an incomparable nitwit.

          • I disagree that it’s inherent. That’s the sticking point. I feel it is primarily learned. This is obvious when you watch a multi-racial day-care.Small children are simply not racist. Racism is learned and promoted during the course of their lives. And it is done so more when it is tolerated by the society the people are within.

            Groups may never be guilty for the sins of individuals within the group, but statistics give us a higher number of racist incidents and crimes related to race in the South. That’s simple fact. So unless you have some explanation for why there are more individuals down there that are racist that isn’t “inherent” you are essentially arguing that they are inherently more racist no matter how much you may claim to disagree with that idea.

            I’m not the one who made any slur. Hell, I pointed out that I don’t think it’s who they actually are at all, but rather a result of their society.

            And while you may take comfort in ad hominem, they still don’t give your arguments any more validity.

            Tell me, how does burning tires in my backyard cause harm to others any more than distributing fliers saying that jewish people seek to cheat you? Neither one causes harm to anybody specifically. Both activities can be avoided. Both activities can be protested against. Why do you feel one should be banned while the other shouldn’t?

        • Do you know where the “fire-in-a-crowded-theatre” chestnut comes from? A USSCJ raised it to argue in favour of a conviction against someone who was passing out flyers opposing military draft.

          • I’m afraid I’m not getting your point. Can you explain?

          • The point is that you are using a cliche spouted for nearly 100 years with no understanding of its origins to argue in favor of the curtailment of free speech.
            As you said, “There are plenty of rational reasons why freedoms need to be restricted.” Here’s one for you: throwing anti-war protestors in prison. Is this a good enough reason for freedom to be restricted?
            You see, the knife cuts both ways. Once you start arguing that certain opinions are to be criminalized for creating a “culture of prejudice” (whatever such a vague statement is supposed to mean), it’s very easy to simply expand that definition to criminalize your opposition in any way.
            If rights are not grounded in absolutes (that is, you have certain rights that cannot be violated), then you have no rights at all. Rights that are subject to the whims of government are the logical equivalent of circle squares. You’re talking about a totally diferent concept. There can be, by defintion, no such thing as relative rights.

          • Do you need to understand how to build an automobile in order to drive one? Regardless of the origin, the point stands. Do you have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater? No, you do not. Why? Because it can cause harm in the ensuing panic. Do you have the right to shout other things in a crowded theatre? Yes. Does this mean that we have to be careful and apply thought to what specifically is being said and whether it is acceptable in our society? Of course it does. Why is that such anathema to people? Why is it always, “I must be able to say everything or they’ll not let me say anything.” We are not robots. We have and can make judgments, and we can do so in a thoughtful manner.

            Now if you’re asserting that my assertions would mean we have no natural rights, you’re 100% correct. And I have no problem with that. Rights are defined by society, for society, in the context of that society, and they change as the society does. Women now have the right to vote. Did they always? No. Were all rights non-existent because of that? Of course not. Is voting an absolute right? Prisoners don’t have it, after all.

            If you’re going to assert though that if a law has the potential for abuse or incorrect application we can never use it you’re essentially arguing for anarchy, because *any* law can have those problems.

          • The original quote was this: “…the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic…” The key word is “falsely” – if you genuinely had reason to believe there was a fire, then of course you should say so. Steyn believes that demographic trends in Europe will have a profound impact on the west, and wrote a book to elaborate why he thinks this way. Still, It’s a very awkward analogy to make when it comes to matters of opinion or argument, and the justice who formulated the phrase, Oliver Wendell Holmes, later came to regret it.

          • Hm. And when Steyn was taken before the Tribunal.. what did they rule again?

            Oh right. That it wasn’t an offense. Seems like the system actually worked that time.

          • If I had my time and expenses eaten up by a pseudo court – with no presumption of innocence, no rules of evidence and where the truth isn’t considered a defense – for writing things that didn’t even begin to approach what the criminal code defines as hate speech, saying “the system works” would be very cold comfort.

          • Again, what right did that tribunal have to judge whether his jokes were funny? What right did they have to impose that cost upon MacLeans to adjudicate whether they have a right by the constitution of Canada to express something in print? What laws were broken, what charges were laid?

            You give away hard fought freedoms very cheaply.

          • You should indeed be allowed to shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre…if there’s a fire.

            For matters where truth cannot so easily be ascertained, we err on the side of letting people speak their minds.

            Deciding that you are the arbiter of which philosophical opinions are true, and which should be punished by law, is fascism. Or leftism. Sure as hell isn’t Canadian though, as both my grandfathers could have attested while they were alive and fighting same.

          • Fair enough.
            Tell me, what’s so hard about ascertaining the truth of statements like “Mexicans are lazy” or “Jews seek to cheat you”?

            Hey, I’ve got an idea, we should have something.. a commission or tribunal or something, that looks at these cases and sees if the truth can be easily ascertained, and then metes out fines where it’s shown the remark simply isn’t true?

          • Oh please. Freedom of speech is a charter right. We take charter rights away from people only when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, with all due process protections that they broke a law. And that law must stand withstand constitutional challenges.

            Your wonderful nice thoughts and expressions are soothing until the power you are willing to grant is taken by someone willing to abuse it. And they will. That is why there are limits to the power of government.

          • Hey, I’ve got an even better idea! Why don’t we have a court with, like, judges and stuff, which applies criminal law to establish whether someone is guilty of endangering the public with a prank or just expressing their honest opinion, and use antiquated traditions like, oh I don’t know, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, to do what you’re suggesting?

            No, you’re right, that would be too easy. Instead we’d better anoint career idiots to stand in judgment over people’s opinions, with no presumption of innocence or legal framework, and let plaintiffs file complaints with no fear of cost or reprisal regardless of whether they actually have a ghost of a case. Swell idea! That way, we can get people with unpopular opinions to shut the hell up!

            I guess if you’re a Leftist, this is kinda the only option though, I mean if anyone were to actually voice criticism of the party doctrine and generate some thought about it, you might would lose political battles in short order. Wouldn’t want that to happen.

          • Furthermore, as you well know, “ascertaining the truth” isn’t what the Hatecrimes Tribunals were about. In fact, the truth was no defence, literally. The criterion assessed was whether one’s remark was “likely to cause offense”, not whether it was true.

            But you know all this, so why am I repeating it. The point was to bully into silence those who opposed the political sacred cows of the day.

          • You just proved how silly you are.

            And by the way, the solution to the dangers of fire in theatres was not to outlaw people saying things, it was to design the theatre so that it wasn’t prone to explosive fires and make sure there was adequate exits.

            Much of what is considered racist by the bien-pensants is in fact information that they need to know. Fractures in society caused often times by short sighted policy. It is far too easy to dismiss those who disagree by calling them racist, by putting issues beyond discussion. Inevitably the power to do so will be abused as things fall apart under the glare of reality.

            You are trying to show how enlightened you are. Fine. Great and wonderful thoughts. But you are a fool to believe that unfettered power will not be abused in ways that you cannot imagine.

            My uncle was chased by mobs in Quebec the year I was born, mobs fomented by a powerful entity which would not countenance dissent. Much of the jurisprudence on freedom of speech and freedom of religion comes from the real fight in this country to not allow government to abuse it’s citizens using administrative procedures. We have been here before, a hard fight was fought and won to make it possible to have discussions such as this. And you want to throw it all away.

            Thank goodness that someone stood up and put an end to the madness.

        • you reducing the argument to the ridiculous in attempting to make your point. there are legal solutions for pissed on lawns and broken noses if you should decide to pursue them. forbidding people from pissing or swinging there arms regardless of any harm is not a reasonable one, nor is the outlawing of opinion. Your buddy Richard learned his lesson why can’t you?

          • Yes. Reductio ad absurdum. It’s a valid argument providing you’re careful not to set up a straw man, which I don’t believe I have. Igarvin posted that he was simply in favor of freedom, so I proposed a number of freedoms and asked him whether he equally supported them.

            Now a straw man would be equating restrictions on free speech that cause damage or prejudice, with outlawing all speech “regardless of any harm”, because that’s not something anybody has asserted.

            And you’re correct. There are legal solutions for those things. However, the legal solution for distributing material that promotes prejudice is the only one that has been removed. Which was rather my whole point to Igarvin. Why support the elimination of that particular one and not similar elimination for the other restrictions?

        • “So I should be free to piss on your lawn? Or swing my fist regardless of where your nose is? Should I be free to yell fire in a crowded theatre? “Bomb!” in an airport? Should I be free to set fire to a pile of tires in my back yard? Supporting blanket freedom doesn’t make you good or bad. It makes you an idiot.”This ought to win the annual Maclean’s award for the best strawman argument posted in a comment section.”Both good and bad people support the removal of S.13, no doubt.Those who oppose it, though, are almost universally against racism and prejudice of any sort.”What is this even supposed to mean? Is there even a coherent argument in this bit of drivel?

          • Except, as I point out, it’s not a strawman. It was specifically in reply to Igarvin pointing out that he simply supports freedom. I was pointing out various freedoms that we do not have. If he supports freedom, he should support those, yes?

            Thereafter, he qualified his position to supporting freedom which does not cause harm. I’m completely in agreement with that. And I feel S.13 also supported that. (The specific application of how the HRC/HRT’s operated? Not even close.. but the section itself.. yes.)

            As for the second part, I was providing a metric whereby you might be able to make an initial judgement if a freedom is one that causes harm or not. Look who supports it and who opposes it. There are some extremely racist people who support the removal of s.13. There are also a lot of very good people who support it.

            However, the people who oppose the removal of section 13 are almost uniformly those who oppose racism and prejudice. (Note, however, this is definitely only a starting point to evaluate a freedom.. Vic Toewes’ child molester comment is a clear example as to why.)

          • Oh please. Your moral preening demeans you.

          • In case you haven’t clued in, I’m not the one arguing that we should be free to do them.

      • And you could get a brain. Both are equally likely.

  11. While agreeing with Mr. Steyn, he seems to be once again ignoring the yarmulke in the room. While the “official Jews” may be losing their precious Section 13 weapon, there are currently 2 and only 2 “Hate Crime” cases pending in Canada that are in reality Thought Crimes. Terry Tremaine and Arthur Topham are both currently charged with the usual offense, that of Annoying Jews. The same offence that was the casus belli for almost every single Section 13 conviction, and the official Jews are now moving their greviences from Section 13 to criminal courts.
    I suspect that there will be squeals of outrage at this post for actually noticing this fact. But facts are facts, and observing these facts hardly makes one “anti-semitic”. But it might make one a criminal in the brave New World of Canada.
    There’s still a lot of work to do, Mr. Steyn. When will we see your next article writing in support of Terry Tremaine and Arthur Topham?

    • The good thing about moving these cases to the criminal courts is that the principles of British justice will determine the proceedings, not some Soviet-style, totalitarian, politically correct rubbish.

      • Your faith in the justice system is touching but misguided. I personally have witnessed cases where the judge invents and/or distorts evidence if they are inclined to do so. And you only have to look as far as the Zundel case where “secret evidence” was proferred, evidence that the defense was not permitted to listen to or respond to in order to determine whether or not Canada has a Soviet style judicial system.
        Moreover, it is still the same pernicious circumstance as Section 13, where one well funded and aggressive state actor is set against the usually penniless citzen whose only crime is to offend Those Who Must Never Be Offended.
        So called “Hate Speech” laws are just a much, much worse version of Section 13.

    • Yes. You must never be so stupid as to incur the wrath of the rightwing Jew-com lobby. While Ezra Levant should be allowed to state his postions on various issues, if you don’t know by now just how far he’s willing to go in order to offend people, then you’re in for a real treat.

      • You’re offended. Big deal. get over it.

        • It’s kind of difficult to make out exactly what it is that you’re extolling. Either you are offended because some people find Ezra Levant offensive? Or you’re offended because it’s an offense to find the kind of offensive right wing drivel that he passes off for journalism, as an offense to basic common decency. I’m sure that you’ll finally get a firm grasp of the past tense versus present conjecture.

  12. FANTASTIC to see Mark Steyn back in my favorite Canadian mag.
    Mark is a treasure to all freedom-loving people around the world. Too bad Ian Fine is aincapable of being shamed, but not suprisinig. Now if he could only learn to recognize criminal incitement…

  13. Sigh… the moral absolutism of a 6 year old.

    Freedom is a two-edged sword….the other side is called ‘responsibility’….and you never allow your society or civilization to be torn apart because of a few fools who can’t handle a sword.

    • Is believing in moral absolutes wrong?

      And if so, is that an absolute statement?

      • That’s as far as you got with it, eh?

        • Oh and by sword I meant my Dick Warman.

          • No, you meant by your morality of pretending to be me on here….a very rightwing thing to do. Use your own name please.

          • So just to be clear Emily, you are pro the repeal of S.13, yes? Just asking, because your assertion that you shouldn’t let society be torn apart because a few fools can’t handle the whole freedom/ responsibility thing, would seem to indicate that we shouldn’t use people who use hate speech as an excuse to limit the rights of everyone.

          • No, so you can forget that angle of gimmickry too

          • Gimmickry? You should know. You’ve been taking a page out of the Cons question period playbook. You’ve said nothing, but still keep talking.

          • You are attempting the same thing as the religious nuts did…Religions don’t work… precisely because some fool makes up a story about how people SHOULD behave….in his opinion….rather than how they ACTUALLY behave.

            You are so carried away with the ‘purity of your vision’ on freedom of speech, you have forgotten to check for ovens.

          • So again I ask, what is your position, because again, all you have done is the Consevative shuffle. Create a boogie man to avoid saying anything substantive. By the way, the constant Nazi references just go to prove the lack of intelect, and of value to your commentary. You acuse those who practice moral absolutism of being like 6 year olds, but you have been nothing but childish. You throw inflamatory labels, then cover your ears and close your eyes, all the while contributiong nothing. Using ten dollar words to hide the fact that your thoughts aren’t worth the penny they usually fetch.

          • Would you like to explain your position then, or will you continue to steal a page from the Conservative Party Question Period playbook, and just reply with self agrandization and insults.

        • Miss Emily, your condemnation of moral absolutes is itself a moral absolute, and your sighing over how childish free speech is, is itself an exercise of free speech and a demonstration of childishness.

          Nate is gently pointing out the logical error with a joke. (It is a sad state of affairs when a crackpot’s pot is so cracked, that she can neither follow the logic nor get the joke.)

          • I didn’t condemn moral absolutes….I said it’s a function of age….your age, or ‘the age’. I figure this level of considering it, was a big knee-slapper at monasteries in the Dark Ages

            We meet this again today at 6 years old with ‘everything I say is a lie’……clever repartee at that age.

            Your willingness to attribute your fantasies to me, as though I actually said any of them..LOL..is just plain lying on your part.

        • Yes, I am a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal struggling to grapple with your oh-so-enlightened morally relativistic view of the world. My objection to your world-view could only be a result of pure ignorance. If I could just evolve a little more, maybe I’d be able to keep up, professor. Sorry. Big words make head hurt.

          All kidding aside, I see you’ve failed to answer my question. If you want to challenge the concept of moral absolutes, you have to make an absolute statement regarding the inferiority of moral absolutism.

          That was about the only thing in your post worth challenging you on, seeing as the rest was mental pabulum. What about this piece do you disagree with specifically?

          You mention that freedom (guaranteed in our rights) should be balanced with responsibility. Great. I don’t think you’ll find anyone here who disagrees. Privately, we should all exercise our rights responsibly and we all have a duty to promote a free society. But when government starts mandating your responsibilities, then you don’t really have rights anymore, do you?

          You sound like Jennifer Lynch, Canada’s Chief Commissar, who believes that rights are on a spectrum and it’s up to her to strike the right balance between rights and the whims of competing special interest groups. Steyn has already dealt devastating take-downs of this absurd notion in past writings.

          Here’s the SparkNotes version for you, though: Rights are meaningless if they aren’t absolute.

          At this point, you’re probably reaching for your trusty “fire in a crowded theatre” rebuttal. Steyn has covered that cliche in depth, too. Do yourself a favour and read up on it. Like him or hate him, you’ll find he’s an excellent writer.

          • LOL I’d forgotten how hilarious these threads get after the cult members show up….no, not neanderthals, just James Deans, booted foot against the school wall, blowin’ smoke. Guys who always think they’re hotter and smarter than those who spent thousands of years searching for actual knowledge

            Not ‘ignorant’….heavens no….just ‘rebels’ you know. Heh heh……Steyn makes a bundle off appealing to your one party trick.

            Ciao

          • Wait… Are we the James Deans – the too-cool-for-school types who get our coolness from the way we rebel against the system? Or are we cult members who display rigid conformity like mindless zombies incapable of independent thought? Are we ignorant conformists half the time and arrogant rebels the other half?
            You’re mixing your generalizations here. Please characterize all right-wingers in a more specific and uniform manner, so that your prejudices are at least logically consistent.
            I’ll bet – and this is just a wild guess – that you toss around the term “bigot” a lot and like to pat yourself on the back for your legendary liberal tolerance, too.

          • Lemme see….how about ‘frat boys’….do you like that any better?

            Think you’re ‘hot shit’, and all others are …..um….pinko, librul, socialist, weak…whatevers?

            It’s all the same ‘tude, dude…..no matter the current phrase to sum it up

            You’ll have a life of wild guesses…….and misses….until you finally overcome your programming, and grow up.

          • I’ve defenately seen it more than once. Actually saw her use the term “white guilt” one time. It was pretty awesome!

          • Yawn….no you haven’t.

            None of you guys can debate for toffee….too busy making things up.

          • “As long as you’re doing well, you don’t understand that others may not have the same good fortune you do. This has been summed up as ‘white privilege’ by blacks, and ‘male privilege’ by women…..and ‘elitism’ by everyone else” – Emily
            My apologies, it was white privilege, same deal.

          • No, it’s just people who have more of a chance in life, because they have ‘access to the system’…..culture is currently the criteria, and it shouldn’t be.

            Colour, gender, class are just a few of the ways people are held back…..we can ALWAYS find a reason to discriminate.

            Hence the Occupy movement pushing for ‘access to the system’…..for everybody, no exceptions. It is insane, both economically and politically to do otherwise…and it’s time the world figured that out.

          • You miss the irony. James Dean’s character was a rebel then, but today he’s just a mindless zombie conforming to the ‘rebel’.

          • You are somewhat retarded if you really believe that there is an ‘absolute morality’ based upon some God given missive. That so-called ‘absolute’ on closer inspection always fails to the law of dubious interpretation, hence not so ‘absolute’ afterall.

            Something for you to ponder, if God decided upon the absolute laws of nature, maths and morality … could he have chosen otherwise? If not then they transcend God, if yes then they are arbitrary.

          • Pastorbake and Orignal Emily, on display, showing that their holier-than-thou liberal tolerance and open-mindedness is a mile wide and an inch deep. (Given the overwhelming opposition to section 13 here, I suspect that the only two or three people speaking in defence of it must be Farber, Lynch, and Warman posting under aliases).

            Pastorbake, just come out and give a full blown defense of nihilism (the belief that morality cannot exist) and be done with it. At least have the intellectual honesty to put your cards on the table and try to win minds that way, which I’m sure you know would go over like a lead balloon.

            That’s where the secular leftist way of thinking leads, anyway, so you may as well be up front about it. The thing that bothers me most about the “there are no absolutes/rights must be balanced against other interests” crowd is that they are so fundamentally dishonest about it. Just come out and say you don’t believe any fundamental rights or moral codes exist, and we can have a discussion about that.

            But I’m simply not going to touch the issue if you won’t come out with a definitive statement and merely keep dancing around the question.

          • Going from your reply you clearly failed to understand my post, perhaps you need an oil stone.

            btw – everyone knows what nihilism is, spelling it out makes you look like the kind of tool that cuts and paste.

            My position is thus … There are two kinds of people – those that have a sense of moral right and wrong (people like me) and those that would go about raping, murdering, thieving and being paedophiles if it wasn’t for a belief in the existence of God and a fear of his wrath (people like you).
            The problem I have with people like you is that while you claim there is some ‘absolute’ moral code’ your interpretation of this code changes with your needs.

          • Pastorbake, once again with his tolerant, open-minded, holier-than-thou leftist morality. A morality grounded in nothing, mind you, but one that he has no problem definitely claiming is superior to moral absolutism.
            By the way, a nice summary of your a hominem attacks: “you have to be somewhat retarded” (very offensive to mentally handicapped persons), “tool”, “[People like you] that would go about raping, murdering, thieving and being paedophiles if it wasn’t for a belief in the existence of God.”
            Wow. Not an ounce of prejudice, bigotry, hatred, or closed-mindedness there. You and OriginalEmily make a fine pair. You both have very specific and ignorant prejudices towards entire groups of people whom you make no effort to hide your utter disdain for.
            “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I will defend your right to hate me, sir. You should be glad to know that Mark Steyn is, as well.

          • It’s ‘ad hominem’ btw. Somewhat ironic when you’ve prefaced every comment with what is both a strawman and an ad hominem attack in your prejudicial, bigotted and closed-minded pejorative use of the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘left wing’.

            Interesting to note that you think everyone that is retarded is mentally handicapped rather than just wilfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

            Again your response to my post shows that you’ve completely failed to grasp the essence of your position. If you really believe in the God given absolute morality you claim, then you have to accept that (a) Your sense of morality ‘only’ comes from God and that (b) without it you’d be immoral.

            Not surprising then that a sizeable and growing minority within the Christian movement is born again, made up primarily of ‘ex’; criminals, addicts and those that have suffered at least one bout of mental illness.

            Again just to clarify another of your misunderstandings. If you go about using ‘left wing’ as a pejorative term for closed minded extremism you can’t then attach ‘liberal’ to it without looking silly. Unless of course what you really mean to say is that ‘any position but my own extreme one is a joke’.

            However you wish to play it you’ve undermined your position and your assertion that ‘you’d defend to the death someone’s right to disagree with you’ can be seen for the hollow bag of hyperbole that it is.

            eat my leek!

          • Pointing out simple mistakes to score cheap debating points now? Anyone with half a brain could tell it was a typo – and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do have at least half a brain – which means you are simply out of ideas. Don’t waste our time and yours with such pointless, pretentious posturing.

            This conversation has clearly gone as far as it will go on an internet message board without devolving into the brutish route it is headed with your assertions of my mental illness, latent criminal impulses, and sub-standard IQ. You have failed to defend your own firm belief in moral relativism, and have only repeatedly asserted that I believe there is no source of morality or inherent goodness or evilness without God. You’re absolutely correct on that; I believe you either have absolute morality bestowed upon us by a higher power, or nihilism.

            I make no claim that morality comes anywhere but from God, but at least I know where my morality comes from and realize it has a foundation. You’ve failed to explain where yours comes from. Atheists always like to challenge theists by asking, “If there’s a God, where does evil comes from?” I will turn that question on its head and ask you, “If there is no God, where does goodness come from?”

            In any case, like I said, this conversation cannot go any further here without getting ugly, so if you’d like to have a chat privately, where you won’t be tempted to resort to trying to score points in front of a crowd, I’d love to talk. Just let me know.

            As for my faith in free speech, it is sincerely absolute and unshakable in matters such as these. I will respect your right to express whatever opinion you wish of my beliefs. That we’re even able to have such a discussion is a great freedom – a freedom I’d hate to see eroded by those who seek only to silence the other side rather than provide a coherent, solid refutation.

            P.S. I did a quick proof-read this time for you, but I’m sure you might find the odd grammatical error or typo here or there. Please accept this apology in advance.

          • It’s somewhat strange that you’re now claiming to be reasonable.

            1. Your pejorative use of ‘liberal’ and ‘left wing’ is not only insulting in itself, but undermines your claim to the possibility of a rational discussion.

            2. You are more than happy to claim that atheists lack moral integrity. Yet when the implications of your own moral position are pointed out you cry foul.

            So let me ask you this, if you really believe in the sentiments of your penultimate paragraph why is it that your first port of call is to belittle and insult rather than to ‘provide a coherent, solid refutation’.

            Trying to insult people by calling them ‘liberals’ and ‘left wing(ers)’ isn’t a refutation, just a means to avoid addressing the issues at hand.

            So you can see why I feel your claims to support free speech can only be interpreted as ‘I want to be able to say what I want’.

            There’s no need for you to threaten to turn this discussion ugly … and I doubt that anyone but you and I are reading this.

          • I didn’t know what nihilism is.

    • Wait, so you are saying that because a few people misuse the sword that we should all lose the use of it? Or are you saying that the use of the sword should be constrained by the state so that it’s use complies with the wishes of the government? The former is to say that free speech can be forbidden based on someone (you?) saying that someone else misused it (as determined by ….let me guess…you?).The latter is to say that freedom of speech does not exist at all as a human right, only correct speech. Either way, those are good ideas as long as you are the one on top, telling folks what to say and what not to say. If you one of the little people it is oppression, plain and simple.

      • I’d say a few people ‘misused the sword’ and created Nazi Germany, and a damned close call globally….and we don’t need anymore ‘events’ like that.

        So until people can deal with others with r-e-s-p-e-c-t and as adults……there are times when somebody needs to keep the wooden spoon handy for knuckle-rapping…..no matter all those impassioned speeches in the dorm room, past midnight

        • You realize that the Weimar Republic had hate speech laws, don’t you?

          • Yup….gun laws too. Just no brains about how to run a society.

        • To suggest that hate speech created nazi germany is naive. The origins of the second world war and the Nazi movement are very complex, and government regulation of thought and speech were tools of the Nazis and not weapons to fight them.

    • No. I think those who murder should be punished as well.

      The Supreme court decided a few years ago that a policeman who followed a trail of blood into a residence and arrested the person there had disqualified the evidence gathered because of not respecting a charter right.

      If someone is tearing your society or civilization apart, then write a law. Get Parliament to pass it, as well as the Senate. Charge that person. Prove to the court that the law is constitutional. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. Respect all due process protections of the accused.

      To not do those things is to systematically tear apart your society or civilization.

  14. The only silver lining in eliminating s. 13 was how much lies had to be spread to the public by people like Levant and Steyn to generate such contempt for anti-hate speech laws. If people had a better sense of how the system worked eliminating s. 13 couldn’t have happened.

    • Hey GFMD. Are you Bernie Farber by any chance?

      • Just a citizen who is Levant’s greatest nightmare – someone who read shakedown then went on to read the cases he supposedly wrote about, and learned a little about the triubnal system in general.

        • And what did you learn?

          • he learned nothing. Typical internet bluff talk.

          • that the supreme court was right in taylor, that tribunals are legitimate, effective, and execute their determinations with procedural fairness, and that exra misrepresents the rulings of cases.

          • The fact that Ezra Levant is a dishonest buffoon does not detract in the least from the fact that S. 13 was an indefensible provision. It’s gone and that’s a good thing regardless of what you think of Ezra Levant (and I do share your dim opinion of him). Even a blind pig etc….

          • well, long live hate speech then – glad your such a fan ( or you’d be screaming about defamation tooa nd don’t pretend there’s a real difference).

          • You’re blathering dude. But I think I discern the outline of an argument there… a poor one… but an argument nonetheless. Unfortunately, you are neglecting an important piece of information: hate speech is still a crime in Canada. The change that is causing you so much grief requires only that the accused perpetrator of hate speech has his/her rights protected as well. Seems a good thing to me.

          • Oh please. Your moral preening demeans you.

    • “If people had a better sense of how the system worked eliminating s. 13 couldn’t have happened.”

      The irony here is that section 13 was only eliminated once its hideous abuses gained widespread attention. It’s obvious that Soviet-style “justice” works better in secrecy.

      • QED.

        • The CHRT ruled that Warman’s posts could have precipitated further hate messages from forum members, and that “his participation on Internet sites similar to the Northern Alliance is both disappointing and disturbing and it diminishes his credibility.”

          • You Canadians are fools to be discussing the legality of hate in the first place.

          • @Zen. It’s sad we have been forced to.

          • There are laws against hate speech that are being applied. People can be charged and prosecuted, brought to trial, evidence presented, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be established.

            These tribunals did not do things that way. Oddly enough, some of us feel that the charter right of freedom of expression should only be taken away by processed governed by the same charter.

        • “You don’t know how lucky you are, boy…back in the USSR.”

          • That’s right the people in the Russia are so much better off today than they were in communist era.

            Its absolutely amazing that in a couple of decades the wealth of the country has migrated to a few capitalist oligarchs, and thank God for that, so much better than when it was in the hands of the militaristic communist junta (ignore the whispers that military spending today is not only rising but is also more effectively spent) … and whatever else it may fail at Russia today is now miraculously full of religious people and it sure knows how to supply it’s people with alcohol and drugs. As a nice little side benefit, it seems the sex industry is going great guns too.
            Capitalism and God ftw.

    • Spread by whom, Canada’s mulitutural pushing media?

    • The contempt for anti hate speech laws was already there ( as it should be in a society of ‘free’ people) and was not generated by Levant and Steyn. If people had the proper respect for individual freedom in this country then section 13 would never have been enacted.

  15. Warman is the Eugene McCarthy of the left.

    • I suspect Dio intends to refer to Joseph McCarthy rather than Eugene McCarthy. Two completely separate people.

  16. So, is hate speech legal now? I can’t get through all the distortions and bafflegab to find out the true implications of S. 13 being revoked.

  17. Welcome back. You educated me and I will be renewing my subscription for your articles.

  18. I fully and completely support the right of Micheal Moore,Bill Maher and Heather Mallick to free speech they are the three media types I hate the most

  19. Congrats Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. You did it. You both deserve an award for being patriotic Canadians.

    • Yep! Nothing says Patriotic Canadian like constantly pushing the interests of other countries, as Steyn and Levant always do.

  20. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    -C.S. Lewis

    • Lewis was wrong. The robber barons also act with the approval of their own conscience. All abusers feel entitled to their abuse.

      • This may be true. Humans have an incredible capacity for rationalizing their behaviour, no matter how repugnant they know it is deep down. Most people (with a few rare and glorious exceptions in history) will never refuse a little more power and a chance to institute some form of control over their fellow man if given half a chance.
        Today, we just call such rationalization “moral relativism”. And there is no room in a relativistic world view for such a thing as absolute rights, even though those absolute rights are the only thing standing between liberty and oppression.
        Rights are simply seen as a gift of government that operate on a sliding scale. Both the robber barons and the omnipotent busybodies have no trouble rationalizing their behaviour on the basis that it is somehow for own good.

        • Nate and Firegoat, you seemed to have missed Lewis’s point. While it is true that robber barons and busybodies both justify thier behavior, the rb’s don’t pretend to do it for our good; they seek only thier own good. But the moral tyrants claim they are persecuting us for our good. They see themselves as morally pure crusaders for righteousness, for whom there is no such thing as excess. Just think of the horrors of the Inquisition.

  21. “when Nazis rejoice we known [sic] something must be very wrong.”

    This is a perfect illustration of the fallacy of anti-Nazi absolutism. If one accepts the premise that Nazis are always wrong, then one is forced to condemn whatever a Nazi praises, including the lifting of censorship. The problem is that the Nazis were human, and so could not help being right about some things. For instance, Nazis valued courage, loyalty, and hard work, and perhaps this is why these are the virtues modern liberals have the least affinity for.

    • Well put Benjamin. Even Hitler occasionally got things right. On assuming total control, his first edict was to ban the cooking of live lobsters. Personally I go along with that. According to the curious logic of Farber, Kinsella, Warman and others, this makes me a Nazi.
      I believe the American Nazi party (or whatever it’s called) opposed the invasion of Iraq. I imagine the aforementioned idiots did too. Just shows how many Nazis there are these days!Great news about Section 13. In Australia we have an equivalent, Section 18c, which as a result of similar abuse is also Dead Man Walking.

  22. Anybody been able to find a s. 13 case yet where there was hate speech found when there clearly wasn’t hate speech? thought not.

    Whatever your ideological persuasion, you have to admit the Federal tribunal did a good job in rendering determinations. (In fact the provincial ones did too. Can you believe Boission ISN’T hate speech – talk about a high bar giving enormous protection to citizens!)

    • Oh look! These additional constraints barely constrain you at all. Isn’t that the sign of a benevolent and caring authoritarian? Kiss the hand that barely holds you down at all.

      • We shut down white supremacist websites in Canada – or we did until last week. OH, the humanity!

        • This was part of the problem. The law was not applied evenly, not even close. The only people who were targeted were generally older white males. A Muslim could openly call for the death of all Jews, and the kangaroo court’s had no problem with that. But a white Jew printing a cartoon that Muslim’s found offensive was considered an egregious assault.

          We’d shut down white supremacist websites in Canada, but Black supremacist websites, Indian supremacist websites, or muslim supremacist websites were all fine and dandy. The law was flawed in it’s design and it’s execution. It was a failed experiment, and it’s time had come. Good riddance.

          • show me cases where clear hate speech my muslims was allowed by the federal HRC.

          • That’s exactly the problem, they never even looked into it. They’d only go after old white Christians. But it’s my understanding that’s a group of people you loath, so it’s probably OK in your eyes.

    • Boission made a quote from the Bible…which in a free democracy he should have been allowed to do without suffering finanical ruin. Do people like Homosexuals more now or agree with their lifestyle more because they they bully anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

    • If you are ready and willing to deny a charter right to someone without due process, you are a fool.

  23. What are you talking about? Stop being clever and explain.

  24. A toast to you Steyn.

    And to those who supported this law, I resent that you call yourselves Canadians. You should be exiled.

  25. Wow, these section 13 supporters are pretty filled with hate themselves, judging by these comments. You lost, get over it.

  26. Nothing I enjoy more than reading leftist reaction to this sort of thing…it pretty much cements the truism that most of the genuine fascists left in the world are on the left, and that it’s impossible to separate fascists and progressives, they are one and the same, and hate liberty and the vision of human dignity that accompanies it with a rare and deep hatred.

  27. Thanks, Macleans, I’m so glad Mark Steyn is back to lead and liberate Canada. He certainly inspired me.

    Anders Behring Breivik

  28. When Steyn protests the increasing instances of Conservative government censorship, then we can take his argument as something other than the hypocritical, self-serving partisanship it clearly is. We’re waiting, Mr. Steyn.

  29. next step is to sweep away the detritus and political correctness found in canadian academia. There are a lot of garrisons, farbers and halls in that cesspool – and getting rid of their obtuse insistence upon censoring the views of those who disagree with them will not be easy. This is a victory, but just one of many that free speech advocates need in trudeaupia.

  30. Mark Steyn will never win a governor general’s award or the order of canada – too male, too white, too courageous and too talented – but his work in this one cause far surpasses anything that the vast majority of state-approved awards winners will manage in their lifetimes. canada, which is still a politically correct, authoritarian and straitjacketed society in many ways, is nonetheless a little bit freer today because of Mark Steyn.

  31. The fact is that the chattering class is all about self-righteous indignation and self-flagellating white guilt. The result has been an assault on whites, Christianity, and basic morality. Relativism, as long as it subverts the above is the the rationale for S13, it’s proponents lovingly embracing its anti-conservative tenets while giving a pass to the most vile of hate-mongers found in radical Islam’s religiosity, and socialism’s extremist thought-control. Thank God, just thank God, that enough Conservative lawmakers had the sense to see S13 for what it was and put the sword to it.

  32. It is so good to read Mark Steyn on the pages of McLeans again. I wasn’t going to renue this year, but now that Mark Steyn is back, I am renuing.

    • Another of the many Mark Steyn aliases…

  33. I say forget about legislating behaviour and policing opinion. Let people say what they want, and if I don’t like what they say, I’ll just shoot the SOB. Now that is freedom.

  34. I hope Mark is back for good. I was just about to cancel my subscription. He is the best thing about this magazine.

    Now, if he stays, can Maclean’s handle the heat? Course they don’t have to worry about section 13 anymore. :)

  35. More Mark Steyn please. A voice of reason in a confused world.

    • How many identities do you use here anyway Mark ?…

  36. Steyn alludes to the anti anti-Semitic origin & use of this provision. And it wasn’t until some muslims tried to avail themselves of section 13 that it became a cause célèbre. So a provision that probably shouldn’t have been included is dropped.
    But as the winners of this little battle jockey for the “Larry Flynt of Political Porn” award, they shouldn’t forget the much greater contribution of Ernst Zundel in abolishing the mediaeval “False News” provision of our criminal code.

    Is Mark Steyn back for a regular gig, then?

    • God bless Ernst Zündel, the greatest Canadian — even though Canada is so depraved that he was persecuted, jailed, slandered, assaulted and deported.

  37. The Jewman Rights travesty in Canada is a case of K vs K.

  38. According to Canada’s Jewman Rights standards:

    * Quebecers are 24% of Canadian residents, but 33.3% of the Supreme Court must be members of the bar or superior judiciary of Quebec

    * By convention, 33.3% of the Supreme Court should be Ontarians (37% of Canadian residents), 22.2% should be from the West (31% of Canadian residents), and 11.1% should be from the Atlantic provinces (7% of Canadian residents). [These appointees have included Quebecers who were licensed to practice in The Rest of Canada, i.e., outside of Quebec.]

    * Canadians are 1% Jew. The Supreme Court of Canada is openly 44.4% Jew.

    • Canadians are 1% Jew, but The Supreme Court of Canada is only 44.4% Jew. — Only 44%? How can Jews be satisfied with being a bare minority on the supreme court? That’s anti-Semitism! The Jewman Rights Commission should investigate that and order Harper to appoint another Jew.

  39. About time

  40. Re: Mark Steyn – “I hate…”

    Oh! no, not him again. I thought we were rid of the whines and rants that sullied the pages of Macleans for way too long, written by Mark Steyn -”the self-styled ‘right-wing bastard’ who violates everyone’s sense of good taste – R. Fulford”.

    Enough already of his foaming at the mouth and insulting other extremists like him, usually islamists, because they are also foaming at the mouth while insulting the Jews. Steyn’s character assassinations of both named individuals and groups of individuals don’t belong in the pages of a magazine claiming to be a reflection of Canada and Canadians.

    What Steyn never understood was that clever weasel wording and grandstanding under the guise of free speech isn’t always based on sound thinking and good ideas. Think of Adolf Hitler’s grandstanding and “free” speeches…

    Mr. Steyn boasts that he was always right in screaming that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act governing hate speech should be abolished – this after he was admonished by them for hate mongering. It was only his fellow neos and Harperites who revoked parts of the CHRA. That doesn’t mean he was right. Sixty percent of Canadians voted against Harper and would not agree with his government’s right-leaning ideological legislative changes. Nor do they agree with his budget cuts in public services: in scientific research, in environmental controls and in food safety and health controls… cuts that are used to help finance over $70 billion of weapons of war.

    Using that logic, the Hon. David Emerson, director of Maple Leaf Foods, could also claim that his company was also vindicated and won’t have to recall Maple Leaf and Schneiders products in the future as they did in 2008 after at least 9 people died from listeriosis after consuming their products. Lucky for them the Harper government cut back on meat inspectors and won’t send them into their plants anymore saying that the meat packers can self-regulate (didn’t David Emerson get elected in B.C. in 2006 as a liberal MP and then immediately cross the floor to become a conservative minister and close ally of Stephen Harper?…).

    Mark Steyn should take a cue from one of Leonard Cohen’s latest songs and Go home: “He’s a (d…) bastard living in a suit…”

    • You are in pain … I like that.

      • I know you like seeing pain in others, just as do all right-wing facists like Steyn and his racist colleagues Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Coulter… etc, Ad Nauseam… and they get paid handsomely to lash it out as well, not only by Fox but also, alas, by Macleans?!… oops! excuse me while I go and vomit again just at the thought of all the hurt they spread…

  41. If anyone actually is serious about getting rid of the hate emotion in Canada, one could achieve 90% success by banning Islam in Canada and deporting all Muslims. Most of what would be left would be more envy than hate. Envy isn’t all that bad, a lot of people like to be envied. It means they have achieved something good and are likely successful people.

  42. The Republicans of Lincoln’s time were the party of the emerging industrial US. The Democrats were the heirs of Jefferson’s vision of democracy, which was small, rural and favorable to the states’ power over those of the federal government. The Civil War and the civil rights movement can profitably be viewed as struggles between these 2 philosophies.

    Although murkier and less turbulent, that historical current still flows through US politics. LBJ’s stance on civil rights was all the more significant for its defiance of his own party’s conservative, southern wing. The republican party in his day was also divided between left and right, a distinction reflected in the factions’ stands on civil rights. This event, and the ensuing ‘Southern Strategy’ of Nixon’s republicans, has pretty much reversed the roles played by the 2 parties. Democrats are now strongest in the industrial, urban regions of the country among labor, the educated, and the secular electorate; the Republicans are the party of the South, the rural counties of the midwest and west, and cultural conservatives. Democrats accept and defend the role of federal government, and Republicans seek to limit its responsibilities to what they see as the core: defense, domestic security, and the nurturing of business and the marketplace.

    • I see you’re taking great care in revising history. Sorry. You don’t get to change which party promoted slavery. The Democratic Party’s long history of racialism is well understood. This ‘parties switched sides’ trope is a bastardization of history. The false dichotomy of ‘progressive/conservative’ in regard to the ending of slavery is an intellectually fraudulent argument. Lincoln was a Constitutionalist & a classical liberal (ie. conservative).

      Lincoln himself recurred to the principles of the American Founding, specifically the Declaration of Independence, so one can say that the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. In essence these principles hold that the only purpose of government is to protect the equal natural rights of individual citizens. These rights inhere in individuals, not groups, and are antecedent to the creation of government.

      The Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a “positive good.” We continue to see similar beliefs today among Democrats who view unborn children in much the same way.

      “Worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon… the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century.

      If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.” -Kevin Williamson

      Yet, as we see, this myth persists — in fact, it’s just about the only response today’s Democrats have to their own sordid history: pinning it on the other guy. It makes them profoundly uncomfortable that among the 21 who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be found Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., the founder of the Hillbilly Dynasty; Robert “KKK” Byrd, the Conscience of the Senate; and Sleepin’ Sam Ervin of Watergate fame.

      Take a look at the electoral maps for 1968 (Nixon-Humphrey), 1972 (Nixon-McGovern), 1976 (Carter-Ford), and 1992 (Clinton-Bush) to see how the South voted. Further, take a look at those same maps to see how the ‘industrial’ states voted up until 2000.

      It was the overturning of the founding principles that led to the promotion of racism. Lincoln was intent on re-establishing them. He was not ‘progressive.’ He was Constitutional.

      The racism that existed in the Democratic party then, exists today. However, there is a slight modification. At the time, it was considered that a black could do no right, because of the color of his skin. Today, a black can do no wrong, because of the ‘unfortunate’ condition of the color of his skin. It is every bit as paternalistic & as racist. cf. Dixiecrats, Jim Crow laws, & MLK Jr (a Republican).

      The slavery they support today is the one that perpetually keeps them on the plantation of a labelled ‘victimized group’ that depends on the paternity of the government to ‘save’ them. The end of the Democratic party would be when blacks became economically advantaged. They would no longer be needed. So they will ensure that never happens.

  43. Isn’t there sufficient evidence to show that Warman was the CHRC’s creature ? Were they not working together to get prosecutions that would not otherwise be possible due to the absence of complaints? Surely the CHRC should have been in the dock.

  44. Spot on!

Sign in to comment.