Islamists, Iran, and the Green Party: Elizabeth May responds


 

Here’s Elizabeth May’s response:

Here’s my original story:


 

Islamists, Iran, and the Green Party: Elizabeth May responds

  1. Words I never thought I'd write in the same sentence:

    Bravo Elizabeth May.

  2. So much for free speech, something Cons in particular were supposedly championing.

    • So Emily,

      Good to see your crusade in support of Free Speech. Curious though, what do you think of this? Was Mark's right to free speech violated?

      • I'm not crusading….Cons were. In the crunch though, it turns out Cons prefer to be politically correct.

        • Well you were the one providing a rather passionate defense of it in this post. Perhaps "crusade" is too strong a word but clearly the topic is important to you.
          http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/04/what-he-would-

          Would you mind answering my question? Do you believe Mark Steyn's free speech rights were violated?

          • I hardly think one sentence 'So much for free speech, something Cons in particular were supposedly championing.' is a 'passionate defense' of free speech. LOL

            Since Steyn tends to want to bomb countries that disagree with him, I really don't think he's much of an example of 'free' anything.

          • You didn't click the link. At the link you were very clear that if someone is invited to speak somewhere, and suddenly has their invitation revoked by the government, that is a violation of their freedom of speech.

            That is exactly what happened to Steyn at the London Convention Center. His speaking engagement was booked, and then cancelled by the venue. The London CC is owned by the City of London, thus meaning the government revoked his invitation to speak.

            So let's try this one more time. Do you believe that this constitutes a violation of Steyn's freedom of speech rights? Yes or No?

          • LOL no I didn't. I assumed it was the old thing about Steyn and the HRC. I apologize.

            Yes, if someone is invited to speak somewhere and suddenly has their invitation revoked by the govt [or other authorities] then it's censorship of the worst kind….and especially at universities, which were meant to be bastions of free speech.

            If Imam Zijad Delic , Steyn, Coulter….whoever that was, Philip somebody, who wrote about the Bell Curve….George Galloway, Ahmadinejad …or anybody, from anywhere on the spectrum….is invited to speak of course they should be allowed to. And any security needed should be provided automatically.

            It's self-defeating to live in an echo chamber…dangerous too.

          • Fair enough. Thank you for answering.

            FWIW, I actually disagree with you on this, but I'm glad to see that even though I believe your interpretation of FoS is wrong, you are at least consistent in defending your position when it applies to Conservatives, which is better than can be said for many on the left.

          • Kay…fair dinkum

            However, I'm a centrist…not left.

          • If you're not in lock-step with Steyn, you are progressive, liberal, leftie, useful idiot, etc etc.

            You must have realized this by now, Emily.

          • wow there are some sick puppies in this world

            try being a human first right to decide for others secondary

            makes less of a mess when your kind is brutalized

            same for all

    • I think you misunderstand what free speech means. It means allowing speech of all kinds. It does not mean one must support speech of all kind, or that others must ignore speech of all kinds. If I want to give a speech condemning, say a certain ethnic group, you do not HAVE to invite me into your living room to give the speech if you don't want to. Free speech includes the responsibility to be held to account for what one says, or supports. Ms. May is not condemning the right of any Canadian to host Iranian propagandists, she is saying her party does not support their views and should not be supporting their speech.

      • I don't think anyone 'misunderstands' what free speech means, Dave.

        • Well then why are you suggesting that this is somehow limiting free speech? Advocating against something is not the same as the government limiting speech.

          • RCMP members have been told to have no involvement apparently.

          • RCMP members have been told not to participate as RCMP members. As in, in an official capacity. As in, suggesting that the government supports the event. The government is well within its rights in this case.

            Now, if the government were restricting what RCMP officers are doing on their own time, not involving the RCMP in any way, that would be different.

          • Well since the RCMP is supposed to be studying diversity, it's self-defeating not to allow them to do so.

          • I guess that depends on whether or not you believe that this conference would be an exercise in diversity, or just a platform for pro-Iranian propaganda.

            Either way, the point remains that this decision by the Government is not limiting personal speech.

          • Well you can't learn much about 'diversity' if you only talk to people who think and believe the same way you do.

            Since the govt has forbidden RCMP involvement, they are being counter-productive on their own policies.

            Same idea as forbidding Zijad Delic from being at an event, or preventing George Galloway from entering the country. It's a pattern.

          • Emily, you don't have to be so open minded that your brain falls out. Some people just aren't worth listening to. But then, this tangent has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

          • Well that means your mind is already made up….and closed.

            Which is not how you study diversity.

          • Critically?

          • Well first you have to hear other points of view…and presumably if you're studying diversity, you'll hear ones different than your own current opinion. Then you have to think about it…..you may have heard something new that sheds light, or gives facts you were unaware of, or at the very least shows you why others think as they do.

            This doesn't require you to support or agree with it….just to understand where the other person is coming from. It is, as they say, a learning experience.

            Then you have to think critically….always….as to whether you should alter your opinion or not in light of what you have learned.

            Frequently the answer is no, sometimes it's yes, but if you're not allowed to hear it in the first place…..you can't determine that.

          • Sorry, but dialoguing with truthers and antisemites on the question of diversity is, at the very least, a waste of the RCMP's time. And to suggest otherwise is an insult to the many more worthy representatives of minority communities.

          • As I've said downthread….if you are studying diversity….then you have to study diversity.

            The word has a specific meaning.

          • Emily please don't lecture us about the meaning of words.

            Come one now. The RCMP isn't simply "studying diversity". You have simplified the notion to the point of absurdity, without knowing anything about the RCMP program at the heart of this discussion.

            The RCMP is attempting to reach out through dialogue to diverse cultural groups and communities to build trust, inform them of their activities, and yes, to learn about these communities.

            But it is a waste of time if these groups aren't representative of their communities, or if they harbour views that are toxic to constructive dialogue, or if they are rather stooges for a foreign government.

          • Actually yes, that's what they're supposed to be doing….just like every other organization in this country.

            And the RCMP in particular should learn about minority groups in a community, or 'toxic' views or foreign viewpoints, don't you think?

            Kinda their job.

          • Perhaps, but only if there is evidence of criminality. And in those cases investigations should not be carried out under the guise of community outreach. Nice try.

          • You have to know of their existence, and what they think and why. The average citizen should know these things…much less the RCMP who are supposed to be on top of any possible threats.

            I'm not 'trying' anything Farmboy…I'm discussing freedom of speech. If you want to oppose that, be my guest.

          • The problem, Emily, with your post, is that we already know what the the views of the guests are. So, we can reasonably assume that they're simply going to be a reflection of the Iranian propaganda machine.

            And, again, no one is stopping anyone from going. They're simply being told to attend on their own time, and not represent the government if they choose to do so.

          • Well, you may think you know what the views of the guests are….but you don't know that for sure….and you certainly don't know why they think that way.

            If you are supposed to be 'studying diversity' AS GOVT POLICY….then you have to….ahem…study diversity.

            It's contradictory for the govt to say….'study diversity, but don't listen to anything we or you may disagree with'.

          • Emily, you really are reaching here.

            You don't know specifically what someone is going to say, but based on their past history, unless you can get reasonable assurances from them that they are going to say something different, there's no point attending.

            I'll make a parallel:

            You should regularly go to church services because if you don't, you might miss something that proves the existence of a deity. It doesn't matter if they are dogmatic to a fault; it doesn't matter that they will continue repeating the same thing; they might say something different this time.

            Does this make sense? No. Neither does what you are saying.

          • Well if you've gone out to say 10 events of this nature, and have heard the same thing every time, then no, there is no point going again.

            If you've never been to an event of this nature, and are just relying on what you've heard in the media, or from some group you're a member of, then you're not very open to learning.

            Since the RCMP mandate is learning, they should certainly hear it. It would even help them in their job.

            If you think such events should be banned….then you've tossed free speech out the window altogether.

          • Please show me where I have suggested that it be banned.

          • I didn't mean you in particular….it's a general statement on anyone who wants to ban specific people or talks or meetings.

            Like our govt.

          • Did they ban it when I wasn't looking?

  3. So where are all the people who were kicking at Michael Petrou a couple of days ago for the original article?

    Since his article, the government has stopped the RCMP from participating, and now May has overturned it as an official Green Party event.

    Hm? Mr Maillet? How's about the bum-face Avatar? Where are you?

    • Please don't encourage bum-face…

      That avatar says it all.

    • He might not be home from work. Not a problem for you?

  4. Yep, and now you have spoken against zionists on a comment board, so they're probably out to get you right now. Boy, are you in trouble now!!!

  5. Well continue banning free speech, and we'll be living in Iran right here.

    • You can still go to the conference if you want Emily. Your right to hear what is said there, is still intact.

      You confuse free-speech, and the right to be listened to.

      I'll fight to the bitter end for the first. The second one doesn't exist

  6. Fascist propaganda, eh? Any examples for us or are you just spouting off some words you heard somewhere?