JerrySeinfeld

hahahahahahaha. that's AWESOME! now eevil satan Bushalliburton is resposible for AIDS in africa. god i love the left.

That's a strawman. Deal with the facts at hand, not imaginary arguments made up by you. Look! You're arguing with ...YOURSELF So we're balancing one fundamental bases for democracy: Freedom of expression - balancing that against...what freedom exactly? You are postulating that two freedoms are clashing here. What is the fundamental HUMAN RIGHT of freedom of expression clashing with, prey tell?

To suggest that it's OK to infringe on one of the fundamental bases for democracy (freedom of expression) is not only stupid, it's dangerous. But you're behaving much as the Germans did in the 30's: "don't worry about it. it's just a minor infringement" Pres. Ronald Reagan said it best: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” Samee goes for Canada.

Certainly true if you live in a fascist or otherwise tyrannical state bent on controlling it's citizens.

Geez. It's like talking to an engineer. You're missing the forest for the trees dude, everyone else is talking about the restriction on the fundamental right of freedom of expression and you're worried about the p's and q's.

WHat are you talkingt about? I love this debate. The fact that we're talking about it is a start. I call you spewing bullshit to deflect the real issue which is speech policing. "Taking to task" isn't the problem. Taking to "court" (Kangaroo court) is. It's the people using Human Rights commisions as their own personal whine parade. An attempt by the non-robust to regulate speech and carve the HUMAN RIGHT of free speech to suit their own feelings. As per your comment about section 13, glad to see you have google which allows you to do imcomplete research with the click of a mouse. Now maybe you should check section 13 of the CANADA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, Einstein.

Yes. it's section 13 that has allowed the HRCs to start meddline in people's speech - and allowing people to file griveance because someone "hurt their feelings" or "offended" them. Democracy requires robust citizens not whiney complainers.- which is why I have posted another thread about de-sensitivity training. The two topics are closely linked.

Bad analogy. In fact, please explain it. I'm interested to know if even you know what you're talking about.

Do your homework. Freedom of expression IS a human right. You can look it up in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. "Not being offended" is NOT a human right. Any infringement upon freedom of expression is a VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, and as such any activity by the Canadian Human Rights Commission under section 13 of their code (regulating expression), under the guise of PROTECTING human rights, is actually in VIOLATION of human rights.

Any government appointed body charged with arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not acceptabel speech must be abolished. It's orwellian, dictatorial, anti-liberty and just plain wrong.

We're witnessing one of those outcomes in Iran right now. As for Iraq, sure there are still some issue in Iraq, but it's been largely a success. There isn't much doubting that at all. They just had widespread largely peaceful elections, are now a free society and are no longer ruled by a murderous madman. Next domino: Iran. I called it: Bush, just like Reagan, often poo-pooed by the left as a war mongering stupid cowboy, has, just like Reagan, proven his backbone and proven he's smarter than the collective surrender-monkeys in San Francisco, New York, Europe and Canada. Good Job W.

When this is all done Bush is gonna keep looking smarter and smarter. The truth is, Obama doesn't give two shits about what happens overseas. He's too busy socialism-izing the USA. Everything else just gets in the way. In a brilliant unintended microcosm of Obama's indifference, I was watching coverage of the mayhem in Iran. Then they broke to commercial and it was an ad about reforming health care.

The current happenings in Iran are mostly due to an internal struggle for liberty and democracy, with foreign influence at a minimum. I think we could all accept that - at least based upon the information we have right now. However, foreign relations/policy/influence always has some degree of impact. Just look at the recent US elections, where Bush's disliked foreign policy or Obama's promises, or even the (illegal) contributions from international donors helped elect Obama. So I think we can also agree that outside forces have made some kind of contribution. Here is a though for a Sunday morning conversation. It occurred to me that, as opposed to the usual polarization that occurs on this site between Bush and Obama, is it possible that BOTH Presideents have done things that have combined to contribute to the uprising in Iran? We do know that Bush, before leaving office, funded a $400 million project aimed at usetting the existing regime. We also know that, like it or not, Bush ousted a "supreme leader" in Iraq and created a peacful democracy after years of struggle and resistance - supported militarily by the Iranian Supreme Leadeer and his friend Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. So Bush did what I have claimed his goal was all along: Smashed the illusion of permanence long held by the thug regimes in the region. But his agressive style was such that it became an easy bogeyman and lightening rod as "the great satan" for thug candidates such as Ahmedinejad to point to as a rationale for their hardline approach and reason to support him. He was the bad cop. Then along comes Obama, the good cop. He "extends a hand". Then makes a conciliatory speech to the "muslim world". And serendipitously, the Supreme Leader in Iran wants to ensure his puppet Ahmedinajad is "elected" so cheats the election and blesses Ahmedinejad's election as "divine". Could it be that this combination of events and appraoches between the two US Presidents has worked to motivate the people on the ground in Iran? Bush smashed the illusions, made real liberty seem possible, while Obama made it possible through his olive branch from "the west" to the Islamic people on the ground? And is this the beginning of something bigger to sweep across the Mid East? Discuss.

i was educated once and it took me years to get over it

I know I said Gay is wierd. But LESBIAN? That's a whole other category of weird. When I see Lesbians - the butch type, it's just freaky. It's a freak show. Lots of Lesbians are man-hating fat uglies who struck out in the hetero world. But a few actually do prefer women as their first choice.

...and the criminal courts deal with hate speech. so what is the point of these kangaroo courts?

And really, that's the whole thing in a nuteshell. In Canada we have a judicial body which can actually make GOING TO A COMEDY SHOW less fun. The last bastion. The only place left where you can actually speak your mind and make fun of people. Gone. Because of the PC police. Tragic, seriously.

What are you talking about? It's your side having a fit and running off to the teache...er...government. My guys are just makin' jokes and wanna be free to do so.

I think if we don't throttle their ideologies (Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their Ilk), then it will flourish. They are already exporting that ideology over here (there is a once a day flight between northern pakistan and some tiny town in north englad, and first-cousin marriage is commonplace in many parts of england). So if we don't try to throttle their ideology, then we need to stop it from coming here at least. If our borders are close and they don't change, then we run the "risk" of turning the world into that boardgame: Risk. A bunch of isolated countries building up their armie's populations eventually bumping into eachother in a not so pleasant fashion.

That's fair. I think the normal thing to do is to be aware of peeople's feelings, but also to be vigilant that your language isn't being "guided" or "policed" by expectatoins set out by some elite academic or bureaucrat. It's important to stur debate about these thing. People are sheep. They'll be herded if you let them. FIGHT THE POWER!

That may be - but it sure sounds like they're gonna hear it on some grounds. We as Canadians, left or right, need to stand up against this kind of censorship and heavyhandedness. The reason EVERY major publication in Canada - even the marxist rag the Toronto Star stood behind Mark steyn is because the media and news outlets realize something: It's a right wing guy THIS time. But if we accept it, what if next time it's YOU.

The human rights act may be law, but it's not in the charter. The real key would be to somehow get hauled up on one of these bogus complaints by one of these whining ninnies and then intentionally get found "guilty" - so you could then challenge the vertdict based upon the CHARTERin a REAL court, and get the whole thing thrown out once and for all. Of course, that would require tonnes of dough, time, effort, travel etc. It's horrendous. No one would try it, which is what the lefty language police are counting on.

Yea. christ. let it go. RELAX. I can't believe a bunch of conservatives are sitting here trying to get liberals to chill out.

You know what is interesting is the stranglehold the left wing has over language. Think about the news, or conversation. People are literally handcuffed to using specific words and phrases deemed "acceptable" by left wing elites who try to tell us "This is how we talk...this is how we act...this is what we accept.." and if you don't go along to get along, you're hauled out in front of some trumped up quasi court. sounds like something out of a george orwell novel, and it's disgusting.

No I said I should be able to say whatever I want. You added the last bit. Exactly. Get over it. So what. Once again you are guilty of putting words in my mouth and setting up straw men. WHy don't you learn to read: Here is my exact quote: Wow. You just make smoke come out of my ears from your lack of understanding. Your above cite is precisley the reason why this entire kangaroo court must be abolished. It's beeen turned into a body of censorship for those who can't handle getting their feelings hurt and it's dangerous. This case is an extremely dangerous precedent. You are correct. I don't like her or anyone else having the ability to stifle debate, shut people up and censor them just because they don't like something someone says. The true test of true freedom of speech is to listen to the thing you think is the most vile being said, and still respect others' right to say it. These women are attempting to set up a dangerous precedent. Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with a bona fide, self described supporter of speech police. Wow. You, Hitler and the Chinese politburo would have got along. She has no expenses. That's part of the problem. This is not a court of law. Pure bullshit. The word "offended" is code for "feelings hurt". And under the Human rights code, and you can look it up, if someone says something that is TRUE and you are offended, it is no defense that it is true. Under this bullshit kangaroo court, TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE. Look it up. well you certainly would. Hmm. All I can say to this is, if ONE gay is refused service somewhere, is it just HE who is being discriminated against? Or is it all gays? I think you should have a listen to what one of Canada's most respected commentators has to say about the commissions and their role. Link to 2 minute video