Moonbox Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Mr. Ignatieff labeled himself as an American. He didn't claim to be American. He said 'we' in an American publication so as to avoid being disregarded as a foreigner in what he was writing about. If Americans thought they were being preached to by a Canadian they would have scoffed at what he was saying. Being "pro American" is decidedly different from claiming to be an American. Unless he has American citizenship it's pretty hard for him to claim that. Yes...meet Thomas Jefferson....special hack. What about him? Is he like...some biblical figure or something? Is it not possible that he wrote and spoke of freedom in an entirely different world and context? What's more important? The right to live in freedom of persecution for your religion/race/sexual orientation or the right to commit it? What a terrible thing for Ignatief to ask a question like that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 He didn't claim to be American. He said 'we' in an American publication so as to avoid being disregarded as a foreigner in what he was writing about. He clearly cloaked himself as an American in the Whitman commencement speech, for reasons that still are not clear. If Americans thought they were being preached to by a Canadian they would have scoffed at what he was saying. They would scoff anyway, as would many Canadians when faced with American rhetoric. Unless he has American citizenship it's pretty hard for him to claim that. No it's not....apparently he has mastered this skill in both spoken and written word. What about him? Is he like...some biblical figure or something? Is it not possible that he wrote and spoke of freedom in an entirely different world and context? No....freedom of speech transcends any such qualifiers. What's more important? The right to live in freedom of persecution for your religion/race/sexual orientation or the right to commit it? The right to speak or publish about any of those things without censorship. What a terrible thing for Ignatief to ask a question like that.... That what's so puzzling....on one hand he masquerades as an American for convenience while undermining the most basic tenet of "Americanism". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) Okay, you're being rhetorical, I know, but let's put it out there in the open: No one wants to discuss the original premise because only Dobbin has read the book so only Dobbin can speak intelligently on it. Alta and BC_2004 don't want to get their ass kicked (again) so they change the topic as their ilk so readily does. The best that Alta can do is ignore you (which would be fine if you were actually a troll, which you're apparently not) and the best that BC_2004 can do is continue his incessant pronoun whines..... The intent wasn't to debate Ignatieff's words, it is up to him to explain them if there is some larger context, I will leave it for Dobbin since I doubt Ignatief will personally be posting in threads. Our politicians should have to answer for what they write and the opinions that they express. Edited April 3, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Actually, I am pointing out that you and this blogger have not read the book. Spin that. How are we suppose to take what was written? What did Ignatief mean what greater context is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 How are we suppose to take what was written? What did Ignatief mean what greater context is there? you couldn't even decipher the American bloggers presumptive ramblings... let alone Ignatieff's introduction. Yet that didn't stop you from denigrating Ignatieff's free speech beliefs. and now you want someone to explain it all to you - ya, right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 How are we suppose to take what was written? What did Ignatief mean what greater context is there? I suppose reading the book will help you find the answer to those questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 I suppose reading the book will help you find the answer to those questions. I am asking you to clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Our politicians should have to answer for what they write and the opinions that they express. And it will help when those that criticize actually read the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 I am asking you to clarify. It is hard to clarify when I don't what the question is or what the criticism is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) It is hard to clarify when I don't what the question is or what the criticism is. The way the exerpt reads is like (although not directly) an endorsement of the section 13 of the Human Rights commision. Edited April 3, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 The way the exerpt reads is like (although not directly) an endorsement of the section 13 of the Human Rights commision. It isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 It isn't. Why do you think that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) Why do you think that? Because he isn't referring to any specific country and or their human rights legislation. He was talking about how the U.S. differs rather than endorsing other countries. Edited April 3, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Because he isn't referring to any specific country and or their human rights legislation. He was talking about how the U.S. differs rather than endorsing other countries. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 The way the exerpt reads is like (although not directly) an endorsement of the section 13 of the Human Rights commision. oh please! exactly which exerpt (sic), even indirectly, has anything at all to do with... let alone endorse... Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that empowers the HR Commission to deal with complaints regarding the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 well done Alta4ever... your new thread title is a major improvement over the original title that questioned Ignatieff's free speech belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Maybe, Maybe notFreedom of speech is an American concept http://www.heartlessandbrainless.com/2009/...an-concept.html there is no free speech in canada, canada even has a "banned book list" for instance, if they get a hold of david icke, or William Pierce books, they have a special border unit that summons them and BURNS them... that's right Canada is a book burning country... how's that for a rational free civilized society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 there is no free speech in canada, canada even has a "banned book list" for instance, if they get a hold of david icke, or William Pierce books, they have a special border unit that summons them and BURNS them... that's right Canada is a book burning country... how's that for a rational free civilized society? cite plese...I'm pretty sure our toasters work on 'lectricty, not toaster books.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 there is no free speech in canada, canada even has a "banned book list" for instance, if they get a hold of david icke, or William Pierce books, they have a special border unit that summons them and BURNS them... that's right Canada is a book burning country... how's that for a rational free civilized society? well... yes, apparently, for example, Pierce's Turner Diaries can't make it's way through Canada Customs (deemed "hate literature") - however, you can easily download it off the interweeb mate! So... in that single example, has technology trumped censorship? Regulate the internet??? - oh my! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 No....freedom of speech transcends any such qualifiers. Such a black and white comment. It's this sort of ignorant dogma that's responsible for most of the world's most idiotic blunders. Like I said before, freedom of speech as the Americans know it was a concept idealized with the right to question and criticize the government and religion etc in mind. It was NOT ever intended to protect people advocating for the right to pedophelia or hate oriented violence or anything like that. Strictly clinging to it like a holy proclamation from God is pure ignorance. I DO support the right to freedom of opinion. People can say they hate (insert ethnic/religious group here) all they want, but NO purpose is served by allowing them to publish and present baseless hate in public places. There's not a single reasonable argument that you could make to show there's ANY benefit to allowing people to publicly encourage gay beatings and immigrant-killing. I'll admit I think Canada's censorship is a little silly sometimes, but at others it's a lot more intelligent than the carte-blanche Americans get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Such a black and white comment. It's this sort of ignorant dogma that's responsible for most of the world's most idiotic blunders. Nonsense....this sort of "ignorant dogma" has fueled western liberalism for hundreds of years. Like I said before, freedom of speech as the Americans know it was a concept idealized with the right to question and criticize the government and religion etc in mind. It was NOT ever intended to protect people advocating for the right to pedophelia or hate oriented violence or anything like that. Bullpuckey....the US Supreme Court has ruled against COPA...twice! Free speech trumps your ignorance. Strictly clinging to it like a holy proclamation from God is pure ignorance. Much better than any God....backed up with firearms (that must piss you off too). I DO support the right to freedom of opinion. People can say they hate (insert ethnic/religious group here) all they want, but NO purpose is served by allowing them to publish and present baseless hate in public places. Great...that's your opinion...there are many others with equal / more merit. There's not a single reasonable argument that you could make to show there's ANY benefit to allowing people to publicly encourage gay beatings and immigrant-killing. Why not any beatings or killings? You wouldn't make a good lawyer. I'll admit I think Canada's censorship is a little silly sometimes, but at others it's a lot more intelligent than the carte-blanche Americans get. Of course...the world's scholars always reference Canada as the crucible of western liberalism and individual rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) Nonsense....this sort of "ignorant dogma" has fueled western liberalism for hundreds of years. Mine isn't based on a 200-year old scrap of paper. Bullpuckey....the US Supreme Court has ruled against COPA...twice! Free speech trumps your ignorance. The US Supreme Court? A bunch of old farts strapped to the Constitution who in many cases narrowly interpret it? Is that a surprise? Much better than any God....backed up with firearms (that must piss you off too). No it's almost the SAME as any God the way Americans cling to it. Guns and Religion. It's funny. We call it Bible Land down there not because it pisses us off, but because we find it immensely amusing. Great...that's your opinion...there are many others with equal / more merit. I'd bet their arguments generally come from strict adherence to the Constitution. Please explain to me how upholding the freedom to encourage ignorant hate and/or violence in ANY way benefits ANYONE. It's not as slippery a slope as you'd like to pretend. How is banning gay marriage Constitutional? What purpose does it serve other than being backwards and draconic? Why not any beatings or killings? You wouldn't make a good lawyer. That barely makes sense. No beatings or killings should be encouraged through public speech. What's your point????? Of course...the world's scholars always reference Canada as the crucible of western liberalism and individual rights. I think our Human Rights record stands far and above that of the USA's and I think the world's scholars would almost all agree if it was ever questioned. Edited April 7, 2009 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 There are no human rights in America. If it was a human and just society you would see evidence of justice and less perverted examples of human sacrafice for profit..Going back to WMD...and the lie that killed over 5000 domestic troops not to mention the hundred thousand missing arms and legs and minds...so - the fact is clear that no one has paid for that crime..and the fact is clear that torture is a means held by the rich to protect their selfish interests - we saw evidence of that! Show me your human rights - in Canada or in the USA - go into your average court room and deal with things that are common and dear to all human beings - and all you see is abuse of humanity by some privledged bunch of parasistes - under the guise of justice and benevolence - Judges called "your honour" who have none . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Mine isn't based on a 200-year old scrap of paper. Nope..it is based on royal incest and 27 year old scraps of paper. The US Supreme Court? A bunch of old farts strapped to the Constitution who in many cases narrowly interpret it? Is that a surprise? It is for you. No it's almost the SAME as any God the way Americans cling to it. Guns and Religion. It's funny. We call it Bible Land down there not because it pisses us off, but because we find it immensely amusing. We called it the First Ammendment...long before the concept existed in Canada...including the funding of Catholic schools. I'd bet their arguments generally come from strict adherence to the Constitution. Please explain to me how upholding the freedom to encourage ignorant hate and/or violence in ANY way benefits ANYONE. It's not as slippery a slope as you'd like to pretend. How is banning gay marriage Constitutional? What purpose does it serve other than being backwards and draconic? Who says it has to benefit anyone? Gay marriage is not banned...it is undefined. That barely makes sense. No beatings or killings should be encouraged through public speech. What's your point????? Hate speech laws are redundant....that was the point. Keep your day job. I think our Human Rights record stands far and above that of the USA's and I think the world's scholars would almost all agree if it was ever questioned. Sure it does...except for Asians, Blacks, First Nations, Ukrainians, HIV patients, etc., etc. A real human rights paradise for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Got your gloves back on eh? The American Constitution is brilliant...It created an empire only rivaled by ancient Egypt. As for the God factor it is really the law factor - It was rule of law that generated the prosperity and power of America - Those twits that removed the ten commandments out of the court house - thought they were seperating church and state...In reality they were seperatintg law from state - big mistake...the primary laws or ten commands...built a civil society where the best were allowed to rise - now the worst are exaulted - and now we bail the worst out - of a jail they created - real dumb! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.