Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[Argus]

Bingo. Cries of 1984 are hyperbole by any side who invokes them...left or right, idiots like Steyn or Michael Moore.

Neither of those men are idiots. They might be colourful at times. I might disagree with them at times. But both are extremely shrewd, intelligent, well-spoken men who contribute to the debate about who we are and where we're going and who believe fervently in their ideals.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Yep. He already gets lumped with these idiots anyhow. Why not just let him in to hear Steyn speak?

Because he's only lumped in with those idiots by other idiots. And he doesn't want the non-idiots to think he has anything to do with them or cares for their message.

[Wild Bill]

Bill this generation coming up has been taught to be blind and willfully ignorant.

I'm beginning to agree with you. Not as a general fact but certainly the percentage of young folks like Nicky seems to be increasing.

It's an extended case of adolescent self-centredness and thoughtlessness, IMHO. The medical marijuana smoker is all tied up craving the drama of his protest, too tied up and self-centred to consider all the ramifications and the effects on innocents, like the restaurant owner. As I've stated many times in threads about the Caledonia protest, I believe that protest should be specifically targeted at those either specifically responsible or at least capable of giving you your goals. Using innocents as cannon fodder is really terrorism, by definition. That medical marijuana smoker might have chosen a government building to mount his protest, or an MP's community office.

Something has changed with youth today, that can't be denied. 70 years ago 18 year olds volunteered to climb into Spitfires to defend their country. Many of them were children of the titled or wealthy. They had an almost instinctive sense of patriotism to defend the society that had spawned them. Even young woman at that age could be found driving ambulances across battlefields.

Today we see young people who joined the US army for a free education and when called to fight they flee to Canada to claim refugee status. They live in their parents' basements until they're 35 or so.

I'd better quit before I get started on the music. All pop, with dancing and slutty clothes. The guitar solo is dead because the musicians mostly can't play a decent one, except for the slam-dancing bands. They spend more on a "Guitar Hero" rig than the cost of a real guitar and amplifier!

Sorry! Got distracted. Just received my latest CD order from Amazon.ca Mendelson Mainline's Bump and Grind Revue! It's taking me back to when young folks had a long enough attention span to actually learn how to properly play and craft a song! If I crank it up loud enough I won't hear any Justin Bieber crap drifting in through my window!

Edited November 6, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

I remember a case specifically. A man was kickd out of a restaurant for smoking medicinal marijuana on a patio. He had the prescription with him, showed the owner. Still was kicked out.

Good. I don't want someone smoking grass next to me. I'm not fond of tobacco smoke either. Both stink. Let him smoke his weed somewhere else. Why should he have a right to ruin my enjoyment of a good meal? Let him smoke at home.

No one would ever be kicked out of a restaurant for injecting insulin.

People don't inject insulin at the tables. I doubt they even inject it at all away from home or somewhere else quite private. And so it doesn't bother other people.

[Smallc]

That's your answer? "Oh well, people SHOULD accept marijuana smoking for medicinal purposes in front of their kids! If they don't, oh well! Who cares about the restaurant owners?"

Why should parents shelter their kids from medical marijuana? I'm really not understanding this. This is the problem with yesterdays generation (along with many on the right). They came up with the saying that knowledge is power...and then they want to block this generation from gaining as much knowledge as possible.

[Argus]

Sorry! Got distracted. Just received my latest CD order from Amazon.ca Mendelson Mainline's Bump and Grind Revue!

Okay, this is off topic, but why on earth would you order anything from amazon.ca? I just canceled my order with them yesterday. Ordered it on Oct 27 and it hasn't shipped yet. Turns out two of the books I ordered said "usually ships in six to eight weeks". WTH!? I went to Indigo and every book is in stock and ready to ship.

[Smallc]

Something has changed with youth today, that can't be denied. 70 years ago 18 year olds volunteered to climb into Spitfires to defend their country. Many of them were children of the titled or wealthy. They had an almost instinctive sense of patriotism to defend the society that had spawned them. Even young woman at that age could be found driving ambulances across battlefields.

Today we see young people who joined the US army for a free education and when called to fight they flee to Canada to claim refugee status. They live in their parents' basements until they're 35 or so.

I'd better quit before I get started on the music. All pop, with dancing and slutty clothes. The guitar solo is dead because the musicians mostly can't play a decent one, except for the slam-dancing bands. They spend more on a "Guitar Hero" rig than the cost of a real guitar and amplifier!

That's funny, because things really have changed since 70 years ago. Aboriginals can voted. They (and other minorities) can walk down the street without being beaten for simply being themselves (Gay people are starting to get to the same stage - finally). Women and children are no longer considered the property of men. Those are terrible things aren't they? There is much more we could talk about.

Bill, you look back on the past through rose coloured glasses. For example, crime stats today are higher than they were in the past, but at the same time, we have no way of knowing how reliable the statistics were, or how many crimes were actually being reported given the difficulty of reporting crimes before the widespread availability of telephones (especially cell phones). There is also the reality that today, people that were in the past oppressed in many various ways generally aren't. You seem to gloss over that and pretend it didn't happen. It's funny too, you talk about WWII. Well, isn't the western world a much better place than it was then? Do you think that the world should be such a place to require youth to volunteer to fight in a massive conflict? Do you think that those that volunteer today should never question, especially given the findings of Major General Antonio M. Taguba?

The thing is, you and Alta are completely wrong. This generation has been taught to ask questions, to challenge, and to learn continually. Your inability to see that shows a wilful ignorance on your part. It isn't our fault that you want to lead lives sheltered from change. And music? Really?

[Smallc]

Okay, this is off topic, but why on earth would you order anything from amazon.ca? I just canceled my order with them yesterday. Ordered it on Oct 27 and it hasn't shipped yet. Turns out two of the books I ordered said "usually ships in six to eight weeks". WTH!? I went to Indigo and every book is in stock and ready to ship.

Amazon is generally significantly faster and less expensive than Chapters - Indigo.

[Alta4ever]

I'm beginning to agree with you. Not as a general fact but certainly the percentage of young folks like Nicky seems to be increasing.

Something has changed with youth today, that can't be denied. 70 years ago 18 year olds volunteered to climb into Spitfires to defend their country. Many of them were children of the titled or wealthy. They had an almost instinctive sense of patriotism to defend the society that had spawned them. Even young woman at that age could be found driving ambulances across battlefields.

Today we see young people who joined the US army for a free education and when called to fight they flee to Canada to claim refugee status. They live in their parents' basements until they're 35 or so.

Bill I could not have said it better myself! Lets not start on the education these children are getting too. They are not being enlightened and taught how to open there minds anymore, they are just being further crammed into the box. Its funny to see the "anti establishment" crowd of the sixties doing and preaching exactly what they were rebelling against, the system.

[bloodyminded]

Oh please.

One could say the same about most of the left wing rabble and lefti agit-pros who infest universities. But no one stops them from speaking.

Sure they do.

It's just that they don't tend to have the same PR-industry whores paid to publicize their plight.

So you don't tend to hear about them in the "left-wing media."

Edited November 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

That liberals would like to see Orwell's critical ideas disappear?

No, that's not the question...unless you can provide some instances of it occurring.

Did you know that conservatives despise ideas like Orwell's and wish no one would be exposed to them?

It's true because I just said so. Evidently that's a strong enough argument.

[bloodyminded]

Do you think that those that volunteer today should never question, especially given the findings of Major General Antonio M. Taguba?

True. Taguba had the courage to stand up against his superiors, and get exocriated by "patriots" for pointing out plainly that his investigation was being repressed by his military and civilian superiors.

The thing is, you and Alta are completely wrong. This generation has been taught to ask questions, to challenge, and to learn continually. Your inability to see that shows a wilful ignorance on your part. It isn't our fault that you want to lead lives sheltered from change.

Also true. Now, people will be angry and provoked by the idea of massive civilian casualties during war; in the "good old days" when "young folks" were much smarter, evidently, a government could act with impunity, and the patriots were supposed to blandly support all foreign policy, no matter how violent.

People were more servile and obedient then, not less.

Edited November 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

Why would I feel guilty about defending Francois Houle? He wrote a letter saying we don't like this and our laws our different which in the end was his freedom to do so. To accuse him of stifling freedom of speech, like you're doing now, is the same act that he did himself, just in a much more nasty way. I consider neither to be breaches of freedom of speech.

....

See, the funny thing about this post is I'm the one who apparently feeling guilty about my stance on freedom of speech, that I really don't like defending Francois Houle. Also, why I'd be defending a Stasi Agent, I have no idea. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Wolf). I've been very clear where I stand on it and I'm happy to defend my position.

Houle was slammed by academics, as well as commentators from across the political spectrum, for being at odds with the fundamental mission of a university. That you persist in seeing it as just a guy speaking his mind is just more evidence that you just don't get it.

Marcus Wolfe? My apologies. I meant Seamus Wolfe, the U of Ottawa Students Union president who banned posters publicizing Ann Coulter's event from the campus. You lauded Seamus Wolfe as an exemplar of free speech, since he was expressing himself by banning the posters.

You also lauded students unions who ban pro-life clubs from campus as exemplars of free speech for the same reason, as well as making other incredulous statements in trying to excuse the SUs who banned pro-life clubs.

And in light of our recent discussion about Undercover Mosque, I think we get a pretty clear idea of where you stand on the exchange of ideas that you don't agree with.

I especially liked the part where you said that you were a moderate because you didn't think Jesus Camp should be shown either. I mean, to me that just kind of said it all.

My question(s) still haven't been answered. Why the double standard? Why is Mark Steyn being defended on his hypocritical stance? Where should the bar lie on freedom of speech?

The reason nobody has given you the answer you want is that your premise is fundamentally broken.

Your argument that Steyn is a hypocrite rests on the premise that barring Winnicki from the event is a violation of Winnicki's freedom of speech. It isn't.

-k

[bloodyminded]

Actually, I find it (faintly) surprising when I hear defenses of Houle's performance.

But most of all, I resent Houle for provoking people like me (bed-wetting lefties) to feel compelled to stand up for assholes like Coulter. But there it is.

[Wild Bill]

Actually, I find it (faintly) surprising when I hear defenses of Houle's performance.

But most of all, I resent Houle for provoking people like me (bed-wetting lefties) to feel compelled to stand up for assholes like Coulter. But there it is.

Yo! Good on ya, Mr. Blood! You're a rarity. A self-confessed leftwinger who believes that even assholes like Coulter deserve the right to speak! I share your opinion of her and also your belief to her freedom of expression. I wish there were more like you.

I don't know if we would both agree about someone having the right to crash a paid meeting, uninvited. I still don't think the right of free speech constitutes the right to barge in anywhere - in effect, a free ticket to other people's forums.

Anyhow, back to listening to the Mainline Bump and Grind Revue. Then maybe I'll take a Nantucket Sleigh Ride...I miss ya, Felix!

[bloodyminded]

Yo! Good on ya, Mr. Blood! You're a rarity. A self-confessed leftwinger who believes that even assholes like Coulter deserve the right to speak! I share your opinion of her and also your belief to her freedom of expression. I wish there were more like you.

It's kind of you to say!

But I think there are plenty of us, on all points of the spectrum. In fact, I think Mr. Steyn, among others, vastly overestimates both the climate of political correctness and the people's willingness to have certain voices shut down.

I don't know if we would both agree about someone having the right to crash a paid meeting, uninvited. I still don't think the right of free speech constitutes the right to barge in anywhere - in effect, a free ticket to other people's forums.

No, I don't agree that such a right is or should be present. I only think that Steyn fears the associations, because he knows full well that he is often seen this way.

And sometimes, it really isn't that one person is right and the rest of the world is crazy and unfair. The man could use a little self-reflection, maybe.

Personally, I'm more offended by the stuff of his that hasn't raised much controversy, but perhaps should: the way he laughed and mocked the sexual humiliation of Iraqi detainees for example.

Which begs the question: what kind of moral voice (as he considers himself, certainly) thinks such things funny, and wishes to make public his hilarity?

Edited November 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

Amazon is generally significantly faster and less expensive than Chapters - Indigo.

Amazon.com USED to be. But I switched to Indigo after the "A.com" stopped offering free delivery to Canada. I've tried "A.can" a few times, but remain amazed that you can find - without looking hard - books on that site which claim 6-8 weeks or longer for delivery while Indigo ships within a few days.

Btw, the same books on A.com ship immediately as well.

[Argus]

Actually, I find it (faintly) surprising when I hear defenses of Houle's performance.

The only defense I could ever offer was that he was doing what he was ordered to do by his boss - who remained quiet during all the foforall, keeping his head down and avoiding all the flack.

But then, that's what Liberal politicians are best at.

[bloodyminded]

The only defense I could ever offer was that he was doing what he was ordered to do by his boss - who remained quiet during all the foforall, keeping his head down and avoiding all the flack.

A fair point.

But then, that's what Liberal politicians are best at.

You will not get any defense from me of Liberal politicians generally.

Edited November 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Evening Star]

Yo! Good on ya, Mr. Blood! You're a rarity. A self-confessed leftwinger who believes that even assholes like Coulter deserve the right to speak! I share your opinion of her and also your belief to her freedom of expression. I wish there were more like you.

To be clear, I (another self-confessed left-winger) also believe that Coulter deserves the right to speak and even that Houle/Rock handled the situation very badly and should have let her speak once they invited her. I just don't think that this case was a violation of her Charter right to freedom of expression.

By the way, I would also favour an American-style approach to freedom of speech and hate speech laws. (I don't actually favour e.g. the use of 'free speech zones' as is actually practised.)

[nicky10013]

Good. I don't want someone smoking grass next to me. I'm not fond of tobacco smoke either. Both stink. Let him smoke his weed somewhere else. Why should he have a right to ruin my enjoyment of a good meal? Let him smoke at home.

People don't inject insulin at the tables. I doubt they even inject it at all away from home or somewhere else quite private. And so it doesn't bother other people.

So you should have the right to have a good meal over him having his right to medicine?

[nicky10013]

That's funny, because things really have changed since 70 years ago. Aboriginals can voted. They (and other minorities) can walk down the street without being beaten for simply being themselves (Gay people are starting to get to the same stage - finally). Women and children are no longer considered the property of men. Those are terrible things aren't they? There is much more we could talk about.

Bill, you look back on the past through rose coloured glasses. For example, crime stats today are higher than they were in the past, but at the same time, we have no way of knowing how reliable the statistics were, or how many crimes were actually being reported given the difficulty of reporting crimes before the widespread availability of telephones (especially cell phones). There is also the reality that today, people that were in the past oppressed in many various ways generally aren't. You seem to gloss over that and pretend it didn't happen. It's funny too, you talk about WWII. Well, isn't the western world a much better place than it was then? Do you think that the world should be such a place to require youth to volunteer to fight in a massive conflict? Do you think that those that volunteer today should never question, especially given the findings of Major General Antonio M. Taguba?

The thing is, you and Alta are completely wrong. This generation has been taught to ask questions, to challenge, and to learn continually. Your inability to see that shows a wilful ignorance on your part. It isn't our fault that you want to lead lives sheltered from change. And music? Really?

Amazing post. I thought the mere fact that he's accusing younger generations of not understanding today because they aren't reading 1984 (they actually are) would be a pretty good response to this as it's so short sighted. You've done a much better job than I ever would've with this.

[nicky10013]

To be clear, I (another self-confessed left-winger) also believe that Coulter deserves the right to speak and even that Houle/Rock handled the situation very badly and should have let her speak once they invited her. I just don't think that this case was a violation of her Charter right to freedom of expression.

By the way, I would also favour an American-style approach to freedom of speech and hate speech laws. (I don't actually favour e.g. the use of 'free speech zones' as is actually practised.)

I don't think anyone denies she has the right to speak. Was it poor judgement? Absolutely, I've said that a million times. However, it didn't impinge on her right to speak and the people attacking him for being a "hater of free speech" are trying to do the exact same thing to him as he did to Coulter. I find it very ironic as all.

Edited November 7, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Houle was slammed by academics, as well as commentators from across the political spectrum, for being at odds with the fundamental mission of a university. That you persist in seeing it as just a guy speaking his mind is just more evidence that you just don't get it.

Marcus Wolfe? My apologies. I meant Seamus Wolfe, the U of Ottawa Students Union president who banned posters publicizing Ann Coulter's event from the campus. You lauded Seamus Wolfe as an exemplar of free speech, since he was expressing himself by banning the posters.

You also lauded students unions who ban pro-life clubs from campus as exemplars of free speech for the same reason, as well as making other incredulous statements in trying to excuse the SUs who banned pro-life clubs.

And in light of our recent discussion about Undercover Mosque, I think we get a pretty clear idea of where you stand on the exchange of ideas that you don't agree with.

I especially liked the part where you said that you were a moderate because you didn't think Jesus Camp should be shown either. I mean, to me that just kind of said it all.

I never said waht Houle did wasn't stupid. It wasn't a breach of freedom of speech, though. He has every right to deplore whatever he wants to. Like I said, anyone attacking Houle for being so anti-speech is essentially committing the same act he did. He was mercilessly attacked for his views in order to shut him up. How many people called for him to lose his job? I particularly like the title of the thread below - francois houle is a hate monger. Sheesh, much better than what Houle did. He may be the president of a university but in the end he is still an individual and gets to speak his mind as much as anyone else. Or do his rights not extend as far as yours simply because of the job he has? Furthermore, the notion that I don't get it would carry far more weight if he had been the one to actually cancel the speech. It's widely known and widely accepted that it was a publicity stunt. Even if we were to accept that it was the protestors fault, no one has ever argued what Houle did prevented her from speaking in any way. As for the protesters themselves, they have the right to protest under your very same freedom of speech laws that you decry was trampled underfoot.

As for your friend Seamus Wolfe who tore down the posters, student unions are private organizations. Just like what the Mark Steyn organizers argued. So, who is better or worse, because you're certainly making a distinction.

As for the rest, unlike a lot of others here, I've never shied away from saying I believe that freedom of speech should entail some limits to it and I'll be happy to debate it. We all have those limits. So lets not sit here and play holier than thou as to whose limits are better. Sticking in those examples in my face as I'm somehow worse means nothing to me because I still defend those things and that clearly isn't the intent of the thread. If you want to have the debate as to what they are, lets do it. Don't say I don't get it. I do very much get it.

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/post86753.html -

The reason nobody has given you the answer you want is that your premise is fundamentally broken.

Your argument that Steyn is a hypocrite rests on the premise that barring Winnicki from the event is a violation of Winnicki's freedom of speech. It isn't.

-k

Sure it is. Just by being so pro freedom of speech towards both private and public organization, you'd think such a stalwart of the defence of ANY speech, including holocaust denial which is a white power thing, would welcome anyone to his event regardless of what they believe. He didn't live up to his own rhetoric. You may not think it's a breach of freedom of speech in the technical sense and on that end I agree with you. However, considering the polemical articles he writes, it sure as hell makes him a hypocrite. My point was to take that and have a discussion on where freedom of speech should end considering we, despite our rhetoric, all seem to have our limits. If you want to speak to that, fine. However, the premise of my argument certainly isn't broken.

[nicky10013]

You don't think it might have been just a wee bit more complicated than that? That even African savages might have needed a little more inspiration before hacking their neighbors to death?

Of course it was more complicated than that. There was so much history and tension that to say it was caused by one thing would certainly not be true. That being said, without the radio, it wouldn't have happened.