Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[nicky10013]

No, you can theorise that he's not for any restriction, but, so far, I haven't seen any proof that turns the theory into fact.

He's said he's for no restrictions. You may think it only applies to Human Rights Commissions, but he's railed against other nation's laws as well (funny enough for Dancer who said he respects British law, especially against British libel laws). If you've seen any proof to the contrary, I'm open.

Edited November 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

I wouldn't blame your poor reading skillz on semantics...

I'm still waiting.

[g_bambino]

He's said he's for no restrictions.

I'm still waiting to see where he said that.

[nicky10013]

I'm still waiting to see where he said that.

“What are the appropriate limits to freedom of expression in societies that wish to be democratic, multicultural, and committed to the human rights of all?”

Whether or not you regard that as a legitimate query, it’s certainly an irrelevant one. Because whatever you decide are the “appropriate” limits, by the time they percolate down to the transgendered liaison officer patrolling Workington shopping centre they’ll be reliably inappropriate.

[g_bambino]

Already read that and, after reading it again, still don't see it as criticising anything more than the enforcement of political correctness by the perpetual victim industry. Steyn is saying the "transgendered liaison officer" of Workington shopping centre will always regard as inappropriate whatever limits to freedom of expression others decided was appropriate.

[+]

Edited November 8, 2010 by g_bambino

[nicky10013]

Already read that and, after reading it again, still don't see it as criticising anything more than the enforcement of political correctness.

So, you don't see the fact that any restriction could be viewed as political correctness? I mean, he says exactly that.

[M.Dancer]

I gave you what you wanted, and it still wasn't good enough. If you're so confident of him being for restrictions in freedom of speech, get me a quote.

You gave me less than I wanted, far less. And I don't accomedate logical fallacies.

[nicky10013]

You gave me less than I wanted, far less. And I don't accomedate logical fallacies.

See, the point here is that no matter what I argued, it would always have been far less than you wanted. As I stated before I even provided the first bit of proof, unless the man himself wrote or said the word "unmitigated" you'd never accept it. Of course I was right because this has always been your pattern. Rather than engaging in a civilised debate, you'd rather engage in denial and word games. I don't know if you view it as a game or if you're having fun but it certainly doesn't gain you any more respect.

You never even TRIED to deal with ANYTHING I posted. You merely declared it wrong. When I found even better evidence from his article, you disappeared from the thread entirely which says more than you can ever admit. At least if you would provide the proof that would prove me wrong, I'd at least have the balls to actually were deal with those facts in an honest way which is a courtesy I'd never get from you. It's funny, I was accused of not being mature in this thread. You come along after not posting for about 8 pages just to rub it in a little because I made an error yet you still refuse to respond to anything, shirking left and right, determined not to make anything that resembles a cogent argument. All we get from the great dancer is word games and hubris. I'm the immature one? Hilarious.

Edited November 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[g_bambino]

So, you don't see the fact that any restriction could be viewed as political correctness?

No, I don't, and already said as much about three or four posts ago.

[M.Dancer]

See, the point here is that no matter what I argued, it would always have been far less than you wanted.

The resaon for that is your claim is false.

As I stated before I even provided the first bit of proof, unless the man himself wrote or said the word "unmitigated" you'd never accept it.

No, you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted....

About 2:35 in...i says he would support a lawsuit....

[nicky10013]

Already read that and, after reading it again, still don't see it as criticising anything more than the enforcement of political correctness by the perpetual victim industry. Steyn is saying the "transgendered liaison officer" of Workington shopping centre will always regard as inappropriate whatever limits to freedom of expression others decided was appropriate.

[+]

That's exactly the point. He's explicitly arguing that any restriction how appropriate it may be will ultimately be warped by society therefore irrelevant. That's a pretty strong argument against all restrictions.

Edited November 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

The resaon for that is your claim is false.

No, you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted....

Exactly, thanks for ceding the point.

About 2:35 in...i says he would support a lawsuit....

He never explains why he'd support the law suit. Considering the very next thing he says is that criminalising opinion is the lowest a society could go, something tells me those aren't his reasons for supporting a lawsuit which does the exact same thing only to another person. At most it proves he is what I say he is, a gigantic hypocrite.

[M.Dancer]

Exactly, thanks for ceding the point.

I havew never denied your claim is false...or are you clumsily using semantics?

He never explains why he'd support the law suit.

No one asked him.

Considering the very next thing he says is that criminalising opinion is the lowest a society could go, something tells me those aren't his reasons for supporting a lawsuit which does the exact same thing only to another person. At most it proves he is what I say he is, a gigantic hypocrite.

I supsect that the "something" that is telling you these things is a toaster.

They want a lawsuits on people that say muslims are breeding like mosquitoes...more correctly, they want lawsuits on people who quote Muslim clerics saying that muslims breed like mosquitoes...

[bloodyminded]

While I 100% agree that Steyn was wronged, and that it's a usefully emblematic case (though by no means the only one) that powerfully suggests something fundamentally wrong with the HRCs...I do not get how people can defend Steyn beyond this legal foolishness.

This is a man who mocked, with great hilarity, the sexual humiliaiton of Iraqi detainees. And he was so eager to make sure that everyone knew about, that he did it twice (to my knowledge...maybe it's an ongoing project for the greasy little "British Empire was awesome!" apologist).

The thing is, such a performance is grotesque. It's not even amoral--it's openly, proudly immoral.

While he moans sanctimoniously about British comedians ridiculing the late Queen mother, he's guffawing with terrific hilarity at the sexual humiliation of detainees ("A banana up his butt!" Steyn chortled effusively, perhaps wondering why others stared on aghast); while he bemoans, with world-weary sadness, the paucity of civilized debate and the growth industry of politicized insults, he calls climate change scientists "the shrieking pansies of the left," and embraces every right-wing shibboleth before it even surfaces.

He's not just an ideological partisan: it's his entire method, designed to provide the comfort-food of satisfied expectations to his pointedly single-minded audience.

Look at Frum (on the right); or Hitchens (on the left and on the right); or Chomsky (on the left): these fellows continually evoke debate and dissension from their own admirers. That's because they're not absolutely doctrinaire True-Believers, and do not follow the expected scripts in every case. Even George Will, whom I don't consider a heavyweight at all despite his unaccountable success at punditry, is far superior to Mark Steyn.

Steyn is a hypocrite. And what his admirers (who are undoubtedly far more decent sorts than he is) fail to understand is that he is not a serious political commentator. That's no insult, because he does not mean to be one. He is a polemicist of invective and insult, who makes his living off the Court Jester role (the court being, primarily, the American Republicans). He is Ann Coulter and Michael Moore--both of whom are also Establishment jokesters, not rebels shouting from the wilderness--albeit with better powers of articulation and a knowledge of Theatre.

If we wish to mistake (sometimes) clever turns of phrase and grand, dull denouncements of "the left" as insight and excellence...then I guess we deserve the ruddy chap with the obssessive interest in the anal humiliations of detained Iraqi men.

This is the way Steyn himself might put it, after all, were he prone to self-reflection.

Edited November 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[g_bambino]

That's exactly the point. He's explicitly arguing that any restriction how appropriate it may be will ultimately be warped by society therefore irrelevant. That's a pretty strong argument against all restrictions.

Only if you consider the political correctness enforcers to be society.

[nicky10013]

Only if you consider the political correctness enforcers to be society.

Of course it's society. These aren't criminal laws but civil laws. The state doesn't bring these actions, citizens do. Even if that weren't the case and it was the state who enforced it, how would it matter anyway? They would enforce political correctness on all of society.

[g_bambino]

Of course it's society. These aren't criminal laws but civil laws. The state doesn't bring these actions, citizens do. Even if that weren't the case and it was the state who enforced it, how would it matter anyway? They would enforce political correctness on all of society.

Well, as it was, in the example you quoted, a gay identified LGBT police liason who arrested the pastor for telling him homosexuality is a sin, the state does indeed in some cases bring these actions. Further, our Crown - in its federal and provincial jurisdictions - currently provides an apparatus whereby anyone from one of the special groups pre-selected by that very apparatus can merely send in a complaint about hurt feelings and have the state, possibly concurrently in more than one jurisdiction, analyse and judge the opinions of the accused and met out punishment if it's found those opinions don't align with what those running the apparatus personally approve of. As this comes at no cost to the complainant and full cost to the defendant, even if the latter is found not guilty, the former still exacts his or her revenge, no matter what. And anyone in our society, at any time, could find themselves hauled before such a travesty of justice for merely expressing an opinion, and that puts a significant chilling effect over public discourse; there's a reason why the wider media paid such direct attention to the Maclean's vs. the Canadian Islamic Congress case when it was simultaneously before about four different human rights tribunals across the country.

Steyn argues against these tribunals precisely because they act like courts but depart dramatically from our centuries old judicial traditions, being, as they are, an inherently unfair tool for social engineering. As I've said more than once already, being opposed to that doesn't mean one is opposed to any and all restrictions on free speech; I've never read any complaints from Steyn over expression-related legislation that can be employed in proper courts of law, such as those dealing with libel and hate speech.

[+]

Edited November 9, 2010 by g_bambino

[nicky10013]

Steyn argues against these tribunals precisely because they act like courts but depart dramatically from our centuries old judicial traditions, being, as they are, an inherently unfair tool for social engineering. As I've said more than once already, being opposed to that doesn't mean one is opposed to any and all restrictions on free speech; I've never read any complaints from Steyn over expression-related legislation that can be employed in proper courts of law, such as those dealing with libel and hate speech.

[+]

And yet, he's lambasted British (specifically British Libel Law) and German laws which are indeed employed in proper courts of law.

[g_bambino]

And yet, he's lambasted British (specifically British Libel Law) and German laws which are indeed employed in proper courts of law.

Oh? Where has he done that? I've seen him complain about people trying to misuse libel laws, but no calls for the end of those laws in particular.

[+]

Edited November 9, 2010 by g_bambino

[kimmy]

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?

He wasn't attacked to shut him up. He was attacked because he acted inappropriately. People called for him to lose his job because his actions were at odds with his job description.

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?

A Judge doesn't get to make off-the-cuff observations during a trial.

A cop doesn't get to say whatever he feels like when he's on-duty.

A McDonald's cashier doesn't get to say "you don't need a Big Mac. Order a salad, fatty."

When we're acting as representatives of our employer, we're expected to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with our employer's values and objectives, and if we can't we are likely to find ourselves seeking different employment.

In Houle's case, his employer's most sacred value is supposed to be the free exchange of ideas. His statement to Coulter was in direct opposition to that value.

Of course it's hard to be too angry with Houle when we have since learned that he was acting under orders from Alan Rock. How classy of Rock to tell Houle to do that, then lay low and leave Houle to take all of the criticism for the decision. I am so thankful that that guy never became Prime Minister.

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.

He's certainly not "my friend". I wondered if he might be yours, from the enthusiasm with which you championed him. You and he are kindred spirits, judging from your attitude toward views that don't agree with the social agenda you support.

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.

Everybody on this message board agrees that there must be some limitations on freedom of speech. That's not what makes you the worst. What makes you the worst is that you're the only person on this whole message board who'd argue that people shouldn't be able to see Jesus Camp because it might prejudice them against Christians. You're the only person on the message board who'd argue that Seamus Wolfe was a champion of free speech when he banned those posters because he was just expressing his views.

And I suspect that's the real motive behind the thread. "See, guys? I'm not so bad? Look, everybody's doing it. See?"

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.

I have yet to hear how Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech was denied in any way.

You seek to argue that since Mr Winnicki is a white supremacist, and since some white supremacists are Holocaust deniers, Mr Winnicki may have been prevented from attending a private function because he may or may not have expressed the view that the Holocaust was a hoax? Who cares? Freedom of speech doesn't provide any freedom from the consequences of speaking, which might well include the fact that people do not wish to be associated with you. The premise that Steyn has somehow trampled on free expression here is such tortured logic that it probably only makes sense to you.

Another wrinkle you haven't considered: Steyn didn't refuse Winnicki entry to the function anyway. The event organizers did.

-k

[Battletoads]

.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Battletoads

[nicky10013]

He wasn't attacked to shut him up. He was attacked because he acted inappropriately. People called for him to lose his job because his actions were at odds with his job description.

The two things are the same.

A Judge doesn't get to make off-the-cuff observations during a trial.

A cop doesn't get to say whatever he feels like when he's on-duty.

A McDonald's cashier doesn't get to say "you don't need a Big Mac. Order a salad, fatty."

Yeah, but as everyone argues, a university is where unmitigated freedom of speech should be allowed. That includes everyone - including presidents - who are academics themselves. You shut up Houle because he offended some conservatives and what next? The science department because they believe in evolution? To accuse Houle of a breach of freeedom of speech is the biggest hypocrisy of them all.

When we're acting as representatives of our employer, we're expected to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with our employer's values and objectives, and if we can't we are likely to find ourselves seeking different employment.

In Houle's case, his employer's most sacred value is supposed to be the free exchange of ideas. His statement to Coulter was in direct opposition to that value.

Exactly, so why is he not able to express himself? As I said, he didn't ban her from speaking. She did that herself.

Of course it's hard to be too angry with Houle when we have since learned that he was acting under orders from Alan Rock. How classy of Rock to tell Houle to do that, then lay low and leave Houle to take all of the criticism for the decision. I am so thankful that that guy never became Prime Minister.

If he chose to do what Allan Rock said, that's his free choice, is it not?

He's certainly not "my friend". I wondered if he might be yours, from the enthusiasm with which you championed him. You and he are kindred spirits, judging from your attitude toward views that don't agree with the social agenda you support.

I don't defend what he did but a university student union is a private organization's just like Steyn's. So why are you hating on the union more than Steyn? It's certainly a fair question, one I notice you never answered previously.

Everybody on this message board agrees that there must be some limitations on freedom of speech. That's not what makes you the worst. What makes you the worst is that you're the only person on this whole message board who'd argue that people shouldn't be able to see Jesus Camp because it might prejudice them against Christians. You're the only person on the message board who'd argue that Seamus Wolfe was a champion of free speech when he banned those posters because he was just expressing his views.

And I suspect that's the real motive behind the thread. "See, guys? I'm not so bad? Look, everybody's doing it. See?"

Nope. I've said it multiple times that I don't really care what people think. Why I did it is because everyone is so rigtheous over the issue, none more so than someone like Mark Steyn. I did it because perhaps a real debate over the issue. I was clearly wrong to expect seriousness from the likes of dancer and the toning down of the high and mighty righteousness from the likes of you.

For the record, no one's stance on freedom of speech is wrong, it's just different. I don't think any less of you because of your stance. The fact that you think less of me says it all.

I have yet to hear how Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech was denied in any way.

You seek to argue that since Mr Winnicki is a white supremacist, and since some white supremacists are Holocaust deniers, Mr Winnicki may have been prevented from attending a private function because he may or may not have expressed the view that the Holocaust was a hoax? Who cares? Freedom of speech doesn't provide any freedom from the consequences of speaking, which might well include the fact that people do not wish to be associated with you. The premise that Steyn has somehow trampled on free expression here is such tortured logic that it probably only makes sense to you.

Another wrinkle you haven't considered: Steyn didn't refuse Winnicki entry to the function anyway. The event organizers did.

-k

By still going forward with the event he obviously endorses what they did. As for the rest, you're right on everything. I said technically his freedoms weren't violated. That doesn't make Steyn any less of a hypocrite. He's lambasted organizations left and right for their stances on freedom of speech and not allowing the most vile of speech. Yet, he won't allow someone in with arguably those same vile beliefs (according to Steyn's page he was posting on Stormfront, which should say it all).

[g_bambino]

That includes everyone - including presidents - who are academics themselves.

I'll say it again: if what Houle said to Coulter was indeed his personal opinion, he should have said it as a private individual and not hid behind the mass and authority of the university, making it appear, as he did, as though he spoke for the institution and not himself.

[nicky10013]

I'll say it again: if what Houle said to Coulter was indeed his personal opinion, he should have said it as a private individual and not hid behind the mass and authority of the university, making it appear, as he did, as though he spoke for the institution and not himself.

And if he sent a private message, do you not think Coulter and Levant WOULDN'T have leaked it? Of course they would, they're the worst kind of political opportunist.

[g_bambino]

And if he sent a private message, do you not think Coulter and Levant WOULDN'T have leaked it? Of course they would, they're the worst kind of political opportunist.

Who cares?