Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[nicky10013]

If that is your point, (I doubt that)then you would have to find examples of Steyn defending hate speech. The cat in question is a convicted felon, a convicted hate mongerer...I find it simple minded to posit that not allowing this person to attend a private function an example of hypocrasy.

Anyway, there's your task...find steyn defending hate speech....

Anne Coulter. It's not that hard.

[nicky10013]

I merely said universities are not Crown owned. I said nothing about their ability to limit free speech. I suppose that, technically, a university's board of governors has the right to bar anyone from campus; however, to do so because that person's views are contrary to the majority of the board's seems to run against the very idea of a university.

The argument is that it doesn't matter because it's a private organization. So is the university, which these same people made a big stink about over Anne Coulter. I agree that what the University of Ottawa did was against what universities stand for, but apparently these people stand for the same thing. Unmitigated freedom of speech. Apparently they actually don't. So, my simple question is that considering all these factors, why are these people who claim to be morally superior to the university because they actually respect freedom of speech held to a lower standard than the university?

It's a fair question that no one here has even tried to answer.

[M.Dancer]

Anne Coulter. It's not that hard.

My mistake. I meant real hate speech, like the fellow who was barred from Steyn's event...not simply a moronic opinion unsupported by judicial rulings or even, common sense.

[M.Dancer]

, but apparently these people stand for the same thing. Unmitigated freedom of speech. Apparently they actually don't.

Strawman. Nice way to end a pathetic and pointless argument.

[nicky10013]

My mistake. I meant real hate speech, like the fellow who was barred from Steyn's event...not simply a moronic opinion unsupported by judicial rulings or even, common sense.

If you don't think what she says is hate speech, you've got a REALLY high bar for what hate speech should be.

[nicky10013]

Strawman. Nice way to end a pathetic and pointless argument.

It's not a strawman. I guess that's the way you have to deal with real arguments, just like with things like North Korean sanctions. When you can't come back with anything, just smear smear smear.

[M.Dancer]

If you don't think what she says is hate speech, you've got a REALLY high bar for what hate speech should be.

I think what she says is idiotic, but so what, I am not accusing you of hate speech either.

In any case, the bar should be high, simply because accusing people of hate speech can be frivolous, especially given the habit of lefties of labelling anyone they disagree with everything from Hitler to Satan herself...

[M.Dancer]

It's not a strawman. I guess that's the way you have to deal with real arguments, just like with things like North Korean sanctions. When you can't come back with anything, just smear smear smear.

If you can back up this...

but apparently these people stand for the same thing. Unmitigated freedom of speech. Apparently they actually don't.

Which I doubt...then I will be the first to admit you don't make stuff up.

But I suspect you will be unable, 'cause your opinions aren't his positions.

In which case, I invite you to admit it is a strawman argument.

[nicky10013]

I think what she says is idiotic, but so what, I am not accusing you of hate speech either.

In any case, the bar should be high, simply because accusing people of hate speech can be frivolous, especially given the habit of lefties of labelling anyone they disagree with everything from Hitler to Satan herself...

There's a difference between being idiotic and race baiting and she clearly engages in the latter. I agree the bar should be set high but where is that limit? In the end, since you say there is a bar in a first place, like I said in my original post, you have a limit just as I do. We agree that there should be a bar in the first place we just disagree where it should be.

I also wouldn't be so quick to go after the lefties. There seems to be just as many Obama portraits with Hitler moustaches on them as there were on Bush portraits 2 years ago. Though, I'll leave it to you as to which is more stupid considering I still can't comprehend how a black man could ever be a nazi.

[M.Dancer]

. Though, I'll leave it to you as to which is more stupid considering I still can't comprehend how a black man could ever be a nazi.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/1315172/Mugabe-moving-towards-fascism.html

[nicky10013]

If you can back up this...

Which I doubt...then I will be the first to admit you don't make stuff up.

But I suspect you will be unable, 'cause your opinions aren't his positions.

In which case, I invite you to admit it is a strawman argument.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/mark-steyn-ann-coulter-is-also-asking-for-it.aspx

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/08/true-north-strong-not-free/

http://steynian.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/houliganism-ann-coulter-cancelled-by-barbarians-at-ottawau/

This is just Mark Steyn as well. I found a Maclean's article that highlights a multitude of authors who argue the same thing.

Edited November 3, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/1315172/Mugabe-moving-towards-fascism.html

Though Nazism and Fascism are related, I they're not technically the same. Mussolini's fascism, until he fell under the spell of Hitler, wasn't racist. These guys are putting Hitler moustaches on Obama's face. Like I said, a black man could never be a Nazi.

[M.Dancer]

Though Nazism and Fascism are related, I they're not technically the same. Mussolini's fascism, until he fell under the spell of Hitler, wasn't racist. These guys are putting Hitler moustaches on Obama's face. Like I said, a black man could never be a Nazi.

For most, fascism and nazism are the same...you could put benito's iconic hat on Obama and most people would not get it...Some fascism is racist, like Mugabe, or Mosley or Hamas...

[nicky10013]

For most, fascism and nazism are the same...you could put benito's iconic hat on Obama and most people would not get it...Some fascism is racist, like Mugabe, or Mosley or Hamas...

If they wouldn't understand a Benito Mussolini hat, then they surely wouldn't understand Mugabe. Which leaves us back to where we were to begin with: people being far too stupid that Obama, rather than being a Nazi, would end up in a camp himself.

[M.Dancer]

If they wouldn't understand a Benito Mussolini hat, then they surely wouldn't understand Mugabe. Which leaves us back to where we were to begin with: people being far too stupid that Obama, rather than being a Nazi, would end up in a camp himself.

There are plenty of examples of black fascism...I don't think that blacks are anymore immune from the notion than Syrians, British, Japanese...in fact, it is sort of racist to think otherwise...

[g_bambino]

I agree that what the University of Ottawa did was against what universities stand for, but apparently these people stand for the same thing. Unmitigated freedom of speech.

Since when was a speaking engagement equivalent to a university? And when did buying a ticket to such an event become synonymous with self expression?

[kimmy]

Just goes to prove that we all have limits on what we deem acceptable. I think we need to get past the righteousness and the comments about authoritarianism, agree that we all have an idea where free speech must end and try to find common ground as to where that is.

...

The man who went didn't want to speak but wasn't allowed in due to his beliefs.

Is it just me?

Am I the only one wondering how this is a "freedom of speech" issue if the guy didn't want to speak?

Of course, if Mr Winnicki is trying to frame this as a "freedom of speech" issue, then maybe he hadn't planned on being just an observer at this event. But this isn't about Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech at all, it's about a group barring a potentially disruptive presence from their event.

The attempt to equate this with the controversy at the U of O is doubly inept, because not only is this not about Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech, but neither was the U of O controversy about freedom of speech. It was about the U of O's failure to live up to the ideals that universities are supposed to uphold.

Ultimately, Nicky, given your posting history on the subject, I suspect that your real interest here is just to make yourself feel less guilty about defending folks like Marcus Wolfe and Francois Houle in prior threads.

-k

[William Ashley]

A University isn't a private organization. Stop conflating the issues. Nobody has a right to speak at someone elses event. Why are you being so obtuse?

That IS a free speech issue - people very much do have that right - they just can't violate the law doing so. For instance the property owner under the TPA could request they leave the premises. They DO have the right to speak just they may not be allowed to go to the podium - see the diffrence. You arn't understanding how the law works.

You cannot deny a freedom and you can only alter rights.

Edited November 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

That IS a free speech issue - people very much do have that right - they just can't violate the law doing so. For instance the property owner under the TPA could request they leave the premises. They DO have the right to speak just they may not be allowed to go to the podium - see the diffrence. You arn't understanding how the law works.

You cannot deny a freedom and you can only alter rights.

So the obvious solution is not to admit them in the first place. It's a sticky situation. If they had admitted him, no doubt folks like nicky would be trying to link Winnicki with Strictly Right and Steyn. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Universities are supposed to promote debate and the free exchange of ideas. The opposite of them are organizations like Strictly Right which exist to promote a particular point of view and are quite clear about it. They are under no obligation to act as a platform for someone else's.

[nicky10013]

...

Is it just me?

Am I the only one wondering how this is a "freedom of speech" issue if the guy didn't want to speak?

Of course, if Mr Winnicki is trying to frame this as a "freedom of speech" issue, then maybe he hadn't planned on being just an observer at this event. But this isn't about Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech at all, it's about a group barring a potentially disruptive presence from their event.

The attempt to equate this with the controversy at the U of O is doubly inept, because not only is this not about Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech, but neither was the U of O controversy about freedom of speech. It was about the U of O's failure to live up to the ideals that universities are supposed to uphold.

Ultimately, Nicky, given your posting history on the subject, I suspect that your real interest here is just to make yourself feel less guilty about defending folks like Marcus Wolfe and Francois Houle in prior threads.

-k

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.

Let's also be clear about this, the man wasn't banned because he would be potentially violent, he was banned because he was a white supremacist. He wasn't allowed in based on his beliefs. Considering the polemical style of Mark Steyn clearly shown in the three articles I posted, I don't think it's unfair of me to ask the question of why Mr. Steyn should be held to a lower standard; that he should be allowed to rally for freedom of speech to the degree that he has, yet completely trample on his own standards.

I understand that people want to bring up the distinction between public and private. Yet, Steyn himself made no distinction between public and private when he called the Canadian Jewish Congress:

Canada’s most zealous supporter of speech censorship laws

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/06/id-like-to-reply-to-that-editors-note/

So, clearly, he's holding private organizations just as responsible as public ones. So where's his accountability?

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?

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.

Indeed, it seems to me that th epeople feeling guilty re: this issue are the ones not answering the questions I've laid out. They're not feeling guilty about their stance re: free speech, just probably the fact that they've been lowered to defending such a hypocrite.

[M.Dancer]

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/mark-steyn-ann-coulter-is-also-asking-for-it.aspx

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/08/true-north-strong-not-free/

http://steynian.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/houliganism-ann-coulter-cancelled-by-barbarians-at-ottawau/

This is just Mark Steyn as well. I found a Maclean's article that highlights a multitude of authors who argue the same thing.

Instead of just providing me with links and forcing me to read where you are worng, could you simply point out the passage that shows you are wrong?

[M.Dancer]

Let's also be clear about this, the man wasn't banned because he would be potentially violent, he was banned because he was a white supremacist.

Ahem...

Strictly Right does not condone or support your views and the organizations you are involved with in any way. Furthermore, our organization does not wish to have any ties to you or your activities. As such, we need to decline your request to register for Mark Steyn’s speech

The decision to reject Winnicki’s (his email address is [email protected]) registration was two-fold: Firstly, we did not want to have any sort of relationship or take any money from a man filled with such hate; Secondly, given his history with firearms, we did not want to risk the potential security concerns that could arise.

Wrong yet again Nicky.

[nicky10013]

Ahem...

Wrong yet again Nicky.

So, you think he's going to show up to a speech to blast a guy he agrees with? Jesus you're gullible.

[nicky10013]

Instead of just providing me with links and forcing me to read where you are worng, could you simply point out the passage that shows you are wrong?

You asked for proof, I gave it to you.

[M.Dancer]

You asked for proof, I gave it to you.

No you gave me links...If you want to play that game, here, conclusive proof you are wrong...

My link

Edited November 3, 2010 by M.Dancer