Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[nicky10013]

You have handily and aptly proven you have no problem being wrong.

The strictures he attempts to place around her, despite his appeal to "Canadian law", are at odds with the eight centuries of Canada's legal inheritance.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/mark-steyn-ann-coulter-is-also-asking-for-it.aspx#ixzz14FKsRKcC

I think this is what less enlightened societies would call a “joke.” But, of course, since becoming a beacon of “restraint” and “civility,” Canada now prosecutes jokes. The British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal, under the same commissar who presided over a lengthy analysis of the “tone” of my own jokes, is currently trying stand-up comedian Guy Earle for his allegedly “homophobic” put-down of a heckler.

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

Even with just these two passages, he's clearly calling for any legal restriction against the freedom of speech to be removed.

However, I can already see what's coming. Dancer playing the semantics that you do, you'll try to hold me to find him saying he supports literally "unmitigated" freedom of speech. This proves that he wants it without him saying those three words altogether which is why you wanted me to post passages in the first place. Like I said, you want to have a real debate, great, but if you want to have a debate regarding semantics, go see someone else.

Edited November 3, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

However, I can already see what's coming. Dancer playing the semantics that you do, you'll try to hold me to find him saying he supports literally "unmitigated" freedom of speech.

Given what you have posted, here (thanks) I would settle for tangentially supporting "unmitigated free speech"...

Nothing you have posted even hints he is calling for all restrictions on expression to be removed.

But I can certainly understand why it took so much goading to get you to post it...I suspect you were bluffing, hoping I would be over awed by your subtle grasp of ethereal nuance...

[Wild Bill]

Steyn is a bigot, but of a different kind. He wouldn't have a problem with Arabs, providing they were Christian. He's not a racist is what I'm trying to say.

A bigot? Do you have any examples, TB?

I read his book "America Alone" and nowhere did I find anything like bigotry. Perhaps you can show me where I was wrong.

[M.Dancer]

However, I can already see what's coming. Dancer playing the semantics that you do, you'll try to hold me to find him saying he supports literally "unmitigated" freedom of speech. This proves that he wants it without him saying those three words altogether which is why you wanted me to post passages in the first place. Like I said, you want to have a real debate, great, but if you want to have a debate regarding semantics, go see someone else.

What you have done is post some word salad and claimed it supports your position. It doesn't. This isn't semantics. What you have done would be similar is someone calls for the liberalization of marijuana laws and you go one to claim that someone is for the unmitigated liberalization of all drug laws.

Again your argument has been nothing more than a smear of Steyn based on strawman through out...

• A racist likes Steyn
  
• Steyn is a hypocrite, he calls for unmitigated free speech
  
• Steyn rejected a racist solely for his political views
  

You have been unable to prove any of these, and many other asinine claims in this thread.

[nicky10013]

Given what you have posted, here (thanks) I would settle for tangentially supporting "unmitigated free speech"...

Nothing you have posted even hints he is calling for all restrictions on expression to be removed.

But I can certainly understand why it took so much goading to get you to post it...I suspect you were bluffing, hoping I would be over awed by your subtle grasp of ethereal nuance...

You're reading comprehension not quite up to snuff, eh? Calling Canadian Law regarding the restriction of freedom of speech are against 8 centuries of Canadian legal tradition (which should be good enough in and of itself) and berating human rights tribunals for the restrictions they've imposed isn't calling for an end to restrictions on human rights, well, then I guess I was right in that anything I could've posted wouldn't satisfy you.

Let's turn this aruond. You claim that he's not for unmitigated freedom of speech, why don't you find me a place where he's EVER called for a restriction on freedom of speech? I know you won't, but hey, it's worth a shot.

Though I'm not calling you one, your method has something in common in holocaust denies. Now, I'm not purposefully using this example to smear, I just know this example the best. Holocaust deniers take one part of the story try and disprove it, then use the fact that, in their own minds it's been disproven, to then make broad claims in general. Though certainly not anywhere near as serious as what they're doing, you're using the same method. You've taken one word: "unmitigated" have ignored every other argument, tried to disprove this in order to disprove the entire thing despite it being a much more complicated issue than one word. It's not as hurtful as the unfortunate example I used, but academically, it's about as dishonest.

[nicky10013]

What you have done is post some word salad and claimed it supports your position. It doesn't. This isn't semantics. What you have done would be similar is someone calls for the liberalization of marijuana laws and you go one to claim that someone is for the unmitigated liberalization of all drug laws.

Again your argument has been nothing more than a smear of Steyn based on strawman through out...

• A racist likes Steyn
  
• Steyn is a hypocrite, he calls for unmitigated free speech
  
• Steyn rejected a racist solely for his political views
  

You have been unable to prove any of these, and many other asinine claims in this thread.

No, of course not, not to you, never to you. And this, despite whatever evidence I could drudge up, would never change that.

[M.Dancer]

You're reading comprehension not quite up to snuff, eh? Calling Canadian Law regarding the restriction of freedom of speech are against 8 centuries of Canadian legal tradition (which should be good enough in and of itself) and berating human rights tribunals for the restrictions they've imposed isn't calling for an end to restrictions on human rights, well, then I guess I was right in that anything I could've posted wouldn't satisfy you.

You seem to have a wee bit of trouble with comprehension yourself (maybe that's your problem?)

He did not say that "Canadian Law regarding the restriction of freedom of speech are against 8 centuries of Canadian legal tradition"

He said...

The strictures he attempts to place around her, despite his appealto "Canadian law", are at odds with the eight centuries of Canada's legal inheritance.

The problems of Canada's Human rights tribunals are lengthy....berating them is in good order and has nothing to do with your claims.

[M.Dancer]

No, of course not, not to you, never to you. And this, despite whatever evidence I could drudge up, would never change that.

If you could come up with evidence...I await.

[M.Dancer]

Let's turn this aruond. You claim that he's not for unmitigated freedom of speech, why don't you find me a place where he's EVER called for a restriction on freedom of speech? I know you won't, but hey, it's worth a shot. .

That is pathetic....

And for the record, I did not say he is not for unitigated sfreedo of speech, I challenged your he is not ....

....Proof lies with the positive claimant.

[nicky10013]

You seem to have a wee bit of trouble with comprehension yourself (maybe that's your problem?)

He did not say that "Canadian Law regarding the restriction of freedom of speech are against 8 centuries of Canadian legal tradition"

He said...

Of course, the only term you never underliend was Canadian Law and the fact that it was in quotation marks which questions its constitutionality. Canada has had hate speech legislation for some time now. Inheritance is tradition since we gain our tradition from Great Britain. So,he is arguing that our hate speech laws are against 8 centuries of our legal tradition.

Again, you've completely ignored the important argument to highlight words that don't really matter. Because, of course, if you can prove that it isn't really our hertiage but Great Britain's (it doesn't matter) then of course that fact can completely contradict everything else (it can't.)

The problems of Canada's Human rights tribunals are lengthy....berating them is in good order and has nothing to do with your claims.

Whether you think they do or not, obviously Steyn does which DOES have something to do with my claim. We can discuss whether these tribunals or bad or good but then again that has something to do with the debate which I never shied away from in the first place.

[M.Dancer]

Of course, the only term you never underliend was Canadian Law and the fact that it was in quotation marks which questions its constitutionality.

Give it a rest. You have embarrassed yourself enough today

[nicky10013]

And for the record, I did not say he is not for unitigated sfreedo of speech, I challenged your he is not ....

So this is about semantics.

[nicky10013]

Give it a rest. You have embarrassed yourself enough today

Really? I'm the one who have backed up claims. You refuse to do so. When you've got nothign solid, all you do is claim there are strawmen, or that I've embarrassed myself. Do you ever try to take a stand on anyting or are you too busy trying to take people's arguments apart with semantics, thinking that it'll make them look stupid despite yourself looking pretty ridiculous yourself?

Edited November 3, 2010 by nicky10013

[Evening Star]

...because they disagree with someone's peaceful political expression.

It isn't against the law, buty it was wrong none the less.

So if they had never booked Coulter in the first place say, on the grounds that she's a moron, it would be a non-issue but because they changed their minds after booking her, it's a violation? The line seems a bit fine.

[M.Dancer]

So if they had never booked Coulter in the first place say, on the grounds that she's a moron, it would be a non-issue but because they changed their minds after booking her, it's a violation? The line seems a bit fine.

that is the case it seems. The pressure was exterted on the admin to keep her out by insinuating she may violate our hate laws. The calim of course is nonsense on a number of levels

[M.Dancer]

So this is about semantics.

No it's about debate. You make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it. Your proofs do not meet the test. I am under no obligation to disprove your claims.

Seriously, which matchbox univesity do you claimn to have been educated in?

[M.Dancer]

Really? I'm the one who have backed up claims.

No, you are the one who thinks that posting something not related to your claim is backing up your claim. I'm the one who points out your jr high reading ability....

see the difference?

[nicky10013]

No it's about debate. You make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it. Your proofs do not meet the test. I am under no obligation to disprove your claims.

Seriously, which matchbox univesity do you claimn to have been educated in?

Not your test. Then again, like I said, nothign would've ever passed your test. As for university, I wouldn't be calling the University of Toronto a matchbox university. If you want to and make yourself look even worse, that's your call.

[nicky10013]

No, you are the one who thinks that posting something not related to your claim is backing up your claim. I'm the one who points out your jr high reading ability....

see the difference?

You still haven't backed up your claims. Just saying "you're wrong" doesn't make me wrong. Then again, since you didn't go to a matchbox universtiy, you probably already knew that.

[M.Dancer]

You still haven't backed up your claims. Just saying "you're wrong" doesn't make me wrong. Then again, since you didn't go to a matchbox universtiy, you probably already knew that.

What claims exactly are they? I will be happy to back up any claims I have made.

[M.Dancer]

Not your test. Then again, like I said, nothign would've ever passed your test. As for university, I wouldn't be calling the University of Toronto a matchbox university. If you want to and make yourself look even worse, that's your call.

And of course I believe you...just like I believe you were on the board of directors so you know about thier finances (but didn't know that tuition is far less than 50% of a university's income).

[charter.rights]

No it's about debate. You make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it. Your proofs do not meet the test. I am under no obligation to disprove your claims.

Wrong. If you dispute the claims then the onus is on you to provide the proof that her claims are not legitimate. Of course that would be the way scholars refute others' claims.

Seriously, which matchbox univesity do you claimn to have been educated in?

With your spelling and lack of debating skills, your matchbox university degree was likely of the mail order variety.

[M.Dancer]

Wrong. If you dispute the claims then the onus is on you to provide the proof that her claims are not legitimate. Of course that would be the way scholars refute others' claims.

Iz zat a fact.... so if someone says there is a god, it is up to me to prove otherwise?

If the crown says that somone is guilty, it is up to the defence to prove otherwise?

If a drug company claims that their drug cures old age, it is up to health Canada to prove otherwise?

No, proof lies with the positive statement.

A: Pigs can fly.

B: No they can't.

A: Oh yes? Prove it. Show me that no pig anywhere in the world right now is flying, and that none of them ever have or ever will.

B: No, the burden of proof is on you. Show me one flying pig.

In this instance, B is correct. This example shows a pragmatic reason for the rule; B would have to do an impossible amount of work to prove his case even if B is right; whereas A has a much lighter task --- if A is right.

http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Pseudoskeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Black Dog]

Way to alienate your fanbase, Steyn.

[Argus]

Most, if not all, are. They may receive funding from the Queen-in-Council, but aren't owned by her. Kind of like hospitals, I think.

And hospitals are independent entities, is that what you're suggesting? This is an absurd line of discussion. Neither are independent. both are controlled by government.