Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[Evening Star]

Noble is Jewish himself btw. But yes, it's possible that his article might be a little one-sided.

I do remember that you were quick to comment on the treatment of G20 protesters so fair enough.

[M.Dancer]

Of course I did. He made it clear that our current laws are against British and Canadian legal tradition.

If that is the case, then you have to agree then he supports British and Canadian legal tradition(which you incorrectly foist ob Steyn, need I provide the quote again?), which includes a long history of libel and slander rulings. Therefore...you fail.

As I suspected you're looking for him to specifically say "un

mitigated free speech."

No, but I can certainly understand why you would want to frame it that way..how better to qualify unmitigated (excluding the listed of mitigations I provided) than to claim semantics.

[M.Dancer]

Uhhh, did I? You want to look through Vic's records and find meetings of board minutes between April 2008 and April 2009, you'll find my name. I did it, couldn't find it. I was also on the Victoria College Council but I didn't mention it because it didn't have any significance to anything financial. That's not misrepresenting anything. I'm certainly not going to look through 600 pages of documents I recieved while on the board just to appease the likes of you. I misrepresented nothing.

Yes you did. You claimed you...

Not quite. I sat on my university's board of directors. I have their financial statements for the past few years.

You made it sound as if you sat on the board...

[nicky10013]

Yes you did. You claimed you...

You made it sound as if you sat on the board...

I did.

[nicky10013]

If that is the case, then you have to agree then he supports British and Canadian legal tradition(which you incorrectly foist ob Steyn, need I provide the quote again?), which includes a long history of libel and slander rulings. Therefore...you fail.

Considering his rhetoric and how slanderous he is, I think that if you told him, that would be shocking to him. So, no, I think that fail is in your corner, bud.

No, but I can certainly understand why you would want to frame it that way..how better to qualify unmitigated (excluding the listed of mitigations I provided) than to claim semantics.

You never mitigated anything. You gave a list of things that to you (which is incredibly narrow) prove what I said yet you ignore the fact that he's rallied against all our hate laws. Like I said, you want to hear him say that he doesn't like any laws. I give proof of him fighting those laws, but in your warped mind that doesn't count. THAT IS SEMANTICS. I provided his quotes where he wants to fight against our speech laws. End of story.

If you want to prove me wrong, GET ME A QUOTE WHERE HE SAYS HE'S NOT FOR UNMITIGATED FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It's THAT SIMPLE. I proved my end, time to prove yours. Then again, since you absolutely won't be able to do it, you'll continue to stick to the fact that he never said "unmitigated" freedom of speech and therefore somewhere deep in your mind will think you're right.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

Considering his rhetoric and how slanderous he is, I think that if you told him, that would be shocking to him. So, no, I think that fail is in your corner, bud.

So no real attempt to balance the legal traditions which you claim he supports and the libel a slander laws contained therein.

Gotcha

You never mitigated anything. You gave a list of things that to you (which is incredibly narrow) prove what I said yet you ignore the fact that he's rallied against all our hate laws.

So? What does correctly arguing that the hate laws, the tribunals etc and their deviation form Common law have to do with your claim?

ZERO. I am not for unmitigated free speech..yet, I find the tribunals a trvesty of justice..the mere idea that someone can be sent before them for uttering that religion is the opiate of the masses and the followers are narrow minded superstitious bigots is in complete contradition to free speech and my personal rights.

Like I said, you want to hear him say that he doesn't like any laws. I give proof of him fighting those laws, but in your warped mind that doesn't count. THAT IS SEMANTICS. I provided his quotes where he wants to fight against our speech laws. End of story.

Not quite. You gavce proof that he is in opposition to our hate laws and tribunals...those of course are not the begining or the end of our "speech laws"

If you want to prove me wrong, GET ME A QUOTE WHERE HE SAYS HE'S NOT FOR UNMITIGATED FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Are you really so stupid that you would use an appeal to ignorance? Ask me to prove a negative?

[nicky10013]

So no real attempt to balance the legal traditions which you claim he supports and the libel a slander laws contained therein.

Gotcha

So? What does correctly arguing that the hate laws, the tribunals etc and their deviation form Common law have to do with your claim?

ZERO. I am not for unmitigated free speech..yet, I find the tribunals a trvesty of justice..the mere idea that someone can be sent before them for uttering that religion is the opiate of the masses and the followers are narrow minded superstitious bigots is in complete contradition to free speech and my personal rights.

Not quite. You gavce proof that he is in opposition to our hate laws and tribunals...those of course are not the begining or the end of our "speech laws"

Are you really so stupid that you would use an appeal to ignorance? Ask me to prove a negative?

You asked me to provide a citation. I did. You said it was wrong and that's all you've ever offered. You've just said I was wrong, that's it. At that point, all the onus isn't on me to prove again why I'm right, it's on you to prove what I said is wrong. You challenge me, prove your assertions.

Of course, you'll never admit to it because considering Steyn, you know as well as I do that you'll never be able to do it, so you're doing the next best thing. Rather than lose face, you're just trying to put it back on me.

Grow a pair, take some responsibility and prove me wrong.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

Morse do you ever get the feeling you are arguing with something as thick and dense as a brick?

[nicky10013]

Morse do you ever get the feeling you are arguing with something as thick and dense as a brick?

What, so you're saying that people who make baseless assertions about other people's arguments shouldn't be held to the same standard of the original argument to begin with?

I'm not the one being dense, here.

[Alta4ever]

In our system you are innocent until proven guilty meaning, if you make the accusation it is up to you to provide the proof the your assertation is true. This works the same in debates, if you are going to assert a statement or idea you better have the proof to back it up otherwise it is a baseless accusation, and you look like a fool.

Right Morris?

[nicky10013]

In our system you are innocent until proven guilty meaning, if you make the accusation it is up to you to provide the proof the your assertation is true. This works the same in debates, if you are going to assert a statement or idea you better have the proof to back it up otherwise it is a baseless accusation, and you look like a fool.

Right Morris?

See, the problem here is I did back up what I said. Dancer said I was wrong which is an assertion unto itself. Now it's up to him to prove that I'm wrong. Or don't you understand that. You can't just tell someone they're wrong without specifics, which I've still yet to recieve.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed.

http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml

[nicky10013]

http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml

Good advice, too bad that it doesn't apply to anything that was said.

[Alta4ever]

Not quite. You gavce proof that he is in opposition to our hate laws and tribunals...those of course are not the begining or the end of our "speech laws"

Are you really so stupid that you would use an appeal to ignorance? Ask me to prove a negative?

Having read this thread top to bottom Morris I have not seen where Nicky has provided proof of his/her opinion that Steyn is for unmitigated free speech, just insinuation.

Morris you are so in the right. Loved it when you proved Nicky a liar when he/she had to concede that he/she never sat on the bod of the U of T.

[g_bambino]

Having read this thread top to bottom Morris I have not seen where Nicky has provided proof of his/her opinion that Steyn is for unmitigated free speech, just insinuation.

Nor have I. And, having sometimes read Steyn, and agreed with him on such matters (though few others), I would like to.

[nicky10013]

Having read this thread top to bottom Morris I have not seen where Nicky has provided proof of his/her opinion that Steyn is for unmitigated free speech, just insinuation.

Morris you are so in the right. Loved it when you proved Nicky a liar when he/she had to concede that he/she never sat on the bod of the U of T.

Denial much?

[Alta4ever]

Nor have I. And, having sometimes read Steyn, and agreed with him on such matters (though few others), I would like to.

I'd like to see the proof too.....

[nicky10013]

Nor have I. And, having sometimes read Steyn, and agreed with him on such matters (though few others), I would like to.

So him railing against all our hate speech laws isn't proof enough?

[M.Dancer]

See, the problem here is I did back up what I said. Dancer said I was wrong which is an assertion unto itself. Now it's up to him to prove that I'm wrong. Or don't you understand that. You can't just tell someone they're wrong without specifics, which I've still yet to recieve.

What more do I need to do, you claimed he is against any incursions of free speech (unotigated free speech) You posted an article about his complaints against the humand rights commission.

[Alta4ever]

What more do I need to do, you claimed he is against any incursions of free speech (unotigated free speech) You posted an article about his complaints against the humand rights commission.

Apparently Nicky doesn't know the difference between hate speech laws and the HRC. Too funny!

[g_bambino]

So him railing against all our hate speech laws isn't proof enough?

I've never read anything of him railing against all our hate speech laws. I've only read his words against the Human Rights Tribunals and the laws that create and guide them, specifically.

[nicky10013]

What more do I need to do, you claimed he is against any incursions of free speech (unotigated free speech) You posted an article about his complaints against the humand rights commission.

I found this gem. If this doesn't do it for you, nothing will.

I am currently slogging my way through a rather stodgy 650-page tome called Extreme Speech And Democracy. On the back is a question from Christopher McCrudden, professor of human rights law at Oxford: “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. As I always point out in retailing the latest idiocy from Canada’s “human rights” fanatics, none of the above are “right-wing” in any sense that Steyn or Rumsfeld or Cheney would recognize the term. Mrs. Duffy is a lifelong Labour voter; Mr. Newman is one of those pox-on-all-their-houses types; the property company that fired Mr. Nicholson is so wretchedly politically correct it employed him as “Head of Sustainability,” a title of near parodic bogusness. Yet all fell afoul of Lord Justice Laws’ “irrational, divisive, capricious, arbitrary” laws. Because it’s hard not to. Because once you establish the principle that the state has the right to police ideas, sooner or later one of yours will catch their eye. I say “principle,” but that’s not really the word. The spirit is more aptly caught by a new joint initiative by the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, the Manitoba “Human Rights” Commission and the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba to “promote and enhance the learning experience relative to human and treaty rights for all people living in Canada and around the world.” No idea what that means, but, as the CHRC press release says, this is the first time that these three useless taxpayer-funded sinecures have come together to “further their cause.” Since when do government agencies have ideological “causes”? And what happens if you disagree with their “cause”?

Professor McCrudden’s question on “appropriate” limits is very adroitly formulated: in today’s advanced Western society, there are no absolute rights—for all individual freedoms must be “balanced” against the state’s commitment to “multiculturalism” or “equality” or whatever other modish conceit tickles its fancy. Everybody talks like this now: for Canada’s Chief Censor, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., freedom of expression is just one menu item in the great Canadian salad bar of rights, so don’t be surprised if we’re occasionally out of stock. Instead, why not try one of our tasty nutritious rights du jour? Like the human right to a transsexual labiaplasty, or (per a recent Quebec ruling) the human right to non-Eurocentric table manners. Real “rights” are restraints upon the state—“negative” rights, as constitutionalists have it; they delineate the limits of the sovereign’s power. But in the modern era “rights” are baubles in the state’s gift, and the sovereign confers them at the expense of individual liberty. Truly, this is an Orwellian assault on the very foundations of freedom.

The statists justify this on the grounds of what Lord Justice Laws calls “public tranquility”—a phrase that rings very hollow in contemporary Britain. In his last years of office, Tony Blair used to fret about “social disintegration.” You can see what he means in the Hogarthian depravity of not just decayed urban centres but leafy villages and prosperous suburbs. His response, of course, was the effete smack of socially progressive authoritarianism: ever more government micro-regulation of public discourse, until we reach the surreal point where the gay outreach officer arrests the Christian for causing distress to the gay outreach officer. In truth, the Big Blairite Brother, like Nanny Lynch in Canada, incentivizes identity-group grievance, frivolous victimhood, and social atomization. Meanwhile, aggressive, confident identities can drive a coach-and-horses through the PC flower beds: the remorseless feasting of Islamic polygamy on the Eurowelfare gravy train is only one example of how feeble “rational” secular statism proves in the face of a minority that has its number.

As for the “balancing act” that Professor McCrudden urges between individual rights and broader responsibilities, only a truly free people have the incentive even to seek it. The more you haul nobodies off to the cells for putting up a poster or quoting the Bible, the more a timid conformist populace will keep its head down, mind its own business, and avoid broader social engagement—or at any rate non-alcohol-fuelled engagement. Big Government is dismantling civic identity, and the slow-burn bonfire of liberties in Europe and North America will eventually consume us all.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/13/a-slow-burn-bonfire-of-liberties-2/2/

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Before his acquittal in 2008, in an interview with the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, Steyn expressed this fundamental criticism of hate speech laws, which play an increasing role also in Denmark:

“I cannot see why it is a crime to feel abhorrence and hatred. I detest Osama bin Laden, I detest those who blow up the London Underground and I detest even more those who try to justify it. Loathing and hatred are feelings harboured in the hearts of every human being. Still, the Human Rights Commission in Canada has it as its stated objective to eradicate hatred. That is the kind of social hygiene characteristic of totalitarian regimes.”

http://ifpscanada.com/?p=486

[g_bambino]

I found this gem. If this doesn't do it for you, nothing will.

No, it doesn't say to me what you say it does. Again, he's speaking out against the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals, the laws that create and guide them, and the way they and other people and organisations similarly guided by political correctness seek to transform society according to their viewpoints. In your second quote, he's rightly angry at the HRCs attempting to eradicate the emotion of hate from the human mind, which is something all-together different to hate speech, as defined by the law.

[+]

Edited November 5, 2010 by g_bambino

[Wild Bill]

I found this gem. If this doesn't do it for you, nothing will.

Nicky, I think we must have grown up on different planets! When I read that article I see Steyn railing against social engineering gone so extreme as to be fascist!

Legislating not just what people say but how they feel! Outlawing not true hate speech but any opinion that differs from some elite bureaucrat's politically correct definition.

Our Human Rights Commissions, which might more properly be defined as Tribunals or Star Chambers, can only be accurately described as Orwellian, straight out of '1984'.

Do they still teach Orwell in liberal schools like those of your generation, Nicky? Somehow I'll bet he has been quietly slipped down the memory hole.

I don't normally agree with a lot of what Rush Limbaugh has said but with this post Nicky you remind me of one of his sayings - "A liberal defines freedom of speech as the freedom to agree!"

If you can't understand how that applies then I guess nothing will!

Edited November 5, 2010 by Wild Bill