Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[g_bambino]

Fair enough.

Do you feel like you've committed a crime when you think to yourself that you hate someone or say to anyone you hate: "I hate you"? Or, how about, "I hate the way women are regarded within Sharia law"? Or, "I hate how Catholics say homosexuality is a sin"? Do you truly will yourself to love everything just to avoid running afoul of the law?

[nicky10013]

Do you feel like you've committed a crime when you think to yourself that you hate someone or say to anyone you hate: "I hate you"? Or, how about, "I hate the way women are regarded within Sharia law"? Or, "I hate how Catholics say homosexuality is a sin"? Do you truly will yourself to love everything just to avoid running afoul of the law?

No, but that's not the argument here and it never was. You make some examples which are fairly clean cut. How about denying the holocaust? Should people be allowed to do that? What about inciting hatred against an entire religion? There's a difference between disagreeing with the church's stance on homosexuality and advocating that stance is going to destroy western civilisation. In Rwanda, men just saying "I hate how Tutsi's did this" on the radio incited genocide. These are really difficult questions as to where the line in the sand should be. That was always the intent of why I started this thread rather than arguing over one word.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[g_bambino]

No, but that's not the argument here and it never was.

It's the gist of the quote you showed me, though. Feeling abhorrence and hatred should not be a crime.

[M.Dancer]

It's the gist of the quote you showed me, though. Feeling abhorrence and hatred should not be a crime.

Yes it should and those who argue against it are for unmitigated free speech, allowing death threats and kitten drowning.

[g_bambino]

Yes it should and those who argue against it are for unmitigated free speech, allowing death threats and kitten drowning.

Only Muslim kittens, though.

[M.Dancer]

Only Muslim kittens, though.

Everytime Steyn invoked unmitigated free speech, allah kills a kitten

[Wild Bill]

Just want to note that Orwell was a dedicated socialist, as much as right-wingers might like to claim him.

A dedicated socialist? True, but he himself claimed to support 'Democratic socialism' and was a fierce critic of Stalinism and any of the forms of totalitarianism or statism that too often used socialism as an entry path to power.

Both the extreme Left and Right have their terrible examples of Statism and totalitarianism. I doubt if someone living under Nazi German rule felt any more comfortable than someone living in the Ukraine under Stalin and communism.

Hence 1984 and Animal Farm. These works make it perfectly obvious that Orwell had both his left and right eyes wide open!

[Evening Star]

I know that. I just think it's unlikely that ostensibly 'liberal schools' would have a vested political interest in 'quietly slipping Orwell down the memory hole' if they were in fact on the democratic left.

[nicky10013]

I know that. I just think it's unlikely that ostensibly 'liberal schools' would have a vested political interest in 'quietly slipping Orwell down the memory hole' if they were in fact on the democratic left.

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

[nicky10013]

It's the gist of the quote you showed me, though. Feeling abhorrence and hatred should not be a crime.

True, but since it was a free speech award, I think it's pretty obvious he meant the expression of those feelings as well.

[Wild Bill]

I know that. I just think it's unlikely that ostensibly 'liberal schools' would have a vested political interest in 'quietly slipping Orwell down the memory hole' if they were in fact on the democratic left.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Orwell wrote about how a government can begin to extend its control further and further into its citizens' daily lives. One theme in 1984 was how the government was actually working to rework the language so that the very terms of individuality and personal freedoms did not exist. If someone lacks the constructs then it is impossible to think with them! The citizen becomes exactly what the government wants - a mindless worker drone with no sense of self or initiative.

Compare this with so many politically correct memes coming from liberal ranks. Human Rights Commissions strike fear into anyone who dares express an unorthodox opinion. Hate laws are defined as speech that might offend, rather than what is truly hateful. Workplace office parties have become the envy of Puritans.

Even the Toronto Sun has been affected! I had bought it virtually everyday from its first issue until the early 90's, when even it began to bow to liberal politically correct pressures. They toned down their Sunshine Girl! To the point were this old guy found the models rather boring and asexually unattractive. The Marilyn Munroe or Mae West form gave way to Twiggy!

[nicky10013]

Compare this with so many politically correct memes coming from liberal ranks. Human Rights Commissions strike fear into anyone who dares express an unorthodox opinion. Hate laws are defined as speech that might offend, rather than what is truly hateful. Workplace office parties have become the envy of Puritans.

Don't even try to compare. It doesn't. The purpose of changing language wasn't to change opinion, it was to eliminate opinion and critical thinking in general. What we have here is ABSOLUTELY nothing compared to what went on. Not in the same ball park, not on the same continent, not even in the same universe.

[Wild Bill]

Don't even try to compare. It doesn't. The purpose of changing language wasn't to change opinion, it was to eliminate opinion and critical thinking in general. What we have here is ABSOLUTELY nothing compared to what went on. Not in the same ball park, not on the same continent, not even in the same universe.

Well, since you seem to be such a champion of Human Rights Commissions and since you find Steyn in his writings to be racist, your reply is hardly a surprise...

[nicky10013]

Well, since you seem to be such a champion of Human Rights Commissions and since you find Steyn in his writings to be racist, your reply is hardly a surprise...

So, you'd actually be willing to argue that our society is becoming more like Oceania in 1984 every day?

Tell me, do you have government agents watching you every day? Do you have a screen blaring propaganda that you can only turn down but not off that can also watch your every activity? Are helicopters peering through your windows? Are the kids next door spys? Are there constant shortages of everything? Public executions? Are you earnestly afraid of sayaing something unorthodox for fear of being arrested and tortured? Are you afraid of making a pass at a woman because sex has become illegal?

If you answered yes to any one of these questions you're out to lunch. I'm also no champion of Human Rights Commissions. I believe they need to be reformed, but I also still think that the commission does some important work. 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. No one would ever be kicked out of a restaurant for injecting insulin. They may be asked to go to the washroom but they wouldn't be kicked out. The man couldn't go to the washroom since it's illegal to smoke indoors. He did the polite thing and went to the patio. The Human Rights Commission awarded him an award I believe he deserved. It also sets the example that people deserve to be able to take their medicine everywhere; that the only reason why people are kicked out of places is their behaviour rather than the colour of their skin. People should have the right to redress if their discriminated against based on their race or religion. We just have to find a better way to do it. At least that's my belief. If you think that's anything close to 1984, well, you need to have your head checked.

Perhaps a reform needed is that plaintiffs have to cover the costs of the defendants if they lose their cases. That seems to be the biggest complaint. People are forced to defend themselves which in the end isn't a bad thing; its the legal fees. It would be a powerful deterrent for the filing of phony claims. Afterall, our friends Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were cleared by the same commissions they demonize so obviously they're not all bad despite the rhetoric from the right.

Edited November 6, 2010 by nicky10013

[bloodyminded]

I'm just surprised that Steyn wouldn't be more supportive of his key fan demographics.

[nicky10013]

I'm just surprised that Steyn wouldn't be more supportive of his key fan demographics.

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

Just for the record, I have opposed laws against Holocaust denial my entire adult life. I even have a book out there explaining why. Up north I’ve spent the last year-and-a-half attacking the ludicrous position of the buffoon who runs the Canadian Jewish Congress and his friends in B’nai Brith Canada and similar organizations that restrictions on free speech are necessary because, if you let some loser in his parents’ basement in Saskatoon post an anti-Semitic remark on the Internet, next thing you know the prairies will be in the express lane to Auschwitz.

Apparently, he's for the everyday holocaust denier's right to free speech, just not the ex-London mayoral candidate.

Note: bolded portion for dancer as if he didn't need any more proof of Steyn himself saying he's against any restriction of free speech.

Edited November 6, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

.

Note: bolded portion for dancer as if he didn't need any more proof of Steyn himself saying he's against any restriction of free speech.

Nope, doesn't cut it. JLG, a jew is against banning holocaust deniers...yet I am confident he is against death threats and would happily engaged in a libel suit.

[M.Dancer]

.

Note: bolded portion for dancer as if he didn't need any more proof of Steyn himself saying he's against any restriction of free speech.

Nope, doesn't cut it. JLG, a jew is against banning holocaust deniers...yet I am confident he is against death threats and would happily engaged in a libel suit.

[Wild Bill]

I believe they need to be reformed, but I also still think that the commission does some important work. 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. No one would ever be kicked out of a restaurant for injecting insulin. They may be asked to go to the washroom but they wouldn't be kicked out. The man couldn't go to the washroom since it's illegal to smoke indoors. He did the polite thing and went to the patio. The Human Rights Commission awarded him an award I believe he deserved. It also sets the example that people deserve to be able to take their medicine everywhere; that the only reason why people are kicked out of places is their behaviour rather than the colour of their skin. People should have the right to redress if their discriminated against based on their race or religion. We just have to find a better way to do it. At least that's my belief. If you think that's anything close to 1984, well, you need to have your head checked.

You cited a case that is geographically quite close to me. You've revised the circumstances somewhat, I'm afraid. The smoker in question was in the lineup to get in and be seated. This was a family restaurant. The owner received complaints from parents in the line who had their children with them. They objected to someone smoking marijuana in front of their kids, medicinal or otherwise.

The owner also had a problem with the smoking laws. There are NO non-smoking areas in Ontario restaurants. They are all entirely smoke-free. He was worried about being charged if he allowed the marijuana smoking, again medicinal or otherwise. Anywhere on the premises, inside or out, on the patio and whatever, smoking is illegal. You have to go down the street or into an alley or something. If it can be defined in anyway as the restaurant property it's illegal. Ontario is quite anal about anti-smoking laws.

Not only can a smoker be charged, the restaurant can and often is charged for not policing the smoking. The Law grants no exception for a 98 lb. waitress and a 6'4", 280 lb smoking biker. The biker, the waitress and the owner are ALL liable!

While he was awaiting trial he received a notice from the appropriate Ontario agency that if he did allow the gentleman to smoke marijuana in his restaurant OR in the outside lineup the owner WOULD be charged! The agency claimed no distinction between marijuana and tobacco.

The owner was caught between conflicting and vague laws. Worse yet, he had to pay his own expenses before the HRC, which for him was a great financial hardship. If the ruling went against him and he was ordered to allow the smoking of medicinal marijuana in a Kafka-esque fashion that would be no defense against regular legal charges made against him!

I felt quite sorry for the restaurant owner. He was damned if he did or he didn't. He was financially hurt by the expenses. Meanwhile, the marijuana smoker got his expenses paid while he waged a free fight against the "system". He obviously didn't give a damn that he was harming some poor guy who was just trying to run a business to support himself and his family! Perhaps the smoker could have been a little kinder and more particular in picking his target.

The most unfair thing about such "discrimination" cases is that they never consider that the establishment involved might pay a huge price. Consider, if this medical marijuana crusader won not only his HRC case but got the legal system changed so that he could toke up in the restaurant washroom, how likely do you think it would be that many parents would refuse to patronize restaurants for fear of exposing their kids? For most parents leaving the kids at home is not really an option. With all the demands on their time it's either take the kids or don't go at all.

We witnessed something similar in the club scene with the banning of smoking. The non-smokers never did pick up the slack. Many smokers drifted away but they weren't replaced. Attendance dropped and soon there were fewer clubs until we reached a new (and lower) status quo. The non-smokers were successful in banning smoking in places where few of them wanted to go anyway! Makes you wonder what all the bitching was really about.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Wild Bill

[nicky10013]

You cited a case that is geographically quite close to me. You've revised the circumstances somewhat, I'm afraid. The smoker in question was in the lineup to get in and be seated. This was a family restaurant. The owner received complaints from parents in the line who had their children with them. They objected to someone smoking marijuana in front of their kids, medicinal or otherwise.

The owner also had a problem with the smoking laws. There are NO non-smoking areas in Ontario restaurants. They are all entirely smoke-free. He was worried about being charged if he allowed the marijuana smoking, again medicinal or otherwise. Anywhere on the premises, inside or out, on the patio and whatever, smoking is illegal. You have to go down the street or into an alley or something. If it can be defined in anyway as the restaurant property it's illegal. Ontario is quite anal about anti-smoking laws.

Not only can a smoker be charged, the restaurant can and often is charged for not policing the smoking. The Law grants no exception for a 98 lb. waitress and a 6'4", 280 lb smoking biker. The biker, the waitress and the owner are ALL liable!

While he was awaiting trial he received a notice from the appropriate Ontario agency that if he did allow the gentleman to smoke marijuana in his restaurant OR in the outside lineup the owner WOULD be charged! The agency claimed no distinction between marijuana and tobacco.

The owner was caught between conflicting and vague laws. Worse yet, he had to pay his own expenses before the HRC, which for him was a great financial hardship. If the ruling went against him and he was ordered to allow the smoking of medicinal marijuana in a Kafka-esque fashion that would be no defense against regular legal charges made against him!

I felt quite sorry for the restaurant owner. He was damned if he did or he didn't. He was financially hurt by the expenses. Meanwhile, the marijuana smoker got his expenses paid while he waged a free fight against the "system". He obviously didn't give a damn that he was harming some poor guy who was just trying to run a business to support himself and his family! Perhaps the smoker could have been a little kinder and more particular in picking his target.

The most unfair thing about such "discrimination" cases is that they never consider that the establishment involved might pay a huge price. Consider, if this medical marijuana crusader won not only his HRC case but got the legal system changed so that he could toke up in the restaurant washroom, how likely do you think it would be that many parents would refuse to patronize restaurants for fear of exposing their kids? For most parents leaving the kids at home is not really an option. With all the demands on their time it's either take the kids or don't go at all.

We witnessed something similar in the club scene with the banning of smoking. The non-smokers never did pick up the slack. Many smokers drifted away but they weren't replaced. Attendance dropped and soon there were fewer clubs until we reached a new (and lower) status quo. The non-smokers were successful in banning smoking in places where few of them wanted to go anyway! Makes you wonder what all the bitching was really about.

What's the difference between marijuana and alcohol, or the act of smoking marijuana and smoking cigarettes? Whether families like it or not, shielding their kids from the fact that medical marijuana is legal isn't going to change the fact that it's legal. If he's got a prescription, people should lighten up in general. The guy won for a reason.

If some guy lit up in front of my joint, I'd ask to see a prescription. If I got one, so be it. If it's legal for medical use, why should it be an different from people taking a pill. Frankly, I think the assumption if he allowed it that he'd go bankrupt is bogus anyway. But that's my call to make.

As for your assumption that clubs had to shut down because of the smoking ban, well, that's ridiculous. Bars and Clubs open and close all the time. It isn't because of smoking, it's because the trends are always changing. Clubs that don't keep up go out of business just as in any other industry. If you hadn't noticed, people who smoke still go to bars, they just go outside and smoke.

[nicky10013]

Nope, doesn't cut it. JLG, a jew is against banning holocaust deniers...yet I am confident he is against death threats and would happily engaged in a libel suit.

Confident, but can't prove it. Considering how many times death threats come up in his articles that I've read while provng you wrong, none ever mention the slightest urge to prosecute. Like I said, the only thing that makes him upset about death threats is that people can legally be more inflammatory than him because that's the only way he makes a buck.

Ohhhh...like this stuff right here! Even more proof!

Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition?

MARK STEYN | January 17, 2008 |

Canadians are uncomfortable even confronting what's going on in their name. On last week's letters page, Lauren Demaree of Windsor seemed closest to "mainstream" "moderate" Canadian opinion:

"Placing limits on free speech is a slippery slope, but that is not the only issue in play here. There is often a fine line that is crossed between opinion and hate propaganda and our laws need to reflect this more effectively. Where do we draw the line? When a group of people is harassed or when someone is beaten? How about killed? When your writer Andrew Coyne sits on a high horse spouting the ideals of free speech, he doesn't stop and think about the consequences of his words."

Who has been "killed" or "beaten" or "harassed" by Coyne-Steyn "hate propaganda"? The killings and bombings, as Ezra Levant pointed out, occur in countries without freedom of expression — because when you criminalize words the only expression left is action. How sad to see Canada pursuing, as the federal "human rights" commission puts it, "A Watch On Hate." Not "hate crimes" or even "hate speech," but just "hate" — thoughts, feelings. Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress is a world-class hater who thinks all Israeli civilians over 18 are legitimate targets for murder. Bully for him. Yet, in his pursuit of Maclean's, Lauren Demaree sees the hater as the pin-up crusader who'll abolish hate. No free society can do that. But it can certainly abolish, incrementally, freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence in relentless pursuit of such a banal happy-face chimera. The arbitrary absurdity of Alice-in-Wonderland's queen yoked to the Cheshire Cat smile. This is your fight, too, Lauren, even if you don't yet know it.

Also, considering the suit against him at the HRC was a libel suit, I don't know what he'd have to say about our libel laws either and their British Tradition. The British Libel laws are under pretty heavy attack by Conservative Free Speechers in Steyn's corner. (Like these guys --> http://www.legal-project.org/issues/uk-libel-law )

Keep trying to come up with proof, though. This is fun.

Edited November 6, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wild Bill]

What's the difference between marijuana and alcohol, or the act of smoking marijuana and smoking cigarettes? Whether families like it or not, shielding their kids from the fact that medical marijuana is legal isn't going to change the fact that it's legal. If he's got a prescription, people should lighten up in general. The guy won for a reason.

If some guy lit up in front of my joint, I'd ask to see a prescription. If I got one, so be it. If it's legal for medical use, why should it be an different from people taking a pill. Frankly, I think the assumption if he allowed it that he'd go bankrupt is bogus anyway. But that's my call to make.

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?"

Easy for you to say! I assume you don't own a restaurant. Once again you show your incredible empathy for your fellow citizens.

Your answer reminds me of Nancy Reagan's quote "Just Say No!" In other words, being told what to do should be enough.

Nothing is more popular than telling your neighbour what to do, except perhaps making everyone else pay with their taxes for YOUR idea!

This is what I mean by the trend to statism. I agree we're not there yet but there are trends. Your attitude supports my belief. You champion freedom but only for those who agree with you.

[Alta4ever]

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?"

Easy for you to say! I assume you don't own a restaurant. Once again you show your incredible empathy for your fellow citizens.

Your answer reminds me of Nancy Reagan's quote "Just Say No!" In other words, being told what to do should be enough.

Nothing is more popular than telling your neighbour what to do, except perhaps making everyone else pay with their taxes for YOUR idea!

This is what I mean by the trend to statism. I agree we're not there yet but there are trends. Your attitude supports my belief. You champion freedom but only for those who agree with you.

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

[Argus]

Nobody has a "right" to speak at a university either. I would agree its a problem for universities to outright reject speakers based on political ideology, but thats not why Anne Coulter was denied.

Oh please.

She was denied because she has no serious political views of any relevance.

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.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

In Rwanda, men just saying "I hate how Tutsi's did this" on the radio incited genocide.

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?