Each of the authors rejects the authority of government to censor speech. Each condemns the Human Rights Commissions as illegitimate–as, essentially, kangaroo courts … But each, also, accepts that the accused in the given cases (i.e. Mark Steyn and Stephen Boissoin) have said something “hateful”.
Now, don’t get me wrong: this would be just fine … except that none of these columnists–as per journalistic convention–spends so much as a sentence demonstrating what, exactly, makes the opinions in question hateful! They are united in their easy posturing to the effect that assholes should be allowed to spout nonsense, but they do not so much as dare to doubt that Steyn and Boissoin are assholes and that theirs is nonsense.
What should concern us is not the political toadying at work here, but the trend of journalistic incompetence.
I prefer “malpractice”. Journalists are among the chosen few who hold the power to damage, even destroy the lives of innocent people. They should be held accountable for professional laziness, cowardice and agenda-driven reporting.
Oh, wait….
Thanks, Edward Michael George and Kate, for mentioning this. I read the Chronicle Herald fellow, and thought, where’s the evidence that, as the columnist wrote, Boissoin’s “language was, in places, extremely vitriolic”?
If one knows the details of a large chunk of the homosexual lifestyle and the underhanded methods that have been used by gay activists—and their dupes, like this naïve columnist—to force it on all of us, including children in the public school systems, one might think that gay activism and its outcome were vitriolic, not the words of the person trying to expose it. (It’s the old “shoot the messenger” trick.)
Yes, the lazy MSM types and their clones in all the elites, who run this country (into the ground) are like the far end of the “Telephone” game: they’ve missed the point entirely and spout the most egregious lies.
Dah bangs the gong, I don’t think Mark’s book was hateful nor do I have an issue with what Mr. Boission wrote. His/Her assertion is faulty, I may not agree with someone’s point of view but that doesn’t mean it’s hateful or hatefilled. Jebus the left and their love of hate, racism and bigotry and what other people do in the bedroom aren’t they getting any?
Might I be allowed to tell the Author to kiss me arse and suggest he/she/it take a running leap off a tall building or crawl back up the HRCs employees arses.
Free Speech is just that FREE, not controled not regulated and most definately not subjected to “Leftarded Ideology”. Sticks out tongue.
Ezra Levant said the same thing about Stephen Boissoin, so the buggardly media aren’t the only ones posturing here.
I agree with his comments about gays and I don’t hate them. I think that many are people with mental illness issues that need help. Hate has nothing to do with that. How can you hate somebody that is ill? I see people practicing a dangerous lifestyle that is as bad as drinking or smoking too much – yet tormenting smokers is a gov’t sport.
I think the social engineers and MSM died a long time ago.
Jim wrote, “Ezra Levant said the same thing about Stephen Boissoin, so the buggardly media aren’t the only ones posturing here.”
Not so fast . . .
I believe it was a couple of weeks ago that a poster here reported that Ezra had “said the same thing about Stephen Boissoin”. As this kind of slur seemed out of character for Ezra, I checked it out.
Ezra did not treat Boissoin as “guilty as charged”: he had QUOTED an EGALE operative doing so.
I corrected this misperception at SDA: the mistake was acknowledged by the poster. It seems that Jim here must have missed the correction.
And, if Ezra had said what Jim thinks he said, Ezra would have been WRONG and I’d have contacted him to request that he justify his statements.
Jim said: I think the social engineers and MSM died a long time ago.
I read that a few times and couldn’t figure out what you meant. Then I got it – they’re zombies! And they’re after your braaaaiiinnnsss!
Bullshit abounds in the MSM …. it’s just the way they are! Blogs are not immune to asshatery either …. it’s just that most of it is completely under the radar.
While the bloggers by and large are on their own dime the boobs who scribble for the Dead Trees and opinion pimps ar3e getting PAID for it. Which lends a whole other level of justification for calling them out on it!
Good for Ed!!
Oops, make that “OUR braaaaiiinnnsss!” Could be slim pickings in my case…
What scares me the most about the HRCs, or the recent case in Barrie where the principal called the CAS to report abuse based on a psychic’s testimony, or Obama saying we should just talk to dictators to build understanding is that nobody ever THINKS anymore.
I know these sound like disparate news stories, but the more I read the news, the more I realize that journalists and other supposed professionals actually don’t know how to think critically. They don’t understand basic concepts of our western civilization like the rules of rhetoric, logic, or even the scientific method (ie. we’ve tried that already and it didn’t work).
If they did understand how to formulate an argument, maybe they’d see that Steyn & Boisson weren’t hateful, they were expressing an opinion which needs to be dealt with, not dismissed as “hatemongering”.
Right now, Obama is busy saying that the Republicans are going to go negative on him because he’s black, to shift the focus to biography rather than his actual positions, which he knows he can’t defend.
But he’s not worried, because most voters don’t actually think.
Just like most reporters.
Brains. When you don’t use them, you lose them.
Notice also that the HR Commissioner who ordered Rev. Boissoin to ‘never again in his life express derogatory comments about homosexuals’ – doesn’t seem to realize that she has violated the Constitution.
Free speech is not a legislated right. She can’t give it or take it away by a court order. It’s what is called a FUNDAMENTAL right. That means, again, that it can’t be legislated by we incompetent humans. It exists. By itself. Not due to us or our laws.
So – she can’t legislate it away from him. Doesn’t she know what ‘fundamental’ means?
Equally, one of the Osgoode Hall puppets against Steyn, informed us on the TV the other day, that we are free. Yes, we are free to THINK anything we want. The only thing we may not do, according to him, is express our thoughts. We can’t speak. We are silent. But, we ought to be happy; we can think anything we want. Ahhh.
Chuck Strahl:
“Another important issue we have championed is the protection of human rights — something that virtually every other Canadian can take for granted under the Canadian Human Rights ”
Act.ttp://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=407449&categoryid=1&category=News+Releases
Is this why the CPC is hanging on , not responding publicly to the HRC kangaroo courts?
He was addressing an Indian General assmbly.
Journalistic malpractice indeed…
I’d be a lot more impressed if Mr. George could spell “Maclean’s” right.
Send letters and emails to the Conservative Party of Canada telling them that you won’t fund the next election or work on the campaign until you see some positive direction on eliminating the HRC’s that plague Canada.
Pat
“They are united in their easy posturing to the effect that assholes should be allowed to spout nonsense”
Exactly why I support the censorless freedom of this blog.
What are you people whining about now? These three editorial pieces — they’re not news stories — argue for the very thing you vehemently defend: free speech without fear of prosecution if the state doesn’t like what you say.
Now you want them sued for malpractice because you don’t like what they say?
Enlighten me if I’m missing something. You’re schizophrenia is a bit worrisome.
Gerry, you are, in fact missing something. It’s called the joke.
“Gerry, you are, in fact missing something. It’s called the joke.”
I considered that before I posted but the sarcasm wasn’t obvious. I suspect most of the posters responding didn’t get the joke either.
Someone should let this poster in on the joke:
“If one knows the details of a large chunk of the homosexual lifestyle and the underhanded methods that have been used by gay activists—and their dupes, like this naïve columnist—to force it on all of us, including children. . .”
I must have missed the “gay activists” attempts to “force it [homosexuality] on all of us, including children. . .”
My understanding was that being gay was not a choice. Perhaps I should be on my guard around activist gay kidnappers?
Journalistic malpractice… Kate’s on to something by showing that the consumer shows approval by spending their dollars but I think there’s an even better angle… What if the public were able to sue the media outlets for “wrong news”? Journalists are supposed to report the “who”, “what”, “where”, “when” and “why – if factually based”. Imagine how much more accurate they would be if they were legally bound to report those things and those things alone…
Gerry: What you’re missing is not a joke but the sad reality that so many of the putative defenders of free speech characterize Steyn’s thesis as “hateful” with no attempt at rebuttal. In other words, they hold a kind of wimpish liberal PC world view which they feel is the default position of all polite, educated people. It’s a kind of poser vanity.
When I hear the tag “hateful” I always envision a teenage girl having a hissy fit. It’s a truly childish word and has no business in the debate.
Sued for malpractice? Who said that? Kate said, “held accountable” which is a long way from a law suit.
“What if the public were able to sue the media outlets for “wrong news”? Journalists are supposed to report the “who”, “what”, “where”, “when” and “why – if factually based”. Imagine how much more accurate they would be if they were legally bound to report those things and those things alone…”
I suspect you didn’t get the joke either, as a matter of fact I don’t think the post is intended as a joke.
Read the referenced pieces. They are o-p-i-n-i-o-n colums not news items. Think about the stupidity of your argument. Unless your sarcasm is so over-the-top for an ordinary joe like me to grasp these posts are wacko.
Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun wrote:
“From the start, the tribunal should have agreed that Steyn’s Oct. 26, 2006 piece was insulting and wrong-headed. It might even have said it’s regrettable that Maclean’s gave space to this kind of incendiary sarcasm.”
If one pretend to believe that Mulgrew actually read the article, how could he then come up with such stupid comment.
If Mulgrew did not read the article, he’s an a$$, he knows not whereof he writes.
As for that kind of incendiary sarcasm, let us see now, this is a free country and if a magazine wants to write sarcasm, even incendiary, they can fill the whole magazine with it and Mulgrew has no say in it, zip, nada, zero.
If Mulgrew wants to write incendiary sarcasm, nobody really cares, go ahead, knock yourself silly.
Iain Hunter, Times Colonist wrote:
“The Internet, which is notoriously difficult to police, has become the medium of hate, among other things.”
How is it that Hunter would like to police the internet? Perhaps somebody should police Hunter before he advocates that everybody thinks like him. Internet is a medium of hate if that is Hunter’s favored subject, others decide singularly themselves what is right and what is wrong, usually disregard garbage.
And,
“It has engaged University of Windsor professor Richard Moon, who has made a study of this aspect of the law, to find “the most appropriate mechanism for addressing hate messages.” The commission’s chairman believes we need a way to “effectively regulate” hate on the Internet.”
The professor, no doubt would object anyone if he was told that he cant say this or that, that would inhibit his academic freedom, though he would like to instruct others that they just can’t say things that he does not agree with. Perhaps somebody should effectively regulate the professor.
Hate is becoming a favored word of the all-knowing, may be that way, they would like to control those that don’t follow the shinning path, severely irrelevant if hate is involved or not. Kind of like ‘blasphemy’ some religionists use.
“If one pretend to believe that Mulgrew actually read the article, how could he then come up with such stupid comment.”
Ah, ok, now I get it. It is a joke. No one could take seriously an argument that says that Steyn’s written opinion = ok to publish, Mulgrew’s written opinion = “stupid comment” not for publication.
It’s a good joke. You had me going there for awhile.
On Sunday, there is some kind of program on the socialist news channel, don’t watch the channel, though visiting, you watch what is on. Anyway they had Levant and Lund on.
Not surprisingly, Lund said exactly the same thing that ET mentions at June 25, 2008 10:36 PM in the third paragraph: “Yes, we are free to THINK anything we want. The only thing we may not do, according to him, is express our thoughts”
This effort of academe to curtail speech of other is very curious. No doubt Lund is proud of himself, the way he formulated that crap.
Normally there would be no comment added, just that certain commenter is so happy with himself, here we go : “stupid comment” is an opinion
“I’d be a lot more impressed if Mr. George could spell “Maclean’s” right.
Well if you want to nikpik, Maclean’s use both spelling variations “Maclean’s” and “Macleans”, the latter, I believe, to be their registered trademark. As Mr. George refers to “Steyn’s Macleans piece”, in this case the singular possessive is “Steyn’s”, he is not incorrect. He could have written “Steyn’s Maclean’s piece” and been equally correct. Singular possessive could also be Macleans’, since there is no hard and fast rule, it is, after all, the ‘english’ language, constantly striving to evolve and confuse. Well some of us anyway.
Note to self preview twice before posting “nikpik”, but old habits die hard, should be “nitpick – to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details.”
Hate is becoming a favored word of the all-knowing
My apologies if I’ve said this here before, but “don’t be a hater” seems to be a phrase amongst some teens. I confess to not know exactly the meaning, but when certain words/phrases get ‘sexed-up’ into a ‘concept’ I’m always wary.
Maybe it’s purely innocent and space aliens are NOT actually stealing my luggage.
Everyone opines on the “hate” terminology. Lets not forget the other word “contempt”. It’s just as important. This is where they want to regulate conscious thought and opinion.
Sorry Gerry, you completely, utterly, entirely missed the point of the original posting. Follow the link. It refers to Kate’s ongoing series where she points out that these ‘journalists’ are being held accountable for their incompetence in a way she no doubt approves of – loss of readership. I can’t understand how anyone could misread her posting to imagine she wants them censored or imprisoned. Unless you consider lack of anyone wanting to read their drivel to be censorship?
“It refers to Kate’s ongoing series where she points out that these ‘journalists’ are being held accountable for their incompetence in a way she no doubt approves of – loss of readership.”
The small dead animals hostess is smart enough to leave enough ambiguity in her posts so the rabble can dig into the really ugly stuff for her. However, I don’t see much ambiguity in this statement:
“I prefer “malpractice”. Journalists are among the chosen few who hold the power to damage, even destroy the lives of innocent people. They should be held accountable for professional laziness, cowardice and agenda-driven reporting.”
Malpractice infers harm to, in this case, readers, which then calls for damages.
You’re naive if you think Kate considers the results of “malpractice” and “be held accountable” simply suggests the journalists fall out of favour with their readers. If they had no readers they wouldn’t have a job. But, if they were held accountable in some other manner they could be silenced.
I think the best place to go after them for malpractice is at Human Rights Commissions.
Anyone else see the irony in the comments above?
Maclean’s has always used Maclean’s, since the magazine was started by, and named after, J.B. Maclean.
He only spelled his name one way.
You’re likely correct if you think Kate considers the results of “malpractice” and “be held accountable” simply suggests the journalists fall out of favour with their readers.
Fixed.
Like I said. Missed the joke…
Just because you don’t have a point to stand on if the post is interpreted correctly is no reason to call people who interpret it correctly naive.
Sheesh.
“Maclean’s has always used Maclean’s, since the magazine was started by, and named after, J.B. Maclean.”
“http://www.macleans.ca/”
“Always” is such a fragile word isn’t it?
Edward Michael George spells it MacLeans. The magazine is called Maclean’s and always has been. It is Maclean’s magazine that is being taken to the various Human Rights Commissions.
As I said, it’s hard to take people’s Deep Thoughts seriously when they haven’t done the basics, like check the spelling of the names of the things they’re pontificating about. This leads to the type of sloppy errors that get people sued.
Well I wasn’t going to do this but oh well since you insist. The following items were taken from your website.
“appetiser” did you mean appetizer?
gone mams up. That’s a new one, did you think of that one all by your yonely?
“The nearest relative to Newmarket is my mom’s sister, who lives about 20 miles away, in Caledon.
My cousin John will be laid to rest here this morning.” Here as on your blog page or did you mean “there” as in Caledon? Sorry for your loss BTW.
“John didn’t live a long time but her certainly lived.” Rough time so I do understand, he becomes her with the slip of a finger.
“most-read” an interesting use of a hyphen.
“best-seller” “two-man” I do love redundancy.
“BC Civil Liberties “Uniom”” Oops
“dtestation” most would prefer detestation when using the english language, however such transitions between languages, although frowned upon, are not unacceptable if used in moderation.
“most of whome” now that is a big slip of the finger!
“or even the reptilian Ezra Levant(who faces “whis” own Human Rights Commission hearing).” Ooh your nasty Mark, besides the obvious typo, where the f%$k do you get off slagging anyone?
“Vancouver Provice” Turned off your spell check again did you? Hey don’t feel too bad CBC Sports made the same typo.
You’re such a poser. I could do more but why bother, after all you said it, “As I said, it’s hard to take people’s Deep Thoughts seriously when they haven’t done the basics, like check the spelling of the names of the things they’re pontificating about.”
The difference between me and you is that I post under my own name.
Glad you have enough time to look for my typos. Hopefully, you learned something while reading my blog.
And Ezra Levant is a reptile.
The difference between us is a lot greater than that.Vive la difference. Pity your poor students.
I’m not going to get into a flame war here. If you want to get personal, e-mail me.
There’s no point, you lost the argument the moment you decided to critique the spelling and not the thought, a shame really. No one is perfect, not you, definitely not me. BTW if you clean up the language on your blog you might get a few more hits. Just a thought.