Dawg is just nervouse in case a 'fascist majority Harper' governemnt comes after him some day, using the same techiques of some of our more progressive minorities.
Dawg is quite happy to ban commentators he does not agree with or whose arguements are to subtle for his 'black and white' way of thinking .
Banning commenters is fine -- one isn't obliged to provide everyone with a forum.
Using the machinery of the state to suppress views one doesn't like -- that's where the mischief is.
I ban trolls, like everybody else--maybe a dozen or so since I began blogging. So, come to think of it, did Kenneth Whyte. Let those trolls in and they'll be demanding to write my posts and do my illustrations next--and expect me to correct their grammar on top of it. It's a slippery slope.
So what say you, Mark, Damian, Mike H., Sean and other regulars here? Are you going to take Steve's implied insult lying down?
If Alan Borovoy did not forsee this pattern of behaviour from human rights commissons, he is grossly lacking in the capacity for critical forethought. Pretty much defines a liberal/socialist.
Posted at 2007-12-07 07:51:38 [PermaLink]It's Dawg's blog (or Damian's in this place) and he can choose to publish whatever he wants. It's no different than a newspaper being selective in which letters get published. If the blog author chooses to eliminate any dissenting opinions, the price paid is a drop-off in readership, again just as with newspapers.
As for the various human rights commissions, it's time they were seriously reigned in and given a very sharply defined mandate. Stray outside of it and get risk one's knuckles seriously rapped. One aspect I find troubling is the use of such commissions to financially cripple the defendant who cannot afford a steep legal bill. Such was the case last year with the Western Standard - I believe they estimated the legal fees necessary to defend themselves from a similar complaint was in the order of $75,000.
I agree with Murray, this power grab by human rights commissions was entirely predictable.
Thanks, guys, for reminding me why I've never bookmarked the Dawg.
Posted at 2007-12-07 09:21:42 [PermaLink]"...to subtle for his 'black and white' way of thinking ."
Scurrilous! I'd have said shades of brown...;)
Dawg has every right to ban trolls. The role of the troll is to drag you down into the crapper with them. Banning trolls is not the same as banning those who disagree with you. If Dawg was inclined to do that he would have banned me long ago.
Posted at 2007-12-07 14:27:03 [PermaLink]I should have the final decision on every expression of thought in this country.
Posted at 2007-12-07 17:16:52 [PermaLink]The other roll of a troll is to make the post threads all about them or their agenda... which is why I heartily laugh with Jim Whyte.
I'm with Steyn and Coyne. We in the US often endure the chill winds emanating down from the Canadian left, and I'm not referring to the jet stream.