The western standard wasn't around in 2000 was it? does he mean alberta report?
Posted at 2008-01-14 11:30:16 [PermaLink]Warren is, once again, tying himself in knots trying to get the facts to accomodate his tastes and worldview, with little regard for consistency or logic. So much for the rigorous argument skils of lawyers ...
Posted at 2008-01-14 11:49:01 [PermaLink]A practicing Catholic?
You'd think he'd have that stuff down by now. It's not that complicated.
Talk about your pretzel logic.
Kinsella is, by far, the king of the linguistic contortionists.
There's a joke in there somewhere, but that would offend Warren, or maybe not. Who can tell.....
===
There is quite a difference between criminalization of hate speech. Speech that encourages people to do harm to other people has very much been opposed throughout our political and deomcratic history. But because we are dealing with Criminal Law (real law) the burden of proof is on the prosecution as it should be and that burden is legally very difficult, also as it should be. The difference with situations such as Levant finds himself in are these bizarre, paralegal, quasi-judicial human rights commissions. Hence Kinsella's confusion. He believes in free speech but he believes in human rights commissions and can't quite bring himself to admit they are completely out of control
Posted at 2008-01-14 12:11:50 [PermaLink]Kinsella's an idiot. He's too stupid to understand that standing up for a principle, even if your political opponent is doing the same, is a good idea.
He's a morally bankrupt intellectual lightweight.
No wonder he fit in so well in the liberal party.
Kinsella`s criteria are subjective in the extreme - was somebody offended by the text, cartoon, etc in question? Were somebody`s feelings hurt? Did someboy feel insulted or disrespected?
If we apply these criteria, I guess the Human Rights Tribunals will be very, very busy...
Damian, I find that I must agree with your conclusion. There's a pretty big hop, skip and jump between fomenting hatred of people and religion-bashing. The former requires legislation, although I realize not everyone agrees. The latter, not so much.
I cannot follow Warren's positively Jesuitical (can I say that?) reasoning here--after reading his comments, I have no idea what he'd refer to the HRCs and what he wouldn't. People should know roughly where they stand before the law, but this tangled tale would make the judicial process arbitrary, subjective and vague--more so than it presently is, I mean. :)
The 'cartoons' were satirical political statements.
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
Fundamental freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association. "
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
As they say, the Devil's in the details. That bit about "...subject only to..." ? Talk about your proverbial barn door!
Has anyone else noticed the irony of two representatives of what arguably might be called the World's most misogynistic religion, having the complaint handled by a woman? And even more bizarre, two Muslims (ok, one's an organization) hiding behind a Christian woman, whining about what a Jew said?
Please Mr. Kinsella,show us where in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the right to not be offended is enshrined.
Posted at 2008-01-14 13:04:53 [PermaLink]Applying Dr. Dawg's standard, then large portions of Marxist Leninism should be banned as hate speech. For example, if the Imam is offended by cartoons, imagine how he must feel about people teaching that "religion is the opiate of the masses", etc. And then there's that whole class warfare angle.
Posted at 2008-01-14 13:16:35 [PermaLink]What a surprise: the believer comes down on the side of blasphemy laws.
Posted at 2008-01-14 13:25:41 [PermaLink]What is "Dawg's standard," Bruce? Did you even read what I just posted?
Crying out loud, no wonder this debate's in the crapper.
Yes, as I am very offended and insulted by Warren Kinsella's punk rock band. They don't sound very good and they use curse words which are very, very, very rude.
I think Warren and his band are being very rude in order to be unnecessarily provocative. Being unnecessarily provocative is just not right unless you are provoking somebody for a good political reason. I don't think Warren's Band has a good political reason for being so very rude. I think Warren might be sending a message of hate with these curse words as he knows there are a lot of people who do not like swearing and think it is hateful.
I once clicked a link by accident and before I could stop it, I was forced to listen to some of his vocals and my ears were terribly sore for days and days. My ears mean a lot to me and I didn't like having them assaulted by Warren's music. After listening to his music I got an ear infection and had to be placed on antibiotics. I had a lot of pain and I think it was all Warren's fault.
When I told my friends about this situation, they listened too and agreed with me and they were really hurt and insulted. They don't like curse words either. They thought maybe they should riot in the street in protest, even though that's sort of illegal, but didn't bother because my ear infection felt better after a few days.
It's a good thing they didn't too, otherwise maybe Warren could have been in big trouble for being so mean to me and causing a riot.
The word "hate" sure doesn't mean what it used to.
How, pray tell, does a cartoon mocking Mohammad get defined as hate? If I drew a cartoon of Kinsella in a Ramones shirt running away from Parliament with a brown bag labeled "Adscam", does that mean I hate him?
It's called mockery and humour. That we have to explain this is an indictment how silly we have become as a country.
(Oops, I called Canada silly. Does an HRC complaint beckon?)
I'll agree that with you, Damian, that Kinsella doesn't mention where he draws the line on free speech. Is it OK to display an image of Muhammad with a bomb in his head? Is it OK to show a stick drawing of Muhammad? Is it OK to show a drawing of a seventh grade student whose name is Muhammad? Is it OK to show a drawing or painting of Muhammad? I'm not a Muslim? Must I live according to Sharia Law by not making my own stick figure drawing of Muhammad.
Must I watch my words when the next pair of Jehovah Witnesses knocks on my door for the purpose of enlightening me? Will I not be permitted to tell them to go to he** because that would be offensive?
I'm against people who deliberately make false statements about a person or group. But if people feel wronged because of libellous or slanderous statements, they should seek justice in a regular court. I'm against people who make statements that clearly promote violence against a person or group. However, I support people to make statements that is an opinion of others. It doesn't matter if that opinion is offensive. Heck, I don't like it if people call me fat, ugly, or skinny. That is my problem, not theirs.
There is nothing in the Danish cartoons that tells people to attack Muslims. If people become violent because of the cartoons, then that is their problem, not mine or Ezra's.
Oh this just keeps getting better; turns out the Commission head is ALSO a woman. A couple of guys, from a religion that has a certain perspective on women [External Link]
appealing to women for 'protection', because their feelings are hurt. I'm getting a dominatrix picture here.
To Kinsella, reality is a moving target. It can be anything he wants it to be given the current circumstances. If he "feels" that it is wrong to censor someone it's OK, if it "feels" wrong then it's not. Of course the feeling is much dependant on the politics of the issue. For Warren there are no absolutes, just a gooey everchanging mess that he can change to suit his mood.
Posted at 2008-01-14 15:03:53 [PermaLink]What would Mr Kinsella say of Muslims in Canada going to HRCs if some artist produces a sculpture of Mohammed (pbuh) with a hard-on? It is an historical fact that he had them, since he had children;
[External Link]
[External Link]
"A GALLERY has offended Christians and visitors alike by displaying a statue showing Christ with an erection.
The sculpture, by the gay Chinese-born artist Terence Koh, is being exhibited by the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead."..
Mark
Ottawa
"What is 'Dawg's standard,' Bruce?"
You have come out in favor of hate crime laws and in approval of the "inciting hatred" standard. My point stands.
Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. It is meaningless if it doesn't apply to speech we find offensive or which may may even incite people to hatred.
Marxist Leninism incites people to hatred. For example, Lenin labeled independent farmers as "parasitic kulaks" and "exploiters and profiteers who used their surplus grain to enrich themselves at the expense of the starving non-agricultural parts of Russia."
Kulaks died as a result. Other groups were and are labeled in similar ways. Ergo, by your standard, Marxist Leninist speech should be censored and banned.
"So much for the rigorous argument skils of lawyers"
Excuse my defensive reaction, Rick, but it says more about the skills of kinsella than it does lawyers. I are, like, really rigorous.
Someone once said that freedom of speech is "being able to speak freely without censorship. It is meaningless if it doesn't apply to speech we find offensive or which may may even incite people to hatred."
Bruce put it like this: "Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. It is meaningless if it doesn't apply to speech we find offensive or which may may even incite people to hatred."
As for me, I believe freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. It is meaningless if it doesn't apply to speech we find offensive or which may may even incite people to hatred.
"My point stands."
Whatever. Should make an interesting case, given the current prohibited grounds of discrimination. Maybe Kulaks can be "read in."
This is an incredible irony...
That the ultimate act of a "tolerant society" (ie Canada) is the tolerance of a bunch of highly intolerant islamo-fascists!
The mind boggles!
So, here we have a guy, who's greatest accomplishment in life is to have acted as a mouthpiece for an organized crime syndicate, going to great lengths to not actually say anything while making a great effort to appear to have given the entire thing deep thought. Kinsella knows very well that at least one Muslim group would file an HRC complaint in a heartbeat if the above mentioned band were called T## F##K Me Mohammed, yet he stops short of addressing that point. If there is no reason to haul that band before the HRC for the Jesus insult, then there is no validity to the complaints against the Western Standard. You can't let the door swing both ways here. If it's okay for the avant garde to be overtly critical and often hostile to Christianity and Judaism, then it's just as okay to ridicule Islam, and it's imperative that the state uphold that right. In the end, Kinsell does the same old liberal song and dance where he uses up a bunch of keyboard strokes to make sure he comes down squarely on the side of the complainants while appearing, at first glance, to make a reasoned argument for free speech, Where he falls down is by equating criticism with hate. Fair criticism isn't now and never will be hate. If we accept Kinsella's definition of hate in the context given, then his criticisms of Stockwell Day (warranted and justified, I might add) constitute hate speech as does the T## F##K Me Jesus. The worst of this is that I'm just a dumb-ass machinist and I've made more sense of this than Kinsella.
Posted at 2008-01-14 20:01:22 [PermaLink]Kinsella's argument starts out with a really too broad definition of censorship in the first place. Most of us would agree with some limitations on actions that injure individuals and society. That might make all of us "censors". But Kinsella avoids the point that the particular type of censorship we are talking about here is that kind which seeks to use the power and apparatus of the state to punish people's individual, personal thoughts and beliefs.
And that is what has happened with the Mohammed Cartoons. Kinsella says in his article that all Muslims are asking for is respect.
That isn't exactly true.
There is a difference between asking for people to respect your right to practice your faith, and asking them to respect the tenets of your faith.
Yes we should all respect Muslim's belief and practice of their religion in a pluralistic society like Canada. I want the same respect as a Christian.
But the Mohammed cartoons are about using the lever's of government commissions to require non-muslims to respect the objects of muslim faith. And that has to create conflict with the very idea of freedom of religion and belief because, a Christian, or a Jew, or an atheist can not be true to their beliefs and agree to honor, venerate, or particularly revere the prophet or god of a religion that they deem false.
That is a request for respect that demands I show my respect, by giving up my own right to my beliefs. And that goes too far.
Warren Kinsella is a classic Liberal: too liberal to take his own side in an argument!
Go Ezra!
Censorship if necessary but not necessarily censorship. Appropriately, the liar Kinsella is channeling MacKenzie King.
From the liar Kinsella's perspective the necessity in this instance is twofold - to placate Islamists who scare him even more than Jamaican posses in North Toronto. (He can always avoid Jane and Finch but you never know where the sword of Islam might strike.) And make sense of his single accomplishment which is, to a degree, to expose the assorted whack jobs in the tiny Canadian white Supremacy world.
But, and here is where necessity midwives invention, Warren also wants to support the Charter, preserve freedom of speech for punks (justified as either art or political provocation), maintain his shaky grip on Catholicism, excuse his ridicule filled, entirely disrespectful (but very funny) religious hatchet job on Stocky, justify establish his on again off again "religious tolerance" and his intolerance for anything which might give offense.
If you give a three year old a rainbow of fingerpaints you get brown, if you give an idiot conflicting ideas you get mud. Same process - absence of judgment, incapacity to make decisions, no concept of first principles: of course, a three year old can be taught, Warren, not so much.
It gets even better: Warren has posted a followup at Full Comment where he screams "hate speech" and quotes a commenter from a previous entry:
[External Link]
Amusingly, Warren pressed the Full Comment moderator to remove the original post (and gloats about it on his own blog)--then REposted the offending comment in his followup.
Trouble is, the original commenter--while intemperate--was merely citing widely accepted facts about the life of Mohammed. Warren has been taken to the woodshed.
In societies like the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, Iran, and other oppressive tyrannies gangs, with names like the "Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice", roam about enforcing compliance with the state religion of Islam.
The Taliban would whip men whose beards were not long enough and shoot "immodest" young women through the brain in soccer stadiums.
Today in Canada we find the ironically named "Human Rights Commissions" which are charged with enforcing compliance with the state religion of Liberalism.
Apparently most Canadians are not too concerned that this bunch of unelected bureacrats have effectively snuffed out their fundamental 'human right' to freedom of expression. Specifically, no one in Canada may say anything which is "likely" to subject a member of one of its protected liberal groups to "contempt or hatred".
But unlike the Taliban, Canada is a civilized country which only punishes those who commit such "hate crimes" with fines, jail terms, and lifetime speech bans.
The leading cheerleaders for these il-liberal "Human Rights Commissions" are fascists named Warren Kinsella and Richard Warman.
It is probably just cooincidence that the Liberals have now aligned with Islamists to 'protect' their delicate sensibilities from any criticism such as Ezra Levant's offending cartoons or Mark Steyn's "America Alone" book.
Meanwhile Canada has mandated national registration of firearms as a prelude to confiscating all guns in the hands of private citizens.
But it really isn't too surprising that a government which doesn't trust its subjects with firearms would trust them with something even more dangerous: ideas.