Dean's World

Some may say freedom is the right to not be offended.

You sound like an Islamaphobe, Dave.

I went to Ezra's blog and he said this:

I had half-expected a combative, missionary-style interrogator. I found, instead, a limp clerk who was just punching the clock. She had done it dozens of times before, and will do it dozens of times again. In a way, that's more terrifying.

And he's right. This woman is just punching a clock and collecting a paycheck. She's giving no thought to the evil, yes evil, that she is doing. And that's worse than being militant.

It's laziness. She has the information available to her, to see what harm she is doing, but she doesn't care to examine it.

That, my friends, is a most dangerous kind of evil. The kind that is dispassionate about what it does. Because passion can be redirected, refocused. In essence, it can be reasonable. And, I suppose, that's Ezra's entire point. The government is trying to decide what is reasonable speech and it doesn't have the right, nor the passion to make sure right it done.

Pennywit,

I did some reading on Wikipedia and I can't make heads or tails of the Canadian right to speech.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

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.

But this section only became Constitutional law in 1982, as part of the Charter and the Constitution Act, 1982.

It sounds like the American First Amendment but I can't be sure. I mean, it's Canadian. They never do things the easy way. If they did they'd petition Washington D.C. to be the 51st state. ;-P

It sounds like the American First Amendment but I can't be sure.

It isn't the same

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Canadian is stated in the affirmative, the US 1st in the negative. IOW, in the US, the State cannot interfere with Free Speech/Press, while in Canada these Rights are granted by the State. The US has the stronger language.

I can't say I am as offended as the rest of you over the Canadian government trying to avoid needless religion-based confrontations.

As most of you know, it's the Arabs I consider offsensive, not their religion. And if I were a believer in anything religious, I too would probably get thoroughly ticked off about somebody mocking whatever it was about that religious stuff that I thought precious.

I've spent more than my share of space on Dean's World blowing steam about what I think are the foibles and chinoiseries of the jesus folk, the mary folk, the moses folk, the icon folk, the muhamed folk, the hussein folk, and any others I could think of at the time.

But that doesn't mean I would draw stupid cartoons about this or that god, goddess or prophet. Because I surely wouldn't want them to draw stupid cartoons about me.

So think on all this, before shouting back,

"Arnold Harris, you of all people are defending censorship!"

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I've spent more than my share of space on Dean's World blowing steam about what I think are the foibles and chinoiseries of the jesus folk, the mary folk, the moses folk, the icon folk, the muhamed folk, the hussein folk, and any others I could think of at the time.

First, if you were in Canada, that paragraph very well could be enough to get YOU before the HRC.

Second, I suppose the most infuriating part of these proceedings is the blatant double standard that applies to Islam. Given the shock value of much anti-Christian art, when was the last time the HRC investigated one of them?

Third, why on earth is the government worried about private citizens expressing opinions? And by opionions, I mean REASONABLE people can disagree on the meanings or interpretation. Allowing a heckler veto is just about the same as gutting any pretense, much less actual practive, of free speach.

That is why in the US I support FIRE (http://thefire.org), even though, quite frankly, most of the speech they are defending is juveline at best, attention seeking grandstanding in the main, and sometimes just mean.

There's a meter maid in Hoboken who got in trouble for holding up two plainclothes detectives who were actively trying to pursue a drug dealer.

The detectives forgot to feed the meter and she wouldn't let them get in their car until she finished writing them a parking ticket, even after they showed her ID and explained the situation.

Maybe not coincidentally, that meter maid looks a lot like the Canadian interrogator. Years of just following orders probably gives people that blank, potato-ish look.

Years of just blindly following idiotic orders probably gives people that blank, potato-ish look.

There, fixed it for ya. Military folk follow orders and I rarely see that kind of person in uniform.

The Canadian is stated in the affirmative, the US 1st in the negative. IOW, in the US, the State cannot interfere with Free Speech/Press, while in Canada these Rights are granted by the State. The US has the stronger language.

This is a classic example of how the founding fathers are STILL revolutionaries. Even today, most people see rights flowing from the government to the people, not the other way around, which is how it damn well should be. The government doesn't tell us what we can do, we tell those jerks what *they're* allowed to do.

Ryan

I had a few favorite moments in the clip. The top one was definitely the comment about the "two fascists" the "one trained in Saudi Arabia" and "the one piling on" which was, of course, the Canadian Government representative. Beautiful language there. Worthy of a t-shirt.

My second favorite moment was when he said "Mohammed is dead." referring to the claim that Mohammed himself had been offended. What a brilliant, profound statement that goes to the absolute heart of the whole "don't offend my religion" argument. For me to accept that my drawing of a cartoon could possibly "offend Mohammed" would mean I would have to accept the premise that Mohammed is somehow still able to be offended. This is essentially demanding that I accept the tenets of a religion I do not adhere to. Which is by far the more offensive of the two acts to any reasoning, thinking, enlightened, liberal person.

Can we take it then, Arnold that you would also disapprove of the reactions of Oriana Fallaci when she interviewed the Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1979 ?

Oriana Fallaci directs her fury toward Islam.

But, of course, it can't happen here . . .

"These sites also offensively elaborate on the reasons for rejecting American women as part of a campaign to promote the desirablity of foreign women. We find this to be most appalling.

Certainly, the existence of this industry is indicative of the sad state of romantic relationships between men and women in North America; however, it by no means should be allowed to continue unregulated."

. . . right?

Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view, Helen.

Unfortunately, however, a 'news source' they just about actually are, since the monosource media routinely repackages and disseminates similar press releases, albeit usually product marketing gussied up as 'news', as a matter of course already, and has been doing so for years.

Which makes your criticism pretty much meaningless.

Now, you find us some actual documentation of actual misrepresentation or other falsity in those press releases, and then we'll actually have some actual reason to take your dismissal of this gross violation of our civil liberties seriously.

Without that, though, all you appear to have is disgruntled, peevish, personally-motivated sexist denialism.

Which makes your criticism pretty much meaningless.

You'll believe what you want to believe. But PRWeb is not a news source. If I paid them $80, they would dutifully announce that aliens had landed in Central Park and were setting up an intergalactic amusement park.

You also get that look when you know that every word you say, every twitch of your eyebrow, is being recorded, and some butt-coverer somewhere high above you is going to look carefully at your reactions for anything he can hang you out to dry to on in order to save his sorry hide from the possible backlash from this event.

Remember the saying? "I didn't say it was your fault, worker beneath me on the totem pole, I said I was blaming you."

Mike,

I never heard that saying, but it's a good one.

I was plowing the same ground here: This is the way Liberty is Slain, by a Death of a Thousand Cuts