The Shark looked up . . .

. . . And saw Warren Kinsella. Today has been one helluva of day for our heroic battler against old men and mouth-breathing trogs. First he posted about his disagreement with Jonathan Kay and his recent article, at the bottom of which he solicited responses, both supportive and not so much. Then he posted several of those responses, including Jason Cherniak's sad story of childhood woe. Soon after he posted a not-so-supportive e-mail from an anonymous person. So what does Warren do? He takes the e-mail of the sender, harvests the IP address, and tracks it back to the Privy Council Office. Now, before you let that bit of sleuthing impress you, any 14 year old script kiddie can do that. The real issue is that Warren just cannot accept that anyone can disagree with him and, well, still be human. This person had to be tracked down and exposed! And then he posts this:

from the blog of some rightist Einstein who labours under the appellation "Free Born Canuck," and declines to let anyone know his true identity (like most of them, because it means Mom and Dad will rescind their computer privileges), responding to my post that sent Messrs. Kay, Steyn, Levant and the Anti-Muslim Phalangists into spit-flecked apoplexy:

"Is there not some fearful symmetry here that the symbol that killed 600,000 jews is now an inverse symbol for the virtues of limited speech?"

There you go. Along with some wince-inducing purple prose, the latest Far Right Free Speech Poster Boy (FRFSPB, for short) informs us that: (a) "600,000 jews," quote unquote, were killed in the Holocaust, and (b) the swastika is the banner under which those of us who favour reasonable limitations on expression - say, hate propaganda and violent pornography - now march. ( The swastika. In Canada. On those who oppose hate ...oh, you get it.)

And people ask me why Liberals like me win elections so often.

Does anyone really wonder why people want to remain anonymous when dealing with Warren? Really? Because I have to wonder why anyone would want to conduct any discourse with him when he obviously cannot distinguish between private and public and has so little regard for other opinions. I mean, not only can you not disagree with Warren, Warren will go out of his way to mis-characterize your comments (see the misprint in the example above, 600,000 should be 6,000,000 which Warren kindly distorts to mean the guy is a holocaust denier instead of a bad "zero" counter. God forbid someone should make an error!). Good lord, if you criticize someone on Warren's side he will write the most flattering bit of fellatio and then condemn you to hell for uttering a bad word about them. See Warren's latest shot at Ezra Levant, or his vomit inducing support of Richard Warman. But most disgusting is his obvious hypocrisy. Warren must have an IQ above room temp yet he can't seem to tell the difference between an HRC witch hunt and a libel case. Somehow, if there is any way to write something with a bit of spin or distortion to make another look bad, Warren will do it. And that is the real answer to Warren's question, "And people ask me why Liberals like me win elections so often?" The Liberals win so often because they're a bunch of liars, crooks, hypocrites who will say, write, or do ANYTHING to win.

Me, I'd rather have my self-respect.

What certain Liberals have forgotten

The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919, note the very relevant sign

I've been having some fun over at Cherniak's place. Sometimes I wonder how someone as willfully obtuse as Mr. Cherniak passed the Bar. . .

So here's a list of wars, rebellions and civil disobedience movements that somehow changed the way rights were recognized in Canada, BT (Before Trudeau, the year zero that Liberals believe all Human Rights began.):

• The American Revolution - Don't forget the large Canadian participation in, fight against, and effect afterwards.
  
  
• The War of 1812 - Read the section of Effect on Canada, suspicion of Responsible Government, and perhaps the root of suppression of rights in Canada.
  
  
• Rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada
  
  
• Red River and Riel Rebellions
  
  
• Anti-conscription Riots in Quebec
  
  
• Winnipeg General Strike
  
  
• Battle of Ballantyne Pier, On to Ottawa and the Regina Riot
  
  
• Canadian Civil Rights Movement and the Gastown Riot
  

That's all the time I have for now, but that should make a basic case that rights are not derived from pieces of paper but through the willingness of people to defend those rights, sometimes with violence.

One more post on Free Speech

It has been quite the whirlwind of posts from both the left and right on the need either to restrict free speech or to allow it unfettered. It's pretty obvious I am in the latter group. And no, that doesn't mean I support neo-Nazi ideology.

Some of the worst arguments in favour of restricting free speech appear on the blogs of the Big City Lib and Jason Cherniak. Both seem to think that a law that makes it illegal to say or publish something that is "likely" to expose a group to hate or contempt is a good thing. Of course, defining "likely" is difficult, and BCL seems to think that getting nasty e-mails meets the threshold of this law. While it is certainly easy to turn away from the persecution of neo-Nazis under this law, it is the principle that is important, not the target. I will state for the record that I have no sympathy for, nor common ideology with, Nazis. Still, I fear that preventing these people from stating their views is dangerous. It is dangerous not because their ideas have merit but because it is the first step towards muzzling others. In fact it was only the first step. The second step was to go after people with firmly held religious beliefs.

Chris Kempling was fined by his union for writing a letter to the editor of his local newspaper that stated his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. He was invited to testify before a Parliamentary Committed in regards to Bill C-38 and his union again took disciplinary action against him. Only the intervention of NDP MP Bill Siksay and CPC MP Vic Toews ended that bit of oppression. At no time did Kempling advocate violence or hatred, only his religious beliefs which are explicitly protected under the Charter. Kempling's attempts to seek redress in the courts have all failed.

Hugh Owen was convicted by the Saskatchewan Human Right Commission for inciting hatred against homosexuals. His crime: Publishing an ad with references to Bible verses that condemn homosexuality. He didn't even quote them, just referenced them. Thankfully, that case has since been reversed on appeal, but the fact remains that a Tribunal found that the Bible was hate literature.

The third step is attempting to muzzle mainstream journalists for writings that offend.

I could go on with examples but I think my point is clear. What isn't clear is why our centre-left friends are so concerned about this kind of speech. I can only offer this explanation: They don't trust us. They don't trust that the average Canadian can see through specious arguments regarding world Jewry and the Zionist conspiracies. They don't trust us not to lynch gays because a Bible verse says homosexuality is wrong. They don't even trust us not to spend our money on "Beer and Popcorn" when our children have needs. It goes even further. Reading "progressive" blogs it becomes evident that we who do not believe as they do are backward, uneducated, and easily swayed. That we have been convinced to support other politicians than they do is evidence. It is because of our shortcomings that these elite feel that we need protection from words that might sway us, or influence us away from their truth. Simply, we are too stupid to be trusted with free speech.