I Don't Understand

I am watching CNN and I unable to understand the thinking processes of these reporters.  The Libyans just overthrew Ghaddafi, violently.  They were able to overthrow their oppressive government because they had the guns.  Without guns they would have been slaughtered.  Now they are working towards their first election.  So what's the first thing these reporters say needs to be done in order to ensure a smooth transition to democracy?

Get rid of the guns!

Seriously!  They just fought a fucking revolution and these morons on CNN think the best way to ensure good government is the remove the ability to fight a future revolution!

Update:  I remember why I gave up on CNN - A commercial for Erin Burnett came on and the first words she said were "I became a journalist because I wanted to make a difference..."

Really?  Is that what journalism is now?  Here I thought journalists strove to tell the truth about the news.  Now I remember today's journalists "want to make a difference."

This is a Little Bit Better . . .

Free Speech is the foundation of democracy.  Without it there is no way for people to express any opinion that might affect the votes of citizens.  We restrict free speech in ways that make sense such as libel and slander, although I think Canada's laws are too strict on those. We also restrict speech where it causes immediate harm to another person, such a the hackneyed "fire in a theatre".  I personally think we go too far when we equate the harm of being trampled to death with the harm caused by racists and bigots.  Causation is obvious in the first and it's hard to argue the theatre isn't ablaze during a stampede.  However, the harm is not obvious with racist speech and we have the ability and the duty to refute such arguments.

Obviously, I think the kangaroo courts otherwise known a human rights commissions are an atrocity against the most basic freedoms we have.  The courts are a little better because at least truth is a defence there.  How 1984 is it that truth is not a defence in an HRC  hearing?  Well, this story at least restores a tiny bit of faith in the system:

White supremacist can seek help online in attempt to prove racist claims: court

The court has said that truth is defence and that Mr. Tremaine is allowed to seek evidence of the truth of his statements.  Statements like "Jews are a “parasitic race,” that “blacks are intellectually inferior to whites” and “Hitler was a lot nicer to the Jews than they deserved.”".

What a concept it is to let the truth decide his guilt!  While I still think this guy should be allowed to say whatever he likes until he says, directly, "Kill the Jews!" At that point he is inciting violence and I think criminalizing that is a reasonable restriction on speech.  I am happier, still, to see that Canadian judges have enough confidence in rational society to let this guy argue the ridiculous and have the crown refute it.

That is a little bit better.