PDA

View Full Version : Canadians, I hope you're deeply ashamed of your government...



Bluesman
12 Jan 08,, 23:31
...and enormously proud of Mr. Ezra Lavant, a true hero.

Watch and learn what valor in the face of unjustly wielded power looks like. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28582_Outrage_of_the_Week-_Canadian_Publisher_Persecuted_for_Mindcrime&only)

Bluesman
13 Jan 08,, 02:37
No comments, then? Are we to assume the same admiration of Mr. Lavant that I have, as well as the contempt for Canada's version of 'human rights' by all WABbits?

Or are there some among us that approve of what's being done in the name of Canadian law: government coercion to stifle freeborn people's right to free speech and a free press?

I want to know: who's outraged, and who approves?

Bluesman
13 Jan 08,, 02:38
From Steyn (who, incidentally, is also to be hauled before the bar for offending Muslims):


[Mark Steyn]


I've been in the wilds away from the Internet all day, but I wanted to draw attention to this - yesterday's interrogation of my old boss Ezra Levant by one of Canada's many "human rights commissions" for publishing the Danish cartoons. Much to the irritation of the Alberta thought police, Ezra has posted portions of the video at his site (start at the top and scroll down - or, if that's too busy, try radio station CHQR). There are three sections, starting with Ezra's opening statement, which points out that his freedom of speech is not the gift of Canadian bureaucrats but an inalienable right bolstered by 800 years of English Common Law as well as more modish documentation such as the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Then come two sections - one in which "human rights agent" Shirlene McGovern quizzes him on his intent in publishing the cartoons, and another in which she raises the fear that his publishing them could lead to violence against Muslims “particularly in today’s world post-9/ 11 that has made a number of Muslims more vulnerable to hatred and contempt”.Ezra's answer speaks for itself, but Ms McGovern's question reminds me of a passage from Melanie Phillips' book Londonistan:


Minority-rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority.

Ms McGovern, a blandly unexceptional bureaucrat, is a classic example of the syndrome. No "vulnerable" Canadian Muslim has been attacked over the cartoons, but the cartoonists had to go into hiding, and a gang of Muslim youths turned up at their children's grade schools, and Muslim rioters around the world threatened death to anyone who published them, and even managed to kill a few folks who had nothing to do with them. Nonetheless, upon receiving a complaint from a Saudi imam trained at an explicitly infidelophobic academy and who's publicly called for the introduction of sharia in Canada, Shirlene McGovern decides that the purely hypothetical backlash to Muslims takes precedence over any actual backlash against anybody else.

Thus the unending valse macabre of our times, as the supposedly progressive forces of tolerance are whirled around the floor by the avowedly intolerant. Ezra is rightly contemptuous of these "human rights commissions". Canadians should be ashamed of this show trial.

Capt Bluesman
13 Jan 08,, 02:42
I want to know: who's outraged, and who approves?

He fights the good fight. He is a true son of freedom. I serve in his cause.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jan 08,, 02:49
I want to know: who's outraged, and who approves?MSgt,

The truth is "no one cares." As much as I am disgusted about this entire issue, I can walk the streets of Ottawa and I will guarantee you that 1 out of 100 people knows what's going on. That's even more disgusting. I don't care if they side with the HRC or Lavant but they don't know nor do they care to know.

bonehead
13 Jan 08,, 03:03
Well. That explains why the government is able to do such outrageous actions. Apathy of the masses gives the government absolute power, and we all know what that leads to.

Parihaka
13 Jan 08,, 03:14
It's the same as bureaucrats everywhere. Her change in posture as he outlined her crimes against free speech was amusing to watch: here she is, the defender of freedoms cracking down on the evil oppressor, only to be shown up as the exact opposite.
This battle is already over, and Mr Lavant has won: that bureaucrat is a corpse walking.

Exarecr
13 Jan 08,, 16:43
In Canada everyone must walk in a straight line. When out walking they must never look at or talk to anyone lest somebody be offended. Any ideas or thoughts are encouraged to be inclusive of everything. If little Johnny has no legs and wants to play on his school hockey team, it's much fairer to cancel the hockey season than not allow johnny to be on the team. If little Jane wants to be a Boy Scout, it's better to to drop the "Boy" and call them Scouts and include girls. Never mind if boys need mentors or time to be with other boys or persons of his gender to communicate and discuss "male" problems with.(Girl Scouts Canada continues on ) I guess it's okay to have same sex mentors for girls. In Canada's Universities quota's have so skewed the enrollment numbers most Universities are considering a white male only enrolment policy to get this group of men back into the Medical,Legal,and Educational systems where their presence is almost non-existent. In Canada female fire fighters, cops and members of the Forces have entrance physical requirements that are so low compared to their male compatriots peoples lives can and are put to risk in the name of equality Canada style. In Canada our much praised Health system ensures all Hospital procedures or treatments for females are free. Men must pay for blood tests and other "male procedures". Hell, they even give single females on welfare more money than a male gets. Yes I am deeply ashamed of Canada and the way politicians here loudly bray shamelessly how superior and equality driven Canada is. Now after saying all this damned if I wouldn't fight to the last bullet for this country not to keep it the way it is but to see change and common sense return. The sad state of affairs the Human Rights Commission champions is only minutely more destructive to Canada's future than the current immigration crises we are facing is. It,s really quite simple. Come on over if you want to live in Canada,just leave your dirty laundry and politics back where you came from.

glyn
13 Jan 08,, 17:13
In Canada everyone must walk in a straight line. When out walking they must never look at or talk to anyone lest somebody be offended. Any ideas or thoughts are encouraged to be inclusive of everything. If little Johnny has no legs and wants to play on his school hockey team, it's much fairer to cancel the hockey season than not allow johnny to be on the team. If little Jane wants to be a Boy Scout, it's better to to drop the "Boy" and call them Scouts and include girls. Never mind if boys need mentors or time to be with other boys or persons of his gender to communicate and discuss "male" problems with.(Girl Scouts Canada continues on ) I guess it's okay to have same sex mentors for girls. In Canada's Universities quota's have so skewed the enrollment numbers most Universities are considering a white male only enrolment policy to get this group of men back into the Medical,Legal,and Educational systems where their presence is almost non-existent. In Canada female fire fighters, cops and members of the Forces have entrance physical requirements that are so low compared to their male compatriots peoples lives can and are put to risk in the name of equality Canada style. In Canada our much praised Health system ensures all Hospital procedures or treatments for females are free. Men must pay for blood tests and other "male procedures". Hell, they even give single females on welfare more money than a male gets. Yes I am deeply ashamed of Canada and the way politicians here loudly bray shamelessly how superior and equality driven Canada is. Now after saying all this damned if I wouldn't fight to the last bullet for this country not to keep it the way it is but to see change and common sense return. The sad state of affairs the Human Rights Commission champions is only minutely more destructive to Canada's future than the current immigration crises we are facing is. It,s really quite simple. Come on over if you want to live in Canada,just leave your dirty laundry and politics back where you came from.

If you had written 'UK' instead of Canada, I would not be able to dispute a single word.

Canmoore
13 Jan 08,, 17:54
The Canadian people have lost faith in the government, as a result as OOE already pointed out an extremely small percentage of people know what is going on. The rest just go about there daily lives in total ignorance of what is really going on...

And they are happy with not knowing.. as long as they get there paychecks and buy there toys they are happy.

The problem with this is that newly landed immigrants who are used to knowing what is going on are on the ball. And as we can see, they are using the system to there advantage.

Eventually something is going to give, and Canadians must be violently shaken out of there slumber and realize that we need to take back our country.

Dr Fu Manchu
13 Jan 08,, 20:03
Right there! So what's new? As always, everything gets deconstructed to immigration(especially of the colored types). Why, lets blame immigrants for the recent Air Canada jet's emergency landing.

Guess who are the beneficiaries of most govt jobs? Gee, I wonder what color is their skin? Who are the lead players of the multi-billion scams like adscam?

Who benefits most socialised medicine? Could they be old white folks who are disposed of by their off-springs to some old age homes? Here a friggin plan. Privatise the friggin healthcare, then see the blue-blooded fourth generation WASPS whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and you get the picture.

While at it, get rid of the school boards and introduce vouchers. Screw affirmative action, Asian males benefit the least from such policies. Oh, lets get rid of govt departments, then watch the froth coming outta of the great white masses mouths.

Lest we forget about the French Canadians and the culture of entitlement.

Now lets get back to the original question raised. Who(Majority) votes for the politicians who enable hiring of these bureaucratic control freaks? Just look under a fish's belly.

glyn
13 Jan 08,, 20:35
Well, that has vented a lot of bile from your system. Feeling better now? If so, look at what was written by exarecr, and then ask yourself what on earth your reply had to do with it. You used it as an opportunity to bring 'race' into the equation when it was clearly un-necessary to do so. :( Are the chips on your shoulders feeling weighty?:confused:

smilingassassin
17 Jan 08,, 18:11
As a white person in Canada I can tell you race has abso-freaking-lutely jackshit to do with the problems in Canada. Political correctness IS however a VERY big factor in the half assed laws we have here. If any race is discriminated against in Canada, its the whites, and we are so damn sensitive to the other races we simply won't stand up to the abuse....

Trooth
17 Jan 08,, 19:22
My tuppence worth :-

Clearly Levant is within his rights to publish what he published. Whether or not he should have done is up to his own conscience. However other people have the right to be offended and if there is an avenue for them to complain to they have the right to make use of that system.

It looks more to me as though the Human Rights Commision needs an overhaul in Canada (or perhaps Alberta not sure of the structure) because the first step in the process should be to see if there is a case to answer under Canadian law. If there is then it should be followed through the law courts, not through a quasi-official body. The cart is before the horse by the looks of it.

But as for the burning outrage? Well there are always test cases that provoke changes in bureacracy. This, hopefully for Canada, will be one of them.

Bluesman
21 Jan 08,, 20:04
A brilliant column from my new hero, Lavant:


What a strange place Canada is
EZRA LEVANT

Special to Globe and Mail Update

January 21, 2008 at 12:32 AM EST

A few days ago, I was interrogated for 90 minutes by Shirlene McGovern, an officer of the government of Alberta. I have been accused of hurting people's feelings because, two years ago, I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the Western Standard magazine.

Ms. McGovern's business card said she was a "Human Rights Officer." What a perfectly Orwellian title.

Early in her interrogation, she said "I always ask people … what was your intent and purpose of your article?"

It wasn't even a question about what we had published in the magazine. It was a question about my private thoughts. I asked her why my private feelings were of interest to the government. She said, very calmly, that they would be a factor taken into account by the government in determining whether or not I was guilty.

Officer McGovern said it as calmly as if I had asked her what time it was.

When she's doing government interrogations, she always asks people about their thoughts.

It was so banal, so routine. When she walked in, she seemed happy. With a smile, she reached out her hand to shake mine. I refused — to me, nothing could have been more incongruous. Would I warmly greet a police officer who arrested me as a suspect in a crime? Then why should I do so for a thought crime? This was not normal; I would not normalize it with the pleasantries of polite society.

This was not a high-school debating tournament where Human Rights Officer McGovern and I were equals, enjoying a shared interest in politics and publishing. I was there because I was compelled to be there by the government, and if I answered Officer McGovern's political questions unsatisfactorily, the government could fine me thousands of dollars and order me to publicly apologize for holding the wrong views.

I told her that the complaint process itself was a punishment. Even if I was eventually acquitted, I would still lose — hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills. That's not an accident, that's one of the tools of these commissions. Every journalist in the country has been taught a lesson: Censor yourself now, or be put through a costly wringer. I said all this and then Officer McGovern replied, "You're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure."

But that's not for sure, is it? We're only entitled to our opinions now if they don't offend some very easily offended people.

One of the complainants against me is someone I would describe as a radical Muslim imam, Syed Soharwardy. He grew up in the madrassas of Pakistan and he lectures on the Saudi circuit. He advocates sharia law for all countries, including Canada. His website is rife with Islamic supremacism — offensive to many Canadian Jews, gentiles, women and gays. But his sensitivities — his Saudi-Pakistani values — have been offended by me.

And so now the secular government of Alberta is enforcing his fatwa against the cartoons.

It's the same for Mohamed Elmasry, the complainant against Maclean's magazine for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. Egyptian-born Elmasry has publicly said that any adult Jew in Israel is a legitimate target for a terrorist attack, a grossly offensive statement.

Both the Canadian and B.C. Human Rights Commissions are now hearing his complaints against Maclean's.

How did it come to be that rough and, I would say, bigoted men such as Mr. Soharwardy and Mr. Elmasry could, by simply claiming that their tender feelings were hurt, sic a government bureaucracy on a magazine, or anyone for that matter?

On this point, I agree with Mr. Soharwardy and Mr. Elmasry: I blame the Jews.

A generation ago, illiberal elements in the "official" Jewish community pressed Canadian governments to introduce laws limiting free speech. The targets of those laws were invariably poor, unorganized, harmless neo-Nazi cranks and conspiracy theorists such as Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra — nobodies who were turned into international celebrities when they were prosecuted for their thought crimes.

But now come Mr. Elmasry and Mr. Soharwardy and their ilk, using the very precedents set by the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Before Mr. Soharwardy went to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, he went to the Calgary Police Service and demanded that they arrest me. He's done that three times now, and they've rejected him every time. But he only had to ask the willing enforcers of the human rights commission once.

What a strange place Canada is in 2008, where the police care more about human rights than the human rights commissions do, where fundamentalist Muslims use hate-speech laws drafted by secular Jews, and where a government bureaucrat can interrogate a publisher for 90 minutes, and be shocked when he won't shake her hand in greeting.

Ezra Levant, an Alberta lawyer and author, was publisher of the now-defunct Western Standard magazine from 2004 to 2007.

And Trooth, do I misunderstand you, or are you saying that it's not really the HRCs existence that's troubling to you, but merely their outlook and their process? That they got this case wrong, but, because it's LEGAL, it's perfectly legit to be in the business they're in?

dalem
21 Jan 08,, 20:07
As I've said before, no one has protections on free speech like America.

For now, anyway.

-dale

Trooth
22 Jan 08,, 14:04
And Trooth, do I misunderstand you, or are you saying that it's not really the HRCs existence that's troubling to you, but merely their outlook and their process? That they got this case wrong, but, because it's LEGAL, it's perfectly legit to be in the business they're in?

Here is their mandate :-

Alberta Human Rights & Citizenship Commission - Mandate and Function of the Commission (http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/ahrcc/Mandate_Function_of_Comm.asp)

Lots of words, but the summary is it's motivation is :-




to foster equality, and
reduce discrimination for Albertans



Which it claims to achieve in the following areas :-




Publications and Notices
Goods, Services, Accommodation and Facilities
Tenancy
Equal Pay
Employment and Employment Practices
Applications and Advertising re Employment
Membership in Trade Unions, Employers' Organizations or Occupational Associations.



Now, i can't see how publishing an article about Mohammed or anybody else comes under that remit. I don't see anything in their remit that says "to make sure people aren't offended". What Lavant has not done is discriminate in his publication. Therefore i think that the HRC has completely overstepped it's remit.

If anything what it has done is end any usefulness of the HRC because if i was an Albertan i would take a hint from the article from Lavant that you published Bluesman and complain about the various writings of those complaining about the cartoons. Clog the HRC of A up with such cases and it will get it's neck pulled in.

As to should the HRC exist? That's up to the people of Canada to decide. Do they feel that everyone gets a fair shake of the stick? It's easy for me to say "no such things have the opportunity to Orwellian mis-uses (as in this case)", because i am a White Anglo-Saxon Male with a reasonably neutral accent. Hence I carry nothing before me into most encounters in huge tracts of global society that have been moulded around people like me. If everyone in Canada regardless of their sex, colour, ethnic background or what they sound like can say the same then it doesn't need to exist.

entropy
22 Jan 08,, 15:50
As I've said before, no one has protections on free speech like America.

For now, anyway.

-dale

I have to be very careful with what I say here in Belgium. I risk hatred of the people, dire consequences for my career, a lawsuit, or murder.

entropy
22 Jan 08,, 15:54
No comments, then? Are we to assume the same admiration of Mr. Lavant that I have, as well as the contempt for Canada's version of 'human rights' by all WABbits?

Or are there some among us that approve of what's being done in the name of Canadian law: government coercion to stifle freeborn people's right to free speech and a free press?

I want to know: who's outraged, and who approves?

That's nothing, sir. Nothing yet.


Young immigrant garbage shooting at police officers with rocket lauchers, killing several and wounding more than hundred, while the police has orders not to fire a single bullet to not offend the poor discriminated youth, that's something.

And me receiving threats for saying in public that the people responsible should be shot.

Bluesman
22 Jan 08,, 22:53
Here is their mandate :-

Alberta Human Rights & Citizenship Commission - Mandate and Function of the Commission (http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/ahrcc/Mandate_Function_of_Comm.asp)

Lots of words, but the summary is it's motivation is :-



Which it claims to achieve in the following areas :-



Now, i can't see how publishing an article about Mohammed or anybody else comes under that remit. I don't see anything in their remit that says "to make sure people aren't offended". What Lavant has not done is discriminate in his publication. Therefore i think that the HRC has completely overstepped it's remit.

If anything what it has done is end any usefulness of the HRC because if i was an Albertan i would take a hint from the article from Lavant that you published Bluesman and complain about the various writings of those complaining about the cartoons. Clog the HRC of A up with such cases and it will get it's neck pulled in.

As to should the HRC exist? That's up to the people of Canada to decide. Do they feel that everyone gets a fair shake of the stick? It's easy for me to say "no such things have the opportunity to Orwellian mis-uses (as in this case)", because i am a White Anglo-Saxon Male with a reasonably neutral accent. Hence I carry nothing before me into most encounters in huge tracts of global society that have been moulded around people like me. If everyone in Canada regardless of their sex, colour, ethnic background or what they sound like can say the same then it doesn't need to exist.

But it WILL exist, as long as somebody gets to lord their petty (and sometimes profound) power over their fellow man, whether it be justified or not, and whether they have the legal excuse or not doesn't in any way affect the question of the morality of it, as seen in the context of the natural rights of all human beings.

This is the attempt - no, actually, it's now an established FACT - to criminalize certain THOUGHTS. I gives a good goddam' whether it's legal, in the narrow sense that some bureaucrat can point to a duly-enacted law that gives him the excuse (I did not and would not say the 'right') to violate the freedoms that come to us by the simple fact of our existence.

This is WRONG. It should be resisted, and to any extreme that an out-of-control state wishes to push it. Resistance to the system, NOT counter-use of it, in a misguided attempt to break it. Because I can see what would happen: as a government agency that can prove it's got way too much work, it'll request more people, a bigger budget, possibly even a cabinet ministry eventually. All of a sudden, it's not an on-the-ropes puny little office with make-believe authority, it's a massive bureacratic monster, more powerful and much less answerable than before (and it seems altogether too powerful and unaccountable even at THIS stage).

Furthermore, trying to 'win' your case is not resistance (even if the government's 'win' rate wasn't exactly 100%, as is the case), but the granting of legitimacy to something that should be spit on in contempt, rather than standing meekly before it, awaiting the inevitable unfavorable judgement it never had any natural right to make in the first place.

No, what SHOULD be done is to utterly ignore every single thing that ever issues from its insatiable maw. When they summon you to appear, go about your business as if they had NO standing to order you to do ANYthing - because they should NOT. If this is followed by a warning of consequences, make no attempt to protect yourself - no attorney, no alibi or justification, no deal or plea-bargain. And finally, if they attempt to FORCE your compliance, pull a gun and blow the head off the first stormtrooper that tries to take either your liberty or property, because you refused to bow down to the Thought Police. And prepare to die for a principle that's worth your life to defend.

That's what our ancestors did, and they are immortal for their bravery in the face of unjust power. I admire Lavant because he refuses to be intimidated into asking, please, sir, may I be allowed to apologize, and I swear I'll never do it again. If they take ANY action to silence him, he should re-double the 'offensive' speech in volume, amplitutde, depth, breadth and reach. If they attempt to fine him, he should say come and get it, if you're ready to fight to collect it. If they attempt to make him serve time, he should treat the people that come to get him as mere kidnappers, and defend himself from them.

Those are the acts of free men that do not recognize any government's power over their own conscience, or their rights. THAT is RESISTANCE.

Repatriated Canuck
23 Jan 08,, 01:47
Well said Bluesman!

I hope he doesn't get in any **** at all, he does not deserve that.

Trooth
23 Jan 08,, 12:58
But it WILL exist, as long as somebody gets to lord their petty (and sometimes profound) power over their fellow man, whether it be justified or not, and whether they have the legal excuse or not doesn't in any way affect the question of the morality of it, as seen in the context of the natural rights of all human beings.

This is the attempt - no, actually, it's now an established FACT - to criminalize certain THOUGHTS. I gives a good goddam' whether it's legal, in the narrow sense that some bureaucrat can point to a duly-enacted law that gives him the excuse (I did not and would not say the 'right') to violate the freedoms that come to us by the simple fact of our existence.

This is WRONG. It should be resisted, and to any extreme that an out-of-control state wishes to push it. Resistance to the system, NOT counter-use of it, in a misguided attempt to break it. Because I can see what would happen: as a government agency that can prove it's got way too much work, it'll request more people, a bigger budget, possibly even a cabinet ministry eventually. All of a sudden, it's not an on-the-ropes puny little office with make-believe authority, it's a massive bureacratic monster, more powerful and much less answerable than before (and it seems altogether too powerful and unaccountable even at THIS stage).

Furthermore, trying to 'win' your case is not resistance (even if the government's 'win' rate wasn't exactly 100%, as is the case), but the granting of legitimacy to something that should be spit on in contempt, rather than standing meekly before it, awaiting the inevitable unfavorable judgement it never had any natural right to make in the first place.

No, what SHOULD be done is to utterly ignore every single thing that ever issues from its insatiable maw. When they summon you to appear, go about your business as if they had NO standing to order you to do ANYthing - because they should NOT. If this is followed by a warning of consequences, make no attempt to protect yourself - no attorney, no alibi or justification, no deal or plea-bargain. And finally, if they attempt to FORCE your compliance, pull a gun and blow the head off the first stormtrooper that tries to take either your liberty or property, because you refused to bow down to the Thought Police. And prepare to die for a principle that's worth your life to defend.

That's what our ancestors did, and they are immortal for their bravery in the face of unjust power. I admire Lavant because he refuses to be intimidated into asking, please, sir, may I be allowed to apologize, and I swear I'll never do it again. If they take ANY action to silence him, he should re-double the 'offensive' speech in volume, amplitutde, depth, breadth and reach. If they attempt to fine him, he should say come and get it, if you're ready to fight to collect it. If they attempt to make him serve time, he should treat the people that come to get him as mere kidnappers, and defend himself from them.

Those are the acts of free men that do not recognize any government's power over their own conscience, or their rights. THAT is RESISTANCE.

Does that speech come with free popcorn? :)

Yes, yes, let us pick and choose the laws that we follow. Because that way, when the gun battle happens and the neighbours tut and say nice things about you to the media - about how unexpected it all was and how you seemed so happy yesterday as sat on the porch, polishing your gun and reading that book on Larry Flynt - nobody will know what the principle was that brought out the guns - unless you went all "a la mode" and put your pre-shooting rant onto YouTube by way of a trailer for the feature presentation. The first time anyone hears about it will be when some wife and child of a salaried employee - just trying to uphold the law and do his bit for his community - becomes a widow and fatherless.

Aye, that is a great response in a civilised society. *******s to all that process, the fact that the people of Alberta could get the law changed if they wanted to. I sympathise that the process is longer winded and would probably only make a deleted hour on the DVD release of your movie but hey that is civilisation - that is why there will always be room for lawyers.

In my opinion Mr Lavant's opening remarks in his "interrogation" were a lot more effective than the polemic from your soapbox above mate - his speech was about how the HRC is infringing not just his perceived rights, but also his rights as enshrined in constitutions and precedant deep within the history of Canada's founding. Whilst i fully agree with your comments about rights over laws, there is nothing as powerful as precedant and he showed loads of precedant for being able to do what he did and why his "integerrogator" has none.

He didn't need some Braveheart nonsense to make his point.

So i will return to my quiet, black and white, made for text, direct to internet, low budget release. Please don't turn the volume up, some of the WABbers are trying to sleep.

The HRC's remit seems to be about jobs, housing; the material facts of living. There seems nothing in it's remit that has anything to do with the complaint it is responding to hence it should have ruled with its rubber stamp when the form came in that "no case to answer" or "not for us - try the legal system". The fact that it didn't shows that the HFC needs to be reviewed (probably disbanded and if reformed given a name such as "Department to ensure all canadians get a chance at a job and somewhere to live." which enshrines what it is supposed to do.

The good that is coming of this is that Mr Lavant is making his objection known and that - instead of wrapping his tie around his head and yelling "I want my country to love me as much as i love it" followed no doubt by "Yippee Kai yay" to cover the generational divide - he made the system look stupid and was sharp enough on his feet to make an effective point about why it doesn't matter what he was thinking when he wrote something and about the proud traditions in Canada and its previous heritage that the "interrogation" was trampling all over.

All of which would have been drowned out by the HE grenades in the cinema release.

ChrisF202
23 Jan 08,, 14:16
As a white person in Canada I can tell you race has abso-freaking-lutely jackshit to do with the problems in Canada. Political correctness IS however a VERY big factor in the half assed laws we have here. If any race is discriminated against in Canada, its the whites, and we are so damn sensitive to the other races we simply won't stand up to the abuse....
Its not much different here in the US ... come to think of it a few places might even be worse (ex. San Francisco or Burlington, Vermont)

Bluesman
23 Jan 08,, 14:38
Does that speech come with free popcorn? :)

Yes, yes, let us pick and choose the laws that we follow.
Yes, yes, LET'S. That's what free men DO. Unjust laws, whether enacted through some process that has a patina of legitimacy or not is still UNJUST, and if those laws are dangerous enough to our natural rights and inherent freedoms, they SHOULD be disobeyed.

Unless you'd like to make the case that the people running the Underground Railroad were WRONG.


Because that way, when the gun battle happens and the neighbours tut and say nice things about you to the media - about how unexpected it all was and how you seemed so happy yesterday as sat on the porch, polishing your gun and reading that book on Larry Flynt - nobody will know what the principle was that brought out the guns - unless you went all "a la mode" and put your pre-shooting rant onto YouTube by way of a trailer for the feature presentation.
I bet it wouldn't be that much of a mystery.


The first time anyone hears about it will be when some wife and child of a salaried employee - just trying to uphold the law and do his bit for his community - becomes a widow and fatherless.
I think you'll find that married fathers were the majority of the people putting other people into ovens all across Europe. They have a choice, too, and if one or another Mountie chooses not to be a jack-booted tool of an oppressive state, I applaud him for it. But if he just wants to follow his sick orders, he gets what he gets.


Aye, that is a great response in a civilised society.
A civilized society does not haul writers before some kangaroo court to extract money and apologies from them. And ORDERLY society may, and you seem to prefer that to freedom. May your chains rest lightly upon you, slave.


*******s to all that process, the fact that the people of Alberta could get the law changed if they wanted to. I sympathise that the process is longer winded and would probably only make a deleted hour on the DVD release of your movie but hey that is civilisation - that is why there will always be room for lawyers.
And whom do you suppose MADE this process that has given Canadians this abominbation in the first place, eh? Wasn't writers, mate; it was LAWYERS.


In my opinion Mr Lavant's opening remarks in his "interrogation" were a lot more effective than the polemic from your soapbox above mate - his speech was about how the HRC is infringing not just his perceived rights, but also his rights as enshrined in constitutions and precedant deep within the history of Canada's founding.
I agree that he's much more well-spoken and effective than I am. That's why he's an accomplished editor of a national publication, and I just fulminate on our little message board.


Whilst i fully agree with your comments about rights over laws, there is nothing as powerful as precedant and he showed loads of precedant for being able to do what he did and why his "integerrogator" has none.
And at the end of the day, it will likely avail him naught. He's fighting POWER, COMPULSION, from a body that seeks to strip him of his rights, even his THOUGHTS. When it comes down to it, the state can CRUSH him, and it will, if it thinks it can get away with it without danger to itself. That's something Captain Parker and his Minutemen understood, something I understand, and something I just don't think you 'get'.


He didn't need some Braveheart nonsense to make his point.
And what do you suppose Mel and the Micks SHOULD have done, when oppressed? An appeal to the legality of Longshanks' acts likely would not have gotten past, 'M'Lud, I object to...'


So i will return to my quiet, black and white, made for text, direct to internet, low budget release. Please don't turn the volume up, some of the WABbers are trying to sleep.
Meanwhile, the state notices your lack of willingness to do ANYthing to defend your rights from outrages, so long as, you know, they're all LEGAL, and everything. And as you wake up tomorrow, the faceless bureaucrat has been up for HOURS already, diligently crafting the latest incursion into your perogotives, 'for your own good'.


The HRC's remit seems to be about jobs, housing; the material facts of living. There seems nothing in it's remit that has anything to do with the complaint it is responding to hence it should have ruled with its rubber stamp when the form came in that "no case to answer" or "not for us - try the legal system". The fact that it didn't shows that the HFC needs to be reviewed (probably disbanded and if reformed given a name such as "Department to ensure all canadians get a chance at a job and somewhere to live." which enshrines what it is supposed to do.
You simply do not understand th nature of government power. It is like water, or rust. It relentlessly applies pressure at all points, seeking a way into places it isn't currently. When it finds a weak point, in it comes. It's a natural force.


The good that is coming of this is that Mr Lavant is making his objection known and that - instead of wrapping his tie around his head and yelling "I want my country to love me as much as i love it" followed no doubt by "Yippee Kai yay" to cover the generational divide - he made the system look stupid and was sharp enough on his feet to make an effective point about why it doesn't matter what he was thinking when he wrote something and about the proud traditions in Canada and its previous heritage that the "interrogation" was trampling all over.
And do you imagine that if the state does not perceive a mailed fist behind the legal brief that there will be ANY dimuntion of its new-found power? Certainly NOT. They will go on and on until COMPELLED by force at least equal to its own to begin respecting the rights of individuals. In the end, it comes down to WILL, and if the state's corporate will to use compulsion is not matched or exceeded by the People's collective will to resist it, by force if it goes that far, this is just the beginning of the outrages that can be imagined, and if that bureaucrat can imagine it, he'll try it, eventually.


All of which would have been drowned out by the HE grenades in the cinema release.
Yuk it up, girly-man, but that attitude is a pre-condition for slavery. Your masters absolutely count on it.

texacali
24 Jan 08,, 16:25
Bluesman, if you ever get in my neighborhood, let us split a bottle and put Memphis Slim on.

Trooth
25 Jan 08,, 00:38
Yes, yes, LET'S. That's what free men DO. Unjust laws, whether enacted through some process that has a patina of legitimacy or not is still UNJUST, and if those laws are dangerous enough to our natural rights and inherent freedoms, they SHOULD be disobeyed.

OK, so to disobey this law he keeps publishing as he sees fit. Not shooting people.



Unless you'd like to make the case that the people running the Underground Railroad were WRONG.

So, to recap you are equating 2008 Alberta with 1930's Germany (and environs)? Whilst i see where you are trying to go (totalitarian state and all that). You are basically advocating an armed resistance to laws you don't like in a democratic, civilised, secular society. What next a bombing at the HRC HQ 'cos it's (to paraphrase) "the only language they understand"?



I bet it wouldn't be that much of a mystery.

I am sure the people who sit in log cabins fretting over the silent whisper of the black helicopters think their message will spread like wildfire after their noble sacrifice too.



I think you'll find that married fathers were the majority of the people putting other people into ovens all across Europe. They have a choice, too, and if one or another Mountie chooses not to be a jack-booted tool of an oppressive state, I applaud him for it. But if he just wants to follow his sick orders, he gets what he gets.


Buddy, take a step back and really think about what you are saying. Not the blood and guts stuff, but the essence and the context. You are, essentially, saying that if there are laws, in a democratic country, that you don't believe in, your (seemingly first and only) recourse would be to kill the lawmen that came for you under said laws (which seems to be your response if you were in Mr Lavant's position). Is that what you are really saying - or are you just playing to the crowd - because that has some pretty unpleasant connotations.



A civilized society does not haul writers before some kangaroo court to extract money and apologies from them. And ORDERLY society may, and you seem to prefer that to freedom. May your chains rest lightly upon you, slave.

A civilised society has created an organisation, and nothing that you have mentioned changes that other than one or two dead people. Rather than a Braveheart style speech, you have made one akin to Samuel L. Jackson's character in Deep Blue Sea. Very empowering, very motivating up until he gets eaten part way through giving it. The sharks are still very much there. It will still take the people to change it, using the process that exists to do so.



And whom do you suppose MADE this process that has given Canadians this abominbation in the first place, eh? Wasn't writers, mate; it was LAWYERS.

Lawyers, politicians, people who draft bad terms of reference. But i will bet that all of the decision makers were Canadian and the last i looked Canada has a process for changing all this kind of stuff.



I agree that he's much more well-spoken and effective than I am. That's why he's an accomplished editor of a national publication, and I just fulminate on our little message board.

Go on, if you drop the ego a little, the messageboard might look a bit bigger :)



And at the end of the day, it will likely avail him naught. He's fighting POWER, COMPULSION, from a body that seeks to strip him of his rights, even his THOUGHTS. When it comes down to it, the state can CRUSH him, and it will, if it thinks it can get away with it without danger to itself. That's something Captain Parker and his Minutemen understood, something I understand, and something I just don't think you 'get'.

I get very well what he is fighting but i disagree the time has come to send him a care package from Armalite. However it would be interesting to see what our Canadian friends on WAB are doing on his behalf.



And what do you suppose Mel and the Micks SHOULD have done, when oppressed?

I love the reference to "Mel and the Micks", a nice piece of Gibson slighting satire that i am sure you are subtle enough to have meant and one i wholly approve of. :biggrin:

Wallace et al had no options left, no one to take up their cause, no route to travel. Lavant has had his "interrogation" put up on YouTube to be debated by you and me - we don't need to be on the Irish hilltop infront of "Mel the historian".



Meanwhile, the state notices your lack of willingness to do ANYthing to defend your rights from outrages, so long as, you know, they're all LEGAL, and everything. And as you wake up tomorrow, the faceless bureaucrat has been up for HOURS already, diligently crafting the latest incursion into your perogotives, 'for your own good'.

Indeed and they may well be sitting there looking at the motivational poster on their wall of "a man's face being smashed by a boot, again and again and again", as per the imagery of the iconic novel, however i don't believe that Alberta has reached that level yet.



And do you imagine that if the state does not perceive a mailed fist behind the legal brief that there will be ANY dimuntion of its new-found power? Certainly NOT. They will go on and on until COMPELLED by force at least equal to its own to begin respecting the rights of individuals. In the end, it comes down to WILL, and if the state's corporate will to use compulsion is not matched or exceeded by the People's collective will to resist it, by force if it goes that far, this is just the beginning of the outrages that can be imagined, and if that bureaucrat can imagine it, he'll try it, eventually.


Or possibly a bill will pass through the legislative assembly in Edmonton because of a ground swell of support from Canadians who are as opposed as you are.



Yuk it up, girly-man,


******

Bluesman
25 Jan 08,, 06:51
Okay, so you mis-read what I clearly wrote, to wit: violence is NOT my first recourse, only that force should be met with force, because at THAT point, not before, anything else means that what's being done to you is being done with VIOLENCE, and at that point, not before, you are justified in doing literally anything at all to defend yourself.

For all your deference to processes and systems and whatnot, this is the simple truth: EVERY law is backed by the compulsion of a state, and if that state has a monopoly on violent means, it WILL USE IT to strip the People of their rights. And this is an iron, unbreakable LAW OF NATURE.


OK, so to disobey this law he keeps publishing as he sees fit. Not shooting people.)?
And that's what I said. Ignore ANYthing ('member when I wrote that? It's right there...) that issues from these fascist thugs that seek to trample your rights, because if you grant them permission to take from you your natural freedom without any notion of resisting their compulsion, they won't need to threaten any violence. But if you do ANYthing except knuckle under and take it, eventually, it comes down to which side can FORCE the other to give over.


So, to recap you are equating 2008 Alberta with 1930's Germany (and environs)?
Certainly not. I was talking about the antebellum American organization that defied an unjust but perfectly legal set of laws to take runaway slaves into free territory. Those people BROKE THE LAW, and were perfectly justified in doing so. So, please, don't come at me with a justification of this travesty because it was 'approved'. I don't CARE whether unjust laws were enacted through the same process as a just law; the only part that determines whether I'll disobey it is if its unjust, and YEAH, each of us gets to make that call for ourselves, and then we should be prepared to face the consequences either way.


Whilst i see where you are trying to go (totalitarian state and all that). You are basically advocating an armed resistance to laws you don't like in a democratic, civilised, secular society.
Not laws I 'don't like', laws that unjustly oppress me, that strip me of my rights. You seem to think I'll kill highway patrolmen that pull me over in a skool zone when I'm late for work. NO.


What next a bombing at the HRC HQ 'cos it's (to paraphrase) "the only language they understand"?
Do they seek to deprive me of my life, liberty, or property because I refuse to obey unjust laws? If not, they may go about their bidness as I go about mine; they'll be perfectly safe from ME. if the answer is YES, however, let 'em live in terror until they get their minds right.


I am sure the people who sit in log cabins fretting over the silent whisper of the black helicopters think their message will spread like wildfire after their noble sacrifice too.
I'm just saying there won't be much guess-work involved as to why Marshall Brownshirt is leaving my property horizontal, feet first, and with the same body temperature as the ambient air.


Buddy, take a step back and really think about what you are saying. Not the blood and guts stuff, but the essence and the context. You are, essentially, saying that if there are laws, in a democratic country, that you don't believe in, your (seemingly first and only) recourse would be to kill the lawmen that came for you under said laws (which seems to be your response if you were in Mr Lavant's position).
If that's what you got, you didn't read for comprehension. What I wrote was that the MINUTE force is applied against me in the enforcement of unjust law, not merely a law that I don't 'believe' in, but one that takes positive steps to deprive me of my given and enumerated rights (and remember, ALL laws are backed BY FORCE), I feel justified in meeting that force with equal or greater force to defend myself and those rights. Not first recourse, not only recourse, and how the hell did you manage to get THAT, when I was REALLY clear that the answer I'd prefer to resort to should I ever be in Lavant's position is to IGNORE THEM. I'd be good and goddamned before they EVER got me to go to that ridiculous interrogation. I'd treat 'em as I said before: like they had no standing to order me around for the 'crime' of exercising my rights. I'd IGNORE them.

But I bet that wouldn't be the end of the matter, would it? What do you suppose would happen NEXT?


Is that what you are really saying - or are you just playing to the crowd - because that has some pretty unpleasant connotations.
Oh, I mean it, alright: the first attempt to COMPEL me, BY FORCE, to surrender my person, my property or my rights, would be met with equal or greater force, and I'm surprised that you'd consider yourself a man in the fullest sense if you're NOT prepared to defend any and or all of that yourself.


A civilised society has created an organisation, and nothing that you have mentioned changes that other than one or two dead people.
And I contend, again, that this is NOT the hallmark of a civilized society, merely an orderly one. Once this ironically-named HRC has ordered me to appear, and I have absolutely refused to do so, or even acknowledge their authority to order it, a civilized society would say, 'Well, I'll be damned; he's caused us to either back down, or escalate this, and I suppose now, we'll either see that our authority stops well short of making him think and say what we want him to, OR...we send out the armed men to bring him before us in manacles.'

At that point, do you not agree that a civilized society would NEVER do the latter?

ALL LAWS - EVEN THE TRIVAL ONES THAT DON'T TOUCH BASIC HUMAN FREEDOMS, LIKE THIS ONE DOES - ARE ULTIMATELY BACKED BY LETHAL FORCE IF EVEN ONE PERSON CHOOSES TO DISOBEY IT.


Rather than a Braveheart style speech, you have made one akin to Samuel L. Jackson's character in Deep Blue Sea. Very empowering, very motivating up until he gets eaten part way through giving it. The sharks are still very much there. It will still take the people to change it, using the process that exists to do so.
And if the people cannot COMPEL government to change the law as they wish to interpret it, there is NO WAY to do so, short of violence. Political power is a phantom; eventually ALL power comes down to FORCE. ALL power, all REAL power, is backed by the threat of superior force. Your power, government's power; ALL POWER. If the People believe as you do, that there is never, ever, ever an excuse to meet unjust government compulsion by force, then you may have all the votes you like, and it will not make a dam' bit of difference to a despotic government that need have no fear that no matter how outrageous they may be...you'll just have a nice little vote about how you don't agree to be shipped off to the work camp; how cute. Now, get on the truck, serf; we're not playin'.


Lawyers, politicians, people who draft bad terms of reference. But i will bet that all of the decision makers were Canadian and the last i looked Canada has a process for changing all this kind of stuff.
And what of poor Ezra Lavant, then? Think he'll have satisfactory redress in double-quick time, and he may go about exercising his rights, as he sees them, while this drags through the legal process? NO. Because remember, he's essentially confessed, AND refuses to do ANYthing the HRC may order him to do, so what else is there to do but put him in prison? That's unsatisfactory, because if you look at some of the other victims that have been steamrolled already by this star chamber, you'll see lives ruined. In short, the system has FAILED in a spectacular fashion, to protect ANYbody's rights. And why is that? Because the enforcement mechanism has not been FORCED to stand down, lest it's executors end up with their brains all over the defendent's front porch yet, after they - the armed might of the state, in the form of police - have tried to use violence to COMPEL compliance from those bad ole rights-exercisors. And until that is likely or actually happens, until it is COMPELLED to cease and desist the suppression of free peoples' rights, it will continue.


Go on, if you drop the ego a little, the messageboard might look a bit bigger :)
That made me laff.:))


I get very well what he is fighting but i disagree the time has come to send him a care package from Armalite.
So do I. I already said that, but you missed it, thinking I want to machine-gun crossing guards because I like getting my McNuggets home before they get cold, and that reflective-vest-wearin' brat-coddlin' sum***** is unjustly in my way. Nah. I think Lavant's doing a HEROIC thing and doing it very, very well. But what happens when he refuses to pay up or choke out an apology after they find against him (and they will: 100% 'win' rate, and Lavant has confessed to his 'crime')? What does the state do THEN, eh? Why, they come to get him, don't they, and if he doesn't want to go...WHAT THEN?

They'll come for him, and ask him will he please get in the car. And if he refuses, is it all over, the state just sighs, and says, 'Well, that's that, I suppose; he refuses to cooperate, just like he said all along, from the first hearing to now. Let's get some coffee and a donut at Tim Horton's'.

NOPE.

Tasers, maybe tear gas, maybe drawn guns and a battering ram, because REALLY, in the last analysis, THAT is what the police ARE: armed force to compel compliance, and ALL law is backed by force; ALL LAW.

He can be KILLED if he refuses to be bound by this absurd law, just like for the violation of ANY OTHER LAW.


However it would be interesting to see what our Canadian friends on WAB are doing on his behalf.
It WILL be interesting, but just because nobody or a million rise to protect your rights, it doesn't change ANY part of one's responsibility to see to it that your own rights are respected.


I love the reference to "Mel and the Micks", a nice piece of Gibson slighting satire that i am sure you are subtle enough to have meant and one i wholly approve of. :biggrin:
New band name. Heh.:cool: Made MYSELF laff at that one.:))


Wallace et al had no options left, no one to take up their cause, no route to travel. Lavant has had his "interrogation" put up on YouTube to be debated by you and me - we don't need to be on the Irish hilltop infront of "Mel the historian".
Hey, I got it. I'm just making the point that Stalin was making an excellent point when he asked 'How many divisions does the Pope have?' This is the important part to understand about power: VIOLENCE is the ONLY THING that counts, at the end of the discussion. I do not believe that this is always how matters are settled, but this is an absolute truth: except when the dominant party is altruistic enough to forego the advantage of superior force, a relative calculation is made - sometimes correct, sometimes not - about how much the respective parties may give and take.

Lavant, happily, is not there - yet. It depends on what he does and what the state's reaction to that is that will determine if it goes all the way to the limit. But eventually, if neither side will give, it WILL come down to compulsion.


Indeed and they may well be sitting there looking at the motivational poster on their wall of "a man's face being smashed by a boot, again and again and again", as per the imagery of the iconic novel, however i don't believe that Alberta has reached that level yet.
They have not. Nobody has resisted yet. They've all tried to 'win' their cases. In so doing, they granted the authority to the state to sit in judgement. If they had treated the HRC with complete disdain and a lofty contempt that is usually reserved for Senate Majority Leaders and skateboarders, the state would've had a decision to make then: let 'em get away with it, or haul 'em in in chains?


Or possibly a bill will pass through the legislative assembly in Edmonton because of a ground swell of support from Canadians who are as opposed as you are.
That would be best, and if it does go that way, you need to see it for what it is: not evidence of respect for popular will in and of itself, but the state's acknowledgement that, if we, the state, break the social compact and treat free people that are suspiciously jealous and fiercely protective of their rights like they were so many cattle, they're likely to resent it enough to ACT against us. And I don't mean by VOTING, either. They have REAL power, and if they came marching up the capital steps, and we'd outraged them enough to make their sons in the Forces come with 'em, instead of sheilding us from their parents...quite.

ALL power is based on the potential for violence.

Trooth
25 Jan 08,, 13:19
Okay, so you mis-read what I clearly wrote, to wit: violence is NOT my first recourse, only that force should be met with force, because at THAT point, not before, anything else means that what's being done to you is being done with VIOLENCE, and at that point, not before, you are justified in doing literally anything at all to defend yourself.

For all your deference to processes and systems and whatnot, this is the simple truth: EVERY law is backed by the compulsion of a state, and if that state has a monopoly on violent means, it WILL USE IT to strip the People of their rights. And this is an iron, unbreakable LAW OF NATURE.

And that's what I said. Ignore ANYthing ('member when I wrote that? It's right there...) that issues from these fascist thugs that seek to trample your rights, because if you grant them permission to take from you your natural freedom without any notion of resisting their compulsion, they won't need to threaten any violence. But if you do ANYthing except knuckle under and take it, eventually, it comes down to which side can FORCE the other to give over.

It is down to the person writing to be clear that they they get their message across. Otherwise i might have to ask you "what were you thinking when you wrote that?" and i am sure we don't want to go there :) . I read it and what I took from it was what i wrote and the questions i asked.



Not laws I 'don't like', laws that unjustly oppress me, that strip me of my rights. You seem to think I'll kill highway patrolmen that pull me over in a skool zone when I'm late for work. NO.

I am sure that you are, away from the thundering clatter of the keyboard, one of the most rational people around.



If that's what you got, you didn't read for comprehension. What I wrote was that the MINUTE force is applied against me in the enforcement of unjust law, not merely a law that I don't 'believe' in, but one that takes positive steps to deprive me of my given and enumerated rights (and remember, ALL laws are backed BY FORCE), I feel justified in meeting that force with equal or greater force to defend myself and those rights. Not first recourse, not only recourse, and how the hell did you manage to get THAT, when I was REALLY clear that the answer I'd prefer to resort to should I ever be in Lavant's position is to IGNORE THEM. I'd be good and goddamned before they EVER got me to go to that ridiculous interrogation. I'd treat 'em as I said before: like they had no standing to order me around for the 'crime' of exercising my rights. I'd IGNORE them.

Sorry i mistook your inaction - i hadn't realised we had added Ghandi to the first act with Braveheart coming along in act 2 :)



I'm surprised that you'd consider yourself a man in the fullest sense if you're NOT prepared to defend any and or all of that yourself.


******



And I contend, again, that this is NOT the hallmark of a civilized society, merely an orderly one. Once this ironically-named HRC has ordered me to appear, and I have absolutely refused to do so, or even acknowledge their authority to order it, a civilized society would say, 'Well, I'll be damned; he's caused us to either back down, or escalate this, and I suppose now, we'll either see that our authority stops well short of making him think and say what we want him to, OR...we send out the armed men to bring him before us in manacles.'

At that point, do you not agree that a civilized society would NEVER do the latter?

ALL LAWS - EVEN THE TRIVAL ONES THAT DON'T TOUCH BASIC HUMAN FREEDOMS, LIKE THIS ONE DOES - ARE ULTIMATELY BACKED BY LETHAL FORCE IF EVEN ONE PERSON CHOOSES TO DISOBEY IT.


The problem we are both wrestling with is that for any law, the ultimate recourse of the state is to remove someone's liberties. However there are many intermediate steps (that, granted, often get twisted out of proportion and all sense of their original meaning) to sort these things out. No matter how much i read with both eyes and all my brain i still see that in the event that you were in Lavant's shoes you would be ending this in a gun battle. You have declared that your first step would be ignoring and inaction - to step outside the system (until they come for you which i think we are both agreed they would). There is no way that the state (full of beaurocrats and paper-pushers and people having to hit targets etc) can even realise the error of its ways until that fateful day. You are relying on the will of the people to pick up your cause afterwards and not to assume some madman was now out of harm's way and their society has returned to its orderly form. There has to be some practicality here.



And if the people cannot COMPEL government to change the law as they wish to interpret it, there is NO WAY to do so, short of violence. Political power is a phantom; eventually ALL power comes down to FORCE. ALL power, all REAL power, is backed by the threat of superior force. Your power, government's power; ALL POWER. If the People believe as you do, that there is never, ever, ever an excuse to meet unjust government compulsion by force, then you may have all the votes you like, and it will not make a dam' bit of difference to a despotic government that need have no fear that no matter how outrageous they may be...you'll just have a nice little vote about how you don't agree to be shipped off to the work camp; how cute. Now, get on the truck, serf; we're not playin'.

I agree. But i don't think Mr Lavant's position and those of this peers has come to that - yet. However the situation would be completely different should Mr Lavant see a judgement against him.

I do agree however that there is the boiling frog metaphor - that each small erosion (turning up of the heat) goes unnoticed until eventually the freedom is gone (the frog is boiled to death). The recent "anti-satire" ruling in New Zealand could be seen as part of the warming the frog's water.




And what of poor Ezra Lavant, then? Think he'll have satisfactory redress in double-quick time, and he may go about exercising his rights, as he sees them, while this drags through the legal process? NO. Because remember, he's essentially confessed, AND refuses to do ANYthing the HRC may order him to do, so what else is there to do but put him in prison? That's unsatisfactory, because if you look at some of the other victims that have been steamrolled already by this star chamber, you'll see lives ruined. In short, the system has FAILED in a spectacular fashion, to protect ANYbody's rights. And why is that? Because the enforcement mechanism has not been FORCED to stand down, lest it's executors end up with their brains all over the defendent's front porch yet, after they - the armed might of the state, in the form of police - have tried to use violence to COMPEL compliance from those bad ole rights-exercisors. And until that is likely or actually happens, until it is COMPELLED to cease and desist the suppression of free peoples' rights, it will continue.

I agree as i have already said, the case should never have been heard. And i think we both agree that whatever process is in place is always going to be slower and more expensive that meeting up at dawn in front of the saloon to sort it out "like men". However i am confident that Canada has ways to redress this situation - that it has had travesties of justice before and that the citizenry will see that justice will prevail this time. Failing that i would expect the people of Alberta to rise up at their ballot boxes and remove those that support the HRC from office.



So do I. I already said that, but you missed it, thinking I want to machine-gun crossing guards because I like getting my McNuggets home before they get cold, and that reflective-vest-wearin' brat-coddlin' sum***** is unjustly in my way.

For someone who doesn't want to do these things, you come up with enough different examples :)



Nah. I think Lavant's doing a HEROIC thing and doing it very, very well. But what happens when he refuses to pay up or choke out an apology after they find against him (and they will: 100% 'win' rate, and Lavant has confessed to his 'crime')? What does the state do THEN, eh? Why, they come to get him, don't they, and if he doesn't want to go...WHAT THEN?

They'll come for him, and ask him will he please get in the car. And if he refuses, is it all over, the state just sighs, and says, 'Well, that's that, I suppose; he refuses to cooperate, just like he said all along, from the first hearing to now. Let's get some coffee and a donut at Tim Horton's'.

NOPE.

Tasers, maybe tear gas, maybe drawn guns and a battering ram, because REALLY, in the last analysis, THAT is what the police ARE: armed force to compel compliance, and ALL law is backed by force; ALL LAW.

He can be KILLED if he refuses to be bound by this absurd law, just like for the violation of ANY OTHER LAW.

I agree with all of the above. But i suspect that the HRT will see the situation for what it is - will see the consequences of ruling either way as you see them and realise that they cannot justify the cinematic end-point based on the complaint that was brought against Mr Lavant.



That would be best, and if it does go that way, you need to see it for what it is: not evidence of respect for popular will in and of itself, but the state's acknowledgement that, if we, the state, break the social compact and treat free people that are suspiciously jealous and fiercely protective of their rights like they were so many cattle, they're likely to resent it enough to ACT against us. And I don't mean by VOTING, either. They have REAL power, and if they came marching up the capital steps, and we'd outraged them enough to make their sons in the Forces come with 'em, instead of sheilding us from their parents...quite.

ALL power is based on the potential for violence.

Understood and agreed. Perhaps the reason we are at odds on this debate is you are giving both barrels to the principle and i am focussing on the case. I don't fundamentally disagree with any of your statements, however in the practicality of the case in hand i think stepping out of the process leads certainly to the epic ending your foresee. Once you step out of the process you lose that element of "that could happen to us" about which all of our orderly and civilised processes are based.

One thing, find someone writing a rights based screenplay and offer to have a go at the speeches in it. I know enough about actors to know that they absolutely get off on the great epic speech and your posts in this thread have contained some great imagery!

Exarecr
26 Jan 08,, 01:23
Wow. Trooth and Bluesman, you made my new book(Michael Crichton's NEXT) somewhat of a boring read for the moment. Everyone seems to be missing the main and only point here. That we can debat,deride,scoff and agree on different points of view is the true beauty of freedom of speech. Just because some stupid at the HRC mixed political correctness with stupid-speak thus creating "Liberal" proves anyone can cook but not all have any taste.

dalem
26 Jan 08,, 02:31
Wow. Trooth and Bluesman, you made my new book(Michael Crichton's NEXT) somewhat of a boring read for the moment. Everyone seems to be missing the main and only point here. That we can debat,deride,scoff and agree on different points of view is the true beauty of freedom of speech. Just because some stupid at the HRC mixed political correctness with stupid-speak thus creating "Liberal" proves anyone can cook but not all have any taste.

But the brick to the head is the fact that the HRC exists and has legal power. That is the whole point. Empty heads rave for years about the Patriot Act here in the States and Bushitler's crushing of our civil rights. There in Canuckistan you guys have a govt agency that is specifically empowered to regulate what you SAY in a way that the craziest preacher-censor-type here in the States couldn't come up with.

But at least you also have a guy with the big brass ones to point it out to people.

-dale

astralis
26 Jan 08,, 02:54
But the brick to the head is the fact that the HRC exists and has legal power.

everytime i see "HRC", for some reason "hillary rodham clinton" runs through my head....:))

Bluesman
26 Jan 08,, 16:37
But the brick to the head is the fact that the HRC exists and has legal power. That is the whole point. Empty heads rave for years about the Patriot Act here in the States and Bushitler's crushing of our civil rights. There in Canuckistan you guys have a govt agency that is specifically empowered to regulate what you SAY in a way that the craziest preacher-censor-type here in the States couldn't come up with.

But at least you also have a guy with the big brass ones to point it out to people.

-dale

Precisely. He's called their bluff, finally, and we're going to see if the HRC wants to back down...or go all the way to FORCE. If they choose that option, I say it's time to actually resist, and protests aren't what I'm talking about.

For now, I am encouraged and very gratified to see Lavant doing what he's doing the way he's doing it. It's proper and he's within his rights, just as he was before he caught the eye of these nazi bastards that are trying to make him be quiet. Not the time to fight back in violent ways, and as long as this is kept in this form - government getting huffy about what you say, sending bureaucrats to hassle you, demanding that you explain yourself, and describe your purpose when you exercised your rights, etc. - then fight 'em in a philosophical arena, through the system.

But the first time some goon puts his hand on you, or places a lien on your property, or physically prevents you from saying or printing whatever the hell you want (with those exceptions that Lavant acknowledges are granted to the state)...then it is ON, man, and ANYthing he needs to do to protect himself or his property is justified.

Bluesman
27 Jan 08,, 07:58
World-class snark, here:


Coming to a human rights commission near you
Rex Murphy
From Saturday’s Globe and Mail

Our esteemed human rights commissions are so busy these days, it worries me.

The number of these gimlet-eyed scrutineers is, after all, finite.

There is, therefore, only a limited store of intellectual energy and moral fervour for them to call upon. In a brutish world, righteousness is not inexhaustible; virtue, like oil, has its peak moments and, with their current agenda, Canada’s HRCs may run out of fuel.

Alberta’s Human Rights Commission, one of the keenest, a noble avatar of those old censor boards that used to guard public libraries from “steamy” literature and “brazen” language, is trying to contain – I think that is the only proper verb here – Ezra Levant.

Mr. Levant has, as the jargon expresses it, “gone before” the commission to answer for the putative crime, offence, tastelessness of his (now defunct) magazine, the Western Standard’s publication of the Mohammed cartoons. But even the sturdiest tribunal can summon forces too large for it to manage. And even the deepest probing commissioner, alert as a tuning-fork to the harmonies of political correctness, should have quailed before the thought of putting Ezra Levant under state-mandated interrogation.

His initial hearing is an Internet hit. He videotaped it, you see, and against the urgings of the commission placed in on the World Wide Web.

His performance, a marathon aria to free speech, looks to outpace even Jessica Alba beach footage as a web draw. More than 400,000 visitors have YouTubed Mr. Levant (A Daniel, I say, a Daniel come to judgment on Canadian free speech!). He is as a tidal wave breaking against a lone and solitary craft.

So Alberta’s HRC is, to put it timidly, busy with Ezra Levant. And now, three others have had the courage, folly, or zeal, or, if you wish, the zealously courageous foolishness, to take on Maclean’s magazine and Mark Steyn. The martyrs in question are, respectively, the Ontario, B.C. and federal HRCs. It’s a busy time in the world of magazine censorship – and a bull market for the litigious and offended. John Donne comes to mind: “Lawyers find out still litigious men, whom quarrels move” and, if you are both, well, Canada is ripe with HRCs that want your business.

The question is, of course, does an HRC, or even a pack of them, really want to take on an institution as beloved as Maclean’s? Next only to the Eaton’s catalogue of sacred memory, Maclean’s is a talisman of the Canadian way, it is Tim Hortons in print. For more than a century, Maclean’s has stimulated minds, its back copies have intellectualized many a dental crisis; rolled up, it has been the fly swatter of choice for thousands. Approach Maclean’s at your peril.

But, in addition, do they really want – after Ezra’s example, mind you – to call Mark Steyn, the Victoria Falls (“The Smoke that Thunders”) of prolific columnists – into one of their style-less chambers to “explain himself?” If Mr. Levant contains multitudes, how to describe Mr. Steyn? He is a prodigy of immense resource and industry. Compared to him, Trollope was a slacker, Dickens a wastrel, and Proust a miniaturist. He inundates. Books, columns, blogs and obiter dicta in a thousand venues – if Mr. Steyn goes before one or all of these commissions, he will be firing off columns between questions. He’ll write a column on a question while it is being asked. I urge our guardians to consider their own interests: Stay a while before essaying this profitless and useless venture.

A Maclean’s/Steyn confrontation, in tandem with the prairie whirlwind we all know as Levant rampant – this is too much at one time for the meticulous and tidy tribunals that alone are our guardians against every stray thought that might fracture our fabulously delicate Canadian sensibilities. While they are preoccupied with Steyn-Levant, overwhelmed, exhausted and undone by Steyn-Levant, battered, borne-down on and befuddled by Steyn-Levant – who will watch out for us?

Who will there be to read before we read, and tell us what is proper for us? Who will be there to edit the editors, to copy check the copy checkers? Who will shield our vulnerable law-students, and who will tend to the commission’s most industrious serial complainant. There is one person, so eggshell brittle that he has drummed up a fierce amount of business for the HRCs. Is so loyal a customer now to be ignored because the Steyn-Levant tsunami is about to rumble mercilessly on shore?

Mostly I fear, if the HRCs are tied up, Canadians will be reading, unguided, what they choose to read, deciding for themselves what they like and what they don’t, will discard a book or pass it to a friend, like a column or curse one – lit only by the light of their own reason.

The horror! Before we know it, we’ll have an unstoppable epidemic of free speech, free thought, and freedom of the press. And, surely, no one wants that. Otherwise, why would we have human rights commissions?

- END -

glyn
27 Jan 08,, 09:19
World-class snark, here:

And it proves once again that humour is a deadly weapon!:)

Exarecr
02 Feb 08,, 01:05
Rex Murphy is on the She-BC,silly me,I ment the CBC every night and this guy can articulate anything. On Wednesday he did a piece on Canada and its commitment to Afghanistan and it was a great read. To bad our politicians don't understand English enough to know what a set of balls are.

Repatriated Canuck
02 Feb 08,, 06:05
That was awesome Blue, thanks!

brokensickle
04 Feb 08,, 04:26
...and enormously proud of Mr. Ezra Lavant, a true hero.

Watch and learn what valor in the face of unjustly wielded power looks like. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28582_Outrage_of_the_Week-_Canadian_Publisher_Persecuted_for_Mindcrime&only)


Blues,

Good article,

This is a video that all Canadian's and American's should see. The response videos have been removed...Hmm.

I believe that the government bureaucrats are happy recieving their paychecks and then putting pressure on people that would do them no harm.

If they put pressure on the Muslim groups they would be in danger, so hense they favor the most dangerous whom they fear (the Muslim's). They have no fear of Ezra Levant because he will not take their lives if they do not judge in his favor. So they ignore the law in favor of the ones who would reak terror on their person.

The big problem is how do we get the bureaucrat's to face up to the looming problem. I personally think that the government wishes the problem would just go away as they see the Muslim as wielding more power in influence by the politically correct derangement/mess the left has brought upon our lands.



Ivan