Conservatives, too, are becoming disgusted

I am actually launching a new category/tag on this blog with this post – "Freedom of speech".

This debate has been going on now for weeks and months – first with the "Levant & Steyn Ship of Fools" show (where being a bigot or a racist without any limits in good taste or legal restrictions was all self-styled "freedom fighters for people's right to express themselves freely" were interested in).

Then, we witnessed the attacks on one Richard Warman, who was not only defamed but criminally libelled (and, yes, under Canada's Criminal Code, if you're guilty of criminal libel, you can actually go to jail for up to five years -- and all the defamatory statements I have read about Warman to date meet all the requirements of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code, and I hope that all those perpetrators will not only pay dearly in damages payouts but also with personal and actual time behind bars).

One conservative blogger (that is, one who is still on the Blogging Tories blogroll) has finally expressed his disgust with all that rubbish in the name of "freedom of speech" (when the actual concept of freedom of speech didn't figure in those people's considerations and plans at all).

I'm really starting to get sick of this garbage... you know, the folks who claim to be supporting "freedom of speech", and then bring things down into the gutter with personal and baseless attacks like this. John West, if that's even his real name, is the kind of guy who makes me wish I wasn't aligned with the "conservative" movement.

Read the rest of that excellent and brilliant blog post ...

H/T Warren Kinsella

Comments

[Jon]

What is a bigot? My Concise Oxford Dictionary of 1964 (I'm a conservative) defines a BIGOT as "one who holds irrespective of reason, and attaches disproportionate weight to, some creed or view." Now Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant back up their arguments with a lot more evidence than most commentators I read. They do believe in absolute free speech, not a view I hold, but definitely much better for contemporary daily living than the philosophy of thought police, especially when such practitioners as the human rights commissioners so often protect filth and penalize truth.

What is a racist? My dictionary was written before the promiscuous use of the word, but RACISM is there defined as the "tendency to racial feeling, antagonism between different races of men." As a Christian, I don't really believe in the concept of race; everyone is a child of Adam and Eve, after all. Evolutionists like David Suzuki are the bigots who have to resort to irrational speech in order to counter more logical thinkers like Philippe Rushton. Anyway, both Steyn and Levant have condemned the concept of white supremacy that has been attributed, for example, to Marc Lemire. And you'll notice that they have no problem talking with Muslims, white supremacists, homosexuals, liberals, or adherents of whatever other false or disgusting ideology there may be. And even if they would espouse racism, there are other sins just as serious which are incredibly popular and certainly currently more dangerous: see my previous sentence or count the number of abortions induced annually in Canada (one hundred thousand).

I'm too provocative? And Steyn and Levant rock your boat? I remember reading your previous post denouncing people who "offend as much as possible" (Jan. 16). Certainly you're not provocative, right? Free-speech activists expose Richard Warman as the trouble-maker he is, but you say that they should be prosecuted, found guilty, pay huge fines, and go to jail--and you're not provocative. And not hateful. And not defamatory (saying that "the actual concept of freedom of speech didn't figure in those people's considerations and plans at all"). Well, okay, you've not been defamatory in a criminal sense, which is the sense you refer to. Well, not very defamatory in any sense. But
you'll recall that free-speech activists tend to be rather generous, anyway, in what they'll allow into the court of public opinion.

Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn don't heed legal restrictions? Why then have they been making such a fuss about the illegality of the human rights commissions? Why do they want to eliminate kangaroo courts and limit prosecution to a genuine legal system? Why are they working through the law and lobbying for Keith Martin's Parliament initiative? Actually, they're very devoted to justice and the rule of law, not to "rule by man" (see Levant's post of March 11) and arbitrary "human rights commissions." If there is no legal restriction on the planting of criminal evidence by people such as one Richard Warman, then there ought to be.

You like to find the middle ground. I think that here maybe you have got to take whatever grounds you can find--any ground--something you can stand on.

[Jon]

Okay, despite the length of my previous comment for this post, I still commented too quickly. I misapplied your phrases about the ship of fools and the legal restrictions. Likely you were speaking of many of Levant and Steyn's supporters; the attack, if any, on Levant and Steyn themselves, was indirect. And you weren't saying that these supporters don't heed legal restrictions but that they don't want any legal restrictions.

I still disagree with the main thrust of your post. Conservatives are indeed disgusted, but they're disgusted with all the rubbish promulgated in the name of "human rights." When the "human rights commissions" are dismantled, then conservatives can end the debate and say, "Mission accomplished."

[Werner Patels @ Ideas-Issues.com]

You are quite right: my criticism has always been directed at their supporters, who, for the most part, use "freedom of speech" as a pretext for hate and racist messages.

[Werner Patels @ Ideas-Issues.com]

Those who have "exposed" Warman are not free speech activists, but criminal libellers (just look at the ridicule and personal insults and defamatory comments they posted on the Freedominion racist site). They, including the bozos of the Freedominion site must go to jail for their actions.

All of those comments constitute criminal libel, and has nothing to do with "free speech activists". That BS and you know it. You and your buddies just want to be able to spread hate and violence about and against those you don't like (non-Christians, non-whites, etc.).

[Vince P]

Go to jail? For exposing that a Leftist punk was posting hate messages to a message board?

Wow. you Leftists sure know how to play the heavies.

Any chance you're going to direct your overwhelmingly compassionate attention to the hate coming from Mosques? Or do bigots like you feel they are not capable of saying hateful things even when they are?

[Jon]

Are you sure that you haven't lost a sense of proportion? What I've read from the Fourniers, the founders or previous owners of the Free Dominion site, seemed pretty good to me. And free-speech activists allow a lot more into the court of public opinion than those who invoke government censorship.

Richard Warman has basically invited ridicule and personal insults, which as far as I know aren't criminal, at least not if they're true. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. If he personally attacks and humbles a lot of people--in the name of "human rights"--then he can expect to be attacked in return. And the injury that he's inflicted on many innocent people is much worse than any defamation he might have suffered in return.

Why doesn't Mr. Warman find some worthy cause to fight for? I'm not aware, for example, that he lent his support to the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act." Prolifers might (cautiously, eventually) welcome him if he would remember that the end doesn't justify the means.

And if he won't become a prolifer, he could at least become a free-speech activist.

Wow! what a lot of courage and humility he would need! But Saul did become Paul. And we all need courage and humility.

[Werner Patels @ Ideas-Issues.com]

Vince P, so you're saying that your kind (right-wing extremists, racists and hatemongers) should be allowed to break the law (s. 298 and on). Good to know that you support those who break the law, because what the morons at Freedominions did was commit criminal libel under s. 298 of the Criminal Code, and for that they must go to jail, including the site owners of Freedominion.

Thank you for exposing the true motives of your side, Vince P. Now the whole world can see that you guys are not about free speech, but about the "right" to commit criminal offences.

Good to know that this is what Levant, Steyn and their goose-steppers stand for.

[Vince P]

Please... expose this conversation more. To as many people as you can. I welcome it.

I hope everyone could read these comments.

[Freedom Fan]

...[S]o you're saying that your kind (right-wing extremists, racists and hatemongers) should be allowed to break the law

I just luv liberals; they're such fair, gentle, wonderful human beings.