"Strange bedfellows in the war on Human Rights Commissions? Or just bedfellows? You decide."
Cute, but Kinsella does it better. Perhaps your goal is to be taken as seriously as he is?
Just bedfellows. And in the general war on democracy.
Hey Billy, no one is forcing you to read this. Now scoot.
The principle of free speech will produce plenty of strange couplings on that particular issue.
Remember, the CHRC war is about the right to say things not the things said.
That I want to see s.13 abolished does not mean I like what the Zundels of the world have to say; rather it means that I believe they should be engaged, debated and demolished.
rather it means that I believe they should be engaged, debated and demolished.
Sure maybe one day--when pigs fly perhaps--you just might get around to engaging, debating and demolishing the Zundels of the world. Until then it sure looks like you've thrown in with them.
Care to cite a pro Zundel post from my blog Robert.
I realize this will be a little tough for you but work with me: speech is one issue, what is said is another. For example, I think virtually everything you write is rubbish but I would come to your defence if some censor tried to prevent you from saying it.
It is really that simple.
It is really that simple.
...and simple-minded, don't forget that.
I never said you write pro Zundel posts, you dishonest hack. I said you're sleeping with the Zundels.
By the way, next Tuesday is only going to show Canadians that neo nazis still exist in Canada. It's also going to show Canadians who is standing shoulder to shoulder with those neo nazis.
Yeah, and after we lynch Zundel's lawyers for supporting Nazi death squads let's be sure to get that bastard defending Picton. He must support murdering prostitutes!! And then let's get the guy who defended Manson, the sick bastard.
You know why I support the (almost) completely unfettered right to free speech? Just read this blog's sorry-assed post and you'll understand. The smears, the thought-police tactics, the support for unethical and unlawful actions as long as it's done by the "good guys", the inference of support for disgusting people because you defend them in court or in their right to say it, all this points towards the worst form of fascist thought and is the groundwork for fascist action.
Frankly, you guys scare me. Put an asshole like ti-guy in an uniform and give him a bit of power and you've got your SS ready to go. In Canada. And I wish I was making this stuff up.
It amazes me the people who are trying to be the champions of "free speech". Ezra levant's obsession with the Canadian Jewish Congress leading to these series of comment posts:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...ezralevant/165/
will blow your mind. The conspiracy theories are as close as anything I have ever read that basically blames CJC for all of earths poison. Does this kind of crap ring familiar to anyone?
CJC has been stalwart in trying to bring some sanity to this human rights debate. It is beginning to make headway, so clearly Ezra needed to call out the troops and try to discredit CJC. Problem is that his followers are so clearly from the dregs of the Heritage front that Ezra's own blog has been overtaken by the extreme right. Read the thread and see for yourself. Sad really!!
That's because you can't Robert.
And it is certainly possible to object the the Cheka like tactics of the CHRC without a) supporting Zundel's ravings, b) supporting the ravings of what you are calling neo-Nazis.
What has already been proven even before March 25th is that the CHRC can't hide behind s. 39 of the Canada Evidence Act and its "investigators" have no more right to in camera hearings than beat cops or social workers. Simply establishing those two things is a terrific victory for people who value free speech and object to a creeping police state. (Frankly Robert, I would have thought that would include you.)
"Cheka like tactics of"
Seriously you say that and then you attack Robert for saying you've lain down with neo-nazi's? (god it pains me to even remotely look like I'm defending Robert... )
Does it hurt, this burning out of your self-reflection sections of your brain?
Let's face it, the free speech warriors are really just interested in the right to lie, slander, libel and engage in group defamation, the more grotesque, the better.
The biggest issue I'm having with them is the dishonesty (naturally) in their unwillingness to admit that simple fact. If they did that at least, then we could move on to having a more productive argument about what is simply expression and what constitutes material harm.
...well, they could have that discussion...I don't need to have it anymore.
"Let's face it, the free speech warriors are really just interested in the right to lie, slander, libel and engage in group defamation, the more grotesque, the better."
Leaving aside the irony of defaming "free speech warriors" as a group by asserting an intention on their part to engage in group defamation, you seem to be forgetting, or at least overlooking, Ti-guy, the fact that libel and slander are illegal and covered by the Criminal Code.
Currie's position is sensible and straightforward: all have the right to free speech or none do. All have recourse to the courts in cases of libel or slander.
Dawg's use of innuendo to impugn the motives of Steyn et al is no different, if less ham-handed, than McClelland's blunt declaration that Currie is "sleeping with the Zundels": both are attempts to counter an opponent's argument by mudslinging. It is plain that supporting someone's right to free speech does not imply agreement with the content they may utter. It is plain, I should say, except to the willfully obtuse or disingenuous.
"Mudslinging?" Come, now. I'm not saying that Steyn is anything other than what he is: a militant conservative whose politics have led him to form alliances with Nazis, Nazi sympathizers and Nazi-enablers. He was pretty coy about Kulaszka until he got called on it, for example, and still refers to her "associations" rather than to her own work, of which I provided a sample.
None of this is meant to counter any arguments he might make about freedom of speech. On those, in fact, we might find a fair bit of agreement. But I am interested in the way some politics on the Right seem to be playing out these days--which is what my "Sympathy for the Devil" series is about, after all.
Well in fact libel and slander are not really covered by the criminal code. They are civil procedures decided on the "balance of probabilities" far less than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And as for the so-called "free speech warriors" all you need to do is read Ezra Levant's blog to get a true taste of what they are all about. Levant's obsession with the Canadian jewish Congress is a case in point. While one can and should engage in debate on this matter, Levant's personal attacks against its leadership is pretty low.
He suggests that the the professional leaders of the CJC are sneaking behind the backs of their lay leadership writing letters and seeking action on Canadian anti-hate laws. No proof just ad hominem innuendo. Yet a simple Google search about the CJC position on anti-hate laws will tell anyone (even Mr. Levant) that CJC has been way out in the open about its views for years.
Why is it not possible to have a decent yet passionate debate on these issues without plunging into the netherworld of creating mistruths to buttress your point? There is enough truth out there to make your arguments without sullying others with lies.
Leaving aside the irony of defaming "free speech warriors" as a group by asserting an intention on their part to engage in group defamation
It would only be defamation if there is a group that actually identifies itself as such. As far as I know, I've labeled an aggregation of people I have in mind in that way as a matter of opinion (based on overwhelming evidence, by the way). There are precious few free speech absolutists who are making a case I can support, and none of them are found among the fabulists currently claiming this spectacle of faux-persecution.
you seem to be forgetting, or at least overlooking, Ti-guy, the fact that libel and slander are illegal and covered by the Criminal Code.
Libel and slander are not part of criminal law, but anyway...
I've already gone through issues of fundamental justice and access to fundamental justice to not think it's necessary to go over that ground again. The fact remains that some of the warriors don't even support the criminal code provisions. And if some of the warriors would actually focus on our lousy libel laws, they might gain some sympathy from me. But they're to busy suing, it appears.
So let us have no more of this dull sophistry, Fergus.
But they're too busy suing, it appears.
Yup. Levant is one of the worst offenders in this respect. I get the feeling in my more cynical moments that the free-speech-is-doomed folks have no problem with suppressing free speech. They just want to privatize the suppression.
Yup. Levant is one of the worst offenders in this respect. I get the feeling in my more cynical moments that the free-speech-is-doomed folks have no problem with suppressing free speech.
I've never felt my conviction that this is true is cynical at all. It's in fact human nature for the powerful to want to avoid being challenged robustly and effectively. One just has to see how Mr. Levant has refused to encourage any kind of dissenting commentary in any venue he's ever controlled.
Simply establishing those two things is a terrific victory for people who value free speech and object to a creeping police state.
HRCs aren't evidence of a creeping police state. They are merely a mechanism by which two citizens or groups of citizens of this country can resolve a dispute. In principle, they are no different than a libel court. Frankly Jay, I would have thought that you would support people resolving their differences in a civilized manner.
But I'm not looking for a date, I'm admiring her pushback against an out-of-control state agency."
What state and what agency is Steyn referring to here? The corporate media?
It's so convenient for these propagandists to have the concept of "state" around to effectively serve as the boogeyman that distracts people from thinking about what really are powerful agencies.
My concern all along has been that, wittingly or unwittingly, conservatives like Steyn and the Free/Doms are engaged in a process of mainstreaming Nazism. And the Nazis are getting bolder, perhaps in consequence.
I think it's actually worse than that. I think it's the Overton Window concept of political manipulation: to make what is unthinkable, popular and eventually public policy. They'll quickly distance themselves from out-and-out nazism, but it's what's slightly less extreme than that that concerns me.
So Dawg, do you have any concerns whatsoever about the conduct of the CHRC investigators? I guess standing up for civil liberties is only fun when it's the police you're complaining about.
So, Billy, I have yet to learn what their conduct actually was. Maybe I'll know more when I attend the hearing next week, as I hope to do.
Why not do a bit of reading, Dawg.
The transcripts are all freely available ... for now.
Here's one CHRC "investigator" who upon receiving a complaint went straight to the police to see if he could dig up any dirt on the complainant.
http://ezralevant.com/guille.pdf
What about the "investigator" who feels that "freedom of speech is an Ameeican concept so I don't give it any value". Have you read that transcript?
You really should read through some of the tribunal transcripts before you go to the hearing. Then you might have a clue about what you're hearing.
As for your worries of "mainstreaming Nazism", do you level the same accusations against people like Rick Mercer or Rex Murphy or almost (I use the word 'almost' to take account of opinion-writers who just happen to be past directors of HRCs) every opinion writer in the MSM who has written about the tribunals in recent months. Or have you "yet to learn" what those people actually said/wrote.
It's a good thing Ezra's done all the work for his fan club.
Maybe that's what he spent the 100,000$ on?
"So, Billy, I have yet to learn what their conduct actually was."
Right, because it's a mystery. You may not like Ezra Levant, but it's hard to argue with his portrayal of the relationship between Richard Warman and a CHRC employee found here.
Is it safe to say that if anything of this sort was happening during the course of a police investigation, you'd be bouncing off the walls in outrage? Personally, I liked it better when you were a civil liberties leftist.
Fact is, Ti-Guy, most of Ezra's 'fan club' hadn't heard of him until the HRC case. Same with Mark Steyn.
Kind of funny, really, to think that it's *your* right to free speech that he's defending too.
I know, I know, nothing *you* ever write will ever see you dragged before the Ministry Of Truth, right. Right?
Face facts, the party's over. Your parents have come home and want to know why you've trashed the place. There'll be hell to pay in the morning.
"And Hitler--well, besides that, he was a hell of a public speaker, wasn't he?" Just like Pastor Jeremiah Wright, also loved by his flock.
Mark
Ottawa
"Just like Pastor Jeremiah Wright, also loved by his flock."
Mark, normally you're one of the smartest people I know, but that's one of the fucking stupidest things I've ever heard anyone, anywhere ever say.
Kind of funny, really, to think that it's *your* right to free speech that he's defending too.
No, he's not. You'll remember, this is Ezra "It's the Stupid Charter" Levant. I don't want this person anywhere near my rights. I'll defend them myself.
I know, I know, nothing *you* ever write will ever see you dragged before the Ministry Of Truth, right. Right?
I would welcome the experience.
Face facts, the party's over. Your parents have come home and want to know why you've trashed the place. There'll be hell to pay in the morning.
I can't begin to understand what this authoritarian reprimand means.
People like you, Mark. Does that make you Hitler? I assume you wrote your comment after a rough, tiring day.
TFOTD (and Billy):
I'm going to the hearing next week. You would like me to prejudge the matter, and criticize me for not doing so. I have different standards. Tant pis.
"Face facts, the party's over. Your parents have come home and want to know why you've trashed the place. There'll be hell to pay in the morning.
I can't begin to understand what this authoritarian reprimand means."
OK, I'll try it again in plain and simple language and leave you to take "Allegory 101" at your leisure.
"Face facts, the party's over" - No amount of blogging and blustering is going to change the outcome of Tureday's hearing. The days of the HRCs being used to trample over the rights of Canadians are numbered.
"Your parents have come home and want to know why you've trashed the place." - The HRCs are run by Liberal apparatchiks with little or no knowledge of how 'real law' actually operates. The dressing down given in the ruling that allows us into Tuesday's hearing shows us how annoyed the grown-ups (do I have to explain that metaphor as well?) are with the actions of Steacy, Warman et al. I suspect that every national paper in Canada will be wanting to cover it as well as various TV and magazine coverage. Bright lights are about to be shone into some very dark places. I don't know if the HRCs will ever regain any credibility in the eyes of most Canadians.
"There'll be hell to pay in the morning." - If the HRCs are to continue in their current form, I think there'll be a bit more notice given to their 'rulings' and a bit more attention given to their methods.
Personally, I doubt it they can continue in their current form. Their MO (posting on Neo-Nazi sites and then 'prosecuting' them for said postings) is so alien to most people that .... well, Wednesday's press will be interesting.
"It would only be defamation if there is a group that actually identifies itself as such. As far as I know, I've labeled an aggregation of people I have in mind in that way as a matter of opinion (based on overwhelming evidence, by the way)."
A finely split hair, to be sure. And you accuse me of sophistry? You really do have a problem with irony, it seems.
In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, you identified them as a group by gathering them under your catch-all phrase "free speech warriors", and you imputed unsavoury intentions to them as a collective. It's all there in the words you wrote. I am not calling it defamatory in a legal sense, I merely find the juxtaposition precious for its ironic value.
"Libel and slander are not part of criminal law, but anyway..."
The Department of Justice disagrees with you, if we can believe them: I "Googled" the phrase "criminal code of canada" to arrive at a lovely webpage, my tax dollars at work, that shows the error of your ways, so to speak. Read the list at your leisure, you'll find the pertinent section down in Part VIII, something about "Offenses against the Person and Reputation". They toss the word "libel" around and stuff about "indictable offence", but I guess that's not really criminal, according to you and Morty. I'm no lawyer, so I'll just have to take your word for it.
""Mudslinging?" Come, now."
Hey, I was fair, I said McClelland was the ham-handed one. He used a shovel while you just flicked a paint brush, but the material moved was still mud. How is your use of "guilt-by-association" in this case different from, say, the Obama-Wright issue in the States that you decried in an earlier post? In neither case can the beliefs of one party( i.e. Steyn/Obama) be ascertained by the utterances of the other(Kulaszka/Wright).
Dawg, I am delighted to hear you are going and will, of course, link anything you have to say. I wish I could be there but that $1500.00 plane ride is not in the budget.
There are plenty of free speech lefties and I hope, if they can, they will show up as well.
It will come as a surprise to Robert and Ti-guy but free speech is not really a left right thing; rather it is about the right of people to hold and express their own opinions without the government either threatening them or giving them license.
As for agents provocateurs, you will remember how thrilled the anti-globalization folks were when they discovered that the Securite had sent a few rock carrying police thugs into their demo outside Montreal to "look for infractions".
Fergusrush
There is "criminal libel" on the books but try and find when the last time it was ever used in canada. About 45 years ago. Libel is for all intents and purposes now dealt with under civil law.
However I do agree with you that under the criminal code it is another limitation on free speech
...the name rang a bell. Oh, yes, the lawyer who made a career out of defending far-right nutbars like Ernst Zündel...
Gee, after all the crowing and strutting about, I would have thought that the sanctimonious, self-righteous left would have learned from Goddard v Day that a client's actions do not reflect on the personal beliefs or practices of their lawyer.
Apparently not - or was Stockwell right to take potshots at Lorne Goddard? More to the point, was Goddard prima facie a child pornographer? Would his future clients equally be considered pornographers-by-association, which is exactly the argument you seem to be asserting here, Dawg, unless it is just a convenient opportunity for a drive-by-smear.
TOFTD:
Your parents have come home and want to know why you've trashed the place." - The HRCs are run by Liberal apparatchiks...
Stopped here as I felt a migraine coming on. Shouldn't have bothered.
Fergus:
A finely split hair, to be sure.
No it isn't.
In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, you identified them as a group by gathering them under your catch-all phrase "free speech warriors", and you imputed unsavoury intentions to them as a collective. It's all there in the words you wrote. I am not calling it defamatory in a legal sense, I merely find the juxtaposition precious for its ironic value.
I couldn't care less how many different ways you can formulate your sophistry, it's still sophistry. The cabal I have in mind are fabulists, and I have enough evidence to satisfy myself that this is true.
Read the list at your leisure, you'll find the pertinent section down in Part VIII, something about "Offenses against the Person and Reputation". They toss the word "libel" around and stuff about "indictable offence", but I guess that's not really criminal, according to you and Morty. I'm no lawyer, so I'll just have to take your word for it.
You're correct. Libel and defamation is found in the criminal code. It just isn't what we're talking about here.
Wikipedia has this entry for criminal defamation in Canada:
...though the law has been applied on only six occasions in the past century, all of those cases involve libellants attached to the state (police officers, judges, prison guards). In the most recent case, Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.
Now, let us have no more of these distractions.
It will come as a surprise to Robert and Ti-guy but free speech is not really a left right thing;
It doesn't come as a surprise to me.
I really wish these discussions could occur without the personal attacks from the free speech warriors. It's odd how they can't seem to control that. It really seems to be a psychological issue with them.
...and yes, in case anyone wonders...the warriors started it.
...and yes, in case anyone wonders...the warriors started it.
Actually, no:
...and simple-minded, don't forget that.
Sixth post on the thread, and the first one to offer a personal insult. The author was one "Ti-Guy," whoever he might be.
"Now, let us have no more of these distractions."
By all means. So I'll ask you straight out: in your opinion, does support for the right of distasteful speech to be heard imply agreement with its content by the party whom supports said freedom?
I realize that you have trouble distinguishing logic from sophistry, not surprising given the example of your demonstrated inability to grasp Currie's plainly-worded statement of the issue at hand, a statement you termed "simple-minded". Refusal to admit the clear meaning of your own words is yet another example. Still, I am hopeful that a moment of clarity will allow you to answer a straightforward question.
The issue is not about personalities, but the right of everyone to free speech within the limits determined by law.
Now, now, dcardno. Confusing Ti-guy with his own words, while easily done, is beyond the pale, old chap.
"I'm going to the hearing next week. You would like me to prejudge the matter, and criticize me for not doing so. I have different standards."
Oh please, the sorts of standards that lead to posts like this one?
I'm also interested in your thoughts on Stoddart v Day. Never took you for a Stockoholic, to be honest.
dcardno (and Billy):
Did you even bother to read the post? My comments weren't based upon Kulaszka's lawyering. They were based, rather, on her own comments. "Crowds of hostile Jews," forsooth. Can't you pick up anything from that phrasing, and from the general tenor of her editorial introduction, or are you just being disingenuous?
I'm on record as being agnostic, in fact, on the whole "Lucy Warman" thing. I'm genuinely interested in the hearing next week, and hope I arrive early enough to get in.
In the meantime, one comment: the CHRC was the very body that opened up the hearing. There is an internal appeals process, and it worked. It's just an administrative tribunal system, not the pit and the pendulum. If the frenzied ranters would just take a breath, wipe their lips and settle down, it might be possible to discern the real elements of this case.
1) The CHRC is doing nothing to suppress free speech. Arguably, a former officer, Richard Warman, is doing that by attempting to shut down the generation of hatred. This (rather than, for example, Levant's SLAPP-happy use of lawsuits, or Conrad Black's, come to think of it) has excited the rage of the Right. I went over that point here.
2)The technical details regarding Warman's IP address are, frankly, beyond me. That's why I stated, over at Canadian Cynic's place, that I for one was going to take a "wait and see" approach.
3) I have no difficulty with the existence of an administrative tribunal whose job it is to adjudicate the complaint of one citizen against another. If, however, practices that I would countenance in no other forum are used in this process--entrapment, for example--then I'll be first in line to demand that such practices cease. I will not support, however, throwing the baby out with the bathwater--which I suspect forms a large part of the critics' agenda at present.
My concern all along has been that, wittingly or unwittingly, conservatives like Steyn and the Free/Doms are engaged in a process of mainstreaming Nazism.
Surely, Dr Dawg, if you are going to make such an argument, you should provide evidence of such mainstreaming, such as a growing membership, the attraction of students and youth, or particularly the sympathy, leadership, funding or support of prominent Canadians. We've had Nazi fringe fruitcakes since WW II and they remain fringe fruitcakes. Are you sure your main concern isn't that such speech is offensive per se and violates our cultural norms, much like a so-con objects to porn?
It's a key point because while the lib/left is raising alarms (and baiting a squirming right) about neo-Nazism, the free-speechers are concerned about how Islamist activism is using human rights and multiculturalism to stifle their critics. We can argue at length about how real a threat that is, but surely we can agree the Muslim activists travel in much more exalted and influential circles than the skinhead losers, no?
Peter:
You will be aware of this, the first such open demonstration in some time.
You may also be aware of a rift in conservative ranks over the bedfellow question.
I'm on record as opposing trivial complaints about offensive but otherwise unexceptionable comments; I believe in a high bar, and, additionally (unlike conservatives) I favour drastic reform of libel and slander laws so that the well-heeled cannot stifle dissent with SLAPP suits and such.
I think a few Islamic fundamentalists have pushed the envelope about as far it can go, and I think the outcome of the Steyn matter will draw a clear line--at least, I hope it does.
Balance, compromise, civility. That's what all of this turns on for me. Genuine hate speech is one thing; merely offensive speech is quite another. Drawing the line between the two, while difficult, is not impossible. I refuse to be an absolutist in these matters.
Sixth post on the thread, and the first one to offer a personal insult.
Well, I'm sorry you took that personally...it was neither meant as a personal insult (it describes the quality of the analysis) nor was it addressed to you.
Fergus:
I realize that you have trouble distinguishing logic from sophistry
Au contraire...Sophistry is simply argument based on fallacious logic, which is a quality that is fundamental to the thinking processes of authoritarians. Read Bob Altmeyer's work on this.
Now, let us have no more of this.
The technical details regarding Warman's IP address are, frankly, beyond me.
They shouldn't be. The issue is quite simple and if we had the records from the ISP, it could be cleared up easily. It's been the wild speculation and complex analysis by citizen forensic detectives that has made this seem unfathomable.
Well, I'm sorry you took that personally...
I didn't
...it was neither meant as a personal insult (it describes the quality of the analysis)...
I think you are being disingenuous - it was clearly meant to be insulting
...nor was it addressed to you...
And I make no such claim. I merely observe that the comment exists, in contradiction to your mewling but Mom, they started it.
In the Levant case at least, the focus is always on the HRC and Levant, as if the HRC took it into its head to persecute Levant. But surely the HRC is acting as the mediator between Levant and Soharwady. Do the free speech warriors recognize that Soharwady had a right to make a complaint?
My comments weren't based upon Kulaszka's lawyering....
Oh. I guess Oh, yes, the lawyer who made a career out of defending far-right nutbars like Ernst Zündel had me confused. Obviously that's not a part of her lawyering.
As far as the aphorism about laying with dogs, one might make the same observation about Lucy Warman, I suppose. We just have to decide what is worse: entrapment, falsification of evidence and possible perjury, or expression of unpleasant -even profoundly offensive- opinion.
Come now, dcardno, let's not play games. I went directly on from that comment to her book. What is it your intention to argue--that's she's neutral, somehow?
I see you've already convicted Warman. So much for the presumption of innocence.
"I see you've already convicted Warman. So much for the presumption of innocence."
He's *already* boasted about his methods when he thought grown-ups weren't listening. He's 'convicted' himself. I guess you couldn't expect anything else when you have a 100% conviction rate.
"Entrapment and falsification of evidence" are the MO of the CHRCs. All of this is on record *already*, initially denied, of course. (read through tribunal transcripts).
It's going to be an interesting hearing on Tuesday. There will be more members of Stormfront that are/were employees of the CHRC than otherwise.
What is it your intention to argue--that's she's neutral, somehow?
I am not sure that we have any right to expect opposing counsel to be neutral Dawg, or that it is any advantage to their client if they are. In any event, my point is just that I won't condemn Steyn for his choice of lawyer.
As for Lucy, he has admitted under oath the falsification of evidence - although if I recall correctly he initially denied it, also while under oath. We usually call knowingly untrue sworn testimony perjury, Dawg, particularly when it concerns the witness' own actions. This applies no matter how noble the purpose, although in this case nobility is rather a matter of opinion, isn't it?
I think you mean Lemire's lawyer, dcardno. As for Warman's alleged admission of "falsifying evidence,"he admitted under oath, after being prompted, that he posted over at Stormfront under the name Lucy. The immediate correction of an initial error doesn't add up to perjury.
Here's the reference. Relevant pages are 769ff. Warman goes on to deny using the "90sAREover" handle. That question has still to be resolved.
The immediate correction of an initial error doesn't add up to perjury
Bull. A mistake about a date, an incorrect name, a misremembered address or website: sure - but one's own actions, which materially encouraged and participated in the actions complained of? Hardly. That's not 'the correction of an error,' Dawg, and you know it: that's being caught in a deliberate attempt to perpetrate a falsehood.
Some "deliberate effort." The issue was whether he'd signed up at Stormfront to comment or just commented there, as you can do on several boards--after being gently pressed on the point, he promptly admitted it. Some perjury that is.
You folks are grasping at straws to make the anti-Nazi the bad guy here and the Nazi the poor suffering victim, and I'm losing my patience with that.
Ti-guy,
"Au contraire...Sophistry is simply argument based on fallacious logic,..."
I didn't say you couldn't define it, I said you appear to have trouble distinguishing it, as in recognizing it.
"Now, let us have no more of this."
I agree: it is pointless and dull. I am content to let my words here stand; other readers can judge for themselves the relative merits of our respective contributions.
You never did answer my question, though. Curious.
Well, I'm sorry you took that personally...
I didn't
Yes, you did.
..it was neither meant as a personal insult (it describes the quality of the analysis)...
I think you are being disingenuous - it was clearly meant to be insulting
I couldn't care less what you think.
..nor was it addressed to you...
And I make no such claim. I merely observe that the comment exists, in contradiction to your mewling but Mom, they started it.
Which wasn't a personal attack to begin with. But don't worry...I'm sure you have better things to do with your time than to waste mine.
I didn't say you couldn't define it, I said you appear to have trouble distinguishing it, as in recognizing it.
And I proved you wrong.
You never did answer my question, though. Curious.
Well, that's to be expected. I'm not really paying that much attention and wingnut inquisitions don't go anywhere, anyway.
You folks are grasping at straws to make the anti-Nazi the bad guy here and the Nazi the poor suffering victim...
And you are deliberately ignoring the issue of entrapment, or whether it is appropriate for an investigator (in any capacity) or complainant to commit the "crimes" he later complains of, simply because you are so anxious to believe that "the anti-Nazi guy" could do no wrong because his cause is just, or some such.
I really don't care what Lemire's politics are, Dawg - but anyone who has to answer to the state for his belief is a victim. There was a day when this sort of legislation was used against political agitators or even trade unionists. Given your stated background I would think you might see some danger in that - but apparently not.
"And I proved you wrong."
Heh, heh. You've been spending too much time in places with very low standards, as it appears you have as much trouble with the concept of proof, as you do with irony, sophistry, and logic. While you would seem to own a dictionary, it is the practical application of knowledge that is your weak point. Keep plucking away, though: practise makes perfect.
Oh, and if a single question is your definition of an inquisition, exams must have been Hell for you back in your school days.
C'mon, Dawg, this is an incredible stretch. The duller members on your side writing stuff like this, I could see, but to see you get down in this particular gutter is sad.
If the HRC was in any way responsible, there would be a clear record of:
1) which names were used
2) by whom
3) where
4) and when
If it can't produce such backup, it should be shut down as having any sort of quasi-judicial power.
I can imagine if the cops went on a kiddie-porn board, entrapped a pervert to go to a hotel room with a rape kit, but didn't provide a single chat log exactly what you'd say...
Dead right James.
Apparently Warmen, Stacey et. al. donned their invisibility cloaks, popped on their secret decoder wings and went, unsupervised, to entrap assorted internet dimwits into posting vile material. This makes Warman "the bravest man I've ever met (W. Kinsella)" and a CJC award winner.
It also calls into question the entire investigation and management of the CHRC.
I suspect the most interesting witness on Tuesday will be Ms. Rizk. She was not a member of the "Super Anti-Nazi Boys Club" and had to be trained by Warman in its mysterious ways. Outrageously, she was being trained by the complainant whose complaint she was investigating. No doubt, freed of s. 37 Canada Evidence Act objections, she may have a tale to tell.
Heh, heh. You've been spending too much time in places with very low standards, as it appears you have as much trouble with the concept of proof, as you do with irony, sophistry, and logic. While you would seem to own a dictionary, it is the practical application of knowledge that is your weak point. Keep plucking away, though: practise makes perfect.
Oh, and if a single question is your definition of an inquisition, exams must have been Hell for you back in your school days.
Such a significant investment of time and energy to accomplish so little...which basically boils down to Fergus calling me stupid, unlettered and afraid of exams.
Ti-Guy, you have to give him an A for effort, usually his ilk would have just called you a liberal, and giggled to each other...
Ti-guy, I don't think you're stupid, I have no idea if you are unlettered and the exams line was a throw-away making light of your "inquisition" remark. I simply find it hilarious that you believe you've proven something when all you've done is call me a sophist, deny the plain meaning of your words, and refuse to engage me on the only point that truly had any relevance to the topic of the post. Like I said, that kind of performance may be enough in other places you like to hang out, but I thought the standard was a bit higher here.
Why do you say that, Fergus?
The atmosphere here seems different. Less confrontational, I guess; more conducive to debate as opposed to squabbling.
Commenting by HaloScan
