The words were unsparing, and the apology was well-crafted.
A psychopath can say anything, remember. Apologies are at best useless, at worst a devious way to avoid taking other action (the Japanese Canadians, for instance, got an "apology" and penny on the dollar compensation for being robbed -- good deal for the government). Actions talk louder than words, as you noted.
Excellent post, Dawg. I hope the New Year treats you well!
Right back atcha, Terrence!
"Yup, it's the price of freedom and democracy, but we don't have to like it."
You know, that gem's actually worth the whole post there, Dawg.
Some of us have different likes and dislikes, of course.
Bliadhna Mhath Ur Dhuibh!
Interesting round-up of the year:
Re section 13 -
Why should we allow "easy accessibility" to those wanting to limit free speech? Surely it is too important a right to not be protected by a high bar (like the criminal code)for prosecutions.
And are you really claiming that the CHRC is anti-Muslim when it spends the vast majority of its time harassing neo-Nazis, evangelicals, elderly Catholics, and conservative websites, while dismissing misogyny and homophobia emanating from Muslim clerics..
As for your praise of Keynsian/socialist economics - where is the government going to get all this money from? Neither the Finance Minister nor the Governor of the Back of Canada is Santa Claus. Either they borrow it which crowds out private investment. Or they tax it which depresses spending. Or they print it which means inflation in the future.
If you think the economy is bad now, just wait 'till we are faced with 70s-style government-caused stagflation.
Craig:
Read the piece again.
I think any legal procedure should be freely accessible to the public, and the Human Rights Tribunal system is. If we want to jettison hate speech provisions in the various Human Rights Acts, which so far have netted only those who would have been convicted under the Criminal Code anyway (Moon's point), then make the Criminal Code process easier to access--unless, of course, you want to abolish those provisions in the Criminal Code anyway. Is that your intent?
I don't think the CHRC is anti-Muslim at all. But the complaints I referred to had no merit, and everybody knew it. We called all those cases, and we were right. Our point being, of course, that the law is not quite the jackbooted threat to free speech that hyped-up blowhards like (for example) Ezra Levant were claiming it to be.
On the economy, I was referring to measures already taken by the Bush administration and Congress. I'm hardly the first to make the observation I did. But you appear to be of the Herbert Hoover school of economics--in times of recession, haul back on spending. That just makes things worse, as even most of the right wing would concede at this point. By the way, "70s style stagflation" is looking pretty good in comparison about now.
Actually, many of the measures that we associate with the New Deal began with Hoover. And much of the recent scholarship on the New Deal (for e.g, Lee Ohanian at UCLA) argues that Roosevelt's proto-Keynsian measures were totally ineffective. But, yes, I do think it's better to let asset prices fall and liquidate the malinvestments quickly. The more serious question, however, is why do we have these asset bubbles in the first place - market failure, insufficient regulation, or state failure - loose monetary policy and large subsidies. I lean towards the latter view.
As for section 13 - if it's only netting those who would have been charged under the Criminal Code (a claim I am sceptical of) then why do we need it? After all, there is a cost to those who face a complaint even if it's not upheld (e.g., Father Velk).
I misunderstood your point re the CHRC and Muslims.
All the best for the New Year.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
