Bark!
I find evangelicals offensive. How come churches are still tax exempt?
Totally. That's the example I use most often when the nitwits shriek about abortion funding. Don't even talk about it until the churches start paying taxes.
I was thinking the other day that we hadn't heard from ol' Chuckie in a long time. He's claiming influence but there isn’t much to back up his claim, he just likes to blow his own horn.
Of course the Chuckie stamp of approval makes the whole thing worse than it already was.
Bruce - Chuckie was allowed to speak, I'm surprised he wasn't told to STFU like the rest of the religious rightbots. Harper must be losing control of them.
That could be a good thing, coming up to an election.
Im confused. I mean I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one but you were kind of ambivalent on what you thought of "free speech" when it was Ezra Levant's cartoons. While you said the complaint was "frivilous" you also said: "Because a scurvy, scummy little cadre of nitwits insists on being such bigoted douchebags, the unfortunate reality is that those who feel threatened need some avenue to address their concerns."
So doesnt that make you guilty of the same double standard the "fundies" employ?
KC - Huh? I'm not sure I understand where your confusion originates -- I was never ambivalent about Ezra's case -- from day one I said I hoped it got tossed.
I wasn't referring to Ezra as a bigoted douchebag -- while he might well be one, publishing those dumb cartoons doesn't prove it. The "scurvy, scummy etc etc" refers to those who propagate genuine hate speech and incite violence against minorities.
This is the second time in my life I've watched the free speech absolutists rise up in a chorus of indignation about restrictions on free expression to come back to what I've always known they support in their heart of hearts...censorship...which I believe is a concept they (with very few exceptions) simply don't understand, or understand only very selectively.
It's always a mistake to let the hate-mongers control the discussion of freedom of expression because what they're really doing is looking for a way to trivialise or marginalise any challenges to their ideas...or to make them disappear altogether.
The rationalization will be "There shouldn't be any government subsidization of the arts, and this is a good start along that path."
Which is nonsense, of course.
On the other hand, Canadian Heritage funds Pride in Toronto and other cities, so perhaps they mean they will no longer fund TV shows that don't feature topless lesbians and men in assless chaps. Shows lacking them really are offensive, don't you agree?
ti-guy - It's kind of good to see the "free speech" pretense dropped. I mean, all along we've all known what that was really all about. Nice to see them showing themselves for who they really are.
I agree that it's a huge mistake to let them dominate the issue, when what they're talking about isn't free expression at all. Now if they were really free speech crusaders they been pretending to be, they'd be blogging up a storm in protest of this bill. But so far *crickets*
RB - In a perfect world, the arts would be self-sustaining. So would health care, schools and roads. But it ain't a perfect world, yet. Without funding, the arts would dry up and cease to exist. That might be okay to some, but if there's one thing that brings colour and diversity to our doorsteps, it's the arts, and in that respect, I think it's something we need to nurture.
"perhaps they mean they will no longer fund TV shows that don't feature topless lesbians and men in assless chaps"
I don't disagree with you, just sayin' how they'll spin it.
Sort of the same as they'd say, "It's a good idea to privatize health care, but if we can't do it all right away, why not start with people on welfare and the working poor."
RB - Indeed, that will probably be exactly how they'll spin it.
Fortunately, McVety had to open his big mouth about it, and your average mushy-middle canadian won't like the idea of someone like him being involved, even if it was just an idea he was pushing for. Makes it sound that much more like ideologically-driven censorship.
I wrote about the same thing here two days ago and then followed it up yesterday after the McVety comments came out. They were ridiculous. He was actually on CFRB talking to Leslie Roberts about it and the more he talked the dumber he sounded.... I wish I could have taped it and put it up.
--malocite
Hi malocite
- McVety is a blithering idiot, every news clip I've ever seen of him makes that abundantly clear.
That said, I'm glad he chose this moment (what with the cons busy trying to defuse the Cadman scandal) to open his fat yap and gloat about how involved he was with the process. That'll go over with the electorate like a lead balloon. The cons seem to forget that 2/3 of us (plus a good number of moderate tories) don't want the likes of McVety anywhere near Parliament Hill.
Time to light 'em up!
My girlfriend says I am a liberal, maybe I am, but I do not like Mr Dion, but I also do not like Mr Harper, the party went entirely too far right, and it didn't need to. But, I guess thats what happens when the powerbase is in the west. Maybe if more Ontarians had voted for the party there'd be more say from this province, but who really knows for sure. I long for the days of the red tories, I sure hope John Tory moves to Federal Politics, and puts a stop to this right wing lunacy.
malocite - Liberal/conservative isn't the whole story of the political spectrum -- the more important context than left/right is authoritarian/libertarian. (See my "liberal facism" post from last week
)
I don't care for Dion either -- nice guy, but he doesn't have what it takes to motivate people. However, he's a long-term political survivor so that says something about him -- he's tenacious at least.
Harper is a creep. As much as you may think the CPC has gone too far right, it's not nearly as far right as the people around Harper would like to go. The days of red tory glory are gone, for the time being.
Commenting by HaloScan
