Friday, June 27, 2008
Hooray for hate speech!
So, AI and AA, you foreign-born preservers of True Americanism, was there really much danger here? Did poor McCain have to go up to the North Vietnadians and tell them how to run their own little fruity commissions to save Steyn from the ratmeat dungeon? I wonder what the Buckley hole washers at NRO are saying now, but just. can't. click. n r online.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
If Steyn and Levant had LOST this case then it would have been a very dangerous sign, yes.
Wasnt's what this was all about? Doing the damndest not to lose this case?
Now back to Planet Pepe and the Gloriously Radiantly Brilliantly Fake American Future, Brought to You in Technicolor Hues of Red, Green, and Brown!
By the way, the Steyn & Levant case was the first, ever, absolute never done before, blemish in the 100% conviction rate of the CHRCs. Do you think that would have happened if Steyn & Co. had not taken it with utmost seriousness?
But then, I suppose, Steyn is one of those "furriners" overly concerned about True Americanism.
The CHRC backed out, AA. This is worse than losing a case. It's admitting you didn't have one.
No, damn, it worse than not losing the case. I wish they had not backed out and lost the case. A case lost, first, would break that 100% conviction rate and perhaps break the sense of infallibility its acolytes may have. Second, by dropping the case, before it could be adjucatd, they can always go back to it in the future, when the political climate in Canada is more favorable to them.
All this does is temporarily stay their hand, not show that it can be definitely stopped. So the threat of future prosecutions hangs there, they keep the "perfection" of their show trials, and they--like all good Pepeans-- abide until the proper moment to strike appears.
Just watch over the next couple of years.
By the way, has Steyn or Levant yet put out their thoughts on all this?
You have a point, sort of, but backing down on a famous case like this might as well be a <100% rate. Still, I wonder if Canada has a way for MacLeans to appeal. Do you know?
I don't. I was getting lazy and wanting Steyn to go ahead and spell out the details for us. But if the slothful bugger won't oblige, I guess we'll have to
AA, Steyn talks and links a little here.
Thanks, JJ:
Steyn himself doesn't say much on our issue. Although I'm sure he will have much to say later. I did like very much McLeans not letting the issue go with mention:
"Though gratified by the decision, Maclean's continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation's media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued ....... We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.
JJ: Good post -- I was out flying the friendly skies for a day or two, and had missed the story. AA: you put things in context quite well. Good to hear Steyn an Macleans beat the rap from the Pepean star chamber -- someone should press the issue while these guys from the CHRC (or wahtever their name is) are on the defensive, what they did was truly outrageous. Can't have this Damocles' sword hanging over Free Speech.
As for Mccain keeping all quiet about it, and not saying one word in defense of Free Speech while he had a golden occasion on that trip to Canuckia -- hmmm, it just goes to show how timorous he's in defense of freedom. I'll stay with Barry Goldwater and his speech at the Republican Convention in 1964 -- that other Arizonian had some real balls. Too bad he got beaten by some random Texan, whatever his name was.
Post a Comment