|
March 25th, 2008 | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,977
|
How to turn a neo-Nazi into a free-speech martyr
How to turn a neo-Nazi into a free-speech martyr
Jonathan Kay, National Post Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 Neo-Nazis at the Alberta legislature in 1997. Brian Gavriloff, CanWest News Service http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465...n?size=404x272 Marc Lemire is a former leader of Canada's neo-Nazi Heritage Front. He helped distribute flyers informing Canadians that "Immigration can kill you." On the internet he acts as webmaster for a variety of anti-Semitic organizations. In short, he is a bigot -- a poster-boy for all those who claim that racism is still alive and well in modern Canada. But when Lemire faces off against representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) later today, I will be rooting for him -- and so will thousands of other Canadians who are otherwise contemptuous of Lemire's way of thinking. It may seem impossible that decent, ordinary people could be convinced to take the side of an alleged neo-Nazi. Yet, somehow, Canada's "human rights" establishment has managed the task. There is only one way to get people to support a despised outcast such as Lemire -- and that is to turn him into a martyr for a larger principle -- in this case, the principle that Canadians should be able to express themselves without subjecting their opinions to the judgment of heresy-sniffing bureaucrats. At today's hearing, Lemire will be interrogating two HRC employees who are investigating whether he violated Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits Canadians from electronically communicating "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of [their group identity]." As Canadian Civil Liberties Association general-counsel Alan Borovoy told National Post reporter Joseph Brean, Section 13.1 could theoretically be used to censor a book detailing widespread German complicity in the Holocaust, since such a book would be "likely to expose" Germans to hatred. Some modest limitations on free speech can be tolerated in a free society -- libel laws, for instance, or prohibitions on speech that would actually incite imminent, lawless action. But ideological litmus tests such as Section 13.1 are never acceptable. Whether directed at "traitors," blasphemers, pacifists, communists, racists or otherwise, history shows, these tests always mushroom into full-scale censorship campaigns against enemies of the government or of its orthodoxies. The cases against Maclean's and The Western Standard were entirely predictable manifestations of this fundamental rule. You'd think that human rights types would understand the power of empathy. A short while back, I attended a Toronto awards dinner for something called the Canadian Centre for Diversity. Out in the lobby, the organizers unfurled some of their latest public service announcements. In one, a black man intones: "I am a woman when I am confronting inequality." In another, a Chinese man says "I am a Jew when I am learning about the Holocaust." An able-bodied woman says "I am a person with special needs when I am realizing how inaccessible our world is." As Lemire goes up against the HRC, a similar set of aphorisms suggest themselves: "When the law bans obscenity, I am a pornographer. When a fatwa bans blasphemy, I am an infidel. And when a human rights commission prosecutes internet hatemongers for hate speech, I am a neo-Nazi scumbag." If Lemire and his ilk have a secret scheme to render neo-Nazis into sympathetic figures, they could conceive no better weapon than Section 13.1. < 12> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...?id=397652&p=2 2008 Canwest Interactive, a division of Canwest Publishing Inc. |
March 26th, 2008 | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
|
About as solid an argument as we're likely to see in the controlled media, given our debased and jewed society.
Gee, basic rights to free speech. Guess the writer, Jonathan Kay, isn't a jew. Free speech never seems basic or "a given" to jews; their entire genetic mental structure favors racial totalitarianism. That which doesn't serve their race - simply should not exist. That's their mindset. They get ... uncomfortable... when White men meet up and talk plainly and freely. Lots of "bad" could come from that, y'know. Dangerous. A handicapped lesbian might be offended somewhere. No, that's not the real reason for speech restriction. The real reason is "to prevent" another HOOOOOLOCAUST. Gag the goyim! That'll keep our victims from hating us! Last edited by Sean Gruber; March 26th, 2008 at 12:06 AM. Reason: changed sentence |
March 26th, 2008 | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: naples
Posts: 11,123
|
Why don't they find out exactly who drafted and pushed implementation of Section 13.1 into the Canadian justice system and then make them very sorry that they did it.
Warman needs to be addressed as well. .
__________________
The ink of the learned is as precious as the blood of the martyr. For one drop of ink may make millions think.
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|