The dastardly criminal Mark Steyn quickly became a favorite of mine once I stumbled across some articles by him and learned of the crimes he's been accused of in Canada.
I am quite sure I did a search a few months ago to see if he had a blog, so how the heck did I miss it?
You can read through that site to see the ugly details of what he's been accused of. There's a summary by another writer here, in Mark Steyn: Enemy of the State?, which I particularly like for this quote:
One of the principal investigators of the Canadian Human Rights Commission was asked in a hearing what value he puts on freedom of speech in his work, and replied, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
Tangentially, here's perhaps the greatest and most important YouTube video ever posted, also touching on the wonders of the Canadian Human Rights regime:
If you wonder about my interest in such things, as a dirty American, they are two-fold:
- I actually have the right to claim Canadian citizenship if I choose, inheriting it from my mother.
- I don't want to see America adopt the worst aspects of the Canadian system, or as Steyn says, I'll have nowhere else to go...
Jul 6 2008, 1:39 pm
|
|
Lummox JR
  |
Steyn's been a favorite writer of mine for years. But I may have to start reading more by Ezra Levant, because those videos he posted are absolutely beyond awesome.
|
Steyn is a bigoted jerk. There's nothing more that can be said about a man that characterises an entire population of one billion people as inherently bad.
Sure, not a human rights abuser, and yes, he should have the right to say what he wants. I'll agree with him that far. But only that far. | |
Jp wrote:
There's nothing more that can be said about a man that characterises an entire population of one billion people as inherently bad. That would certainly be annoying -- where exactly did he do that? | |
Good gads, Jp, who exactly is your news source and exactly how many times did their mother drop them on their head as a baby?
I've read Steyn quite a bit, and he isn't any kind of bigot. His detractors, on the other hand, seem to be awfully fond of broad-brush smearing and burning strawmen in effigy. | |
It's certainly the feeling I get from what little I've read of his work - he seems to lump all Muslims together and stick them under the "not good" blanket, as in, for example, his continuing theme that Muslims are 'out-breeding' other groups in European nations.
| |
You understand that 'out-breeding' is a fact, right Jp?
And we can have endless debates about whether the complacency of Muslims in the middle east and around the world amounts to aiding or guilt by association with Islamists - but I don't want to get into it. You've already shown that you'll just call me a bigot without debating the issue because you just called Steyn a bigot because he cited a fact. | |
That they certainly are doing (it's a simple fact of demographics), but Steyn's writing on that subject is nothing like the ugly ravings of Pat Buchanan. Nor have I ever read anything he's written that would suggest Muslims are inherently bad people. I tend to think you're unwittingly twisting the meaning of his words into something bad because you disagree with his politics in general.
| |
Jp wrote:
Sure, not a human rights abuser, and yes, he should have the right to say what he wants. I'll agree with him that far. But only that far. Other debates aside (and I haven't yet read enough Steyn to know whether he's said something that comes close to what has been claimed here, though I suspect he's too intelligent for that), I wanted to go back and highlight what you said here, because it's what really matters. What you've said here is exactly what Canada (and too many other nations) is missing -- the idea that free speech is necessary so that people can offend others, and have unpopular opinions, and be spectacularly wrong (or sometimes just right before everyone else realizes it). There's nothing better in the world than a person who profoundly disagrees with another, but has no problem with allowing that person to express themselves. It's even possible that there's nothing more important in the world, as the suppression of such speech tends to be the start of a march toward some very ugly things... | |
Deadron wrote:
What you've said here is exactly what Canada (and too many other nations) is missing -- the idea that free speech is necessary so that people can offend others, and have unpopular opinions, and be spectacularly wrong (or sometimes just right before everyone else realizes it). Necessary? It's a facet of the US constitution that enables the free flow of ideas and creativity. i.e. it gives us a marked advantage in the world markets in terms of innovation. So, while it's not necessary, it can put countries like China and Canada at a decisive "creative" disadvantage. | |
So, while it's not necessary, it can put countries like China and Canada at a decisive "creative" disadvantage. In America it's considered to be a right. A right is, by definition, necessary, as it's not an arbitrary creation of government but rather a birthright with which men are endowed by their Creator. If the government infringes upon rights, the government loses its claim to legitimacy. That was the basis of the Declaration of Independence. | |
It's worth adding that free speech is necessary for democracy, and it is the greatest enemy of tyranny (and vice-versa). In Canada, these "human rights" commissions are prosecuting free speech--in a way that affords defendants none of their rights to a fair trial--in the name of sparing people's feelings, which is not any kind of valid reason to suppress speech. In the name of human rights they are slashing merrily away at the most basic of human rights.
| |
Gughunter wrote:
In America it's considered to be a right. A right is, by definition, necessary, as it's not an arbitrary creation of government but rather a birthright with which men are endowed by their Creator.So, while it's not necessary, it can put countries like China and Canada at a decisive "creative" disadvantage. Reverse your logic... the United States passed a Constitution that derived from a few people's interpretation of natural birthrights (and most would agree, a defense against British Empire-like tyranny). Other countries are well in their right to establish their own constitutional law. Hence, the right to free speech is not a necessary one. I think if a government was truly interested in long term infrastructural growth, they would want to give their citizens this right. If they don't, their loss and the US's gain. If the government infringes upon rights, the government loses its claim to legitimacy. That was the basis of the Declaration of Independence. Given the 200+ countries with 200+ (mostly) independent sets of laws and (mostly) their own sovereignty, you'd have to admit that your last statement here has zero relevance. | |
Gughunter wrote:
In America it's considered to be a right. It's all relative, Gug! Each freedom is just one choice in the marketplace of governments, all equally valid. But you might take one on if you think it'll help your commercial prospects, as a lark. Be careful, though, or those uppity peasants will start taking things seriously! | |
Lummox JR wrote:
It's worth adding that free speech is necessary for democracy, and it is the greatest enemy of tyranny (and vice-versa). In Canada, these "human rights" commissions are prosecuting free speech--in a way that affords defendants none of their rights to a fair trial--in the name of sparing people's feelings, which is not any kind of valid reason to suppress speech. In the name of human rights they are slashing merrily away at the most basic of human rights. But don't overestimate a populace's want of that right. Take Singapore for instance; it's a city/state that has very distinct racial groups that are collected within distinct borough lines. The Singapore gov't is known for it's extremely anti-free speech and hyper-regulated laws. But they are a world economic power and have had relatively little social unrest even with the racial diversity. Even in the US, the populace have negative kneejerk reactions to such free speech activities such as public swearing or flag burning. While the US Constitution is *supposed* be followed, we constantly have pockets of us attacking those guaranteed rights. So while it's unfortunate that Mark Steyn doesn't have the protection that he would have as a US citizen, we have our own horrible monstrocity of a human rights violation we have to correct... the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. So while I disagree with Canada's, China's, and Singapore's human rights stances, they are well within their sovereignty to have those stances. They have not suffered economically for those decisions. | |