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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Gughunter wrote:

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.

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.

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.