Uh, no. Well, actually, this motorcyclist’s belief that he “can write funnier stuff than Mark Steyn” is pretty funny. Just not funny in the way he fancies.
Why do I comment on these crazies? It’s not like Steyn can’t take care of himself. It’s like I’m a fan or something.
Update:
Jill came up with a great moniker for lady Steyn fans: Steynette. Doesn’t that sound très retro? I picture a hot, repressed secretary just dying to let her hair down.
I picture a hot, repressed secretary just dying to let her hair down.
That makes two of us. LOL
I don’t think I need to say more, you summarized it pretty well. Thanks, and I will read along from time to time.
In response:
“In a perfect world, two sides can meet, state their points of view, and can see some good in the opposing point of view.”
I am with you heart and soul.
“I saw some interesting and valid points being made about free speech, for example.”
I am heartily glad of it.
“And I decided to question my support for the Sections of the Criminal Code of Canada about those who advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred, willfully promote hatred against an “identifiable group.” Obviously I need a bit more time to consider all the implications. Like the abolition of speed limits. Freedom yes, but always be careful what you wish for, sometimes you might get it.”
Now hold on there! The criminal code is not the problem. In the courts the rule of law prevails. There is the presumption of innocence, the right to face and answer your accusers, and hundreds of years of judicial precedence by which the courts are guided and restrained. It is the so-called Human Rights Councils where we have really gone amuck.
“Now I’m going to ask a question, and this applies to all sides:”
All right, I am ready.
“In supporting free speech is there also an obligation to speak out against anyone who is advocating genocide?”
There is a right to speak out against it, and I am morally bound to speak out against it, but I rather don’t think a free society would obligate me to speak out.
“And if someone writes something that makes you hate some other group of people, do you fact-check? Do you give the other side a chance?”
Now, no one can write things that will make me hate a group of people. And of course, whenever someone writes, it is the obligation of the writer to support their assertions with objective facts, and the obligation of a critical reader to investigate the matter for themselves and see if it is so.
“And does everyone accept that even with free speech you could lose your job purely through free market forces?”
Regardless of whether everyone accepts it or not, that is not under question. But would you want to find yourself thinking twice about stating your heart felt opinion about “honor killings” or polygamy or child brides or what have you, because you know some yahoo could pull you up before a Human Rights Council, at the expense of the tax payer, and force you to prove that you did not intend to offend anyone, that what you said should not be considered offensive, and besides that everything you said was true. All of which will be no defense, and nine months and $100,000 dollars in legal fees later you are ordered to go to sensitivity classes and pay restitution on the order of another $8,000 to the “offended” party?
“Free speech means people are allowed to respond to attacks, right? Including refusing to buy certain books and canceling magazine subscriptions and blogging in self defense.”
Certainly. You are not required to buy any book, or subscribe to any magazine. But you should be able to buy the book, if you wanted.
“By the way in response to Nicholas, I never said Mark beat the tribunal through “dumb luck”, I said he was clever.”
Fair enough. It was just more fun for me to write it that way.
“I also said Mark won in a fair hearing.”
Well, now here we part again. The hearing was decidedly not fair. It was an absolute travesty. There was no discovery, no rules of evidence, no legal training on the part of the “judges”, no legal guidelines whatsoever. Human Rights Council hearings never are fair. The words Human Rights Council and fair do not belong together in the same sentence. That was the point of my comment above about the criminal code verses the HRC.
“Mark’s point is that he should never have been forced to defend himself at a tribunal, fair or not.”
And on that point he is dead on right.
“Now I’m inclined to side with him on that, that Canada should stop stifling free speech and I hope that people are intelligent enough to not get stirred up with hate propaganda on all sides and descend into civil war. Canadians are not as peaceful as most people think they are – ”
I hope so. My feeling is that people like you will always want to live free, and will resent those that would take our freedoms away. If I am right on that, it bodes well for the future.
“And about Moslems, I lived for three years in a Moslem country, and never once saw the types of atrocities I read about on this blog. I’m not saying they didn’t happen somewhere, but obviously Moslems are not all like that.”
Of course not. But the Wahhabi sect of Islam, exported across the world over the last fifty years by our “friends” in Saudi Arabia, has been radicalizing large sects of the Muslim world and intimidating the rest.
More to the point, they are attempting to intimidate the rest of the world as well, and are stifling Western freedoms where they can. And that is what Mark has been writing about. He is not against Islam. He is against tyranny and oppression, and any ideology, religious sect or political structure that would promote the same.
“Moderation needs to be recognized and even encouraged.”
Yes, but try passing that off in the suburbs of Paris when cartoons are printed, cartoons Motorcycle man, that the Imams take offense to.
But listen, I am a lame writer compared to this Hyacinth Girl. She’s a firecracker, and a crack-up to boot. Hang out, read along, maybe drop a little something in the donate box if you want to support her writing.
I will close and leave the last word to you. I must say I have enjoyed this exchange. You are an honest guy, which is about the best I can say of any of us. Good talking with you, Motorcycle man.
I thought we were making progress too. Unfortunately the subject is emotionally charged, I am coming from an opposing point of view, and writing sometimes conveys the wrong message, so patience is required.
In a perfect world, two sides can meet, state their points of view, and can see some good in the opposing point of view. I saw some interesting and valid points being made about free speech, for example.
So for my part I decided to let go on Mark’s comment about culling and assume the best, as Nicholas and maybe others said, he was only trying to say what had happened and may continue to happen in the future.
And I decided question my support for the Sections of the Criminal Code of Canada about those who advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred, willfully promote hatred against an “identifiable group.” Obviously I need a bit more time to consider all the implications. Like the abolition of speed limits. Freedom yes, but always be careful what you wish for, sometimes you might get it.
Now I’m going to ask a question, and this applies to all sides: In supporting free speech is there also an obligation to speak out against anyone who is advocating genocide? And if someone writes something that makes you hate some other group of people, do you fact-check? Do you give the other side a chance?
And does everyone accept that even with free speech you could lose your job purely through free market forces?
I continue to disagree with some (OK probably a lot) of what Mark writes, as he does not seem to let up on ridiculing French Canadians, and I am half French – and now he seems to be heaping scorn on English Canadians also. Free speech means people are allowed to respond to attacks, right? Including refusing to buy certain books and canceling magazine subscriptions and blogging in self defense.
By the way in response to Nicholas, I never said Mark beat the tribunal through “dumb luck”, I said he was clever.
I also said Mark won in a fair hearing. Mark’s point is that he should never have been forced to defend himself at a tribunal, fair or not. Now I’m inclined to side with him on that, that Canada should stop stifling free speech and I hope that people are intelligent enough to not get stirred up with hate propaganda on all sides and descend into civil war. Canadians are not as peaceful as most people think they are – it’s a show we put on to try to avoid becoming another Yugoslavia. Mark was probably smart to get out when he did.
And about Moslems, I lived for three years in a Moslem country, and never once saw the types of atrocities I read about on this blog. I’m not saying they didn’t happen somewhere, but obviously Moslems are not all like that. Moderation needs to be recognized and even encouraged.
My blog entry Propaganda: Muslims
Yeah, where is Tim? He’s got great comments.
Don’t worry, Nick. I’m not sweating a thing. I just don’t like wasting my time. ;)
Motorcycle man, you ask what would Mark Steyn say if there were no hate laws.
Well, the answer is he would write exactly the same thing.
That is the point. He is speaking his mind freely, and he is not cow towing to the sensibilities of those of us who are easily offended, nor to those of us who make a living out of investigating and bringing to trial we who are offensive speakers. It is the essence of free speech to be able to say things that are provocative, impolitic and, yes, even offensive.
“Mark was one of the very few writers who did not call for Akenahew to go to jail. And for that, I give him credit for honesty. Although understandably his support for Akenahew was a little tepid.”
Well, what did you expect? Mark Steyn was not supporting what Akenahew said, he was supporting his right to say it. That is the essential qualification to be considered a lover and defender of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. I too have had a taste of being censored for my opinion, at great cost to myself and my family. I was prevented from working for a full year for merely expressing the truth. I hated it and those who were part of the process, and to my discredit I still harbor a deep resentment over it.
To be free to speak your own thoughts, and to be free to express them, that is the greatest freedom we possess. No one should be allowed to take that from you. If they do, it is my duty as a citizen of a free society to stand with you and oppose them, to argue for your freedoms, whether or not I am in agreement with your opinion. That is what Mark Steyn has done in the case you cite. He would be a very weak defender of freedom if he did not. And it is your duty as a free citizen of a country with a long tradition of freedom of the individual to defend Mark Steyn’s right to say what he thinks, whomever it may offend.
April, it’s Easter. It’s late. Don’t sweat it. Your comment at 10:14 was smoking.
We can chat on with the Lost without further effort on your part. I’ve enjoyed the exercise, and I think we’re getting somewhere. The motorcyclist concedes that avid Steyn readers apparently are not proponents of genocide. Now all one has to do is to surmise what that must say about the author that all these people are avidly reading. That’s progress!
My question, however, is where is tdotTim? The world wonders. He is obviously a bright guy, well read, very familiar with Steyn. Surely he’s game to comment on something other than the relative merits of breast size? ; )
I said as long as people were willing to speak out against genocide, we could get rid of hate laws, and have free speech. Then verybody can write what they want.
OK yes, I did say that if there were no hate laws and as a result Mark actually started writing to advocate holocaust, he might (and should) lose his job due to magazine cancellations.
The alternative that if Mark, in the absence of hate laws refrained from advoocating Genocide, he probably would keep his job, but I was kind of hoping to write for MacLeans if the job opened up.
But either way, it’s simply a description of how free speech and the free market works if you remove the hate laws. I thought that’s what everybody here wanted. Free speech is what I want, and I think that’s basically what I wrote.
And now you’re just setting up strawmen. This is clearly going nowhere, as there is really no definable parameters for this “debate.” The basis for your argument–the supposed motives behind Steyn’s “carefully chosen” words–is faulty. I cannot argue from within Steyn’s mind anymore than you can.
This is a pointless exercise at this point. You seem like a sincere & personable fellow, but you are just so hopelessly wrong. Until you open your mind an inch, all discourse with you on this subject is futile.
My mistake I meant Moslems not Jews in second last sentence. I hope nobody is going to take my quote about Akenahew the wrong way, it looks real bad out of context.