Archive for April, 2008

A free-speech primer

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

I have already written about the battle taking place here in Canada about the limiting of free speech.

The following two articles sum up the situation very well and they are both worth reading in their entirety. The first article by Joseph C. Ben-Ami offers a compelling historical perspective. Here’s an excerpt:

It’s a myth that Weimar Germany was a bastion of freedom and civil rights before being taken over by the Nazis. The Weimar Republic was no respecter of civil liberties and the rule of law – at least not consistently. Weimar “liberals” shut down newspapers when it suited them, they spied on political parties, they used plainclothes police or other surrogates to break up political meetings, they outlawed political parties – including the Nazis for a time, and they not only tolerated armed militias but in many instances encouraged their existence and activity while the judiciary turned a blind eye.

There is a lesson to be learned here, but it’s not the lesson that Yalden and his ideological compatriots are teaching. National Socialist Germany is not an example of what happens when hate is tolerated – it’s an example of what happens when hate is empowered. The uncomfortable fact is that the Nazis didn’t invent the apparatus of power or culture of repression in Germany, they merely took control of, and perfected, an apparatus and culture that had already been created and used by “liberals” to combat extremism.

Source.

The second article is from Ezra Levant’s blog and it deals with the concerns surrounding the libel lawsuit brought forward against a number of prominent conservative writers here in Canada by Richard Warman.

Here’s an excerpt:

Warman’s not just suing me. He’s suing some of the biggest names in the Canadian blogosphere – from Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals to Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury (or, Five Feet of Furry, as the lawsuit says on page 2), to Free Dominion, the largest conservative chat site in Canada. Warman’s goal is breathtaking in its chutzpah: he wants to muzzle the Canadian conservative Internet. It’s not just his goal – it’s the goal of the CHRC itself, and its friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress, who have stated their goal is to “tame” the Internet – or at least those voices they disagree with. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the CJC was bankrolling Warman’s lawsuit – they’ve done joint legal work together before, and Warman’s number one defender is on the CJC’s legal committee. The CJC hates conservatives, and this would be a way for them to do damage to the conservative blogosphere without taking the political flak for it.

Take a look at the language Warman’s lawsuit uses to smear Free Dominion. At paragraph 17, Warman calls them an “extreme right-wing discussion forum”. Look at that language – hardly distinguishable from the CHRC’s and CJC’s boilerplate insults reserved for neo-Nazis. That’s what this lawsuit is about: an attempt by the CHRC’s biggest star to try to marginalize Canadian conservatism. And why not? The CHRC has moved from targeting white supremacists to targeting mainstream conservatives like Mark Steyn; the Alberta HRC has already gagged Christian pastors and taken a run at Calgary’s bishop, and two years ago they charged me with publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Surely attempting to criminalize conservatism is just the next, natural step for these congenital censors.

Source.

Guns don’t kill people …

Monday, April 14th, 2008

Criminals with guns kill people.

Personally I have very little interest in guns myself, but I do understand that some law-abiding citizens do choose to own handguns, and I don’t have an objection to that. Choosing to own a handgun also comes with responsibility – and risk. We have laws in this country that require owners to have a firearms license and the handling and storage of guns is tightly regulated.

Do we want to ban handgun ownership in Canada because there is some risk attached to gun ownership? I would argue there is a much greater risk associated with car ownership but no one is demanding cars be banned. With car ownership we recognize that the individual can be trusted to operate his or her vehicle safely, and unsafe operation is deterred by very strict penalties – penalties that are enforced after a crime or a violation is committed.

Law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. The problem we have is not with the legal ownership of guns – it’s with the criminals that chose to use the guns.

My concern over the handgun ban debate is that many will see it as a solution, when in fact it is a placebo. It will give people a false sense that something is being done while the disease that’s destroying lives in our cities continues to spread.

My other concern is that the handgun ban will be used as a political football, as Michael Den Tandt wrote recently:

Handgun owners are like smokers: Their habit is unpopular. They’d just as soon keep their heads down and let the politicians yammer away. But here’s the thing about Miller’s proposed ban. If introduced, it will have little, if any, effect on handgun violence anywhere in Canada. The mayor’s own statistics show between 60 and 66% of handguns seized by Toronto police are smuggled across the Canada-U.S. border.

Source.

And by the way, how is that other recent ban working out?