I’ve Moved!
November 20, 2008
So I’m sure that most people have noticed that the site has been offline for a few days. There’s a reason for that, which I will get to shortly. But first, let me just say this:
In fact, I am blogging at a new site I have just finished setting up: kennethhynek.net. A full explanation for the reasons behind the move can be found here
.
That said, this is not the end of Time Immortal. My wife Grace has expressed interest in taking over blogging at this domain, and I am working to make sure that she gets set up here as soon as possible.
Also, my profound apologies for the modification to the site face; the move was not as seamless as I would have hoped, and many of the image files for this theme, and in the gallery, were corrupted during the course of their evacuation from my previous web host’s servers. Until such time as I have repaired them, I’ve put a clean-looking template in place of the previous one.
Update: for the purposes of further traffic shaping, new posts from kennethhynek.net will be excerpted below. Full articles can be read at the new blog.
Law is Cool backs down
January 14, 2008
Can’t stand the heat, I guess:
All of this has resulted in us reviewing the situation and deciding that we will no longer be carrying content related to the case or Mark Steyn. Any legal information that appears similar to the case after this point is pure coincidental. Anyone posting under this name on other sites can assumed to be fraudulent.The complainants in the case, of which only one is represented here in part, should be setting up their own site soon. Please hop over and take your feeding frenzy over there, and let us resume our academic discourse in peace. lawiscool
Couple of points�wow these folks fold fast. Imagine if a real QC jumped out from behind a tort and yelled �boo�. They�d settle for a buck and a half and the client could go hang.
Second, the lawiscool position, along with the �only one is represented here in part� (one wonders which part), is that the CHRC complaint was designed to allow dialogue and debate and that the meanies at Mcleans wouldn�t let the noble law students take over their magazine for an issue. Now, of course, the lawiscool wussies have discovered the mild heat of the Canadian blogosphere and are running away.
Third, all of the people who have been supporting [ (and [Ezra Levant]) deserve a pat on the virtual back. Running these wannabes out of blogtown is a Mitzvah (which I say as a social Anglican).
And, finally, too bad you could not stand the virtual heat kids - you were getting writing tips from some of the best in the business (and God knows you need them), learning a bit about advocacy in the internet sandbox and, I suspect, discovering the value of pushing back. All are useful lessons and all were offered in the spirit of a good, clean, fight.
We win. They lose. Their mothers are hamsters and their fathers smell of elderberries!
When the complainants set up their own site, as promised (how in the world has it taken them so long? Amateurs…) we’ll already have a months-long advantage in terms of web presence.
Now, let’s carry on, without dubious benefit of council, “sympathetic” or otherwise.
From the moment the Mark Steyn/HRC fracas began, it was clear to pretty much every level-headed blogger, of any (or no particular) political stripe, that Steyn was in the right and his accusers in the wrong. It was, furthermore, clear that all the issue really was about was censorship through the use of an (illegal) organ of the Canadian state and its (agan, illegal) ability to issue penalties of fines on those who do not hold to an approved set of opinions. And the people behind Law is Cool — especially, though not exclusively, Daniel Simard — have only too willingly made this clear by their own words.
And while they’ve been anxiously and feverishly clamouring for censorship in Canada, they have simultaneously responded to their critics by crying foul; commentator lewis whined, on this site, that a post I made “asserts that the law students have their facts wrong, where�s the proof? The students have dealt with barrage of attacks with professionalism and accuracy and they have NEVER made one incorrect factual assertion. On the other hand, Steyn, his supporters and even the media have greatly erred with the facts of the situation. You want to disagree, ridicule and fulminate their efforts, fine, but at least get your facts right!”.
That he made this comment on an article in which I excerpted from a Mark Steyn column in which Steyn explicitly gives a rebuttal to some of the facts that the law students have gotten wrong is an irony that seems to have eluded the poor man’s ability to detect it.
Canada was founded upon a principle “that the citizen is sovereign, that he is free to do as he wishes unless the state can show unambiguously that there is an overriding need to limit his liberty temporarily.” In other words, Canada was founded as a free nation — and any limits that the government imposed on the freedom of its citizens were to be, first and foremost, non-permanent. Instead, the bizarre and alien notion that the state will outline what is and is not permitted — only in terms of speech and expression at present, though in due time this will likely expand to include other aspects of life as well — has been gaining ground and popularity within this nation of ours. Canada is becoming, in essence, un-Canadian, in that what is emerging as the state of the nation now is completely inverse to the principles upon which the nation was founded.
Relatedly:
Update: Welcome, Steynians! Feel free to look around and give feedback; the blog, she is not so new.
