timeimmortal

Spot on, as is usual for Mark:

Wasn’t that the Grits’ slogan last time round? , one of the “plaintiffs” in the “case” against and a fellow whose line to the newspapers is that he only wants to start a debate, seems to be growing more comfortable with the explicit language of Censorship:

Nothwithstanding, by the nature of your position, that Muslims are the ones being portrayed as barbaric savages whilst adhering to a radical form of Islamic fundamentalism, your remarks trodden down the path of vigiliantism to justify the perfidious tactics used against legitimate (and seemingly necessary) state censorship. 

Don’t worry trying to figure out what the hell that sentence means. Look at the last ten words. I believe he’s a first-year law student but he sounds like the 1980s fag-end-of-Communism apparatchiks I used to run into in Hungary and Romania. (By the way, “fag end” is a British expression, not my latest hate crime.)

When the Facebook group of , Usher Ahmed, Super Samer, Issam Zeineddine, Khalil Jeha, Hussein Abdulbaki, Abe Rafih, Issam Khalil, and Manal Abdallah, all of Calgary, call a “piece of shit JEW” who “bends over for toonies”, Ezra shrugs it off and his pals have some sport with it.

When Kathy Shaidle, Jay Currie and I call the Law R Kewl pantywaists “nellies” and “baby barracudas“, the poor wee bairns have a nervous breakdown and say that this all this beastly unpleasantness “reinforces the need for legal intervention” and that they’re “sure there will be some bench in the future weighing in on that issue”. Bench In The Future: I think I saw that movie.

Choose your Canada. Whom do you want the Canada of tomorrow built by? The “piece of shit JEW” who  believes in even for Ali Zee and his twerps? Or the “nellies” who demand “legal intervention” and “state censorship” for every slight? Even if it were desirable for the state to regulate public (and semi-private) expression to the degree M Simard wants, it would be unsustainable. What a sad comment on the state of Canada’s allegedly Number One law school that he seems incapable of understanding this.

In a certain sense, one should be thankful for Daniel Simard’s obtuse candour: here, again, is a person openly advocating for censorship in Canada. The problem, O Reader, is that he might just have his way, which would be a terrible thing for this nation indeed.

Well, no, let me amend my statement, because in a certain sense, there is already operating within Canada an organ of the state which is responsibile for censoring those opinions which do not conform to the received wisdom of…whom, exactly? The Canadian state? Possibly…but one doubts this, because while there is (as yet) no example one could point to of a sitting member of the national government being hauled before the HRC, it is also not hard to imagine that such a case will one day take place, perhaps even in relation to legislation that the MP in question voted for, or against. Is it so hard to imagine an MP on day being hauled before the HRC, and duly fined, for the ‘crime’ of not voting in support of new legislation concerning abortion in Canada?

No, it would seem that the organ of the Canadian state which even now carries out its role as censor to the nation is answerable only to the opinions of those bureaucrats and lawyers who operate it, and to the whims and fancies of those who bring complaints before it…almost all of which, and of whom, serve only to advance the cause of special interest groups, to the disadvantage of a majority of Canadians.

And we cannot allow such a thing to keep operating — and then in flagrant violation of the stipulations of the , which Canada is purportedly governed by — if we believe that we, in Canada, are free people under the law, and/or under God.

Relatedly:

Update: Welcome, Steynians! Feel free to look around and give feedback; the blog, she is not so new.