timeimmortal

Most bloggers, once in a while, have to put up with insulting comments. The ladies have it rougher.

Most of the commentators and readers who have sent in feedback to this site have been decent sorts (I’ve been lucky like that, which is probably one of the advantages of a smaller audience), but out there on the great, wide Internet, there’s a lot of truly despicable people. They come in flavours both Left and Right, admittedly, but it does seem as though conservative/religious female bloggers have it rougher. Commentators who disagree with them are more likely to resort to vulgarities and sexual threats.

Hmmn…and here I thought progressive types were supposed to take an enlightened view of the sexes? Or does that only apply to “real” women (i.e. women who share their manner of thinking)?

Update: Mike Brock wonders the same thing:

It’s ironic, how someone like Kate McMillan — who if you ask me is almost the poster child for everything the feminist movement in the 1960’s and 70’s fought for — is now attacked with derogatory words like “c*nt” from people who label themselves social progressives.

Let’s do the run down shall we?

- Independent Woman? Check.
- Self-sufficient? Check.
- Self-esteem? Check.
- Influential? Check.

Apparently, we missed the final differentiating factor:

- Right-leaning? C*nt!

RightGirl puts in a comment on Islam that I admit gives me pause:

It used to be easy for me to say that if you want to live under 7th century Sharia, go back to Crapistan and do it there. After all, why come to the free West, right? But I now realize that the whole point of coming here was to take over. Our touchy-feely naiveté leads us to believe they are “escapees” and “refugees”, running from oppression. But in fact they have sought out free lands in order to spread that oppression in the name of the devil Allah.

Even up to very recently I believed that the women of Islam were oppressed and that they should be freed. This, I have come to learn, is utter hogwash. On more than one occasion we have seen the women take up arms, the women strap on explosives, the women preach jihad to their sons and husbands. Enough is enough. Our leaders - be they political or religious - are too wrapped up in politically-correct doublespeak to be able to defend us from this insidious evil. It saddens me that it’s up to a bunch of bloggers and cartoonists to save the world from the new Caliphate, but I have seen more guts come from Dutch filmmakers than I have from my own government, who no longer even believe in freedom of the press.

I cannot advocate open season on Muslims in the street. But I think for our own sakes we make ready for the coming onslaught, and brace ourselves to fight them. Not in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in London and Toronto and Detroit. And the first way we can fight them - a way that will not cause bloodshed by any act of our own hands - is to say NO. No to Sharia. No to Islamic banking and trade. No to muzzeins screeching at dawn. No to polygamy and incestuous marriages. No to welfare for those perfectly capable of working - like our Khadr family here in Toronto. No to visas and citizenships for terrorists. No, no, no.

I’m reminded of Lenin’s (at least, I think it was Lenin) observation that capitalism would sell the rope to hang itself with to the communists. In a perverse sort of way, I think the same may be true of the tendency toward multiculturalism in most Western nations — that is the rope that we may well end up hanging from. It’s really just a question, I suppose, of whether the hangmen will be Sunni or Shia.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Ezra Levant’s proposed new initiative:

A couple of weeks ago I wrote on my personal blog about the need for Canadian bloggers to form a mutual aid society to protect themselves from unwarranted attacks on their freedoms.

I have recently experienced one form of those attacks — an out-of-control government ‘human rights commission’ grinding me through a punitive, costly and arbitrary process for two years because I published cartoons that allegedly hurt someone’s feelings. And I’ve observed the other form, much more frequently: in the past few weeks alone, I’ve seen 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 baseless threats of defamation against Canadian bloggers (plus 6, 7 against me), none of which have real merit, but all of which are designed to frighten bloggers (usually conservatives) into censoring themselves.

The common thread amongst all of these threats is that they’re not legitimate legal actions to remedy a real tort committed by bloggers. The blog posts in question all contain true facts and fair comments; no real defamation action lies against any of them. These threats are intimidation tactics — bullying — dressed up in legal robes.

And, unfortunately, they often work. Not because bloggers make a thoughtful decision, with competent legal advice, that they ought to retract a truly false and defamatory statement, but because bloggers make a panicked decision, without legal advice, in fear of the cost and hassle of a lawsuit, and in the hopes of appeasing the threatener. Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem about this sort of thing.

He’s even got his first case, before the Union has been formalized.

One one hand, it’s sad that something like this has to be announced and advanced. Not that it’s without its reasons or justifications, of course, and certainly in Canada bloggers like myself have more than ample reason to fear the possibility of frivolous legal action. More importantly, bloggers like myself are, for the most part, not legal experts, and won’t be well-equipped (as a general rule) if in fact someone like Warren Kinsella or Richard Warman files a suit (or a human rights complaint) against us. In that regard, at least, the need not only for a legal defence fund, but for legal advice, is obvious.

On the other hand, though, something like this could also serve as a focal point for the /HRC issue in Canada for as long as it takes to resolve the manner in the only acceptable way (i.e. the complete dissolution of HRCs in Canada, and the removal of Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act). Disparate blogs commenting on the issue are all well and good, but a concrete organization devoted to freedom of expression is even better.

Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has introduced a motion (M-446) calling on the Parliament to delete subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

That’s the very same subsection which makes it a discriminatory practice for individuals or groups to communicate messages that are “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”, as long as those persons “are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination”. It therefore provides legal grounds for “human rights complaints” against those who say or publish anything the special interest groups may not agree with.

Or, as Kathy puts it, the section that “introduces the science fiction concept of “pre-crime” into Canadian law.”

That this is huge news is a no-brainer. Keith Martin’s would, in effect, achieve exactly what that banner at the top of the site here demands be done, because it is out of Section 13 that the basis for the human rights commissions (HRCs) in Canada is taken. And it is through what is articulated in Section 13 that they find justification to operate in the way they do, even though that manner of operation openly contravenes the Charter-ensured rights of every Canadian (yes, even the wackos and basement-dwelling anti-Semite crackpots).

What can we, lowly bloggers, do now that a motion has gone forward in government to remove this impediment to freedom in Canada? Well, a few things. First, send a thank-you note to Keith Martin — one cannot communicate how important a step is that he has taken here. Second, contact your MP and ask them to support this bill. And finally…spread the word.

My God, how this motion needs to pass.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: BCF)

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

All of this is a lengthy preamble to something I’ve been thinking about these past weeks: a legal defence fund for people who are vulnerable to being blown over by Kinsellan huffing and puffing. The National Post and Maclean’s don’t need help, but most bloggers do. My observation is that bloggers make defamation law errors very frequently — not that they engage in real defamation often, but that they overreact to the first whiff of gunpowder, and cower before any schmuck with a lawyer’s letter, because they do not know their defences under defamation law, and even if they did, they feel they can’t afford to exercise them.

The point here is not to oppose all defamation suits against bloggers; on occasion, bloggers will be in the wrong, and the right response is to clarify or apologize. Unlike human rights inquisitions — which are always immoral — some complaints against bloggers will have merit. The point, rather, will be to protect bloggers against political attacks masquerading as defamation threats. And that’s what should make this task less enormous than it might sound: if my experience at the Western Standard is any guide, almost all of the work will be merely fending off folks who were angry enough to spend $500 to get a lawyer to draft a demand letter, but have neither the legal case nor the financial resources to file a proper statement of claim, let alone run a trial.

It is my anecdotal observation that the preponderance of such threats come from the domestic left or Islamic fascists, and I imagine that most of the bloggers who will need to be protected will come from the conservative side of the spectrum. But not all; at the magazine, we received demand letters from provincial Tories upset with our coverage of a scandal. And I can think of at least one Liberal blogger whose case — not defamation, but media law nonetheless — I’d love to take.

I would imagine that such a defence fund would be financed partly through the pro bono contributions of defamation lawyers like myself, and partly through dues paid by bloggers into a fund — say, a dollar a month. I imagine it would be a non-profit corporation, overseen by a board scrutinizing revenues and expenses. There would have to be clear rules of when to take an engagement — a written “insurance policy”, including rules to avoid the moral hazard that insurance creates.

Of course, the larger threat is not nuisance defamation suits, for which the legal system has built-in suppresants ranging from the plaintiff’s own legal fees and disbursements to the commendable Canadian rule that the loser pays a portion of the winner’s costs. The larger threat is human rights commissions of the sort that have gone after Mark Steyn, Free Dominion, and others. These are rarer than defamation threats, so far, but they are far more worrisome. I think we need to wait a few more months to see how the current media blowback against commission bullying plays out.

There’s not much more to say that Mr. Levant doesn’t already say here. It’s a good idea, methinks, especially in these uncertain times when the typical response of progressives to reasonable criticism of their ideas is to accuse one of being a bigot.