Time Immortal

It’s most interesting to note how LawIsCool shuts down the ability of people to put in opposing points of view in their comments section. That is their right. How would he feel if a human rights commission ordered LawIsCool to give equal time to opposing points of view after costing them a fortune in defending their right to close their comments section? He wouldn’t like it I am sure. But I guess, to paraphrase George Orwell, some people are more equal than others and their rights to freedom of speech more equal than others.

I’ve had commentators at the site tell me that the people going after Mark Steyn are the ones that have all their facts in line, and that Steyn’s would-be censors have consistently been gracious and non-insulting. We’ll leave aside, perhaps, mention of how — one of the key figures behind LawIsCool — accuses those who disagree with him of being mentally unbalanced, or how he has dismissed comments he disagrees with as ’spam’ (what wonders they have done for spam bots on the ‘Net if they can now respond to discussions on topic and coherently). And we’ll ignore how he has re-written yet other comments he has found fault with.

Deborah Gyapong�s commentary is worth reading in full, and is an excellent analysis of just the sort of people who are pursuing the case against freedom of speech in Canada. In some respects, it’s nice to know that Daniel Simard is as consistent in his denial of people their basic human right (as per the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document I am sure Simard is otherwise quite fond of) to free speech…but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s being an arsehole who is denying people their basic human right to free speech.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tops you: Kathy Shaidle)