Here. The appalling thing, or rather one of many, is this Human Rights Commission bureaucrat will be forced to rule against free speech and for intolerance. If she doesn't, she'll have to fear for her life. The Muslims will kill her.
Mark Steyn on the subject. He's facing persecution on similar charges.
7 comments:
Wow. That is remarkably awful. Canadians ought to be up in arms.
Mr. Levant has every right to publish what he wants, as do Muslims that have a contrasting viewpoint, but just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it has tactful reasoning. Anyway, it's the fifth and sixth amendments that we should be keeping a closer eye on. Their abuse is more widespread and is a much better candidate for the valse macabre of our times. (Quoting Londonistan? ...)
Oh, and if the woman is just maimed rather than killed, she'll be treated in a hospital with no questions asked. Can't say that about myself and I know I'm not alone.
Yes because this issue has everything to do with healthcare. And anyway, she would probably have to wait on a list for 2 months before she could get any attention from those first-rate Canadian government hospitals. During which time she'd probably get frustrated and have to come down to the US and get treatment from a dreadful free-market(well, sort of) hospital. And that's just a comment on the effectiveness of socialized healthcare vs. free-market healthcare. Don't get me started on the grotesquely distorted morality of socialized healthcare.
Back to the issue at hand....what do you mean by "tactful reasoning?" I'm all for reasoning, but screw tact. Tact requires actually giving a crap about what other people think, and has little to do with the use of reason. When Bill Maher calls Christians schizophrenic, does that have tactful reasoning? Sure it has tact, because after all not even the Christians take their religion seriously anymore (which I think is a good thing, BTW). Like most Westerners nowadays they are so desperately trying to hate themselves that they are glad to be ridiculed. Making fun of Muslims on the other hand, not so tactful; they'll blow you up. My point is that tact and reason seem to have an inverse relationship. There are a lot more reasons to make fun of Muslims than Christians nowadays, but doing so is certainly not tactful. Tact is for wussies who are too scared to think for themselves and then actually take a stand.
Jason, you are a waltzee.
You would receive treatment anywhere you asked for it. You might, however, actually have to pay for it. Or you could stiff the hospital. They deserve it anyway, right? After all, they are probably a corporation. But I do know what you mean. You want health care, you just want someone else to pay for it.
What's a waltzee?
Be sure, Jason (and everyone), to watch one of the other YouTube videos, titled "What is my intent" or something. Levant lays out the case pretty damn well for why tact has nothing, and shouldn't have anything, to do with it. At least not with the forming of a persecutorial commission, and the legitimacy of his actions in the eyes of the law. His decision to publish cartoons that some might consider inflammatory or offensive can be analyzed as tactful or not, right or wrong, what have you, but that has no bearing on the travesty which is his persecution.
Waltzee: One who is waltzed.
For a leftie perspective on this see: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html
Money quote:
Here are the noxious fruits of hate speech laws: a citizen being forced to appear before the Government in order to be interrogated by an agent of the State — a banal, clerical bureaucrat — about what opinions he expressed and why he expressed them, upon pain of being punished under the law. This is nothing short of stomach-turning...
For those unable to think past the (well-deserved) animosity one has for the specific targets in question here, all one needs to do instead is imagine these proceedings directed at opinions and groups that one likes.
Post a Comment