All hail the vox populi: One place in Canada where free expression is flourishing is in the comments section that follows the story on the Ceeb website about Steyn's and Levant’s appearance before the parliamentarians looking into state censorship. As of this writing, there are some 217 comments. Here are a few of the more, ahem, colourful ones.
"CalmCalm," whose remarks belie hizzer (my neologism for the clunky his/her--feel free to borrow it) alleged tranquility writes
I easily understand why Chief David Ahenakew was so angry.
Following the Hitler Trip and the horrible experiences of the Jews, many left Europe and invested heavily into media and Hollywood.
Some of the same people who had just experienced and fled from the discrimination, stereotyping and racism by Hitler, arrived in North America and purchased movie lots and film companies which created film and other types of media which depicted Indians and blacks as savages and subhumans.
The native people suffered hugely from years of Hollywood films and sterotyping.
North American natives and blacks were described in films in almost the exact same manner in which Hitler had described the Jews.
You mean David Ahenakew (the First Nations elder who thought Hitler was on the right track, Jew-wise) was “angry” because Louis B. Mayer and the other Jewish movie moguls escaped Hitler’s clutches and came to America to make movies stereotyping blacks and the North American indigenes formerly known as “Indians” (as in Cowboys and…)? What an interesting--and at the same time completely inaccurate verging on the deranged-- interpretation of history.
Meanwhile, "Boogie Woogie Bugle Babe" (who I assume is a “her”) offers this caveat re the dynamic duo's testimony:
Let's hope these two [Steyn and Levant] don't go crying to the CHRC about Anti-Semitism next time somebody publishes a piece that is critical of the Israeli government or suggests that the influence of Judaism poses "a threat to North American institutions and values." Or is it only acceptable to criticize Islam?
Actually, BWBB, in Canada it is only acceptable not to criticize Islam. As for your concern about Ezra or Mark feeling the need to register a complaint with the Lynch mob, rest assured it would never happen because
A) These gents are leading the charge to divest the goons of power, and you can see how lodging a complaint with them would be rather counter-productive to that effort; and
B) The idea that the CHRC would ever entertain a complaint from a right-wing Christian or Jew about Islam or blood libels about Israel is so fanciful, so out of touch, that one fears for BWBB’s hold on reality.
But lest you think loony lefties are the only ones who take advantage of their right to bloviate freely, here’s someone who appears to approach the issue from the other end of the political spectrum, the eminently sensible "Myalterego":
Wow - its obvious many who have commented hear did not watch the entire proceedings. Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn presented facts, not opinions. Facts from CHRC proceedings and sworn testimony from CHRC staff themselves. Section 13 is corrupt and is actually punishing the human rights of Canadians. Like Ezra and mark said, the corruption is so deep and so heinous that at first it is unbelievable, if it were not for the immense documentation that exits. Changing section 13 is like putting lipstick on a pig. Section 13 effectively figuratively and not so figuratively if you must defend yourself, is cutting the tongues out of Canadians mouths so the CH RC can dine on them at tax payers cost. It is beyond unethical to fine or jail someone when they can not afford the fine after paying tens upon tens of thousands of dollars in a futile attempt to defend themselves, for simply offending someone. Offending someone is a thought crime under the CH RC and is punishable in fines or through jail time. It is lawfare for the easily offended - the definition of offended - whatever hurts your feelings. Hurting a persons feeling is now punishable. Ridiculous. The criminal code covers hate speech we do not need a kangaroo court ,without any of the rights of a real court for the defendant, to spend our tax dollars to the tune of millions upon millions for "hurt feelings" or feeling like they have been "offended" - on all expenses paid lawsuit for the plaintiff with no provision for the wrongfully charged to recover their money. Section 13 is unconstitutional and unconscionable.
I don’t know who “Myaltergo” is, but I sure like the cut of hizzer jib. That also applies to the pseudonymous “BillBan,” who adds:
The HRCs are a make-work project for campus Stalinists, ghetto princes, diversity lawyers, and under-employed social workers. They define this country as an incipient dictatorship. As we chop this monstrosity called HRC up, we can start with Sect. 13, but keep on going.
My sentiments exactly, BillBan.
My favourite comment, though, comes from “Sashhenka," who, in a deliciously Orwellian post describes her brief but extremely unsatisfactory experiences in that dizzying alternate reality that is Lynchland (my bolds):
From my personal experience I know the CHRC discriminates. I was trying to register a complaint against a Canadian Bank that forced me to use a telephone which i cannot do. Representatives of the CHRC on three separate occasions told me the only way forward was to telephone the CHRC. I remember at one point e-mailing the CHRC: 'Now all i have to do is figure out how to register a discrimination complaint against the CHRC.'
I think you’ll have to get in line there, Sashhenka. My suggestion: write to your MP, the Minister of Justice, and the Prime Minister.
Template by Splinder.com | header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de