... but it's a hollow, if not Pyhrric, victory, perhaps.
"Is this a victory? I suppose, in a narrow technical sense, it is. I’m off the hook now for both of the HRC complaints. That’s two legal battles done – though I’m still up to my eyeballs fighting defamation suits and other legal actions that the human rights industry piled on top of these complaints.
"But I’ve read the dismissal letter three times now, and each time it makes me more angry. Because I haven’t been given my freedom of the press. I’ve simply had the government censor approve what I said. That’s a completely different thing."
Read the whole thing.
The salient point Ezra makes is this:
"(I)t rather creeps me out that a whole squad of teat-sucking bureaucrats spent 900 days inspecting me and the Western Standard." ...
(And how much money? That could have been spent on fixing drains, or roads, etc.?)
Amazing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This is almost a loss, in a way. Ezra's case being taken before a tribunal would have been a wake up call, much as the Macleans' show trial was.
Throwing his case out makes the commissions look much better to the casual observer.
Now it's going to be harder to convince people of the necessity of the reformation/abolition of the Human Rights Commissions.
sigh...
Yes, alas.
One big problem as I see it is not even the conservative lawmakers in Canada seem to back the idea of doing away with the HRCs/HRTs. At least, not enough of them.
One big problem as I see it is not even the conservative lawmakers in Canada seem to back the idea of doing away with the HRCs/HRTs. At least, not enough of them.
Why don't you worry about loss of freedom in your own country and mind your own business?
By the way, Ezra's very selective on the free speech he choses to defend. Half the time he's suing for libel and insisting the RCMP arrest Muslims for hate speech.
Anonymous, as far as freedom of speech goes here in my country, it's enshrined in the Constitution. As I understand it, it also exists in the Canadian Charter -- which makes it hard for me to understand how a human rights tribunal can arbitrarily decide what free speech is, without the strictures of law.
Ezra may very well be selective. That's his choice. The underlying fact remains, however, that speech of any description -- however unpleasant or offensive -- should be protected, unless it violates ACTUAL LAW.
As I understand it, it also exists in the Canadian Charter -- which makes it hard for me to understand how a human rights tribunal can arbitrarily decide what free speech is, without the strictures of law.
Exactly. And an off-topic question, why do people post as "anonymous"? If you have something to say, at least conjure up a nickname...!
Oh, I don't mind anonymous postings too much, as long as they're not simply profanity-filled invective. That's why I moderate comments (as well as for spam).
In fact, this one gave me a chance to bring the whole HRC argument back to actual restriction of speech. And our poster was on topic!
Having said that -- posting anonymously tends to paint the commenter with an unflattering brush (connotations of cowardice, lack of critical thinking, etc.). I, for one, want my arguments judged on their merit, without being viewed through that lens. But, well ... different smokes for different folks, I guess.
I guess I just wonder why, when it's so easy to just adopt a moniker, people still chose to write anonymously. As you said, it does paint them with an "unflattering brush" regardless of their post's content.
Yep, Erik, so I tend toward the "give 'em enough rope" theory. It usually works :)
Post a Comment