Canada’s Village Idiot Speaks…
I am not suggesting regulation of the press. Neither do I support regulation of rental housing. However, I do believe that you should not be allowed to judge potential tenants on the basis of their religion. For similar reasons, I believe that you should not be allowed to attack people in writing on the basis of their religion. If you believe you have made an intelligent argument based on the truth, then prove it by allowing those who disagree to have their say. Otherwise, you should expect that your decision to limit public discourse is likely to be challenged. That is the only way for the people who disagree with you to have their own freedom of expression respected.
Win or lose at the Human Rights Tribunal, Mark Steyn’s critics have had their disagreement published widely. If Maclean’s had given them a right of response in the first place, they never would have had to resort to such a method. The very fact that we are talking about this is what makes the continued existence of the law so important. — Jason Cherniak
In a blog post today at AGORAVOX Canada’s Village Idiot shows that:
- He has no idea who grants rights ( note to Jason… Not Macleans and certainly not The STATE!)
- He really hasn’t followed or has chosen to ignore the facts of the Steyn/Macleans case ( The initial money shakedown of the sock puppets. Macleans publication of 27 letters to the editor in response to Steyn’s piece……etc )
- Stalinist show trials with no hint of due process are prefectly acceptable to him.
Jason… “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”.
Edit: Jason’s Song
Reader Comments
Cherniak is the perennial confused goof that is attracted to the constantly changing morass of ideologies esposed by the LPC..are we surprised he so confused he doesn’t realize he’s :
a) advocation the abolition of the righ to dissent to any orthodoxy (political/idological/theological) and confusing the exercise of theat right with religious intolerance?
b) That as far as religious intolerance goes He and the party/political ideology he subscribes to have been very busy in repressing religious freedom with things like making churches remove nativity scenes, no crosses in schools, no preyers either…and on and on with the militant secular hypocrisy of the Liberal-left…they are the LAST people who should defend religious freedom.
“I believe that you should not be allowed to attack people in writing on the basis of their religion. If you believe you have made an intelligent argument based on the truth, then prove it by allowing those who disagree to have their say.”
How can Mr. Cherniak not understand the inherent conflict in these two sentences. If you should not be “allowed” to attack people in writing on the basis of their religion, then how can we have anyone who disagrees with a message that was not allowed in the first place?
The second paragraph is even worse. He seems to be saying that the effect of censorship by human rights commissions will be to increase public discourse on controversial topics? This is profound idiocy.
The very fact that we are talking about this (law) is what makes the continued existence of the law so important. — Jason Cherniak
In other words, “I stink, therefore I am”
Looks like Jason is going for another “Liberal Hunting Dog of Excellence award again:
http://thejagwire.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-hunting-dog-of-excellence-award.html
following the logic (for lack of a better word) – in the future it would be better (according to mr cherniak) to surrender when threatened. imagine that – bullies and their targets could all live in harmony. who needs law and order or private property when all that’s needed is to acquiesce.
do i get to choose a yolk in my favourite colour?