Ignatieff and Dean Steacy in agreement...

Freedom of speech is an American concept.

>>  Posted by Blazing Cat Fur at 7:59 AM |  6 comments  |  link to this post |  send email  | 
The LS from SK  – (9:02 AM)  

Gotta love Iggy.

He is doing and saying everything right :) - leading to a vote of no confidence. It is only a matter of time.

My prediction Ezra or Kenny will face off against Trudeau.

Blazing Cat Fur  – (9:50 AM)  

That would be some showdown either way.

W.L. Mackenzie Redux  – (10:23 AM)  

Freedom of speech for the commoner IS an American concept (and a French republican concept as well)...it was a reaction to the political tyranny of the British and French aristocratic class system....which allowed free expression but had seditious libel laws restricting any stark criticism of government, the crown or connected gentry.

Just the same,since the passing of the English bill of rights on, Parliament and Members of the house of commons had FULL FREE SPEECH RIGHTS and were immune from persecutions under the class tyranny of "seditious libel"...The American Republic's Founders just took that British parliamentary priveledge of absolute free speech and extended it to the common people....as the republic was deemed to be a government "of the people by the people" the common untitled people should have all the privileges of the titled governing class in the old aristocrat class systems.

Seeing how we live in a post aristocratic rule of kings era and our liberal constitutional democracies have evolved away from stiffling political dissent, it is disingenuous and self-destructive to suggest the government, once again, has a roll in oppressing free speech....the "hatred" justification is a totalitarian statist contrivance.

...there is no excuse for the state to censor speech and thought ,regardless how offensive, on an ideological political motive (multicult/diversity is a collectivist political ideology). To do so is fascism. One cannot make "hate" (code word for radical dissent)into a crime as it is a normal human emotion all engage in. This presumes that "hate" is criminal if it does not have the right political and ideological motives.

Hate-crimes laws are fascism in the guise of protecting minorities who do not need state interventionism to prosper. They’re fascism in crime-prevention drag. They’re fascism in the name of combating the nebulous demons of bigotry and hatred.

Those who think that there are political and ideological limitations to be put on dissent and expression are defacto fascists.

blog  – (12:24 PM)  

Looks to me like Mr. Ignatieff thinks that laws are a tool he could use to control the very thoughts of us, citizens....

Perhaps someone should point out to him that our lives are not a movie-script, and that we are not characters in his movie, to be shaped and controlled by his whim!

P.S. - did you notice the #1 goal of Randy Hillier, who announced his bid for the leadership of the Ontario PC party earlier this week??? If he becomes leader, and forms the next Ontario government, he has vowed to ABOLISH the Ontario Human Rights Commission!!! He would FIRE. THEM. ALL.

blog  – (12:25 PM)  

Oops - that last comment (with the PS about Hillier) was by me....sorry about the glitch...

W.L. Mackenzie Redux  – (1:48 AM)  

Freedom of speech for the commoner IS an American concept (and a French republican concept as well)...it was a reaction to the political tyranny of the British and French aristocratic class system....which allowed free expression but had seditious libel laws restricting any stark criticism of government, the crown or connected gentry.

Just the same,since the passing of the English bill of rights on, Parliament and Members of the house of commons had FULL FREE SPEECH RIGHTS and were immune from persecutions under the class tyranny of "seditious libel"...The American Republic's Founders just took that British parliamentary priveledge of absolute free speech and extended it to the common people....as the republic was deemed to be a government "of the people by the people" the common untitled people should have all the privileges of the titled governing class in the old aristocrat class systems.

Seeing how we live in a post aristocratic rule of kings era and our liberal constitutional democracies have evolved away from stiffling political dissent, it is disingenuous and self-destructive to suggest the government, once again, has a roll in oppressing free speech....the "hatred" justification is a totalitarian statist contrivance.

...there is no excuse for the state to censor speech and thought ,regardless how offensive, on an ideological political motive (multicult/diversity is a collectivist political ideology). To do so is fascism. One cannot make "hate" (code word for radical dissent)into a crime as it is a normal human emotion all engage in. This presumes that "hate" is criminal if it does not have the right political and ideological motives.

Hate-crimes laws are fascism in the guise of protecting minorities who do not need state interventionism to prosper. They’re fascism in crime-prevention drag. They’re fascism in the name of combating the nebulous demons of bigotry and hatred.

Those who think that there are political and ideological limitations to be put on dissent and expression are defacto fascists.

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

  © Blogger template me by me 2010

Back to TOP