Sunday, July 05, 2009

A guessing game...

Who made the following statements?...

1) "There's nobody today that would honestly pat Adolf Hitler on the back as being somebody worthy of any attention."
...
2) "I think sometimes when you hold people up to the glare of public attention and let the people decide for themselves once they see what a person is all about, that sometimes is more than enough,"


Make your choice and find out!

12 comments:

Yariv said...

Ezra Levant?

Blazing Cat Fur said...

Yariv I know that in General CJC trolss tend to be a bit slow so I'll help you - click the hyperlink he one that reads "Make your choice and find out" - Hint 2 - it's in the body of the post - it's also the last line. C'mon if you put your mind to it I know you can do it.

Mitka said...

I agree with Yariv...sounds like Levant to me...we cjc trolls don't follow your rules

Blazing Cat Fur said...

I know Mitka, it seems a common character flaw for all CJC types - no respect for rules, like the rule of law for instance, no respect for the rights of your fellow citizens hence your efforts to rob them of the most fundamental right of all - Freedom of Speech.

Wally Keeler said...

Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone.

Sheesh.

Wally Keeler said...

My mistake. It was Bernie (Bad Boss) Farber, in response to The Form One Boss.

Double sheesh to me.

was from said...

BCF..Game set match!
No need for the CHRC.

Blazing Cat Fur said...

Bernie is clearly of two minds....at least

Scott said...

I dunno. Seems like Bernie's talking about private discussion, but 13(1) would ban promotion, a wholly different thing. He is wrong, though, that "there's nobody today that would honestly pat Adolf Hitler on the back..."

There are many things wrong with 13(1) as you and I both know, but I think that if it stops the promotion of the big H, that's an argument for. Not a whole justiifcation, just one argument for.

Blazing Cat Fur said...

But is doesn't and it will never stop Hatred, which is an emotion. It has been and will be used as a political weapon. 13 (1) is a bad law in the hands of people who should never have been granted such power to begin with.

Scott said...

13 (1) has problems, that we agree on... But isn't it also true that genocide starts with the spread of hate. Jews were called vermin long before they were gassed and Tutsis were labelled insects before the machettes came out. Hate speech always preceeds genocide.
13 (1) does go to far, I agree with you there.

Blazing Cat Fur said...

The Weimar Republic had hate crime laws, Hitler used them to his advantage.

Without Freedom of Speech you will quickly lose all other freedoms.

The best disunfectant remains sunlight as the saying goes.

13(1) and its administration are so deeply flawed as to be beyond the point of salvation. The HRC's have been subverted and remain susceptible to such infiltration, as Tarek Fatah pointed out the OHRC contains Islamist elements - pro-sharia law folk on staff.

I would not want my fate decided by an unaccountable bureaucrat with no legal training who oversee's a process where truth is not a defense and the legal protections provided for under the rule of law are unavailable to me.

The bottom line is Free Speech is not something that is granted by the state. It is our right.