Trudeaupia: Free from Demoralization

It is sad to watch Canada somewhat unknowingly approach the slippery slope of totalitarianism. Once it becomes acceptable to regulate speech deemed "inappropriate", the taboo is lifted and elements of society without the traditional democratic scruples toward censorship rush to end the debate that they've been forced to deal with since the birth of progressivism. My purpose here is not to pick on Canada. Europe is and has certainly been just as guilty. The United States has had her moments as well: The Alien and Sedition Acts of the first Adams administration, the basic suspension of the First Amendment during the Civil War, Wilson's sedition and treason laws, and FDR's stifling of dissent during the Great Depression. However, these were all put over on the public at times of crisis, and thankfully were rejected after the crises were over. I come back to Canada merely because she keeps popping up in the news.

Case in point, the National Post had a story yesterday about the York University Student Union's effort to essentially ban pro-life (in their words "anti-choice") clubs from campus.

In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

So in response to a controversial debate, they wish to stop the debate by banishing the side deemed inappropriate. Aren't Universities supposed to be forums for free discussion? Well, according to Ms. Massa, it isn't about freedom of speech.

"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."

This isn't framed by the left as a free speech issue, its "women's rights". Referring to abortion as murder is "demoralizing" to women. Demoralizing? At least they accuse Mark Steyn of inciting hatred. Where exactly is the statute against demoralization? Is the right not to be demoralized now sacrosanct to feminists? What about the demoralizing effect the HRC will have on Mr. Steyn when it bans his writings from the Dominion? Or is it only leftist advocacy groups that should be free from feeling bad? When a cartoonist draws a picture of George W. Bush wearing a swastika, its free speech. When Steyn accurately quotes a Scandinavian imam, or a pro-life apologist calls abortion murder, its inciting hatred and has to be stopped before any number of so called "oppressed" groups becomes even more oppressed (or apparently, demoralized).

To their credit (and my surprise) the schools administration "condemned the decision as contrary to its academic mission". Let me be clear, I'm not trying to paint all leftist students and Canadians with the same brush. There are many liberal Canadians who recognize this for what it is: "Michael Payton, a York student who argued the pro-choice side" points out that "'When the YFS (York Federation of Students) says they believe in free speech, they believe in free speech for them, for the positions they hold, not for freedom of speech for positions they disagree with.'" But these attacks on free speech are appearing more and more in Canada and the West in general. Conservative positions aren't just being looked down upon, but outright banned - in the case of the HRC's under penalty of law. The consequences of this will be enormous, for Liberals and Conservatives. Governments with this power always abuse it. Barbara Hall and the HRC's are actually decrying the lack of HRC cases. How can they reshape society if people don't complain?

What's worse, there's an effort to take the YFS's tyranny national:

"Efforts to formalize the York ban on anti-abortion groups began in earnest last weekend, when the YFS brought a successful motion to the annual meeting in Ottawa of the Canadian Federation of Students, a national umbrella group of student unions.

'Be it resolved that member locals [of the CFS] that refuse to allow anti-choice organizations access to their resources and space be supported. And further, be it resolved that a pro-choice organization kit be created that may include materials such as a fact sheet, buttons, contact information for local pro-choice organizations and research on anti-choice organizations and the conservative think-tanks that fund them," the motion reads.'"

I have no problem with full disclosure of who is behind any organization, but notice that there is no mention of pointing out who is funding pro-abortion groups. Student governments of public universities have no business quashing a student group or club because of their political beliefs. I myself am a conservative who believes abortion to be reprehensible. However, I don't believe pro-abortion groups should be banned from campus. Universities should encourage debate, not conformity. All groups should be tolerated unless they actively advocate violence. (And not the imagined violence Mark Steyn is accused of promoting)

I know Universities have been actively leftist for a long time, and non orthodox view points have been frowned upon if not suppressed. When I was at school, a staff member of the "official" student newspaper tried to convince a business advertising in a new, independent conservative student newspaper to stop by basically comparing it to Völkischer Beobachter. Student's were also discouraged from handing out free issues at University events. But this is chillingly blatant. If students feel they can openly advocate the suppression of free speech and free assembly, what does it say about trends in Canadian society, or Western society for that matter? The last time we had such an exhaustion with Enlightenment principles, Fascism and Communism seemed fresh and attractive. I pray we're not going down that road again.

Update: Apparently Ms. Massa is a pro-abortion muslim student. Its nice to see there might actually be free thinking (if misguided) muslims in Canada, I just hope she doesn't find out the hard way what the penalty for abortion is under sharia. Its not smart to be a moderate muslim and be against freedom of speech. Otherwise in the end you'll probably be stoned.

Al Gore - The Fairy Queen

An Italian opera is being written for Al Gore's religious text/movie "An Inconvenient Truth", set for the 2011 season. That will be too late. We have to get the Milan opera crowd on board with carbon neutrality now or we're all screwed.

Exxon Mobil Flips the Bird to the Greens.

Kudos to Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson facing down the Rockefellers at the shareholders meeting yesterday. Though I hope his comment on "corporate social responsibility" was just posturing to the press. Supplying the world with fossil fuels is good business and will provide a profit for your shareholders, to whom you actually owe your responsibility. But beyond that he said that Exxon Mobil plans to push ahead with an "$8-billion Kearl oilsands project in Alberta" despite court challenges by environmentalist. This got me thinking, why is Canada allowed to use her natural resources, but the United States is not? Why isn't Exxon Mobil pushing ahead with projects off the Florida coast or in Alaska? If Canada can keep a leash on their wackjob anti-capitalist greens in order to obtain the commodity that fuels the world, why can't the U.S.? How have we let the greenies gain such power here that our environmental restrictions on exploiting our natural resources are more liberal than quasi socialist Canada? Just some food for thought as I fill my truck up with $3.77 a gallon gas.

Has the Reccession Happened Yet?

So economic growth has picked up in the first quarter of this year. I'm bracing myself for the extensive media coverage this is sure to get.

Panties for Peace

I'm sure this will work. If only we had an address to mail panties to Bin Laden. Surely this whole "War on Terror" thing would come to a swift end.

Everyday is Carbon Belch Day. . .

For Al Gore. Be sure to mark your calenders, June 12 is "Carbon Belch Day"

His Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather was in the US Army that stopped Napoleon at Waterloo

What are the odds that the media doesn't say much at all about this?

Blue Planet In Green Shackles

Kudos to Czech President Vaclav Klaus for calling a Red a Red. Don't hold your breath waiting for Al Gore to take up his challenge of a debate on global warming. The Supreme Pontiff of the world's fastest growing religion has declared the debate over before it began. Hopefully some of the major book chains will carry Klaus' new book: "Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?", don't hold your breath though.

Red and Green Isn't Just For Christmas Anymore

If you want to see what America could possibly look like in the future, you only have to look across the Atlantic to socialist Europe. There, leftists have succeeded in creating the welfare states that liberals seek to create here. Europe has plunged into social statism much more enthusiastically than America has, so we have the benefit of seeing the endgame of liberal ideas and policy proposals before we implement them. Today, the Daily Mail has a chilling piece on Tory MP Tim Yeo's plan for "carbon ration cards". The scheme would roughly work like this:

"Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.

The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.

Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.

A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.

When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.

When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.

Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies."

This is a veritable statist goody bag that should make any freedom loving American cringe. Essentially, the British government would put limits on its citizens' life styles, their travel, their vacations, their diets, and the temperature of their homes just for starters. Go beyond that limit and an individual must "buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance". The article doesn't go into the consequences if an individual doesn't buy more credits.

What's worse, the scheme would criminalize the purchase of gasoline without a government issued card. "Ah, Mr. Smith, you wish to purchase petrol? Papers please comrade." In other words, the government would control the sale of a commodity essential to the lives and livelihoods of most of the citizenry. The restrictions it places on travel alone reminds one of a more totalitarian Europe that many thought dead and gone. "York is a long way from here Mr. Smith, what business have you there to justify the use of so much of the State's fuel?"

I'm certainly not an expert on the carbon footprint of the food I buy, but the mere idea of the government being involved is startlingly Orwellian. How much carbon is produced to make a 2 liter bottle of soda? What's going to be the yearly Big Mac allowance? Will vegetables be allowed? Will farmers be able to harvest wheat and corn fields considering they convert carbon into oxygen?

This may seem ridiculous, but do you trust the British Parliament or any government to police itself? To keep itself from from venturing into the absurd once it has license? Essentially this scheme would allow the government to regulate demand. As a consequence, they control supply. If only a certain amount of wooden bookcases can be bought with the available pool of carbon credits, the bookcase maker is going to have to cut production to stay solvent (and perhaps raise the price). The same with oil, coal, steel, etc. The government will have de facto control of the means of production. How long until they make it de jure? Still seem ridiculous? Perhaps, but this is at least a step in that direction.

This needs to be exposed for what it is. Anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, socialism at best. At worst something much darker. For the first time in western history, societies are on the verge of intentionally lowering their standards of living. Since the first city states emerged in the Mediterranean World, Western Civilization has made steady progress toward freedom and abundance. Its wasn't without its setbacks, but eventually the ideas of personal and economic freedom lead to unimaginable prosperity. Our children are not unhealthy for lack of food, but because they are too fat! We are want for nothing, and are told its a problem. We have to tighten our belts and make do with less instead of trying to make more. A little more misery is the price for sustaining human life. The Communists made us miserable, but at least they promised a glorious future.

The "regressive" environmental movement aims to stifle capitalism, not for the Proletariat, but with the same result. The "sustainability" dogma is a branch off the Marxist tree. "Capitalism has failed, the earth is dying, the State must intervene and put limits on individual prosperity or else the robber barons and industrialists will destroy us all." At least they're finally being truthful though. Now they say to our faces that they're going to ration the hell out of us. That we must make do with less. That the future is grim and we may not survive it. That prosperity is the problem. It is a sad commentary on the crisis of confidence our Civilization is experiencing that we'd contemplate throwing the game and ceding the future to the Chinas of the world. Let's hope they're a benign hegemon.

All three Presidential candidates here in America buy into this manufactured crisis, though I don't think low enough of McCain to believe he sees it for what it is. Make no mistake Senator, a cap and trade scheme is not a capitalist solution to this imagined problem. It cedes a point that must be staunchly opposed. Once you accept the premise and establish the precedent, much of the fight is already lost and we're resigned to try and keep our footing on the slippery slope.

If You Don't Vote for Obama, You Might Be A Redneck

I knew that eventually the media would begin implying that white voters who don't vote for Barack Obama are racists, but I didn't expect it to reach such a pitch during the primary season. These are Democrat voters we're talking about. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be the horrid racists? Well according to Rex W. Huppke's hit piece in Tuesday's Chicago Tribune, Obama's screwed come November because of white America's latent racism. Here are some excerpts I feel moved to comment upon.

Mr. Huppke takes us on a journey through Munfordville Kentucky, a town of 1600, 90% white. Our first racist is one "Terry Jordan, 47, who runs a year-round garage sale in front of an old filling station on Main Street" He explains why he's not voting for Obama: "It's his color." Of course, southern whites who don't vote for Obama are hick racists who run year round garage sales, here Huppke is just pointing out the obvious.

Obama's problem, according to Huppke, is that there are too many of them populating small towns across America. "The Munfordvilles of America — and there are many—present a troubling reality for Obama's campaign, as his lopsided loss in neighboring West Virginia showed. These are the places where lofty talk of transcending race is dragged to earth by a weighty reality that has nothing to do with Obama's position on the federal gas tax, Clinton's tenacity on the campaign trail or even the off-putting rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr." Of Course! Terry Jordan and Munfordville prove that racism is why Obama isn't winning a majority of the white vote. Only hateful ideology could keep them from recognizing Obama's transcending greatness. As Mike Rife, a white Obama supporter in Munfordville (how is that possible?) puts it "They won't vote for a black man. . . That's all there is to it. They just can't bring themselves to do it." Its not that they don't care for Obama's policies or the anti-Americanism of some of his acquaintances, nor is it that fact that Mrs. Clinton has been making a concerted effort to broaden her appeal to rural voters who are generally more conservative. Its that they're all racists. Except of course for Mike Rife, oh and Jack Bunnell, apparently the only two white Obama supporters Huppke could find in this town of 1600, I'm sure he talked to everyone. Rife says he "knows of no more than 10 other (I'm assuming white) people who, like him, will vote for Obama" Considering Munfordville is 90% white, I wonder if someone can get a hold of the election data for Munfordville and see if Obama won more than .008% of the white vote.

Huppke finishes off this section of the article with what I'm assuming is his explanation for the rampant racism in Kentucky: "Kentucky was a border state in the Civil War. It eventually sided with the Union, but much of the populace either joined or supported the Confederacy. Munfordville was the site of a major victory for the South, one that marked a high point of the Confederacy's westward push." Ah, of course. we all know that supporters of the Confederacy were motivated exclusively by racism, not loyalty to their home State, belief in State's Rights, or limited government. I'm sure that utter racism still permeates a border State where the Confederacy won a victory a mere 140 years ago. I'm at a loss though to see how West Virginia's racism can be linked to the Confederacy considering it broke off from greater Virginia in order to remain loyal to the Union.

Huppke begins the next section of his "news" article by quoting supposedly non racist townsfolk in Munfordville who explain there are "lots of factors" that lead the town into racism. So says Melody Chaney, "It's a matter of education, their upbringing and their background, peer pressure. There are lots of factors that contribute to this." But as Huppke explains, she is a "a financial adviser in Munfordville and a Clinton supporter," so obviously a racist and not to be trusted. Tim Carter though is an Obama supporter and is therefore trustworthy. He even "lives on a narrow, crescent-shaped road called National Turnpike, a block or so off Main Street, an area known as "the black part of town." We can only assume there are also some railroad tracks he lives on the wrong side of. "'He shouldn't even bother to fly over,' said Carter, who was born and raised in Munfordville and has spent 35 of his 56 years working in a nearby factory. (I'm amazed the factory hires blacks) He likes his town and says there's little friction between blacks like him and whites. 'People get along pretty well,' he said. 'The racist end of it, that will always be here. There's black people that don't like white people, and white people that don't like black people. But there's not much trouble.'" Hold on a second. We all know there are "white people that don't like black people," but what is this about "black people that don't like white people"? I haven't heard about this. If 7 out of 10 whites voting for Hillary Clinton demonstrates white racism, what does 9 out of 10 blacks voting for Barack Obama demonstrate? I'm sure Mr. Huppke is working on that article as we speak.

Moving on, in the final section of his "news" article, Mr. Huppke returns to his "Confederate racism" motif: "Webster Rogers, 23 and also black, said that in high school he felt welcome visiting the homes of white friends. But often he would spot Confederate flags hanging on the walls, reminders of differences that still linger." Mr. Huppke must have misquoted Webster here. There's no way that Confederate flag toting racists would ever befriend a black person, let alone make him feel welcome in their homes.

I'm sure a more prevalent attitude is that of Susan Horton. "I believe that (Obama's) a Muslim," said Susan Horton, 56 and white. She leaves her living room whenever Obama comes on the television. "I think that if he gets into office, there's going to be another bombing." I don't understand why she cares. They're not going to bomb Kentucky. They'll bomb an urban area with a high percentage of minorities, probably on one of the coasts. If she's a racist, she must think that's a good thing.

The citizens of Munfordville aren't done though. "He's not patriotic," said Brandy Trulock, a 21-year-old mother of two. "If you can't salute the American flag, I don't think you should be allowed to run for president." Clearly racist.

In the end, Huppke talked to eight residents of Munfordville. Four, if we include Susan, Brandy, and Melody, are whites who aren't voting for Obama because of racism. Two are white Obama supporters. Two are black men, one of whom for some reason thinks he has white friends in this awful parody of Maycomb. I guess we can assume Huppke found no black Hillary supporters. I feel he's already made his point with more than enough supporting evidence. I'd say eight is a pretty good sample of a community of 1600. Huppke however disagrees. He comes back to our original racist Terry Jordan as he "sells secondhand bluejeans, ceramic tchotchkes and anything else he can get his hands on, displaying his wares on a flatbed trailer and a few rickety folding tables." Terry, being perhaps the only genuine racist Huppke actually spoke to, is the best way to close out this "news" article by driving home the white hick racist theme. Its somewhat effective given what Terry has to say: "He's all Democrat, all Clinton and, if Obama wins the nomination, all for Republican John McCain. He doesn't trust Obama, has serious questions about the Muslim rumors and truly believes a black man will not survive long as president of the United States." However, Huppke betrays a detail we were as of yet unaware of: Terry, who is 47, "makes about $100 (from his garage sales) a week to supplement his $720 monthly disability check." Huppke got one thing right, he's "all Democrat".

Application to Eat

IlliniPundit seems to have discovered how Obama plans on limiting our calorie intake: an Application to Eat.

Free British Columbia!

Do you find yourself looking for a cause, but Tibet is so far away? Well don't look so mopey, people are being oppressed right in our own back yard! That's right, the teaming masses in Canada are yearning to be free, and you can help! Better yet, you can actually do something worthwhile instead of some worthless chic gesture that does nothing to free people from Communist domination. Just check out my new "Canadian Dissidents" links. These fine people are dedicated to freeing Canada, and some are being sued or hauled off to court themselves for either being conservative or speaking the truth (like there's a difference). You can donate some of that "discretionary income" Obama's eying so greedily and donate it to their legal defense funds, because lets face it, blogging ain't easy. So instead of spending that $5.50 on posterboard for a "Free Tibet" sign that a ChiCom would probably just take from you and beat you with anyway, put it to good use and send it to outlawed Jew Ezra Levant, or women's blogging rights advocate Kathy Shaidle, (among others) and fight for a freer tomorrow!

I'm Moving Up in the World

Shows you how much I pay attention. One of my posts gets mentioned on Mark Steyn's website and I don't even notice for 5 days. In fairness though, I had a rather fun weekend. But I would like to say its truly an honor, Mr. Steyn is my favorite writer.

UPDATE: I would be remiss not to thank Blazing Cat Fur, without whom I'd still be wallowing in obscurity. (Well, more obscurity).

My Audacious Struggle

Hot on the heels of Obama’s recent admission that America’s standard of living is angering the rest of the world, and is therefore a problem, I’ve managed to get my hands on exclusive excerpts from his new book: My Audacious Struggle.

Obama on Foreign Policy:

“Is it really fair for America to oppose Iran’s nuclear weapons program? Isn’t that a little hypocritical? Until all the world’s militaries can be placed under the control of the UN, we mustn’t horde all the weapons. It isn’t equitable for America to be able to point ballistic missiles at Iran without the Iranian Democracy being able to reciprocate. America must learn to share. Also, Japan gets two free shots at us.”

Obama on Taxes:

“’Collectivization of Wealth’ sounds so 20^th century. I’m not sure if you’re aware, simple reader, but I’m all about change. My typical white CPA tells me that most of you have what’s called ‘discretionary’ or more appropriately ‘disposable’ income. This is a burden upon you gentle consumer. Let Me take this upon Myself, for only I can bear it. In the coming perfect society it shall be referred to as ‘original sin’.”

Obama on Religion:

“Thou shalt not look directly upon My face or I shall smite thee!”

Obama on Judges:

“In the coming perfect society, the courts will no longer decide questions of constitutional law, for My coming has both fulfilled the law and abolished it. I shall create a ‘new covenant’ with the American people. Believe in Me and you shall be free of the old constitution, and we shall usher in My administration on Earth.”

Obama on immigration:

“America has too much lebensraum. We need to get rid of it!”

Details are still sketchy, but expect this sometime after he announces his first five year plan. Also, this is a clear parody, so please don't sue me.

Vote For Me, I'll Lower Your Standard of Living!

A recent quote by Obama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

Can a US presidential candidate actually win with a platform of lowering our standard of living? Who are the lemmings that eat this crap up? What kind of loser votes for someone because he’s going to make his rich neighbor turn off his air conditioner and cut down on calorie consumption? Every time I think McCain has blown it with me and I can’t possibly vote for him, Obama says something blatantly Marxist and McCain again looks like the only man standing between America and Obama’s “change” (collectivization of private property). This must be what it felt like to vote for Gerald Ford.

Bizzaro St. Louis

I was screwing around in Time Magazine's online archives and found this little nugget from the April 17th 1933 issue:

"Last week for the first time in 24 years, St. Louisans elected a Democratic Mayor. Victorious candidate was Bernard Francis Dickmann, 44, bachelor realtor. A grey-haired, ruddy-faced, wisecracking good-timer. Mayor-elect Dickmann is president of the City Real Estate Exchange. A party worker for 20 years, he had never before run for office."

St. Louis, like any other city in America, has been under Democratic control for at least a generation, but having lived in the area my entire life I really can't imagine it being any other way. This really blew my mind:

"The St. Louis Democracy's (I hope they mean "Democrat's") victory, an echo from last November, was far from complete. Republican Louis Nolte was re-elected city comptroller for the fifth time. Republicans retained a majority on the board of aldermen"

Maybe someday, we can win it back. Maybe Osama Bin Laden will move to San Fransisco and Marry Ariel Sharon's comatose body. Anything's possible.

The Sunset of Canadian Freedom

The more I read about events in Canada, the more thankful I am that some States required the promise of a Bill of Rights before agreeing to join the Union. Canada doesn't have a clear protection of public speech written into its Law. In America, Freedom of Speech is a sacred and unimpeachable right, enshrined in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

In Canada however, Freedom of Speech and now the Press have come under increasing assault. The Voltairian principle "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" has been wholly rejected by the Canadian political elite. (In fact this is just a symptom of the general rejection of the concepts of the Enlightenment by Western Civilization in the past hundred years). Human Rights Commissions are now in operation in Canada with the power to police speech in the public sphere. These have been tolerated by Canadians because in the past they have mainly gone after Canadian Nazis (real or imagined) and homophobes (like a pastor who was uncouth enough to take out an add in a paper with quotes from the Bible condemning homosexuality and sodomy. Yep, quoting certain parts of the Bible is now a no-no in Canada.). Now however, the Human Rights Commissions have created a backlash by taking up complaints by Muslim groups trying to stifle discussion of Muslim immigration, assimilation, and terrorism.

The Canadian public has finally taken notice of the tyranny of these courts -even as much of the Canadian press has not- but I fear it’s too late. The defense of speech rights seems to already be lost. How else can one explain this defense of the Human Rights Commissions by the supposedly conservative Attorney General of Canada?

"Dr. Tsesis has developed an extensive critique of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ notion of the “marketplace of ideas,” and reaches similar conclusions: Beyond the theoretical difficulties of Holmes’ marketplace of ideas it is simply untrue that the dissemination of vitriol defuses racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism. Experience disproves the notion that falsehood is always vanquished by truth. To the contrary, history teems with examples of times when lies, distortions, and propaganda empowered groups like the Nazis to repress speech and perpetrate mass persecutions … Even when both true and false beliefs are available, persons often cling to the false to retain power. In spite of the availability in the United States of literature against slavery, that institution did not end through rational discourse but through a bloody civil war."

It is difficult to realize the sheer antipathy this line of thought has toward liberal western democratic tradition without suffering a stroke, but I'll do my best. We'll take it line by line:

"Dr. Tsesis has developed an extensive critique of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ notion of the 'marketplace of ideas,'"

Firstly, who was Oliver Wendell Holmes? Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court in the early 20th Century. Holmes stance was that the protections of the First Amendment gave citizens the right to "do harm" with their speech, i.e. insult a person, group, government, etc. unless that speech constituted a "clear and present danger" of causing harm that has been prohibited by law, i.e. injury, death, destruction of property, etc. Basically, someone can write "Eric Schimweg is an asshole" on a sign in their yard or the community newsletter. However, someone may not write "Eric Schimweg's neighbor would do the community a service by beating him to death with his own golf clubs" on a sign or in a newsletter if it provoked my neighbor to inflict bodily harm on my person.

Holmes believed that ideas should sink or swim of their own merit in a "marketplace of ideas". (Ironically he didn't believe in an economic free market). He famously defended the right to dissent during World War I when the Wilson administration passed draconian sedition and treason laws. One may think that minorities must be protected from inflammatory speech by the government, but once a society grants government the power to decide what is appropriate speech, that society can easily lose the right to speak out against said government.

"Beyond the theoretical difficulties of Holmes’ marketplace of ideas it is simply untrue that the dissemination of vitriol defuses racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism."

Holmes believed that vitriolic speech should be allowed into the marketplace of ideas so it could be debated and refuted. Let ideas see the light of day, and let them sink or swim on their own merit. To prohibit offensive speech is to prohibit its dissection and disproval in the full view of the public. Making ideas and speech taboo is to give them more power. Why do some kids carve a swastika into a bathroom stall? Its not because they believe in Nazism or Fascism, it’s because they want to shock and rebel with a forbidden symbol they know little about. As Mark Steyn -who's writing has sparked Canadian human rights complaints- has put it: "what would (Hitler) be most steamed about? That in some countries there are laws banning Nazi symbols and making Holocaust denial a crime? No, that wouldn't bother him: that would testify to the force and endurance of his ideas - that 60 years on they're still so potent the state has to suppress them. What would bug him the most is that on Broadway and in the West End Mel Brooks is peddling Nazi shtick in The Producers and audiences are howling with laughter."

As for stopping "racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism", those are worthy goals, but as Canadians are now discovering, if you create weapons to stifle speech, those weapons can be used to stop discussion on important issues and questions, like sharia law in Canada.

"Experience disproves the notion that falsehood is always vanquished by truth."

This is perhaps the most alarming part of the Attorney General's statement. If we accept the premise that falsehood must be suppressed in order to save truth, because truth can't be trusted to win out on its own, we come upon a sticky question: Who is to decide what is falsehood and what is truth? Is it what the government decides? Shall unelected Human Rights Commissions decide? Is this what we've come to in Western Civilization? The people can't be trusted to make up their own minds? The government must push and cajole them into the correct way of thinking? Does anyone really think that governments can be trusted to be the arbiters of truth? Joseph Goebbels had his own version of the truth. So did Stalin and Mussolini. The British parliament saw "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish" a government that fails to secure their rights as a falsehood. In the marketplace of ideas, some colonists agreed with them, some didn't. In the conflict that ensued, a (mostly) free Constitutional Republic was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment. Any contradictions remaining in the system were corrected later, not under the guise of the government, but through the actions and competing ideas of free people, often contrary to the views of government. To deny a citizen the right to weigh the evidence and decide for himself is to abandon faith in reason and to reject the concept of the free man.

"To the contrary, history teems with examples of times when lies, distortions, and propaganda empowered groups like the Nazis to repress speech and perpetrate mass persecutions …"

I can't imagine the Attorney General didn't recognize the contradiction in this. We must repress speech in order to stop others from repressing speech. How long until this descends into Jacobism? Shall we establish a tyranny in order to keep others from establishing a tyranny?

This is ultimately a rejection of Democracy. The people can't be trusted. An enlightened dictatorship will protect all. (Directory anyone?) Sound far fetched? Perhaps, but is it such a reach to conclude that if the people can't be trusted to decide what to read and think, how can they be trusted to vote?

"Even when both true and false beliefs are available, persons often cling to the false to retain power."

Again, who is to decide what is true and what is false if not the people themselves? Freedoms of Speech, Press, and Religion among others are specifically designed to protect minorities from a hateful or oppressive majority. Take these away, and the government is able to create its own reality, free from dissent.

"In spite of the availability in the United States of literature against slavery, that institution did not end through rational discourse but through a bloody civil war."

Here is a perfect illustration of a government creating its own truth. The Civil War was not specifically fought to abolish slavery. That is a falsehood. The abolition movement was born in an environment of free speech, both in the United States and in the British Empire. The Civil War may have been the context for the abolition of slavery (two years into the war I might add) in the United States, but the end of the slave trade was decided on through rational discussion and discourse.

Imagine if Uncle Tom's Cabin were examined in terms of truth and falsehood. Certain depictions and stereotypes in that landmark novel are at least exaggerated if not untrue. Imagine if Harriet Beecher Stowe were sued the way Maclean's magazine in Canada is for supposedly stereotyping Muslims and inciting hatred by publishing a Mark Steyn column. Should Stowe's writing career in America have been threatened for stereotyping Southern slaveholders and black slaves the way Steyn's is in Canada? It is indeed a slippery slope.