Monday, July 21, 2008


...that's different!!! Hahahahahaha!

Oh yeah. When it comes to free speech, so far it's been a great summer for all those who love liberty! The Levant and Macleans HRC complaints were withdrawn or tossed (with one complaint outstanding against Macleans which will also undoubtedly be tossed), as was the libel suit against broadcaster Rafe Mair, and -- what's that? Oh, Mair's case is different??
"Free speech advocates must be popping champagne corks celebrating two key decisions released this summer.

Within two days in late June the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the concept of fair comment and the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled why no hearing was warranted for the controversial Mark Steyn article published in Maclean's in October 2006.

Being a pessimist, I'm keeping the champagne in the cooler until I see the practical impact of these decisions."

Yeah yeah... why? What's the problem?

"The Supreme Court decision involved a radio editorial by Rafe Mair, a well-known British Columbia talk show host. He lambasted a social activist, Kari Simpson, for the position she took opposing any positive portrayal of gay lifestyle in public schools."


"Mair called Simpson a bigot and said she had "placed herself alongside skinheads and the Klu Klux Klan." He also made references to Hitler when he said: "I'm not suggesting that Kari was proposing or supporting any kind of holocaust or violence but neither really -- in the speeches, when you think about it and look back -- neither did Hitler."

Simpson sued Mair and the radio station for defamation, the lowering of her reputation." [...]

"First, one might wonder if the Mair decision might have differed had Mair not attacked an easy target. It's easy to assail someone like Simpson whose anti-gay views are not popular or politically correct. Suppose Mair had attacked a gay supporter? The result should be the same but would it?"
Boo-friggin-hoo: the difference is that Simpson isn't a minority (even if her twisted, ass-backwards views are). So it's free speech for me, but not for thee. Can anyone even doubt the fact that, like I said, it's not about free speech, it's about their free speech?