Frum gets spanked

You'd think that being the ex-Bush speechwriter who came up with the term "axis of evil" would be pretty solid conservative cred. But David Frum is feeling the wrath of readers and fellow NROers who accuse him of being a latte-sipping tool of the Liberal Media, all because he expressed his low opinion of bozo VP candidate Sarah Palin. Frum responds to his tormenters:

"Do my correspondents (and now my Corner colleagues) truly believe that - but for my pitiful media and social ambitions - nobody in America would have noticeed that Sarah Palin cannot speak three coherent consecutive words about finance or economics?" [...]

"Possibly it is bad form for me to acknowledge this reality. As one of my correspondents wrote this very morning:

PLEASE KEEP YOUR REMARKS TO YOURSELF! Nobody but Democrats wants to hear them.

Well he may have a point.

Perhaps it is our job at NRO is tell our readers only what they want to hear, without much regard to whether it is true. Perhaps it is our duty just to keep smiling and to insist that everything is dandy - that John McCain's economic policies make sense, that his selection of Sarah Palin was an act of statesmanship, that she herself is the second coming of Anna Schwartz, and that nobody but an over-educated snob would ever suggest otherwise." (emphasis mine)

Now you're catching on, Dave. That free speech thing? Nah. Only when it toes the party line. Otherwise all bets are off, you red tory bastard.

(via andrew sullivan)

CBC: Canadian Butt-kissing Corporation

It's been over 3 weeks since Heather Mallick's withering opinion piece about despicable moron Sarah Palin ran on the CBC's website and the crybaby wingnuts have been bawling about it ever since, with the National Post's Kay family leading the charge. Oh boo hoo hoo! Sob! SHRIEEEEEK!

Now the CBC has caved -- caved! -- to right-wingnut pressure, removed the column from its website and published a whimpering "mea culpa":

"More than 300 people have taken the trouble this month to complain to the CBC ombudsman about a column we ran on CBCNews.ca about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Sept. 5. The column, by award-winning freelance writer Heather Mallick, was also pilloried by the National Post in Canada and by Fox News in the U.S. … Vince Carlin, the CBC Ombudsman, has now issued his assessment of the Mallick column. He doesn't fault her for riling readers by either the caustic nature of her tone or the polarizing nature of her opinion. But he objects that many of her most savage assertions lack a basis in fact. And he is certainly correct. Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan. And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site … We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear."

"Viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan". Uh... I can has "Viewpoint"? What part of the word "viewpoint" is so hard to understand!??

Frankly, 300 complaints doesn't sound like a lot to me, given that the column was discussed on Fox News, the O'Reilly show and other right-wing outlets whose audiences are notorious for having nothing better to do but freep polls and complain about "left-wing bias". Oh well... at the center of the storm is the fact that the CBC is taxpayer-funded, and therefore has no business publishing opinion pieces that don't have a consensus of agreement with 100% of taxpayers. (Ignoring for a moment the fact that the vast majority of Canadians likely agree with the gist of Mallick's comments about Caribou Barbie.)

Public consensus for opinion pieces because of taxpayer funding? Get real. I look at it this way: I have no kids in school, yet I pay taxes for schools. I have no use for churches, yet I subsidize them through tax breaks, even as some of their more rabid members try to bully their way into public policy-making. If the CBC is to have a "Viewpoint" column at all, sooner or later there will be viewpoints that don't have consensus. TOUGH! SHIT!

The taxpayer funding issue is kind of a red herring anyway, since almost everyone gets some (yes, that's the Western Standard that sucked up $132,063 of MY MONEY in its death throes last year -- why wasn't I consulted?). As usual, it boils down to the right's psychotic intolerance for opinions they don't agree with: free speech for me, but not for Heather Mallick. It really is that simple.

And anyway, what about the taxpayers who agree with Mallick? What are we, chopped liver? Thanks a pantload, CBC!

UPDATE: Mallick's column was so evil, odious and disgusting that these guys are doing somersaults trying to find it again: "It's here", "Try here", "Find it here". Huh!? Guys, mission accomplished -- you got Mallick censored. Now you want to read the column again? Jesus fucking DUH! (h/t CC)

UPDATE II: Even better.

UPDATE III: psa speaks, you listen.

Alarmed

I had intended to post about this issue this morning but stageleft has already said everything I would have said, so go read. Yes, now.

Mallick-induced explosions at NatPo

Heather speaks:

"I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.

So why do it?

It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously."

Barbara Kay: BANG!:

"But a new low in Palin-targeting journalistic sewage – and that is saying something – fetched up on the CBC’s online shores on September 5, written by Heather Mallick. Her VIEWPOINT blog post, “A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention” Is so beyond the ethical pale that it comes close to hate speech.

Not that I want Mallick reported to a Human rights Commission. I just want the CBC to fire her and I want to see her blackballed from Canadian media altogether."

Jonathon Kay: BOOM!:

"Mallick’s column — “A mighty wind blows through Republican convention” — advances two theses: (1) That John McCain’s selection of 44-year-old Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his VP nominee was a crass gesture meant to appease the party’s “rural,” “unlettered” “white trash” base; and (2) that Palin herself is a tacky, badly dressed redneck who looks like a “porn actress.”"

Did we really need two columns on the same day about the same topic... another columnist? Christ, what a couple of freaking crybabies. Oh, boo hoo hoo, yes, it's the terrible truth: during election campaigns, people sometimes say mean things. Waaaahhh! SHRIEEEK!

Mama Kay was especially outraged, though she did stop short of demanding Mallick be burned at the stake. She contends that those who write for the taxpayer-funded CBC should be fired when some taxpayers don't agree with what they write. What about those of us who also pay taxes and do agree? Apparently in Wingnuttia we don't count. (Good -- then I want all that money back.) But Ms. Kay goes a lot further than taxpayer issues with her disturbing demand that Mallick be "blackballed from Canadian media altogether". Sorry, but that sounds an awful lot like censorship to me.

Most of Barbara Kay's screeds are barely worth reading, with their addlepated nitwitticisms and indignant, self-righteous scolding. But I can't imagine wanting her "blackballed from Canadian media", and if it ever came to that, I'd fight for her right to speak her mind (however feeble I might think it). Amazing how little it takes to make the "free speech" mask drop, and how little these douchebags really care for the principle.

Butbutbut...

...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."

Whoops!

"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?

Pay attention, class

Listen up, kids: blogging that your teacher is a douchebag can have consequences:

"If you're class secretary at your high school and your annoying school bureaucrats won't let you schedule your battle of the bands when you want, what do you do?

Go home and call them "douchebags" on your blog!

Ars Technica reports that Connecticut high-school senior Avery Doninger did that, and, not surprisingly, the school bureaucrats took umbrage. Specifically, they she couldn't be class secretary anymore. And, in typical American fashion, she and her parents sued. And lost. Even in the court of appeals." [...]

And that little item is from the U S of A, no less, where freedom of speech is considered a sacrosanct right to be fucked with at one's peril, where anything and everything goes, speech-wise. At least according to the denizens of Wingnuttia North, who never tire of reminding us how inferior this tyrannical socialist gulag of ours is to the free and wide-open speech spaces enjoyed by our southern neighbours. But --

"People sometimes hallucinate that the First Amendment not only gives you the right to say whatever boneheaded or offensive stuff you want--but means that your saying it won't have any personal or professional consequences (such as others deciding not to employ you anymore or regarding you as a moron). It doesn't."

So what did we learn today? Even in the Home of the Brave and Land of the Free, free speech comes with a certain amount of responsibility... and pretty much the same ultimate consequences when the free speech is free stupid speech.

So much for that "free speech" thing

Racism and bigotry are one thing, but since when do we have a right to not be "offended"? Apparently, the very people who claim to be on the free speech bandwagon think they have such a right, so watch what you say about them or they'll have your job.

The wheels fall off

Will nazis derail the Free Speech train? Here's more on the kind of free speech that right wingers are defending these days.

Ironic that the first commenter shows up to cast a little Libel Chill around and unwittingly attempt to suppress free speech:

So... does free speech include the right to publicly call for someone to be killed and post that person's home address online in case anyone's up to the task?

This is where I become conflicted about the concept of free speech absolutism. At heart, I agree -- you either believe in free speech or you don't -- there's no "sort of" believing in free speech. And if the speech of the scummiest douchebag is secure, then mine is all the safer. There's also the argument, and it's a good one, that these vile pieces of shit should be free to show their true nature so we know who and what they are.

But those who abuse free speech by using it to call for harm to others are overstepping the point to which I could actively defend them in good conscience. While I agree with the principle of defending the free speech of even the slimiest douchebag, there are limits to what I'll defend with such gusto.

That noise you hear

is the sound of furious backpedaling.

It was a day that the anti-HRC blowhards had looked forward to with breathless anticipation: yesterday's somewhat anticlimactic CHRC hearing in a case against Marc Lemire (neo-nazi and all around nice guy). But look, what's this? Why, it seems that some of the people who've been rallying around Lemire in the name of free expression are feeling a touch of buyer's remorse. Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party (who has a complaint of his own in the docket) responds to Jonathan Kay's positively slobbering National Post article:("How to turn a neo-Nazi into a free speech martyr"):

"Jonathan Kay -- like many defenders of free speech who have only awakened since the HRCs turned their guns on the mainstream media -- is overreacting. As someone who is currently charged before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, I share his desire to defend free speech. As Ezra Levant told the Alberta HRC, there are legitimate limitations on free speech, but neo-Nazis such as Marc Lemire cross that line, deliberately and often.

I'm not comfortable in the company of Marc Lemire, Ernst Zundel and Malcolm Ross, but I am comfort-able in the company of Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Brian Rushfeldt and Connie Fournier. It remains important to make such distinctions."

Think about what a weird crew it must have been at that hearing: all these pious, churchy, carrot-up-the-ass social conservative types and neo-Nazis. I'm at a loss to understand why all these conservatives took up this guy's cause in the first place. I understand it was perceived to have something to do with Free Dominion's ongoing problems, but as Mr. Gray says, "distinctions".

Gray isn't the first to have second thoughts about the dogs conservatives are lying down with of late. I guess it's one thing to theoretically support the free speech of Nazis, but quite another to see your political allies sitting in a courtroom with one and being recognized as "his supporters". Can you say "Political Kiss Of Death"?

That beloved old Voltaire quote notwithstanding, although I believe people have the right to be assholes, I'm not about to go to bat for them when they become as assholish as the likes of Lemire. I wouldn't fight to the death (or even to the minor illness) for them. Right to free speech, sure, live it up, but overstep as badly as these guys do and you're on your own.

Litigious Levant not giving up

Oh dear, someone's 14:55 into his 15 Minutes. Waaahhhhh!:

"Calgary Muslim leader Syed Soharwardy says he is withdrawing his Alberta Human Rights Commission complaint against former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant.

The complaint was launched in February 2006, after the Western Standard and the Jewish Free Press reprinted cartoons from a Danish newspaper that many in the Muslim world felt insulted the prophet Muhammad. The cartoons sparked violent protests in a number of countries." [...]

"Mr. Levant said he plans to launch a civil lawsuit against Mr. Soharwardy to recover the tens of thousands of dollars he said he has spent battling the complaint.

"I put in at least 100 hours fighting this guy. He may want to run away from this issue, but I'm not going to. His values are out of sync with Canadian society.""

For the record, I think both of them are out to lunch -- the complaint was frivolous and Levant's response (which included dragging videocams into the Human Rights Commission office to record his performance in front of a bored civil servant) was a lot of overwrought drama. Now that the complaint has been dropped (as expected), it comes as absolutely no surprise that Levant plans to sue -- all in the name of defending free speech, of course. Because nothing says "free speech" like a lawsuit launched against someone for using the system to complain about free speech.

(h/t: BCL)

"Lefties hate free speech!"

Or so goes conventional wingnut wisdom of late.

In following stories about Levant, Steyn, and most recently, MP Keith Martin, I've noticed a strange new urban legend making the rounds of the jerkoffosphere: "Lefties hate da free speak!(!!!)". This toxic turd is dumped in just about every right-wing blogospheric toilet in the known universe despite the fact that "lefties" have expressed virtually no support for the HRC complaints that started the whole free speech fooferaw. Most of the prog-blogs I read seem to agree that the complaints against Levant and Steyn/Macleans Magazine are specious, if not outright stupid, and will be probably be rightly dismissed.

And yet the Bullshit Machine keeps rockin' and rollin' along. Check out the incoherent diatribe of commenter "none" (as in, "how many brains do you have? - none") at SUZANNE's blogpost about RT's blogpost (guest-posting at Scott Tribe's blog -- confused yet?) about the motion being tabled by MP Keith Martin. RT, a progressive, says he supports the motion. Enthusiastically supports it, no less. But that doesn't stop "none-mind" from braying:

Well ya coulda fooled me! So colour me corn-fused... the wingnuts must be getting this idea from somewhere, but where oh where? I really want to know.

The definition of "confusion"

On the "free speech" front, it appears that a member's bill (M-446) is being tabled that would delete Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is the section that covers speech that is "likely to expose a person (of an identifiable minority) to hatred or contempt".

Celebrations abound at FD. But but but -- what's this? The member tabling the bill is a LIBERAL, MP Keith Martin.

Great snappin' assholes! Who knew those damn lieberals were champions of free speech!? And where the fuck are the Conservatives on this? *crickets* Confusion reigns!

I don't have time right now to ascertain the meaning of this, so let's just say "Developing..." Edit: I'm pretty sure it's not what they think it is. How could it be?! Think about it...

More on free expression

Last summer during the FD debacle, I meant to post this vid of Frank Zappa on Crossfire discussing free speech, and was reminded of it again when I saw it a few days ago on the Wise Law Blog. Zappa was a libertarian conservative. During this vid, one can't help but notice that the panelist most shriekingly opposed to the concept of totally free expression is a social conservative. What does that tell us? To me it says that the free speech they've been clamouring for since the Levant/AHRC affair isn't free speech at all -- it's just their version of it.

Um yeah, I think we're done here.

Of douchebags and drama queens

Who knew that publishing some half-assed cartoons could put someone on the path to martyrdom? The newly- (and largely self-) appointed Patron Saint of Conservative Persecution, Ezra Levant, had his day in what he and his sycophants refer to as "Kangaroo Kourt"(*snicker*) at the Alberta Human Rights Commission on Friday. The AHRC was getting Levant's side of the story as it investigates the viability of a complaint made against Levant's odious "Western Standard" for publishing the Danish "Muhammad cartoons" that enraged European Muslims a couple of years ago. ("Defiantly" rerun by St. Ezra a few days ago. Whew -- I can hear AC/DC now: "Who's got big balls!?" Whoever would have expected testicles of such cantaloupian proportions on that nerdy little Ezra guy. I'm, you know, impressed. Or something.)

No doubt Levant originally published the cartoons for the express purpose of injecting some opportunistic buzz into the failing health of the Standard, and it couldn't have played out better. In lieu of the bombs and burning cars he was probably hoping for, a human rights complaint would do. The fact that Levant went out of his way to make an unnecessary personal appearance at the AHRC (with cameras rolling to capture his carefully-scripted pontifications) should have clued someone into the fact that they were being played, but... well, remember Saddam? The people falling for Levant's histrionics are the same people who allow themselves to be led by the nose into illegal wars. They're malleable, to say the least. Add their existing persecution complexes, and the stage was set. Enter the Drama Queen.

Levant's visit with the AHRC wasn't a "hearing" as much as a first step in determining whether the complaint against him even holds any water (hint: it doesn't). Levant is a lawyer -- he knows good and well how much liability he actually has in this case. That's probably why he chose to make a personal appearance (accompanied by cameras) at such an early stage -- he knows this will be his only opportunity to make hay, so he's Drama-Queening it up. It would hardly be worth comment except that it's brought up the issue of free speech.

I think the complaint against Levant is frivolous -- however, taken in context with the Standard's pattern of behaviour it's easy to see how it came about. From the combox of the Standard's Shotgun Blog, October 2006:

"Nuke 'em"? (Who else but RG?) And that's just an abbreviated sample. There's no doubt some of the comments in that thread constitute hate speech, some of it so noxious that even another wanked-out conservative complained:

Of course this Moderate Voice of Reason was immediately called out as a "leftist" ("leftist" -- who the fuck says "leftist" anymore? Hey buddy, the McCarthy Era called, they want their word back). Well, so much for free speech! Complaints notwithstanding, these comments are fairly typical of the kind of discourse the Standard not only allows but encourages. It's not hard to see how someone might eventually reach critical mass with these mouthy morons and fire off a human rights complaint. Publishing cartoons -- meh. Advocating genocide -- not so meh.

As I've said here before, one of the reasons I'm not crazy about hate speech legislation is that it can open the door to so much abuse (which includes giving pompous assholes like Levant the opportunity to set themselves up as martyrs). But at the same time, I believe our minorities have the right to live peacefully without being subjected to bigotry. Because a scurvy, scummy little cadre of nitwits insists on being such bigoted douchebags, the unfortunate reality is that those who feel threatened need some avenue to address their concerns.

While the right to free speech comes with an implied responsibility not to be a jerk about it, there'll always be someone happy to invoke their right to be an asshole. The question is whether the right to be an asshole supercedes a minority's right to live free from abuse.

Update: Via the comments at Dr. Dawg's: See? It's only free speech when it's their free speech. Tsk tsk.