In the first installment I went on and on about how Charlottesville was a perfect test to preserve and protect the sanctity of freedom of speech, expression and assembly.
I’ll let you all determine if Americans get a passing grade.
In this post, I want to touch on a specific example of how the left is not seeing things properly when it comes to freedom of opinion.
A recent development in left-wing dogma is the notion that if you disagree with speech you deem ‘hateful’, it doesn’t deserve First Amendment protection. In Canada, we didn’t even bother to have a debate about it and just scribbled in ‘hate speech’ laws into our Charter. Government balances free speech. It is known.
A charter that isn’t worth shit (I can’t even bring myself to capitalize it) because when taken to its logical end, the government has final say on individual sovereignty and our rights to freedom of expression.
In other words, you’re kinda free until you’re not in Canada.
Sha-wing!
Just ask Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant learned when they got their asses hauled in before the court, and unelected monstrosities like the Human Rights Commission for the crime of wrongthink.
List of punchables please.
HRC talking bacterial virus: “Please explain to us, dear friend, why you hate the environment, Mark? Why won’t you be a good boy and side with science? We fucking love science, so be sciencey with us! Prove to us why we shouldn’t send you to Camp Krusty.”
The idea, if you can call it that, is grotesque for where it can all lead. One of those intellectual cul-de-sacs is thought control. For example, Smugpipi Longnanny commands, “You have white privilege ergo you’re racist but you don’t know it. You just need to accept it and this is why we’re controlling speech or else…”
A variation of this is if you don’t denounce something they deem offensive enough, they will take the moral decision to claim you ‘tacitly accept’ insert bad thing here.
By their admitted logic, because the left refuses to ‘tacitly denounce Islamic terrorism to the degree some may demand’, they’re terrorists. See? Fun.
So if you dare to defend – in the context of Charlottesville – that racists have a right to free speech means you support them.
Oh, the lazy stupidity of it all!
Let’s keep going. I’ve read quite a few of these self-righteous zealots argue that it’s okay to punch a Nazi. Emotionally, sure. The urge to hit something you loathe is great. I loathe Marxist thinking, communist ideology and socialism because they’re illiberal ideologies with a documented track record of murder and mayhem that robs and steals humans of their soul handing it over to a bureaucracy of superiors who control your life. Nothing can be more anti-humanist than these ideologies. I also can’t handle clowns. Clowns are scary.
It was my understanding there’d be no retaliation to the initiation of force.
Am I justified in going to punch out such people in the street?
Or. Let us take this accurate statement of ‘Not all Muslim are terrorists but the majority of political terrorism are committed by Islamic terrorists”. Does this accord me the right to go punch out my Muslim neighbour? No, seriously, a Muslim family live three houses me.
And what happens if the Nazi, Muslim or any body else punches back? Have you considered those inevitable consequences?
Moving goal posts is God’s work.
Are they not in their right to defend themselves since you admitted throwing the first punch is a duty?
I don’t think these people have thought things through. They just want to project and emote arrogantly setting the rules. Like a good game of Calvin Ball.
Let me expand.
If they’re in the moral and intellectual right, as they claim, why do they need violence then? Because history of the Nazis show this is what needs to be done? Again, can’t this be applied to Muslim terrorism? I reckon they won’t want to extend this rope to that end, right?
Progressive visions.
As is always the case with them, they get to determine the parameters of free speech (as we see on campuses and safe spaces). And just like they get to arbitrarily set the rules, the idea violence starts when the other side retaliates gives them one long leash to lash out with impunity.
By not ‘tacitly’ denouncing Antifa’s own antics in Charlottesville, do I get to go punch those people out?
How barbaric, no?
But, Rufus, I fear your monocle is on too tight and squeezing your brain. Antifa is love and peace! They just want to spread their love!
Pish-posh. You have not seen love until you witness the love libertarians have of their orphans.
At best, I see ‘two wrongs make a right’ or ‘might makes right’.
Antifa is a violent, illiterate, and problematic hate group in of itself. That they *claim* to speak for righteousness is hollow and tenuous. Witch-hunters thought they were doing good too. So do villains who feel they’ve been wronged and seek to ‘right’ a perceived injustice.
Speaking of which, I do question the judgment of someone who claims Antifa is good. An identity group that doxxes people resulting in major consequences for the people impacted is a misguided and misplaced act of justice.
For a group that claims to be compassionate and humanist, how can they not see this action destroys (often) innocent lives needlessly? They may see themselves as righteous vigilantes but in effect they’re just lawless renegades with a confused moral and intellectual compass.
How would you feel if that was your son or daughter or friend or cousin who lost their jobs to a wrongful doxxing? Humanize your actions.
People who claim Antifa are not violent are out to lunch. Either they’re ignoring their behaviour or are just plain uninformed. Or they don’t care and aren’t admitting it. Regardless, none of it is good and not supported by documented reports of what we know about them.
Not provoking a bear is a universal principle applied pretty much across the West. It’s basic kindergarten stuff. If you punch first, you were reprimanded. Conversely, if the person struck back, they too would be held to account for their actions.
Even the NHL understands this basic law of nature. It’s called the ‘Instigator rule’. Don’t provoke or else you’ll get the penalty; usefulness of the rule notwithstanding. It’s believed it’s better to let the two parties have a go with the thinking it will police and sort itself out. Maybe this is what needs to be done here. Let these faux-resisters and racists keep banging each other over the heads. Eventually they’ll get the message that their actions are futile and not furthering their respective agendas. No one in the end can tolerate endless, mindless violence. Not even that degenerate, left-wing Berkeley professor who smashed that kid with a bike lock.
Beats the Outer Banks.
He’s a prime example of a coward who would take advantage of the instigator rule in hockey. He’d hit and run away without facing justice. Of course, if someone did hit him back, coward that he is, he’d scream like a little baby about how he faced violence and injustice. After all, this gutless coward has the moral obligation to smash people up, correct?
If a fellow gang member comes up to you and says we need to go take care of the Ducky Boys, the gang is going to carefully consider the possible outcomes and consequences of the provocation. You all understand if you go and provoke them, they will fight back. So someone among you may say, ‘hey man, don’t go and do that. They outnumber us’. Or they’ll conclude, ‘it’s not worth it.’
But none of the considerations are “they will just take what they have coming’.
Only The Wanders can take on the Ducky Boys.
It’s illogical and naive for people who think violence wasn’t inevitable in the context of Charlottesville.
No matter how you dice this thing up, Antifa doesn’t come out looking any better.
Worse even if you ask me.
No, you don’t have a right to punch a Nazi because, by all accounts, you’re are not nice people and don’t hold the higher moral ground.
Do us all a favour and stop pretending you represent the conscience of people, quit pretending you care about civil liberties and put on your blue caps. Here are some ideas you’d wear well.
‘…it is not always important that individuals reason well, it is sufficient that they reason; from their individual thought, freedom is born.’’ Montesquieu
Once again, the irrational jackals looking for their pound of blood and flesh have pounced and pummelled into oblivion any remaining shred of rational thought they possessed.
This time they’re outraged! Really, really, outraged! 25%, no, 33.33% more outrage. So salty they are with Trump – ooo, that son of a bitch – Campbell’s is jealous with all the salt they use.
I’m not going to rehash what we already know and what led to this. The transcripts of what he said are available on the Internet.
Suffice to say, for me, there are no winners here as all sides have some culpability (white supremacists, Antifa, the media and the town); though, unpopular as it is it say, I do think the police stand down order, Antifa’s provocation and the media’s deliberate distortion of the facts on the ground hold the bigger slice of blame here. I worry less about a bunch of idiots congregating to spew venomous rhetoric (hey, sounds like SJW) and more about the principles of freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble.
This is a cornerstone of our Western values that can’t be compromised and must be protected.
And like these events sometimes show, the issue becomes what possible negative outcomes are there for free speech, expression and assembly.
Here, there’s no question it is the progressive left who are a bigger threat and danger.
There have been logical fallacies a plenty. From it’s ‘okay to punch a Nazi’ to ‘if you defend their right to free speech that makes you a Nazi’ to ‘Antifa is justified in provoking’ and so on. It’s been said, I am told, Antifa are the new liberators.
If so, we’re doomed.
I think noted pillar of reading comprehension Kevin Durant spoke on behalf of all illiterates everywhere when he said, ‘…I don’t agree with what he (Trump) agrees with.’
You’re not helping.
Do we really know what Trump ‘agrees with’? Based on the full transcript of what I read I’m still not sure.
Though one must wonder if people like Durant get flustered at the abnormal amount of times prominent Democrats and progressives call for the assassination of Trump. It kinda unnerves me because murder, you know? I mean, we all know the left embrace violence, but come on, dudes! I musta missed all those times Republicans suggested Obama be killed. Alas, until Trump invites the KKK to the White House in the same manner Obama invited BLM soon after the murder of five officers, I’m gonna keep this one on ice for now.
Nonetheless, no need to keep perspective.
Let the virtue signalling commence!
Hoo-boy.
Off the charts!
It’s like watching teenagers with lobotomies interpret Thomas Paine’s argument with Edmund Burke.
I just read the CFL in Canada began a ‘Diversity is strength’ campaign in response to Trump’s alleged hate for diversity. What is it with these vapid slogans? Are they some sort of Linus security blanket for people? All that was missing was Justin Trudeau as a spokesperson (heaven forbid you call Justin a spokesman) dressed in drag for an exclamation point.
Yes, because the left love diversity of ideas. And I think the word he was gunning for was pluralism.
‘Diversity by other means’ is the very definition of discrimination. Google? What they do in the name of diversity? Discrimination. The Liberal party of Canada and their degenerate style of identity governance? Discrimination.
If one group is negatively impacted through punitive measures (however subtle), in order to prop another you have…discrimination.
Even a muppet understands this. Play Safe, CFL! You’re libel to lose an eye if you keep this up.
/TSN personality nods agreeing then realizes it’s not part of the script and the nods become contorted grimaces of disagreement.
We must diverse like we never diversed before!
To cite Orwell’s 1984, the overall point was this: A world depicted in his novel is possible if man is unaware of his assaults on personal freedoms; that if he loses his right to his own thoughts we’re doomed as a free people.
This is the lesson from Charlottesville.
Well, that and the message that it’s okay to go provoke people who are allowed to congregate regardless of what you think of them.
Lemme ask, does it look like we’re winning?
Just when ‘business leaders’ weren’t already an insufferable breed of twats, they decide to resign from some useless council because of Trump’s reaction. I hope those bum taps and smug winks were worth making them look like clowns to the rest of us.
‘I swear I meant to diverse more.’
It’s interesting limousine liberal, bourgeois CEO’s blindly play into Antifa’s hands given how much the left hates corporations, no? Once ensnared, no amount of faux-right think posturing would save them from the left’s reign of terror. It’s like they don’t know the story of Murat. For those of you not in the loop, he was done in by a Girodin who were a branch of…the Jacobins.
I hope they have bigger bath tubs.
*********
Which brings me to my first digression. Years ago I went to a notary. In the back ground, as I prepared pay the $1500 fee, I noticed pictures of Cuba and Che. I wondered if he found it odd to have pictures of left-wing sociopaths who purged and killed peasants and intellectuals who would probably shoot him too for being a ‘capitalist pig’. I wondered further if it would bother him if, say, Che Tremblay (it’s Quebec) came to power and capped what he could charge customers?
This made me think of an (depressing but revealing) end note in Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago:
31. One of our school friends was nearly arrested because of me at this time. It was an enormous relief to me to learn later that he was still free! But then, twenty-two years later, he wrote to me: “On the basis of your published works I conclude that you take a one-sided view of life…Objectively speaking, you have become the standard-bearer of Fascist reactionaries in the West, in West Germany and the United States, for example….Lenin, whom, I’m convinced, you love and honour just as much as you uses to, yes, and old Marx and Engels, too, would have condemned you in the severest fashion. Think about that!” Indeed, I do think about that: How sorry I am that you didn’t get arrested then! How much you lost!
Glibertarians hardest hit.
Moving along.
It’s….cute.
Of course, to those of us not robbed of our senses and rational bearings, Charlottesville is just another example of the collective intellectual and moral shallowness that grips hyper-partisans stalking Americans; and the West in general including my home country of Canada.
I think, as a starting point and ultimately a moot one, everyone can agree the KKK are douchebags. And that white supremacy, whatever the source of its recent little spike, is not exactly an endearing quality in a free and pluralist society.
But therein lies what’s so infuriating to the left: In a free and pluralist civilization there will be people and ideas you disagree with. I disagree with just about everything the progressive left argues. Heck, I think they’re essentially blue capped anti-humanists but this is the cross we must bear in a free world, eh?
Soon, they’ll be branding wrong think with tattoo serial numbers. What’s another tattoo for millennials? But for some of us old farts who can’t bear to ruin our skin, this is a frightening thought. I just made the jump from Irish Spring (soap for Leprechauns) to Old Spice, considering it ‘edgy’ because of the commercials.
Behind the smellful humour is a dreadful message. Modern progressive activists project their mean-spirited know-nothing drool-babblings revealing a a hideous intellectual and moral decadence very much in line with communism, socialism and fascism. There’s a rather large trail of unbecoming evidence pointing to their dark souls.
Until they admit they’re Marxist and therefore illiberal, we can never have an ‘honest conversation’ with progressives.
From holding college deans hostage to smashing people’s skulls with bike locks (so hipster-douchey, no?), to bullying random strangers in the streets, to a Berniebro shooting Republicans at a baseball game to a BLM sympathizer killing five cops (Time and again, when given the chance to truly tower above the racial divide, Obama chose to swim in with the swine), I think we can discern a pattern of behaviour here as a matter of established fact.
As if that’s not enough, they have the nerve to compare themselves to World War II veterans who fought the Axis powers and gave their lives to it in the most destructive war in world history. The horror of humanity they saw, Antifa can’t imagine from their safe spaces.
Antifa are nothing like war heroes. They’re thugs; not liberators. They just haven’t gotten around to choosing their color is all.
We’re told to fear white supremacists, but we should worry about the left more.
No one is talking about taking Mr. Jefferson’s deluxe apartment in the sky away, but progressive reprobates are trying to remove your right to free speech and expression.
Back to Charlottesville.
I think it’s pretty obvious what happened. A group got a permit to exercise their right to assemble. Another group not liking the message went to protest them. Both came prepared to fight. And found it with a tragic result. There are no winners and there is plenty of blame to go around. But we’re led to believe there’s only one party to blame?
I don’t think so.
Now the spill over of doxxing people begins and has already claimed an innocent victim.
The last part is probably the most disturbing trend. They search out people’s backgrounds and without a shred of evidence or context will publicly shame them with the aim of destroying their lives. It’s reminiscent of The Ox-Bow Incident about how a mob driven by revenge kill innocent people without evidence.
It’s Salem 2.0 is what it is.
And they’re supposed to be the good guys? What happens when they mistakenly dox another person and this time a life is lost? What then?
Progressive calculus.
Let’s take a look at this from another angle. Had white supremacists crashed the ‘March for Women’ and violence ensued, how would people react and the media respond?
I can’t believe we have to keep repeating this: People and groups are allowed freedom to associate and assembly regardless of message or of what others think of their beliefs.
I thought the ‘March for science’ was the usual vacuous showcase in numbskullery. The speeches I heard there and at the ‘March for Women’ were offensive and useful only to the loose lint on your couch where actual advancement of philosophical discourse is concerned.
But I would never ever demand their voices be silenced. They had every right to march and be heard, however idiotic. What possible purpose could be served in shutting down speech even if I think it’s dangerous to science? I can but offer a counter argument and keep them engaged.
When speech is seen as violence by the government, we may as well abandon The Constitution (and The Charter here in Canada – however, feeble in its commitment to liberty) and wipe the crumbs from our mouths with it.
Even if you feel morally upset by such persons or groups it doesn’t accord you the right to violently suppress their rights.
Repeat after me and Grover: You don’t have the right to violently suppress people’s right to free speech, expression and assembly on any grounds because you feel offended.
That goes for anyone and any group. There is no middle ground where our right to express ourselves is concerned.
If you do not accept this, then you’re exactly what you claim to be fighting and are driven by a tribal, emotional, misguided and distorted righteousness thus making you as dangerous to liberty as the persons or groups you abhor. You’ve conceded you won’t (or can’t) sell or promote your ideas in the realm of civil discourse.
In other words, you’re mob rule. What you advocate, lazily, is to legitimize government force against your opponents.
I’m horrified by how easily people are prepared to allow the jack boot of the government on the necks of people who happen to hold a different opinion.
To repeat. You can’t keep attacking innocent people physically and verbally, shutting down streets, shouting down people debating differing points of views, changing the language of discourse to suit your narratives, accosting people through guilt by association and so on and not expect retaliation.
Either you have freedom of speech and expression or you don’t. There’s no such thing as ‘balanced’ speech. If you believe there is, then you’re half-way to censorship.
At this point, I’d like to theorize that both these groups have little to do with anything our common liberal heritage bestowed upon our wretched, undeserving souls.
As collectivist identity groups, it’s less a left versus right battle and more of a left versus left engagement I theorize. Just like we saw in the early 20th century when communists fought socialists and both fought fascists.
Each of these ideologies were under the socialist umbrella with fascism lying to the right of communism and socialism.
Euphemisms for cucks’n cults.
In other words, it was a fight among illiberals and this event in Virginia was no different. If you’re identity hinges on collectivism or notions of the ‘greater good’ via government coercion, you’re illiberal.
Or, if you prefer pop culture analogies, it’s like a SJW version of The Riddler fighting The Penguin over who is more of a victim of the patriarchy.
Other than that, they’re also a bunch of illiterates deliberately mangling the facts of history through circular logic to fit their half-assed narratives and theories rooted in false premises and unhinged logical fallacies. No, that you defend the KKK’s right to free speech doesn’t mean you ‘tacitly’ condone them. If this passes as an argument, all I can say is go buy yourself a helmet because you’re in danger of getting a concussion.
Moreover, if they want to be taken seriously they should probably stop depicting Trump as both a Nazi and a fascist. Pick one and stick to it.
No, indeed, it’s not about the principle or the morality.
Standing for principles are the ones where you accept under all circumstances the right to free speech, expression and assembly when it’s in distress and under assault while not advocating for violence yourself.
Now, at this point, some may wonder why should a Canadian care? Oh, care we must. The United States is not alone in dealing with this and their bad ideas tend to find its way up here. They’re just the biggest black head on the face of Western civilization that everyone sees. America serves as the perfect distraction for the rest of the world.
Lucky them. Or us. Whatever.
There’s an uncomfortable adherence to a left-wing ideology which is a beautiful martini on the surface, but it’s a poisonous virus deep below and transcends national borders. So where principals over principles prevail, a loss of perspective easily pulls people in.
We all lose if liberty is lost. What’s the point of existing if you have no freedom to express your opinion? Note, I am not suggesting if you’re opinion is bad there can’t be consequences but that’s best for a free society to determine and not through the coercive action of the state. If the state regulates speech, you’re not free.
Simple.
One of the valuable lessons in Solzhenitsyn’s writings is to describe in detail how destructively slow this process really is. It’s almost impossible to criticize it without being told you have a ‘one-sided view of life’. The left always claim to have a nuanced view on life but when you examine and explore their views and arguments further, you realize it’s anything but. It’s just cold, naked, anti-humanism and always somehow ends up in death.
It’s communism by other means. Antifa and its ilk doesn’t care for principles of liberty. Their movement is not predicated on the philosophy of advancing liberty in the context of classical Western value. Far from it in fact. Indeed, they are hostile to it.
Antifa is where one finds notions of ‘white privilege’ and the West being a racist and murderous civilization.
Nothing more dangerous than a group of people thinking they can right the wrongs of the past and present in an effort to control the future.
Their entire outlook sits on a bedrock of illiberalism. If they were to ever achieve power they’d behave exactly like the Taliban, Jacobins or Bolsheviks slowly purging wrong think.
I’d be lined up against the wall. So would all of you here. And those useful idiots in the CEO ranks.
This is true.
Who will take to the streets in defence of freedom of speech, expression and assembly? Who will speak for it? This is the question.
I do see a boatload of petty opportunistic buffoons willing to squish and squash speech in a misguided attempt to stupidly ‘civilize’ discourse though. Nothing could be more barbaric I say!
Don’t let Trump or any other politician allow us to forget this cherished principle.
Boy, did it really take me this long to say the left are not nice people who project their rage and anger and live a miserable, empty existence void of any principles?
You wanna piece of me racist?
Moving forward, expect no ‘peak derp’ while the creepy and cowardly molluscum cult (led by intellectually deficient celebrities and fake journalists toeing a splendidly regressive narrative wallowing in their cheap, unreasonable, unhelpful, smug didactics) will continue to get their cues from a vapid Obamabot tweet.
The left are living in a post-retard bizarro world and we get to watch them burn down any shred of moral decency and intellectual currency they had left; a world where they get to be Super-Man while acting like Lex Luthor. Where they simultaneously get to co-opt bravery with veterans while denigrating Western civilization and its values.
If you ask this uncucked Canuck, it seems to me this petty band of illiberal, dilapidated delusional clowns are a direct danger to liberal values because they hold more influence over policy at the moment.
I don’t know what will come of this and if there will be a tipping point. I do know one thing though. Glibertarians will never be able to solve the deep-dish divide and we’re definitely on someone’s blackball list somewhere in Leftopia.
Update: Currently, as I began this post (forcing me to revise it a couple of times), there’s a right-wing rally along with a counter-protest in Boston. By all accounts it’s peaceful so far.
I’ve been mulling over a segment focusing on statistics and data for a while now. But since I suffer from (highly likely) ADHD and can’t seem to find time to properly give such a segment justice, I’ve sat on it. Aieee, sit on it, Potsie!
With that sparkling opening introducing a new feature, enjoy these “Take that for data!”
Ever wonder who the ‘drinkiest’ people in the world are?
It’s been put forth the New England Patriots benefit from being in a weak AFC east. So I investigated.
Let’s start in the AFC north with the Steelers and Ravens. In the Belichick era: The Patriots are 6-3 against the Steelers in regular season play and 4-0 in the playoffs. They’re 5-1 against the Ravens but are 2-2 in the post-season facing them. Nonetheless, it’s a dominant edge for New England.
Moving onto to the AFC south. The key team there are the Colts (who played in the AFC east for two seasons). Regardless, different team and division same result. New England is 12-5 against the Colts in the regular seasons and 5-1 in the playoffs. Again. Dominant.
The only team to give them a run are the Broncos out in the AFC west. The Pats are 7-5 against them in the regular season but 1-3 in the playoffs.
All-combined the Pats are 23-10 against those teams in the regular season and 12-6 in the playoffs. 35-16 overall.
Not enough to weaken Graca’s argument you say?
Check this out. Since 2000 the Patriots are:
77-29 against all AFC east divisional teams – .726%
70-26 against the AFC – .729%
53-17 against the NFC – .757%
That’s a .737% winning percentage for those of you scoring at home.
That’s a lot of cheating, eh?
Anyway. They won 74% of their games in the Brady/Belichick era. In addition, they’ve compiled a 25-9 record in the playoffs (.735%). In other words, they maintain their excellence in the playoffs.
The New England Patriots would likely be just as successful no matter what division they played in. The only division that *could* conceivably halted the is the NFC east. It’s historically a ferociously competitive division with strong teams at different intervals. Alas, they’re not an NFC team.
Back in 2010 I took a massive left turn at Albuquerque looking for Pismo beach and instead started a business completely out of my area of expertise.
Up to that point, it had been a strange journey, but ever since I was a young lad I wanted to be in ‘business’ just like my pappy. Entrepreneurship was perfect for me for two reasons: the autonomy it accorded, and for a guy with ADHD and (other non-specified issues as my wife likes to remind me) that was gold. I forget the other reason.
Oh yeah, I hated answering to people.
Anyway.
Alas, with with a newborn attaching its parasitical self to my hip the pressure was on to settle on something.
Growing up, my father always tried to steer us away from business. He just felt that the aggravation and stress of dealing with debt, the public and employees was too much. Immigrants preferred telling their kids to go work for a company and get secured pension benefits. Hoping for stability was only natural given the amount of uncertainty they lived through. They wanted to keep their children shielded from such stress.
However, and most of all, dealing with the government was a job onto itself. He always said don’t ever think you can outsmart the government. They will always win in the end so shut up and pay your taxes. Save yourself a headache down the road.
Sound advice that we most definitely adhere to.
We didn’t see all the ups and downs he was referring to – often in quite dramatic and crusty delivery. It made for interesting dinner table one-way talk. You haven’t lived until you witnessed a man deliver an anti-government soliloquy over a plate of veal scaloppine alla Marsala, Sambuca black and cigarettes, while my mother oblivious to everything kept asking if we wanted more whatever endless stream of food she made for the night. My mother was Kitchen Caligula.
All we saw was a man who provided, through his trade as a tailor, a nice upper-middle class living in the suburbs, thus allowing me the latitude to, well, use Roosevelt Franklin as my avatar. Like most immigrants (those dirty sons of bitches), he came from nothing with scant knowledge of English or French.
So I wanted that; or something close to it anyway.
All this to say, I ended up in private daycare by pure luck. I figured what the heck? Get the right people in place and up, up and away!
And so I thought.
This is where my real exploration into the nether-world of government regulations, business debt and entrepreneurial acumen began.
Early on, I got in over my head and had to pull a Duddy Kravitz my way into making sure I had sufficient capital. When I applied for my permit I had to go meet two bureaucrats to make sure I was worthy. All I kept thinking, as they inundated me with paper work, was how useless it all was. One of the woman, probably noticing my irritation, decided to tell me in a more intimate moment in French, ‘I know it’s a lot. But it has to be done. You look at places like Africa…’
I could scarcely believe my ears. In fact, given I have poor hearing, I didn’t want to believe what she said but the person I was with (a Filipino consultant. I know this story is writing itself) confirmed it.
The bureaucracy, ladies and gentleman, is the only line of civilization dividing us from Somalia.
Apparently.
Alas, I had to go through the motions, sign on the dotted lines and keep my eye on the prize. The stress was through the roof. I talked to quite a few people willing to lend their insights. One person said something that was interesting:
“People only see the end result and judge you on that. They don’t see the journey it took to get there. If you get there, it’ll be all the more gratifying.” Just like we couldn’t understand (and let’s face it, some people probably don’t even care) what my father went through. We just saw the result.
Seeing it in this way skews a person’s perception about successful people. Hence, the ‘the owner does nothing all day! He’d be out of business if not for me!”
I think his comment couldn’t have been truer. Which is why, I think, it’s easy for people to demand the government view businesses with skepticism if not as a source for cash to pay for ‘social needs’. What do they care, right? It’s not their business – don’t excuse the pun.
I’ve always felt schools should teach business or entrepreneurship, if anything to enlighten students on what business owners face; that they won’t fall prey to superficial cliches and empty slogans about ‘paying your fair share’ and ‘you’re not a good business if you can’t afford to pay your workers a living wage’. In other words, not to be finance and business illiterates.
It’s not fool-proof, since people do weird things. Case in point, the province of Alberta – Oil Country – voted for the NDP; the very party that views oil and gas with suspicion. Or the weird case of small business owners who sometimes vote for the NDP or Liberals. Or doctors who support universal health care which effectively leaves their labor in the hands of bureaucrats. It’s a head scratcher for sure.
Small business owners are going to tire of being demonized in North America. The former leader of a provincial party here asserted ‘public daycare offers better services than private ones’ which is simply not the case and was a rather irresponsible declaration to make in public. But how to respond instead of the usual letter-to-the-editor or calling a political representative’s office?
Here in Canada, through the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, business owners finally have a voice and fighting chance to question or challenge onerous government regulations and taxes.
As a whole, I like to think the fire and brimstone pseudo-populist rhetoric from the likes of Sanders, Warren and Obama will backfire because they’re a stale and stagnant remnant of a dying progressive moment.
They’re part of an unproductive class looking to rape the productive to further their progressive agenda.
Despite what they might think, saying ‘you didn’t build that’ is not a an act of encouragement signalling people go out and build their own dreams. You’re coyly implying through such poppycock rhetoric, people serve the state. It’s thanks to the benevolent state we have the opportunity to be able to start and succeed at business.
It takes a village and all that.
Yet, while they ludicrously take indirect credit for your success because ‘roads’, they weren’t there when businesses struggled to make payroll or rent.
All they know is to drive some sort of class warfare wedge waving fists claiming to ‘fight for the people’. Whomever fits the definition of ‘people’ because it sure isn’t me and others like me they’re ‘fighting’ for.
It’s the reality of things. That person I spoke to was right. No one gives a shit about the process and they prove it in the way they talk about you.
And that’s that.
I don’t know. The calculation always seem pretty straightforward to me. No entrepreneurship, no cash flow to pay for ‘free shit’.
In the aftermath of the massacre of six Muslims in Quebec City, Mississauga-Erin Mills Liberal MP Iqra Khalid tabled Motion 103 calling on the government to condemn Islamophobia. Now keep in mind, this is just a motion, not a bill. It’s just an MP using the democratic process to express an opinion. Nevertheless, it has become a leitmotif where debate about free speech is concerned in Canada. It’s worth questioning its tenets as well as the Prime Minister’s subsequent comments. If anything, it highlights why it’s rarely a good idea to formulate laws after a tragedy when emotions run higher than reason leaving itself vulnerable to unintended consequences and that protecting free speech demands eternal vigilance.
Following her motion, Khalid unfortunately received her fair share of hate mail that would seem to confirm her position. However, if anything, it only highlights the need to protect free speech, not curb it. The messages still don’t rise for the need of such a proposal, in my view.
Specifically the motion stipulates:
-Recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear. -Request the heritage committee study how the government could develop a government-wide approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia. -Collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities and present findings within 240 calendar days.
It would be helpful if she’d clarify a couple of things. For example, how does she define ‘climate of hate and fear’? Who will be charged with doing all this ‘contextualizing’? What’s ‘Islamophobia’ exactly? Who will guard the contextualizers?
If the premise leading this motion into a potential Bill is clunky, what the heck does one think will happen once it’s law?
As if this problematic (if not silly) proposal isn’t enough to send shivers down our spines, Justin Trudeau offered these illuminating words exposing his awesome dedication to free speech. CBC reports:
“In a seven-minute response, Trudeau said fundamental rights and freedoms are enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that individual rights must be balanced with others in our society. Determining the parameters is an ongoing discussion in a dynamic, successful society like ours, he said.
Trudeau said the motion aims to address the fact there is a community that is “particularly vulnerable these days to intolerance and discrimination.”
“You’re not allowed to call ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theatre and call that free speech,” Trudeau said.
“That endangers our community. And as we saw 10 days ago in Quebec City, there are other things that can endanger our communities. And we need to stand strongly and firmly against that.”
A little precautionary principle here, a little “save free speech from itself” there, and a dab of “protecting the vulnerable” here, and presto! Civil Nirvana!
I’m no longer surprised – numb perhaps but not shocked – that this pretty much summarizes the general Canadian outlook on free speech. Canadians weren’t basted in notions of the First Amendment as their American cousins were in school or even afterward. If free speech is regarded as ‘quaint,’ imagine the perception of the Second Amendment.
It just doesn’t compute. Hence, flippant musings on free speech passed off as progressive enlightened perspectives; there’s a general misguided belief we can “balance” free speech without any opportunity costs. ‘Hey, man! I didn’t mean my speech! I meant HIS speech!”
It’s even more so with Trudeau, given his father wasn’t exactly a card carrying classical liberal. This sort of sophomoric approach to free speech, when exposed on a bigger stage than Canada, can really look, erm, second-rate at best.
What Canadians don’t fundamentally understand is that free speech is a virtue and not a vice.
You remove it or try to tinker with it and you’re left with the loss of individual sovereignty. Nothing more. Shutting down speech to any degree presupposes we have the answers; it suppresses self-doubt and increases misplaced self-esteem.
It leads to assertions of it all being ‘settled’ – to borrow a flatulent term from the system, ahem, climate change crowd – so to speak. There is not a better example of a movement that has foregone tolerance and patience in the interest and spirit of debate. Does it make sense to you to hand over all your inquisitive impulses and skeptical empiricism to…Bill Nye? Are we not free to debate anything however vacuous so long as it doesn’t infringe on the civil liberty of another? It takes patience and tolerance because it’s humbling if someone challenges a prevailing world view
It is completely alien to me how anyone would consent to allowing the government the kind of power to ‘watch over’ free speech. It’s also lazy. Rather than confront a person’s opinion by the power of argument, we ask the government merely shut down the parts we can’t be bothered to argue. After all, if the starting point is ‘we know the truth,’ there’s no need to confront and debate. Lazy.
What is overlooked is that being exposed to bad arguments or ideas actually enhances and strengthens our critical thinking prowess and intellectualism.
Shutting down opinion under the threat of imprisonment, in short, isn’t liberal.
It’s illiberal.
It’s reactionary.
Moving on to the specifics of his comments: there’s little evidence Muslims are facing a significant backlash – despite the tragic outlier incident witnessed in Quebec City, the hate mail received by Khalid and a recent uptick in attacks usually coming after an Islamic terrorist attack- to justify such draconian actions. Call me when things reach a ‘pogrom’ level. In fact, Jews indeed continue to be the most targeted group.
Second, the idea that free speech can be balanced by curtailing it is an act of deception, if not outright hubris. To think we can ‘balance’ something as immeasurable as speech is just that: arrogance. Either free speech exists or it doesn’t. It should give pause that the Prime Minster basically said, ‘the feelings of a victim group comes before individual civil liberties no matter what the Charter says.’
So why have a Charter if you plan to wipe your ass with it, I wonder?
Does Canada have principles or not? Will it stand for freedom of expression at all cost or not? If it chooses the route (and quite frankly, it already has by the back door through the Human Rights Commission and Quebec’s language laws), then it abandons all pretences of being a nation that values freedom of speech and expression. Welcome to Canada where we cherish free speech but…
It would be foolish, furthermore, to think this is not an example of a slippery slope. There are plenty of examples (just go to Campus Reform) to see the hideousness of what can happen if free speech isn’t vigorously defended. The natural default position of man, after all, is tyranny. Next thing you know, comedians in Germany and Canada are taken to court. Such progress we’ve made!
It’s not like we haven’t seen how grotesque it is to take someone to court over an opinion as the cases involving Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn reveal.
The process, as we know, is enough punishment and I can’t but think about the poor sucker who doesn’t have the kind of pull Steyn or Levant may have will see their life upended because of it.
Count me in as one of those ‘extremists’ who doesn’t feel it’s legally, intellectually or even morally justified to destroy a person’s life for proclaiming, say, ‘Keep ’em fucken Mooslims outta m’backyird! That is, the government should not be in the business of criminalizing people for their opinions through onerous and obscene censorship laws.
It’s bad enough that Levant – here have a look for yourself at what 1984 in 2017 looks like – has to beg before an unelected ‘contextualizer‘ at the HRC, right? Now imagine where this can go with Motion 103 becoming law.
And given the zeitgeist we’re experiencing in North America (if not the West as a whole), the last thing we should be doing is enabling or giving people incentives to snitch and/or lob lawsuits against one another for words.
Next up, thought control.
Finally, Trudeau is misinformed about not being able to yell Fire! in a theatre. In a nutshell, it’s not illegal to do so in the United States. The history of this famous analogy drawn by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is not what people think it is. In fact, the case whence it was born had nothing to do with fires; but it did have something to do with freedom of speech and expression.
Though not binding, the courts got it wrong and it was eventually overturned 40 years ago but not before this trivial tripe has become a calcified Top 10 ‘go-to’ favorite tattooed into the progressive mindset. Ultimately manifesting itself along the lines of ‘You can’t yell fire in a theatre ergo you can’t make fun of Mohammed! Duh.’
But. Bashing whites and Christians and causing property damage and violence for stuff they disagree with in general is fair game in their distorted civil order.
“Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”
Sounds like you’d get just as far singing the song Firein a theatre.
In any event, would it have been too much to ask if Trudeau be at least up to speed on American law and legal history? It displays a rather unbecoming shallow grasp of American history if you ask me. I mean, if you can’t SJW like its the current year with up to date vapid slogans, why bother? Have some pride in your intellectual acumen, man!
Kill Motion 103. Nothing good can come of it.
A war on speech is doomed – condemned – to end up like the war on poverty and drugs where the families and communities are fractured to the point of dysfunction. A war on speech will eliminate good ideas and elevate bad ones leaving it exclusively in power. A war on speech is a free ticket to ‘Pass Go’ and straight into a Dark Age where the meek and weak intellectuals prevail.
All this to bring me back to Ms. Khalid’s motion. The moment more hate speech is introduced, the more you drive it underground. Is it not better to monitor it above board? Free speech, I argue, is the best ally any person or group will ever have.
My sister met Justin Trudeau a few years back. In a conversation over dinner she said, ‘He really is a nice person. You can tell he means well’.
That’s the problem.
In Justin Trudeau what we have is a walking ‘the road to hell is paved…’
