On Tuesday Lindsay Shepherd, John Robson and I gave evidence to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The overall vibe of the event was summed up by this headline:
Official records expunged, video feed cut and witnesses maligned: MPs bent on censoring internet show true colours
To deal with that first point: As noted on Monday, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer yanked vice-chair Michael Cooper from the committee for his unacceptable "insensitivity" to a Muslim witness. In a further outbreak of sensitivity enforcement, on Tuesday morning the committee voted to erase not just Mr Cooper but the entirety of his "insensitive" testimony. Simply as a point of law, it strikes me as a bit iffy to edit live testimony for essentially political reasons: out of solidarity among Her Majesty's Dominions, Mr Trudeau's ministry has agreed with Ms Ardern's in New Zealand that the name of the killer should not be mentioned. Why that should be binding on Opposition members hearing evidence I do not know. Our pal Andrew Lawton notes further inconsistencies.
Still, at the beginning of my opening statement, I put in a word for the "defenestrated" Cooper. There really isn't much point in chaps like me fighting to get Section 13 repealed if you don't have a broader culture of free speech - and, with respect to that, conservative leaders who rush to toss you overboard at the hint of anything allegedly "controversial" are a big part of the problem.
Given the fate of Michael Cooper, every other Tory on the committee was on notice. Thus, the next order of business was one of semi-erasure: The Steyn-Shepherd-Robson hearing was scheduled to be televised, but the committee voted instead to make us audio only - and every Conservative went along with it. From the CBC:
Tuesday's meeting, which heard from free speech activists Mark Steyn, John Robson and Lindsay Shepherd, was initially to be televised, but MPs voted to have it recorded for audio only.
Here's how that happened:
Once we got on to the witnesses here's how it was reported (not wholly accurately, in my view) by the Canadian Press:
At one point, Steyn shouted over Toronto Liberal MP Ali Ehsassi, who was asking if Steyn regretted some of the things he's said publicly about Muslims and Islam.
Steyn admitted that he had made "obnoxious" statements in the past, but refused to discuss controversies that had already been dealt with by human-rights tribunals.
"That's been adjudicated and I'm in the clear, I beat the rap," Steyn said.
"I don't think you were adjudicated as to whether you were obnoxious or you were hurtful," Ehsassi countered. Steyn again conceded his statements had been hurtful.
During his testimony, Steyn argued against the potential reinstatement of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which governed online hate speech and was repealed through a Conservative MP's private member's bill in 2013. He contended that the issues of online hate should be discussed in a space where people regulate themselves, rather than one restricted by laws.
"Free speech is hate speech, and hate speech is free speech," Steyn said, calling the alternative to free speech "approved speech."
Indeed. A little more on that from the Catholic press:
"Ultimately free speech is hate speech, and hate speech is free speech," bestselling author and radio and TV personality Mark Steyn told the committee June 4. "Free speech is for speech you revile. The alternative to free speech is approved speech."
The question becomes "approved by whom," Steyn told the committee. "Once it becomes speech approved by the state, approved by formal bodies, it becomes speech approved by the powerful."
The biggest threat to free speech is "the malign alliance between government and high-tech," warned Steyn. He described as chilling a recent meeting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participated in with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May sitting opposite the heads of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple – "six woke billionaires" who "regulate the opinion" of billions of people.
"This is far more of a threat than some "pimply-faced neo-Nazi" writing on the Internet "from his mother's basement in the prairies," said Steyn, who faced hate speech complaints under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2007 and under similar legislation in two provinces for articles he wrote for Maclean's magazine about Islam. Steyn and the magazine won, but their legal costs were well over $1 million and $100,000 for Steyn personally. A Conservative private member's bill repealed Section 13 in 2013 under the Harper government.
Ah, happy days - when my legal bills were a mere six figures. After my American adventures, I'd welcome a new Canadian suit.
And finally the Pajama Boys at Vice:
The event ended with Mark Steyn refusing to apologize for his past statements on Islam and biovating about freedom of speech.
I don't know what biovating is, but we need more of it.
~I was thrilled to see certain Mark Steyn Club members while I was in Ottawa, including one of our sharpest commenters, Denyse O'Leary. If you're intrigued by our little club, well, we like to think we have fun - with radio serials, video poems, live planet-wide Q&As, and much more. I appreciate the Club is not to everyone's taste, but, if you're minded to give it a go, either for a full year or a three-month experimental period, we'd love to have you. You can find more details on The Mark Steyn Club here - and, if you've a loved one who'd like something a little different for a birthday or anniversary, don't forget our special Gift Membership.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
101 Member Comments
Thank you Mark for all you do I loved the last few minutes of the hearings when they found they couldn't bully you...
Good thing those wanks didn't say "supposably" or "Steyn should try a new tact" or "We wish we could of shut him up."
But seriously Alice, this turn of events has had me seeing red (not Liberal red) since you first posted this. I am livid with our Conservative leader, what's-his-tally. Jesus what a coward. Where's Lisa Raitt? Candice Bergen? Pierre Poilievre? Shouldn't they be giving Scheer's head a shake?
I'm a card-carrying Conservative (boy that sure sounds hateful) but if Scheer doesn't fix this and get back on track regarding freedom of speech, and doesn't push back and fight back hard against the left's attempt to control speech, I shall not be voting for the Tories in the fall. Green or PPC, but NOT the Conservatives.
Such ultramaroons.
Let's imagine they actually managed to say what they meant to say. How sad is it that the left talks about people bloviating about free speech?
Biovating: verb, to applaud binary persons. In other words, a hate crime.
Actually...roughly translated from the Latin, a violator is a life traveler or traveler through life perhaps. You have to admit, Mr. Steyn has covered some ground in his life.
As the self-appointed Chairman of the Mark Steyn Club's LUST Committee (Legislators Uttering Silly Talk), I rise a point of personal privilege, and propose that it be RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE THAT, in recognition of the actions of the silly Candian MPs on June 5, 2019, that the definition of "biovate", as applied to the committee and it's members, and any others designated by Mr Steyn or Club members, shall be "to bullsh*t"; and "biovating" shall mean "bullshitt*tting." Mr. Steyn, as founder, creator, warrior and prophet for the Club is and shall henceforward be immune to this term. And, I call the question.
The ayes have it!
Rather than focusing on shared sentiments, e.g., "we all agree neo-Nazis and white supremacists are bad, but" (as per John Robson)", I'm wondering if a different strategy should be used. Instead of finding common ground, go on the offensive.
Express the right to express "odious" views such as, "...calling whites privileged / racist; calling someone a white nationalist / white supremacist / homophobic / racist / Islamophobic may be odious and hurtful, but people have the right to say it.
This might startle them into realizing that if the potential to hurt feelings is the threshold, it cuts both ways. And, we would, in effect, be accusing of odious, censorable speech, something that will not have occurred to them.
That's logic for real people (happily by this you are firmly in the humanity group), but these creatures use this as a power tool, complete with ON/OFF switches - those would be the 'trigger words' which normal people never think of, and if they do, they know to use such a thing is wrong, but which are deliberately used in creepy psychological conditioning, of course for no good outcomes.
Had no idea this was going on, until witnessed it time after time.
It's very obvious when the innocent person has stumbled on the 'wrong word' in otherwise normal conversation when the other person actually physically freezes. When they haven't been conditioned to an odious pre-set reaction for the topic, they actually run away.... "Hey! Come back!!"
Used to patiently listen to certain people intone about 'war' and "Darfur' and, well more 'war', but after hearing the same shallow drivel too many times, would then ask them, "Do you know where Darfur is?"
Oddly enough, they would look blank, then shake their heads. "Do you know it's part of Sudan?"
No?
Do you know why they're fighting?"
Wide-eyed. Head shake.
"Oil."
That would make them freeze. Then they would turn and run away.
We could make them run faster if we called after them, "It's like Avatar! Only with real brown people instead of blue cartoons! Get it, Unobtanium! Right under their feet? Drilling? Wait! Don't you want to help them?"
How is anyone supposed to discuss or debate ANYTHING important or even unimportant when people can be made to melt like that? This isn't accidental, this is deliberately subjected to conditioning. Always to provoke fear in the victim.; they'll either fight in panic or flee. Very bad stuff, very dangerous to the nice people, too, as it is meant to be, so one must be careful. A normal debate is loaded with trigger traps.
Indeed, Ball. To amplify what Kate said below, I thought Robson was pathetic. Half the time, I couldn't tell if he was speaking Against or For.
I don't feel the need to rehash what I've said, but no one should think I've changed my opinion or feel shame for it. Still, to be clear, I'm being critical of all three. Steyn was certainly the best of the bunch. Robson was terrible and Shepherd came across as a scared, little girl.
Want more? I've got it.
We need "reply all". While we're putting the boot in to JR... I rolled my eyes listening to the comments about people being mean to Christians and climate ministers online, and the appeal to people "not to put hate out there" - ie a finger-wagging take on "The Realm of Manners" to which Mark referred. Also, "redeeming the hater" would have to be a pretty low-order function of free speech.
Part of the problem with the JUST forum was the lack of right of reply, as well as the wilful misunderstanding and stupidity of the panelists, exemplified by the Muslim MP's questions to Shepherd ("But if you're saying it should be condemned, then why isn't there a *responsibility* to do so?") and Steyn ("You admitted to being obnoxious and hurtful?"). In response, LS was too timid and MS was too intelligent.
I also agree with BB. "Hate speech" is in the eye of the beholder, but we know how it pans out. Aside from the double standard, it's difficult for conservatives to go on the "hate speech" offensive when they know there's no such thing.
"Bioviating about free speech?" Surely they mean "bloviating." Well what can you do? All of the chaps and chapettes at "Vice" no doubt believe that they are the bravest, most lionhearted and most courageously outspoken people on the planet who are always "speaking truth to power." (Boy - Has that phrase gone stale.) Naturally none of their "naughty" speech ever goes beyond the culturally-defined borders of what is and is not permissible.
Vice and their colleagues don't need state appointed censors or commissions to tell them what they can and cannot say. The rules are already nailed up in their heads of each and every one of them and they obey them with the groveling obeisance of any minor Outer Party official genuflecting before a photo of Big Brother.
As for Canada - I'm afraid that Canadians and Canadian Conservatives simply don't have the stomach to engage in a fight for freedom of expression. Forgive me for saying this (present company excepted) but Canada must contain more sunbeams-shining-out-of-their-ears eunuchs per square mile than any other nation in the west and considering the size of the country, that's saying a lot. .They would rather "be nice" than actually stand for anything. A principled defense of freedom of expression today is hard HARD work and (present company excepted) Canada does not seem up to the task.
I realize that in Leftyworld anyone they target can freely be identified as a "Nazi". But when they imply someone they accuse of being an Islamophobe is a Nazi, it is perplexing. I thought Islam and Hitler's regime were allies.
I know, I know, I need to re-read Orwell to get back up to speed.
A show trial , conducted by the faceless.
How about that weird smile from the oddly-named Housefather as he grins away their weasle action to go audio-only? Everyone is sooo polite and bland as they pull out the knives.
Hi Mark,
Really sorry I couldn't make it (yeah, I know, Syracuse, Burlington, but you can't make Ottawa!!) I did try, but I had too much else on, and it was rather short notice. Better luck next time,
Meanwhile, I'm sure you know Bruce Bawer's material. I forwarded some references to Randall Garrison's office with comments. Maybe it'll ... er ... generate some tentacles of doubt ....
Bruce Bawer is a gay writer who originally left the US to get away from the likes of Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell. Initially he moved to Amsterdam, where he found to his horror that, as a gay man, he was in much greater danger than in the US, for reasons that become clear once you check out his material. So he moved to Oslo, and found that the same phenomenon was waiting for him there.
As Aragorn put it in The Lord of the Rings: "You fear them, but you do not fear them enough."
Bruce Bawer is essential reading for anyone dealing with the issues discussed during the hearings.
Have you any comments on his work?
I just now listened to the audio of the testimonies and questions. Mark, you were BEE-yooteeful! It was a reminder to me of why I'm a Mark Steyn club member. Anyone on the board who thinks you were anything less than spectacular should be ashamed. Well done that man! I know you are sick and tired but do keep fighting. Thank you.
biovating? haven't a clue. These days, like most people, I haven't a clue what the left are jabbering on about half the time. Their failure to communicate, their problem. If I could completely not understand them that would be even better.
After catching up on all the slimy details, took the time to write mr. Scheer a note protesting the treatment of mr.Cooper as well as the failure to have someone appear to represent the Conservative s on CTV's daily news program. Small way of helping the cause.
I guess I must first stipulate that I am totally on the side of Mark and the others here, in case there's any doubt about that. Overall, I think they did.... okay. They got some good points in and the committee was obviously stacked against them. That being said, I still say it wasn't their best work. Perhaps, being an American, I've become used to the counter punching of Donald Trump?
For example, Owen Morgan down there says there is no good direct answer to "do you regret anything you said about Muslims?". One came to my mind immediately: "No!" Perhaps followed by, "And what the hell does that have to do with passing laws, anyway?" Or, "hurtful to whom? Those who fly planes into skyscrapers and blow up children at concerts and drive cars into crowds of pedestrians and execute people trapped in nightclubs? None of which was done by white supremacists or neo-nazis, as I recall."
That's the kind of answer I wanted to hear.
Apart from their initial statements Lindsay, John and Mark had to 'think on their feet'. They didn't know what was coming, unlike their interrogators who were obviously well prepared with their 'gotcha' questions. Mr Garrisons speech was certainly smooth but it had the rehearsed ring of something he's said a dozen times before.
I can understand Mark's 'counterpunching'. When you are taking punches from bullies its a little harsh to hear from those you are defending that you could have done better, even when there is perhaps a bit of truth in it. (We can all 'do better').
As I said elsewhere, the whole thing is better on a second listening. Reasoned argument from Lindsay, John and Mark versus airy grandstanding.
Steven, to be fair, this committee hearing came across as a well-coordinated bureaucratic ambush of Steyn and Shepherd. The barely-disguised misuse of power by elected representatives - to frame and discredit those invited to testify - would surely alarm many Canadians. It was, ironically, a blatantly political attack on political speech. The contempt for the audience (as well as the speakers) in shutting down the video streaming was quite shocking.
Did the (mis)conduct of the committee itself make the strongest case for free speech? If the recent general election in Australia was anything to go by (where progressives campaigned to expand the equivalent of Section 13) the disdain for freedom of speech/ religion/ press might not go unpunished at the ballot box. What's lamentable is that "conservatives" are just censorship-lite, be it in Canada, the US, the UK or Australia. (And in New Zealand, the PM dons her hijab.) Suppressing speech to varying degrees is, after all, a ruling class instinct.
By the way, John Robson doesn't strike the listener as the strongest proponent of free speech, based on some of his testimony/ comments. His strongest point was that parliamentarians should not arrogate to themselves the right to silence speech, as no person has the wisdom to make such (selective) determinations. After which they aptly demonstrated that "hate speech" is merely speech *they* hate.
Hey, glad we heard something. When they 'smiley' all polite totting up the evil votes, then with that inappropriate flash of teeth and cut the video, at that point, we actually worried we'd need proof of life to make sure our intrepid squad of freedom fighters wasn't being 'disappeared' while the cameras were turned off.
Those people are creepy. How they got elected is a question that immediately came to mind-- do they really 'meet' the voters anymore or just phone it in? Because they sure don't come off 'normal'. Can't imagine the vibes they emit amongst actual people - their skin-scrawling 'charm.' Who'd vote for that? Begs the question who did? A computer? Who knows? But it's hardly impossible.
Most nice people suddenly isolated like that with an unexpected deliberate video blackout, trapped inside a chamber of hostile who-knows-what-those-things-are would have lost their ability to speak from terror, but the team held strong.
M. Mark is justifiably frustrated by being the one or two against many, but with his experience, in this sort of venue, he's the People's Champion. In a prize fight, no matter how on the side of truth, one doesn't allow a farmer or doctor or business manager or shop keeper to climb into the ring with a trained boxer. They'd get massacred. We need to find someone who can fight like that, and at that level of skill and endurance, to fight on our behalf. There're aren't many at that level.
Many, many thanks to the winning team - Battle Buddies - because it was obvious that the suited sneaks felt like they were losing before it even started -- bet they assumed the team wouldn't even show up after their little aggression demonstration to intimidate them the day before, but there they were.
By that those snakes lost control of this... all because this small group stubbornly persisted in being there and enduring that, and thanks to their effort, there's a slowly, but steadily growing number of people - and it will continue to grow week after week - who have watched and listened, now informed and enlightened as to the scheming and charcters of such elected 'representatives' and how they abuse the public trust and power. It's one thing to talk about it, it's another to witness it.
I had the exact same thought about those legislators: how in the world did anyone vote for them? My hat's off to Mark for not becoming nauseous just being in the same room as them.
Perfectly put, K.
You really have said it all. Bear with me please while I explain my pathological need to applaud without adding anything substantial. In the first place, my applause is directed not only to your post, but to Mark Steyn's endeavours. In the second place, and more specific to the struggle for free speech, it seems to me that the instruments for repressing it have changed, but it's the same old song. The concurrent initiative involving Youtube's selective "de-monetisation" (I hyphenate that advisedly, to distinguish from "demonisation", but why bother?) is no accident, in my view. Now, as in my youth, indeed as ever, I am troubled by the threat that the received view disseminated by the public broadcaster and aligned media will become the only accessible view, and eventually the only acceptable view. So I'm very grateful to all who fight the good fight, and if all I can do is applaud, well, best I applaud.
"I am troubled by the threat that the received view disseminated by the public broadcaster and aligned media will become the only accessible view, and eventually the only acceptable view." Exactly! See/ hear Mark's comments about the sinister alliance between the cartel of woke tech billionaires and big governments controlling access to all information on the planet.
Thanks, K. Yes, indeed. The only comfort is that they have been "sussed", but of course that will not settle the matter.
"I reject almost everything you've said today... because it's academic, it's historical." - MP Garrison.
For a legislator it's just a short step to "I ban everything you want to say because its historical". We are seeing it already of course as statues of historical figures come down and their stories are erased. And we all know the line about what happens to those who don't know their own history.
Anyway, if nothing else, it was a fantastic piece of radio theatre and sounds even better second time around.
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20190603/-1/31718
Randall Garrison - wikipedia account says it all. 'Nuff said'!
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (Sahih Muslim hadith).
Apparently, quoting such exhortations (from this and related manifestos) is also "insensitive" towards Muslims.
"The event ended with Mark Steyn refusing to apologize for his past statements"
So their idea of discussing freedom of speech is to make the witnesses confess their sins?
(Cue Michael Palin)...."Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Unbelievable, hey? The JUST Inquisitors even broadened "hate speech" to include "hurtful speech".
Steyn's most "obnoxious" comment in the Maclean's article was a direct citation of the words of Norwegian imam, Mullah Krekar. Flagrantly Islamophobic! Not that the Muslim MP cared.
One is reminded of the South Park *insert here* meme: "Show me on the doll where Free Speech hurt you."
Well, in fairness, I've found that Mark can be very dismissive of Macedonian content farmers.
Turns the stomach, J. Still, sometimes it is the witch-hunter general's successes which make the best case against the office.
Bloviator II is that rare sequel that matches if not exceeds the original. Our hero, bloody but unbowed, hobbles off-screen--at least I think he does, I couldn't see--turns, and says in his sinister foreign accent, "I'll be back."
I just went over to Andrew Layton's post and saw his photo of the witnesses. I have a suspicion that they cut the video because even in "progressive" Canada badgering young women doesn't go over well.
That was my first thought, as well. Second, third and fourth, too, for that matter.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, MP, with his "Nazi" comment. What a truly pathetic excuse of a "man". No wonder he and others on this fascistic "Human Rights Committee" didn't want to be easily identified. The Islamopandering towards his constituents was absolutely nauseating.
I think think crying on spilled milk will not do any good. Mark Steyn club has lot of intelligent, mature and experienced people. The question is what needs be done and can be done to fight back. Or you think that the proper course of action is lying down and let the the gnomes of ministry of truth trample over you. I had some suggestion in "Once More Unto the Breach...." because it was clear to me what is going on behind the closed TV camera and the in closed door hearing. The only thing that I regret that I did not record the proceeding. I knew that they are corrupt and evil but did not think that they they will go so far. As to the question of the spine of hapless Andrew Scheer he is the modern Homo Conservative politician with sponge rubber spine not better than dishonest and spineless Theresa May
"I knew that they are corrupt and evil but did not think that they they will go so far."
The best thing to do is to clearly reveal how corrupt and evil they are and how far they did go.
Does the Comité de salut public operate from the same building?
What a dismal selection of virtue-signalling narcissists and how like the ones at Westminster. For three years, very nearly, elected representatives of the people in the UK have been trying to find ways to avoid accepting the result of the Brexit referendum and posing as the champions of civilisation in the process. In Ottawa, shamelessly cheered on, as Mark Steyn points out, by the supine media, Parliamentarians were queuing up to miss the point.
Lindsay Shepherd was effectively accused of being a four-letter N-word, at least twice, on the basis of having been in the room when certain things were said. Hate speech, now, apparently, extends to hate silence, too. Section 13 seemed to have infinite power to inflict misery in its first iteration. Proponents of Mk.II don't think it went nearly far enough. They are after guilt-by-association and thought-crime, too. You can be guilty without even saying anything. They and their like-minded minions will get to judge one's associations and one's unexpressed thoughts.
As for the grandstanding twerp, demanding to know, "Do you regret anything you said about muslims?" well... He pretty well summed up everything wrong with Section 13 and with "hate speech" legislation everywhere. That was a Stalinist question: no direct answer could be right. Admitting regret would amount to confession. Rejecting the idea is merely accumulating evidence of guilt.
I addressed this yesterday Mark but it won't do harm to do it again.
From the time of Magna Carta, every Englishman knew he could speak his mind. The colonists feared they were losing that right, so they (over some argument) included the right of free speech, annotated in the Bill of Rights of the new government, believing that if it was written down, it could not be argued with and yet written or not, the right of free speech, is being vaporized before our very eyes.
Thank you for all you do and that you use your platform to defend the most basic rights of man.
We are in your debt.
Most sincerely,
William.
From my vantage point, it is some combination of stunning, horrifying and laughable to see the way leftists will willfully ignore the plain English of the First Amendment (and to a lesser degree the Second) and then utterly torture the remainder of the document to conjure other "rights" from out of thin air all to suit their interests.
The horrifying part comes when I consider just how much the leftists dominate the rank and file of the government payroll, most importantly the public school system. They are literally manufacturing more leftists with every graduating class. And at some point they will reach critical mass through attrition. At that point, words written down by "old white men" 250 years ago simply will not matter.
"And at some point they will reach critical mass through attrition."
A very astute point, Wayne. This is something that those in academia keep reminding us. From Twitter a few days ago: "People aren't quite aware of the impending deluge. They mock the woke university students with thoughts of "wait till they get into the real world of business" not considering who's going to dominate HR and legal departments very soon" (M Blum). And it's not limited to HR and law.
The generational shift with regards to free speech is becoming more obvious with each passing year: young people don't understand it, nor do they want to.
You better get that last copy machine tucked safely away in the woods, and make sure you have lots of toner cartridges stored in a cool, dry place next to your generator. I assume the diesel fuel needed to run the generator will remain widely available for the foreseeable future, but don't sleep on that either.
Wow... So ALL the politicians don't want their actual dirty work seen. They can't necessarily control the message. Yuck!
Amazing this all comes just a day or two before 75th anniversary of D Day. Are there any Canadian veterans left from that day?
Please keep up the good fight Mark, we very much support you. (and come to Florida again)
Where is the link to the audio of this House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (aka Kangaroo Court)?
Mark replies:
You can hear it here, Kaybee:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20190603/-1/31718
The chess masters might think they have pulled off a checkmate, but they forget that eventually the chessboard gets kicked on the floor and their heads get paraded around the streets on pikes. Han Solo might advise them to "let the Wookie win".
Mark
We are very glad to see that you are not in a "camp" being re-educated as to how to "biovate" correctly!
Thanks for representing one of our basic freedoms.
Best regards.
When did a meeting of this committee take on the importance of a Supreme Court oral argument? These are elected representatives who should be held accountable to their voters. And, where is the backbone of the Tories on this committee?
Great job, Mark, standing up for free speech! Ironically, the committee took its action on the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Who would have guessed?
Tiananmen Square and D-Day but as I posted earlier, the left collectively suffers from Irony Deficiency.
Some ironies are less ironic than others.
Sadly this is not surprising behaviour from elected officials. Seventy-five years ago many young lads lost their lives fighting for our way of life against those who, in a heartbeat, would destroy one of our oldest and most cherished cultural institutions, free speech.
Now the young lads (and lasses) lose their education, their jobs, their reputations, all their money, for simply exercising free speech and saying the "wrong" thing. Not killed on a beach with a grave maker nearby. Just ruined.
As my dad was wont to say, "We won the war and lost the peace."
Excellent comment, Sam. Paul Cathey also reflected on this recently: "I am so deeply sad for the increasing abandonment of all that was so dearly won." And, as you note, there are significant human casualties in this war, too: Not only are people being reputationally and financially ruined, but there are many deaths - including numerous suicides - that result from this type of mobbing of individuals who express the "wrong" view. (Following his fatal heart attack, the relatives of Bill Leak - the cartoonist harassed by the AHRC - said as much.)
Will a transcript with identities of the speakers be made available? Without the video portion of the testimony it is difficult to know with confidence who the fellow was who launched on the "white nationalist" theme. You traded heated words with someone, and it was quite clear your interlocutor was intent on preventing you from pointing out that being white and supporting nationalism is nothing to be ashamed of. But absent a video, the identity of this person is somewhat ambiguous.
This is a critical issue. The nominally "nonpartisan" election of the city councilmen in my little city was dramatically affected two years ago when the Democrats and their union masters held a rally in which all the responsible candidates, two Republicans and two Democrats, were declared to be "white nationalists". This term is a code phrase for the left, and too many decent people, knowing how the left decodes this to mean "skin head bigots", have run in terror from defending themselves when characterized as "white nationalists". And this was the case in the election that year.
The key point is that being "white" and a "nationalist" are pejoratives only if you accept the bigotry and racism of progressives. This is another example of how the left attempts to dominate by controlling the language. If we surrender "white" and "nationalist", then all that remains is a tyranny of a mythically defined rainbow coalition run by a bureaucracy that respects neither borders nor cultures. This will turn "diversity" on its head. If progressives want to characterize the opposition as "skin head bigots", we must force them to say so openly because it is only with this clarity of language that their lies can be laid to rest.
Thankyou Mark for being the tip of the spear. You asked us all to expand the width of the shoulders and I try to do that daily.
I feel I have to be a bit loud and obnoxious as well because I am trying to speak for two people I knew killed by Islamic terror: one in Bombay and one at London Bridge.
Frankly if I upset people I don't care. My grandfather upset NAZIs and their appeasers in Hamburg and London in the late 1930s. He was right and so are you.
David, your comment about speaking for the dead really hits home. I speak for the relatives that I never knew who were murdered in Poland, for my murdered brother in law and my parents' friends Esther and Syke Paltzur specifically, and for all the other victims of terror whose names and stories are seared into my consciousness and heart. It is good to be proud and public about your grandfather upsetting Nazis and their appeasers. Good on you, too.
Thankyou for your kind reply.
Your family has suffered much more than mine.
I know a few Holocaust survivors who are still talking in British schools. Very impressive people.
My grandfather's doctor in Hamburg was called Moriz Nordheim. There is a stopfelstein for him and his wife who committed suicide in the summer of 1938.They could see no other way out.
Still 81 years later he is remembered and honoured here.
The victory is small but it exists and so does his memory.
His death by suicide is recorded in my grandfather's diary.
Because of Dr Nordheim I was always taught to respect Jewish people by my Methodist grandfather.
The poor doctor's only patients were British and American expats by the end.
What a sad tale. Thank you for remembering. You are blessed to have had such a solid moral compass in your life such as your grandfather was. Treasure that diary, it's a remarkable artifact to have.
Bravo Mark! The left suffers from what someone described as "irony deficiency," and censoring the record of an MP's remarks while cutting off the video feed at such a committee meeting with the pathetic acquiescence of all parties are ripe examples.
The Vice editorial interpretation of the hearings provides one more example of how eagerly leftists celebrate when the "establishment" tramples on the rights of the lowly individual when the left is in power.
After that depressing read, I idly scrolled down to an adjacent Vice piece from March 2018, with the catchy headline "Not One Person I talked to at Faith Goldy's Free Speech Event Could Recall Being Silenced," in which the author goes to "Faith Goldy's Free Speech Event" at Wilfred Laurier University and proves to his or her own satisfaction that nobody in attendance "could recall being silenced."
The author only mentions in passing that the event itself was cancelled when (passively) "a fire alarm was pulled" and subsequently "a cop popped out the door to tell us to move away from the building."
"Out of about 20 people I talked to not one could recall a situation where their [sic] speech was ever limited in Canada." The author was too busy interviewing the audience for a "free speech event" cancelled by a criminal act to consider that the false fire alarm contradicted the entire thesis of the piece.
Irony deficiency is a vice.
To a battle of wits the "Standing Committee on Justice & Human Rights" would arrive unarmed.
First agenda item: begin on video, & vote to cut off the video (the motion being undebatable & unamendable).
It's unclear why undebatable, but it's also clear the motion would be undefendable, so there.
We don't see the rest, but it's reported that at least one witness for free speech is excoriated, not for his logical, argument about the vital need to allow even offensive speech, but for culled individual examples of his own speech many years ago that could have been offensive.
Res ipsa loquitur, but as Steyn says, "no one who matters is laughing. "
These sanctimonious guardians of Justice & Human Rights seem to understand neither justice nor human rights Thank God (no "apologies" for my Judeo-Christian monotheism) that a principled few "biovators" persevere in objecting despite the odds & the hazards. If that stops, the battle is both lost & over.
Mark, it is awful enough to hear you describe the disgusting totalitarian behavior of these bureaucrats, but another level entirely to witness it firsthand. I sat gobsmacked and yelling at my phone, from which emitted the audio only of the star chamber proceedings, and thus the sound of freedom getting a shiv in the back. The Crips and Bloods could learn a thing or two from these operators.
As always, my profound gratitude to you and the other brave souls who wade into the arena and pursue this injustice. Godspeed and God bless.
The perfect examples of bloviators are the pseudo-conservative MPs who wax lyrical claiming to support free speech while spinelessly enabling the thought police of the left, as well as the odious "liberals" who I'm sure can extemporize for hours explaining why speech suppression is free speech.
I don't know what "biovating" is, and even if it were a real word I'd refuse to look it up because...screw Vice.
If biovating is cool consider Mark Steyn the Miles Davis of biovating.
"Mark's just a biovater whose intentions are good, Lord you knew he'd be misunderstood."
Yeah!! LMAO
Andrew Scheer has managed to combine faux country bumkinism of the Bush presidency with a David Cameron-esque commitment to unprincipled surrender on all substantive policy issues to the metropolitan outrage mob (aka the media) . It is an unappealing mix that has a whiff of farce about it. If Scheer becomes PM I await his press conference where he comes to the stage clad in cowboy boots telling us that in the war against transphobia you are either with us or against us. Even though the prospect of a Trudeau - May government will probably mean that the Canadian economy will be powered exclusively by Catherine McKenna's enthusiasm for Maoist talking points - I will still not vote for this stone cold loser to use a Trumpism. Hopefully there will be enough defections to the People's Party to humiliate the conservatives into putting someone slightly less disgraceful as leader.
SAVAGE!!!
"faux country bumpkinism of the Bush presidency with a David Cameron-esque commitment to unprincipled surrender on all substantive policy issues to the metropolitan outrage mob"
"... in the war against transphobia you are either with us or against us."
Love it!! I also liked the fact that Lindsay Shepherd "misgendered" the predatory individual in Vancouver who launched a human rights class action against multiple beauticians (re their refusal to depilate her male genitalia). I wonder if "his/ he" will be expunged from the transcript?
Thank you! Good question... depends if they go full statue chopping mode or if there will be a multiple paragraph historical explanatory note putting her remarks in "context" and of course a "trigger warning" preface. I think Ottawa is now mired in the next iteration of just how Hitlery Canada's treatment of the Indians has been so they might be too stretched for Nazi comparisons to lend one to poor Lindsay.
Kate there is a hashtag now about the whole debacle, if you have the stomach for it, it's #WaxMyBalls.
Polite non hurtful speech uttered by officials with perfectly creased pant legs and manicured fingernails replaces the jack boot stomping on your rights. An old Yiddish phrase comes to mind, you can piss on my back but don't tell me it's rain.
I feel that Mr Robson somewhat misses the point in the audio at 9:11:40 when he refers to the argument against the censorship of unpopular ideas.
The prevailing censorship isn't against unpopular ideas as those will die a natural death through lack of support. The censorship that is presently in vogue, and which we need to guard against, is the censorship of POPULAR ideas. The unnatural suppression of popular thought and speech leaves available only the physical expression of support. And physical expression can mutate more quickly and more extremely into something far more dangerous than mere speech and thought.
Dead Solid Perfect.
Agreed but then I thought John "missed the point" a few times during the hearing.
Sorry.
That is an excellent point you make, Jon.
Agree, Kathy. There could be a whole post devoted to that. His testimony was frequently unhelpful to the cause, to put it politely.
"At one point, Steyn shouted over Liberal MP Ali Ehsassi." Hmm. Seemed to me Mr. Ehsassi asked Mark a few questions but didn't really want to hear any answers, or at least didn't want Mark's opinions out in the open. I suppose that was preferable to the the MP who spoke prior, Randall Garrison, who didn't allow time for anyone else to respond. These folks are the worst combination of naive and powerful.
Perhaps Ehsassi has been taking lessons from Brian Schatz and Ed Markey.
A book about the Rwandan genocide came out a few years ago with the indelible title "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families."
For some reason, whenever I contemplate returning to blogging, and announcing that decision, I always think of that title.
Because if Section 13 is reinstated I will _reluctantly_ have to restart FiveFeetOfFury.com, having vowed when it was "live" that I would try my hardest every day to get charged under that "law."
I only wish that you would need to reinstate FFoF for some other reason than the return of Section 13. I was sad to see you retire and would love to see you return, although the return of Section 13 is an admittedly awfully high price to pay.
Now I truly appreciate Jack Benny's indecision when the mugger demanded of him "Your money or your life." Free speech or Shaidle blogging: I'm thinking! I'm thinking!
Waiting with bated breath to sign up for the "Kathy Shaidle Club," or the "FiveFeetofFury Fusiliers."
"This is far more of a threat than some "pimply-faced neo-Nazi" writing on the Internet "from his mother's basement in the prairies," said Steyn
"We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families."
Watching the smiling jackals (and I will make some unkind remarks here...forgive me Lord) I am reminded how much I detest politics and the witless nobs this savage human endeavor attracts. It feels like this particular breed is all that's left of the political class. And it doesn't seem to matter which side of the northern border or what political party is involved, power corrupts absolutely.
I would like to commend both of you for struggle for free speech, but I would also like to offer a warning and a gentle rebuke. Hatred is just as likely, if not more likely, to find root in the dank and corrupt warrens of corrupt coastal cites as on the prairies and in the people of flyover country, Mr. Steyn. Hateful vermin like Louis Farrakhan come to mind, but there are far more just like him, but more subtle, who peddle hate to gain power.
I am blessed to live in a place where the folks are hard but decent. They are too busy preparing to survive the winter, pay their taxes and raise their families to be too overtly political. The ones that do pursue power often seem to be a disappointment as they are consumed by it. These folks are not fascists. Many are the children and grandchildren of men who fought fascists, and many have sons and daughters who fight fascists still. Not all are Christians, but many are, and they take their faith seriously, helping neighbors and even strangers. We pull our own weight and help our own. I know this from personal experience. Their reward for this is a government that interferes continuously in their livers, tampers with their water rights and grazing rights because cattle are no longer politically correct. Worse yet, free trade globalists tamper with the livelihood of Americans who pay taxes here and import millions of pounds of foreign beef and shatter our prices. Some refuse to bend the knee to a government that cares not at all for them and the reward for being Americans, true Americans, is to commit our children to meaningless wars and have friends and family arrested and even murdered by overreaching government agencies. Ruby Ridge and Waco were real places, not headlines, Mark, and real people, some of whom I broke bread with, had their lives destroyed there. They may not dress as well as you, Mark, or speak as well, but some are among the bravest human beings I know...and they are not Nazis. They just found out, much to their grief, that their government is not interested in their freedom or their welfare. We are still learning this lesson, and it will be a costly one. Free speech is just one of the casualties when our government no longer fears or respects us.
Mark replies:
The "pimply-faced neo-Nazi" line was a reference to the sole obsessions of Richard Warman, Bernie Farber and other Section 13 beneficiaries before the law was repealed - and also to the case I mentioned later, an alleged hate crime read by 0.6713 of a Canadian per province/territory.
That's all it was. It wasn't a general slur about inland vs coastal rates of Nazism - and I have no idea why you would take it as such.
I have been fighting this for over a decade. It's a bloody lonely business of which I'm sick and weary, and the best answer to the dissatisfactions expressed here would be if more people got in the game. In the last month, dozens of witnesses spoke in favour of restoring Section 13; four of us spoke against.
We want you back, Canadian Boudica.
If I can do it, now you have to do it. The End. Rosen's Rules.
Kris: All credit is due for Mark showing up and taking the fight to the enemy. The 'Nazi' quote was a big mistake in context as you sharply pointed out. Here is a good rule of thumb for just about anyone in the public eye or even for the general public - stay away from uttering 'Nazi - neo-Nazi or any other form of the word. It never raises the level of discourse - quite the opposite in fact.
Godwin's Law.
My apologies, Mark. I never thought you were one of the people on the Right who mock the folks in flyover country.
As for the rest of it. If you have some concrete suggestions on how one old man can impact a monolith, I am all ears. Speaking to politicians and actually trying to get them to listen and act sensibly would most likely land me in jail, as I am mostly patient only with children and animals. I am not even sure how to help Americans who would trade their freedom for a false sense of security and a welfare check. I am not even certain what the game is, and who the real players are, but as you have noted, a lot of politicians and woke billionaires find the notion of freedom troublesome. I am pretty certain that our government has gotten away from us, and the machinery of government runs at full capacity no matter who wins elections. Worse yet, that machinery is perfectly capable of grinding up its citizens any time it desires. If this wasn't true, all those organizations that love acronyms would not be hell bent on disposing of the president and Ruby Ridge and Waco would never have happened. Good luck to Canada.
I wish you well, and I truly mean it when I say I respect and marvel at what you have tried to accomplish. I will keep supporting you as I can. Expect me to keep renewing my membership until I can no longer outrun the reaper...or a bear, whichever I encounter first.
Kris, ICYMI, Mark's comments on Ruby Ridge and Waco etc:
https://www.steynonline.com/6265/the-pasture-is-prologue
"In the pre-smartphone era, I think the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] snipers would have had few qualms about offing members of the Bundy family, anymore than their fellow bureaucratic enforcers at Ruby Ridge did about shooting Vicki Weaver in the head as she was cradling her baby and running for cover. Waco might have gone differently in the age of cellphone video."
https://www.steynonline.com/6266/the-plains-of-bureaustan
"Cliven Bundy is probably doomed to end his days in jail or destitution or both. But he will have done his nation a great service if his sacrifice brings to an end this affront to accountable government."
Thanks, Kate! I should have known the Biovator would have something to say about Cliven Bundy and Ruby Ridge...
This may come across as an unkind remark. It is not meant to be as it is a description. But the Chairman of the committee reminded me of the 1950's TV character "Howdy Doody". Without the freckles You can look it up.
Also, it appears that A biovator is an in-vessel composter that uses an aerobic process to break down biological material. So, I guess dancing is involved. Not that it helps.
I don't know if dancing is involved, but bull***t certainly would be, and Mark, biovating that, provides an extremely useful Public Service.
A malevolent Howdy Doody, yes.
I wonder if the stunted-growth drones at Vice meant 'bloviating'?
When I first read that Mark, et. al., were scheduled to appear before this committee in Ottawa to provide testimony regarding the state of free speech in Canada, I smelled a maple-leafed rat. I'm not the least bit surprised by any of the stunts that were pulled by the so-called public servants.
Mark, you had experience with testifying before a U.S. Senate committee. The little people serving on this committee in Ottawa are no different and probably posses even less character and honesty than Sen. Markey for example. So, they moved the committee hearing to a different room at the last minute so that it could be televised. Then they voted to cut the video feed? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!! You were dealing with small, little people. It's not your fault. You didn't vote to put them in that position. Sad.
Unless rules have changed, if you're not a factual resident of Canada for 5 years or more, you can't vote in their elections even if you are a citizen, which is a bit different from most other countries (including the US).
Ignorance is strength.
"I reject almost everything you've said today because it's academic, it's historical." - MP Garrison.
In other words the things you say are inadmissible since they involve debate on questions to which the answers have been decided by us. Further discussion is irrelevant. This is after all 2019, the year of ultimate enlightenment.
In truth it is 1440AH.