Here are some links to articles I wish I could blog about, but just cannot seem to catch up enough to do so
Raw Video: George Zimmerman reenacts incident for Sanford Police
And, in ‘awesome’ news:
Connie and Mark Fournier are the founders and operators of Free Dominion, Canada’s first and best known ‘little c’ conservative discussion forum. As such, they have been in the forefront of the battles for freedom of speech and against ‘Section 13’ of the Human Rights Code, which criminilizes any speech which might, potentially, hurt someone’s feelings.
Of course, as per ‘Xanthippa’s first law of human dynamics’ (any rule and/or law will, eventually, be pushed to its extreme and abused/applied in ways the drafters never imagined), ‘Section 13’ became abused, had 100% conviction rate, and ‘truth’ was no defense….
Alas, passing laws is much easier than repealing them, which is why it took so long, and was such a difficult battle.
And the Fourniers were in the thick of it: Dr. Michael Geist, in his ‘Milestones in 2012 from A to Z‘, even named ‘F’ is for ‘Free Dominion’!
It is natural, therefore, that I sought an interview with Connie Fournier on the occasion of the fall of ‘Section 13’. Connie graciously agreed. Here is the interview:
Q: How did you feel when you heard that Bill C-304, which strikes down the infamous ‘Section 13’, had passed the final reading in the Senate and received Royal Assent, making it a law?A: We are just talking about how both of us are having a hard time believing it is real. We have fought against Section 13 so hard for so long that it is hard to believe that we actually won! Obviously, though, we are ecstatic.Q: What impact do you think this will make on the political discussion in Canada?A: We are hoping that it will make people less afraid to discuss controversial issues. We have always believed that the best way for Canadians to deal with their differences is for them to be able to discuss them openly. When you have a potential legal threat hanging over your head if someone decides your words are capable of making someone uncomfortable, it has a major chilling effect on discussion…especially political discussion, which is heated at the best of times. When you add to that the effect of having a third party starting these actions as his own personal crusade, you have real problems.Q: Do you think that your legal situation will be impacted by this and if so, how?A: When it comes to the defamation suits that Richard Warman has filed against us, this is very important. When someone claims damages for defamation, they have to demonstrate that they had a good reputation that was unfairly damaged as a result of the words of the defendents. In this case, the plaintiff’s actions have now directly resulted in two governments (the Federal government and the BC government) having to enact legislation to protect the public from him. (BC Libraries and Bill C-304…I can provide more info if you need it) This is a direct reflection on his reputation.Q: Do you think this will lead to eventual de-funding and/or dismantling of the quasi-judicial Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals in favour of trials in real courts with proper legal procedures?A: I wouldn’t be surprised if this resulted in such a move. Hopefully the first thing that will happen, though, is for provincial HRCs to follow suit and repeal their own versions of Section 13.Q: Anything else you’d like to say on the topic?A: The defenders of censorship are wailing that the repeal of Section 13 will result in an explosion of hatred around the country. I think it is good to note that Section 13 cases have been stayed since the Hadjis decision, and this threat has not materialized. Canadians are polite and decent people and we are quite capable of dealing with the handful of internet racists among us by out-arguing them. We do not need CHRC employees to snoop around our sites or, worse, post hateful messages as “bait”. We are very thankful to Brian Storseth for putting forward a private member’s bill that acknowledges that Canadians are reasonable and intelligent adults.
|
|
|
It seems timely that, just after publishing Thunderf00t’s critique of a particularly silly feminist and the comments to it (one of which, CodeSlinger’s, I had turned into a post of its own), I came across an interesting article.
In it, a self-described feminists recounts a talk by a former radical feminist, attended by (among others) feminists from modern academic circles. Her article is titled ‘Why women’s studies needs an extreme makeover’. It is a most interesting read…
In it, the author, Emma Teitel, quotes the speaker, Janice Fiamengo, as well as gives her own opinions on the evening. I’d like to pique your curiosity with little quotes from both (or, rather, Teitel quoting Fiamengo).
The discipline has devolved into an “intellectually incoherent and dishonest” one, she argued, replacing a “callow set of slogans for real thought.” It’s man-hating, anti-Western, and fundamentally illiberal. “It champions a “kind of masculinity that isn’t very masculine at all,” and shuts down freedom of debate, hence the fire alarm. [the fire alarm was used in an attempt to cancel the event]
…
She referenced the male to female death ratio on the Titanic, and declared that “self sacrifice and heroism are not exclusive to men,” “but they are distinctive to men.” Students scowled behind their wayfarers. She railed against affirmative action, a family court system skewed unjustly to favour mothers over fathers, and the deep vein of anti-Western sentiment running through academic feminism that makes it okay to decry gender inequality in the West, and keep quiet about vaginal mutilation and honour killings in the East. [my emphasis]
The women’s studies crowd looked constipated. Fiamengo’s arguments weren’t going down easy, this one—her best—in particular: women’s studies “can’t be about the pursuit of truth” because it has an “ideological base.” Its goal is to push the ideology that women are victims and men are perpetrators. Therefore, any evidence to the contrary, regardless of its veracity, is unwelcome. In other words, ideology censors truth. “If you believe you are righteous,” she said, “you don’t challenge other views.”[my emphasis]
She also writes about the Q&A that followed:
Almost every pro-women’s studies person who approached the mic last night, spoke another language, a jargon you might misconstrue as scientific–only the words they used weren’t shortcuts meant to simplify or summarize complex concepts, they were used to make simple concepts sound complex: Hegemonic, racialized, problematic, intersectionality. It was pure obfuscation, 1984 with tattoos and septum piercings. Some of the students couldn’t even string together a single lucid sentence. All they had were these meaningless, monolithic words. I felt like I was on a game show, the exercise being how many times can you say patriarchal, phallocentric hegemony in 45 seconds or less. It was frankly, for a feminist, depressing.
A thoroughly thought-provoking read!
H/T: BCF
C0nc0rdance is a scientist who often appears on The Magic Sandwich Show, which I sometimes watch. And while I do not agree with all the views expressed on that show, I do like the level and manner at which the discussion occurs.
So, when C0nc0rdance put out a video on the topic of the 2nd Amendment and the whole gun control issue, I expected a well thought out, well supported position.
Having heard C0nc0rdance’s views on individual vs. collective rights, I also expected that his conclusion will not be the same as mine.
I was not disappointed – on either count.
I was, however, surprised how long into the video I agreed with each and every word he said. His conclusion and mine hinge on one very important distinction in how we perceive ‘rights’….
It is my core belief that the only way for a society to function is to recognize the inalienable rights of each and every individual within that society. The very concept of ‘collective rights’ is anathema to our civilization, where all rights derive from the individual. It is therefore not possible for any group to have different rights than those the individuals within that group have….because if it did, then those individuals within these privileged groups would have greater rights than other individuals in society and we would no longer have equality before the law.
In other words, in order to ensure that each citizen is treated equally by the courts and the law, we are limited to only legally recognizing individual rights. This makes any argument based on ‘group rights’ invalid.
Despite this insurmountable difference of opinion in individual vs. collective rights which makes C0nc0rdance arrive at a different conclusion than I, I think his argument is very good and well worth listening to.