Comments on: Name the date, Jennifer. I’ll be there.

By: Paulo Moraes

Paulo Moraes — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:11:55 +0000

Mr Steyn , now you found yourself a good fight to pick up.
And do what you can to unmask those double-talkers.
If there is someone out there willing to say that you're attacking her because she is a woman, there's an easy reply:
stupidity has no gender.
I will state what I already did: this is the land of conformity. The forces of conformity are always there trying to do all they can to shut the door to free speech, free expression, new ideas.

By: Axel

Axel — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:23:17 +0000

I'm probably left-wing enough to have been targeted by Steyn at least once, but I think people like Jennifer are even worse. Steyn might lack humility, but he's not a nihilist.

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:08:04 +0000

From your own link:

"Steyn was born in Toronto to a family of Jewish descent, however he was baptized a Catholic and later confirmed in the Anglican Church."

I'm more Jewish than he is, since he's two flavours of Christian.

By: George

George — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:23:13 +0000

You are perfectly qualified to come back and run for Prime Minister. So, please don't hesitate, we need you back here in Canada.

By: RJM

RJM — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:18:01 +0000

I fear that the "Queen of Censorship" will replace Mark Steyn with a pod version of him soon. "It's better this way", "It won't hurt a bit, we promise"…
I've been out of Canada now for 25 years and I'm NOT sure I want to return… Sounds like it is NOT the country of my youth but something worse and more dangerous than 'Alice in Wonderland'. I know Canadians who have been terrified into silence to not speak out at work when a 'minority' person was unfairly promoted ahead of a better qualified Caucasian for fear of serious personal and professional repercussion! Remember the old Tv show "The Prisoner"? The HRC bubble is coming for YOU!
WAKE UP Canadians! You're NOT living in a free country!

By: yodelayeehoo

yodelayeehoo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:51:41 +0000

While I must agree with what you have written in principle, I think the reality is much simpler. Leftists, for the most part, know perfectly well that their contentions and protestations are inaccurate, foolish and naive. It's simply the best option for them to make their way through life, without the normal challenges and risks that everyone else faces. It's not unlike the mess created by the teachers in our school system. They MUST promote these asinine theories, because they live by them. How could they possibly tell the students that unions and civil servants are just beggars, just like me? Don't wait for this to happen any time soon. Intelligent, educated people couldn't possible believe any of that nonsense. It's a free ride through life.

By: yodelayeehoo

yodelayeehoo — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:00:53 +0000

You can analyze all of this to death, but fascism is returning because the world needs it. Europe still has fresh wounds from the last time supposedly well meaning pinko thieves hijacked their lives. They'll do what it takes to prevent a return to that evil scam and I applaud them for their efforts. We too will get to that place and very soon. Human rights in Canada is a business and nothing more. The never ending stupidity flowing our way from the n'er-do-wells entrusted with this task, is quite simply the best they can do. Not promoting this drivel, would reveal the pathetic realities of their little cash machine. "No no…we're not just hanging around waiting for our expense cheques, we're trying to figure out how to correct those racist concrete sidewalks (I didn't make this up) and better ways to hammer UPS for making women wrapped in bed sheets climb 30 ft ladders." The only reason Canadians aren't marching is because of multiculturalism. This fragmented society, which includes 140 different languages, is far more difficult to unite and incite. Rest assured though, we will hit the wall, most likely when genuine financial hardship becomes the norm. Sign me up !!!!

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:00:16 +0000

What BS. It was the American right that danced with glee when people really had to start watching what they said, post-9/11. Anyway, the repression of dissent is a long-established American tradition.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:59:07 +0000

Ah yes, no Steyn comments section is complete without a link to David Duke's website.

By: Wakefield Tolbert

Wakefield Tolbert — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:42:41 +0000

Well, that's true too.

And important to keep in mind.

People are learning quickly to watch what they say….

An EPA whistleblower who had the "audacity" to doubt the plight of those lovely fuzzy wuzzy polar bears just got told to shut the hell up, or else….

By: scissorpaws

scissorpaws — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:39:52 +0000

First topic for this Debate should be how this involves the current bete noir, child porn, people who are convicted for having kinky stuff on their computers, or writing fictional stories based on child pornographic ideas, no matter how odious or violent or sadistic, but having committed no offences against an actual person. Once you shoehorn a crack in the door for the thought police everything becomes equal fodder. Personally, I'd like to read some of this fiction just to see how their minds work, as much as I like reading Mein Kampf or The Happy Warrior. But I'll never get the chance because my government knows I can't handle it, and we're all the lesser for it. Knowledge is power, we fear it to our own detriment.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:12:46 +0000

Although Lynch cites "America’s First Amendment absolutism on free speech is out of step with the 'growing global consensus,' " she'll be gratified to know that 1) It's really not so absolute any longer, and 2) it's fast approaching that point where it'll be "getting in step" with the global desire to eliminate dissent, thanks to a Kenyan named Obama and the free speech-free thought pogrom known as "localism."

By: George

George — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:43:54 +0000

Sorry Howard, but when CHRC starts to entrap potential victims, it's hard to differentiate it from Stalin's methods and to respect its director. http://www.davidduke.com/general/marc-lemire-impl... Mark Steyn is right, either we have free speech in Canada or we don't and presently I believe we don't because of Section 13. It should definitely be eliminated.

By: HowardStrutt

HowardStrutt — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:06:34 +0000

Mr. Steyn has raised nothing new. As with all things in life power and authority can be abused. I certain Stalin would utilize Section 13 differently that the esteemed board of Canada's Human Rights Commission. Mr. Steyn's belligerent name calling of someone as qualified, experienced and respected world wide as Ms. Lynch is nothing more than a obvious attempt to manufacture debate and ratings for Macleans and himself.

I'm sure he is actually relishing the attention.

By: Wakefield Tolbert

Wakefield Tolbert — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:30:49 +0000

Hi Howard.

Let's compromise. How about we say SCRAP the Tribunal crap that is reminescent of Stalinism and the phony charges akin to "walking during too crowded of moments" type charges, and just being afresh with something called "common sense."

So Mr. Steyn is "not helping" due to raising some rather discomforting issues to the forefront?

By: HowardStrutt

HowardStrutt — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:24:23 +0000

Poor Mark…OK, he has a problem with authority. I can understand that. He doesn't like to be told he's an insensitive who teeter's on the edge of racism and culturalism. His broad brush venom mirrors the very objects of his criticism.

Censorship is an ugly word, we all agree. But so is extremism and insensitivity. If there's no need to temper our words, why do we have diplomacy? If we're unhappy with the actions of others, is it more effective to "get in their face" or use the art of persuasion?

Apparently for Mark, it's the former. Sad.

Human Rights Tribunal? Now most reasonable people would say, "Hey, that's not a bad idea, but listen, it needs to be tweaked, modified and refined. It may need to be reexamined and certainly constantly questioned". But what does the intolerant and angry Mark say. "Scrap It!" Not just that but he lashes out and starts name calling himself! Childish and immature Mark.

That's just small-minded and narrow visioned. Mark, your not helping.

By: Wakefield Tolbert

Wakefield Tolbert — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:28:34 +0000

The West is about to recreate the Magna Carta to be like that film "Escape from New York" Whole cities, and indeed entire nations will soon be prison systems where the inmates are told how they will live to as not to offend the other members with about the same level of freedom. The other inmates.

By: Wakefield Tolbert

Wakefield Tolbert — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:27:47 +0000

Government by slush, mush, and gush.

Totalitarianism Lite is totalitarianism nontheless.

Lynch's whole "matrix" crappola is typical of the Left's Confusa-Speak. The previous defense of Big Government and the Nanny State had been rather questionable analogies to traffic lights ("A stop light is the same thing as a Go light, keep in mind!") and other such fluff.

The problem being, however, that with the hijacking of Human Rights Commissions, Steyn makes the excellent point that in a land where nothing "bad" (whatever ones perception of, including bad hair days) happens, or where "hate" (the definition getting softened up to mere policy and culture disagreements about opening the clitorectomy clinics next to furniture stores) is banned, you don't have a nation so much as you have a jailhouse guarded by censcors armed with pens and the occasional court appearance rather than high powered rifles.

By: ExGrunt

ExGrunt — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:57:54 +0000

"if you’re not smart enough to debate Ezra Levant, you’re not smart enough to police the opinions of 30 million people"

Styen is like watching Kobi – nothing but net!!!!!

By: George

George — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:39:45 +0000

Boy oh boy, Jack. My remark really hit you hard. Were you involved in those actions or what? You seem to be one of those guys who rather than discussing the topic, calls people names when he doesn't like what he hears.
First I am not he one who catalogued the complainants before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This has been done by the freedomsite. Do you consider it normal that Jews who constitute about 1% of the population of Canada should file 36% of complaints with the CHRT?
Richard Warman alone filed 26 complaints most if not all of them related to the so called "anti-Semitic" statements or publications. Do you find that normal?

http://www.richardwarman.com/chrc.html

As to Mark Steyn, he is a Jew because he was born of Jewish parents. Anyone having a Jewish mother is considered a Jew. There are many Jews who are secular or agnostic or who have converted to Christianity, they are Jews none the less.

By: Jack Bauer

Jack Bauer — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:18:06 +0000

"It is interesting to note that, Mark Seyn who is a Jew, denounces so vehemently the Canadian Human Rights Commission. On the other hand, most of the complainants (36%) before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal between 1979 and 2008 have been by Jewish individuals or groups,"

This is what we call, in the trade, an oxymoron.

The writer "George" being an actual moron with an unhealthy obseession with cataloguing people he claims are "Jews."

Such as Mark Steyn who, I believe, is NOT Jewish.

George, your Jewometer needs servicing — that's one yellow star for Jew — I mean you.

By: Nobody

Nobody — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:09:40 +0000

Well, in a sense you are right. Steyn has complained many times about the position of some Jewish organizations supporting the HRC. But those organizations remain consistent – they still support it.

Steyn isn't Jewish.

By: George

George — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:34:01 +0000

Sorry for the typo in the first instance, however, Mark Steyn is Jewish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn

By: jlc

jlc — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:04:06 +0000

George, Mark Seyn (sic) may well be jewish but our Mark STeyn is not..

By: George

George — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:19:20 +0000

This is a follow-up. The reference site that I indicated above came out incomplete. Here is the complete site: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Closing_submissi...

By: David Cadogan

David Cadogan — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:18:51 +0000

I am the one and only person qualified to decide what you should be allowed to say and hear.
You disagree? How then can there be any debate about anyone else being so qualified?
Freedom of speech often is not a pretty thing. Much of it is repulsive. It is when we find it most repulsive that we learn whether we really believe in democracy and freedom or not.
If people tell damaging lies about us, we can seek remedy in the courts.
Thought police and commissions are the antithesis of democracy and freedom.
Repression of speech, and thought, like repression of normal sexual urges, tends to breed perversion.

By: George

George — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:17:23 +0000

It is interesting to note that, Mark Seyn who is a Jew, denounces so vehemently the Canadian Human Rights Commission. On the other hand, most of the complainants (36%) before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal between 1979 and 2008 have been by Jewish individuals or groups, followed by anti-racist or multi-cultural groups (28%), those with unknown affiliation (20%), homosexuals (8%) and blacks (4%). Now that Muslims are starting to complain to the commission, Jews are no longer happy with it. However, one could say that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".__ ____http://www.freedomsite.org:80/legal/Closing_submi... I fully agree with Steyn that Section 13 is an aberration and should be removed.

By: Pankukas

Pankukas — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:13:40 +0000

Read Robert Conquest's "How liberals flunked it" ( ” target=”_blank”>http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3513136… ) — being apologists for regimes like that of Stalin's Russia has been and remains something of a honored tradition for pseudoliberals.

Then, to understand thinking behind it – why is it that, no matter who (Stalin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Weather Underground, sharia creeps, Central Park rapists, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Jim Jones and the People's Temple, welfare recipients, Palestinian terrorists, murderers, abortionists, strippers or common criminals, list not exhaustive) pseudoliberals always take the side of enemies of civilization against civilization), read last column by Ann Coulter:

"You see, if the president of the United States condemned election fraud in Iran, much less put in a kind word for the presidential candidate who is not crazy, it would somehow crush the spirit of the protesters when they discovered, to their horror, that the Great Satan was on their side. (…)

Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too."

They hate and despise the cultures they were born into, and that hate does not end even after they get to implement their political aspirations to the maximum — like in Canada. When you figure that powerful emotion in, there is certain logic behind it all.

By: Pankukas

Pankukas — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:11:27 +0000

Read Robert Conquest's "How liberals flunked it" ( http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3513136… ) — being apologists for regimes like that of Stalin's Russia has been and remains something of a honored tradition for pseudoliberals.

Then, to understand thinking behind it (why is it that, no matter who — Stalin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Weather Underground, sharia creeps, Central Park rapists, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Jim Jones and the People's Temple, welfare recipients, Palestinian terrorists, murderers, abortionists, strippers or common criminals, list not exhaustive — pseudoliberals always take the side of enemies of civilization against civilization), read last column by Ann Coulter:

Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too."

By: Steynian 368 « Free Canuckistan!

Steynian 368 « Free Canuckistan! — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:36:55 +0000

[...] NAME THE DATE, JENNIFER! CANADA vs HUMAN RIGHTS: The Chief Censor is looking for a debate …. [...]

By: Today’s Lynch Round-Up « The Lynch Files

Today’s Lynch Round-Up « The Lynch Files — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:30:16 +0000

[...] Steyn, in Macleans – Name the date, Jennifer. I’ll be there: Okay, Steyn, that’s enough Cameroonian rolling news updates: what’s your point? Only this. [...]

By: The Phantom Observer » Blog Archive » Amid the Sounds of Cricket Chirps from the CHRC . . .

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:00:13 +0000

[...] . . Mark Steyn issues his challenge. I’d be happy to do it. All very “balanced”: Maclean’s can sponsor it, Steve Paikin or some [...]

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » Queen de Censorship Jennifer Lynch, admires the human rights record of err Cameroon…

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:47:58 +0000

[...] Source Commenters who threaten anyone while here because they are not smart enough to come up [...]

By: richfisher

richfisher — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:18:54 +0000

“The modern conception of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system.”
Big Sister

That is true, but lucky for Canadians it only yet occurs in places where you get thrown into smouldering dumpsters filled with broken glass naked after being beaten with a club for being in disagreement with people who throw others into smouldering dumpsters with broken glass after they strip them and beat them.

You're FIRED!

By: Rob H

Rob H — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:33:05 +0000

HRCs' may think they stop discrimination in employment, pay, etc. but only when it is clumsy and overt. There are many ways to avoid hiring someone without crossing the Human Rights Act. . Discrimination only works with the support of government and laws. Otherwise it will fail.
People are more likely to be discriminated against because they are too fat, too short, too ugly, dress funny, talk funny, smoke, too stupid and any number of other things not covered by the Human Rights Act. Race, religion, sex are the least likely things people will be discriminated over.

By: Jack Cunningham

Jack Cunningham — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:54:43 +0000

If you're not smart enough to debate Ezra Levant on damn near anything and clean his clock….well, you're just not very smart.

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:28:14 +0000

Lynch would look like foolish after a public debate with Levant. She'd look like a complete gibbering idiot after a debate with Steyn. She knows this and will never consent to such a debate.

As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The CHRC needs a lot of sunlight, in the form of public "balanced debate". Unfortunately, anyone who enters such a debate (assuming Lynch doesn't chicken out again) could be prosecuted if they suggest that an identifiable group of people (the CHRC and its minions) be subjected to any criticism as a group (hate!) for the harm they have done to Canadian society (more hate!).

Offering to give one's left arm to see the entire CHRC permanently exiled from our country probably qualifies as double-plus-ungood hate. Otherwise I'd make the offer.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:07:13 +0000

"Unfortunately, nobody can tell you what the Matrix is…You have to see it for yourself" – Morphius. The Matrix

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:51:02 +0000

Agreed that freedoms need not be positive in all cases. Freedom from unwarranted search, arrest without cause, and being held without trial are three quick ones that come to mind. Like being hit, these all have reasonably clear boundaries that are not referential to the individual, per se. We can set objective standards that work in most cases. So Ed was off the mark in that respect.

But the freedom from being offended is highly subjective in nature, and varies not just from person to person or group to group, but changes over time. Offense is ethereal, and is easily avoided by changing the channel, skipping the article, or leaving the room. Which is partly why vague notions of community standards began to be questioned by judges in relation to obscenity laws some two or three decades ago. And why Ed is bang on in noting that it's a false freedom, because it lacks objective merit.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:50:10 +0000

My point was that it happens in real courts too.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:37:20 +0000

So I take it you don't believe that you have a freedom not to be hit?

By: Ed Andrews

Ed Andrews — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:14:41 +0000

Well, these lawyers excel in "doublespeak". It does sound good, but what she really means is that my rights (as in free speech) end where her freedoms (as in freedom not to be offended, for example) begin. So what does freedom not to be offended mean? It means whatever the hearer feels.

Freedoms are usually defined in positive terms; freedom to do this or that. Who but a HRC lawyer would dream up defining freedoms in negative terms? Eg; as in freedom not to defend myself.

By: The Bull

The Bull — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:00:31 +0000

we can all agree, too, that your grammar sucks.

By: Patricius

Patricius — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:55:28 +0000

You obviously have never been through the process. It's like a mill; it grinds one down.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:27:22 +0000

Link formatting is broken in the previous post. Correct links are: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/04/what-price-our... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/technology/29co... Sorry.