quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Of course not. Nothing was going to stop you making the comparison. You were destined to drop the other shoe and compare me to a Nazi from the moment this conversation began. Nothing I said short of, "Section 13 is great because it only censors bad people!" would've stopped you. The temptation was too powerful.</STRONG>
Good grief. You can make arguments out of fantasy land all day, but if you're going to try to accuse me of something, at least try not to have it disproven twice over before you even post. This is exactly the kind of absurdity that caused me to make the comparison in the first place.
To wit: What part of...
quote:
If you're interested, you can go here to read the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It deals with the facts of the law as it really is, but it's a bit older, prior to being amended to broaden the scope to the internet. Personally, I agree with the minority opinion that would strike it down.
...and...
quote:
And do I have to mention again that I agree with the minority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that would have struck down section 13 if it were my choice? Not that it matters. My whole dispute with you is that I find it offensive to see you backhandedly insult Wiles as being clouded by nationalist sentiment for trying to correct to your false statements about his country. And when I try to clarify where you're screwing up after he gives up, you just go into a tailspin of presenting a complex -- and pointless, since I never said I disagree with you in principle -- construction of more inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
...do you need me to explain again?
Let me hold your hand like a baby.
1. I don't agree with section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
2. I don't care what your opinion on it is, I never cared, and I didn't share my own opinion prior to your decision to start arguing with me. In fact, nobody in this entire discussion has ever disagreed with you in principle on this matter. Really, it's kind of sad. Both of the people you've argued against are on your side but take objection to your acting like a fool in your defense of that position.
3. I replied to you because you were rude to another person for correcting you on a matter of fact in which you were wrong, and I endeavored to make clear to you what those factual problems with your case are.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>You could as easily have compared me to Ezra Levant, who in his testimony -- which I linked to in this very thread -- makes the same central arguments I did. But comparing me to a Jewish conservative journalist just doesn't pack the same rhetorical punch as comparing me to a Nazi.</STRONG>
Why would I do that? Your arguments don't sound like Ezra Levant's. He makes a vastly superior case for himself. Hell, he cites the Constitution up and down, while you've claimed Canada has no freedom of speech provision. His arguments come out of insistence on principle. Your arguments seem to come out of somewhere between planet spin and your own ass, which is the reason I'm responding to you in the first place. Maybe you mean you agree with his central arguments, and indeed, I do too, but you sound nothing like him.
That aside, Ezra Levant's first name isn't a homophone with Mark Steyn's, which, truth be told, played a much bigger role in my decision to use the comparison than the fact that Marc Lemire is a neo-Nazi. That was just a convenient way to make it clear it wasn't a complement.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>To address your quibbles over semantics, if it waddles and quacks it's a duck. If the government can punish you for it, it's a crime. I'm the one who introduced the term "quasi-legal" to our discussion and I know what it means. I also refuse to go poking through the dictionary looking for quasi-legalistic terms to substitute for the real things just because these kangaroo courts are quasi-judicial. Whether "guilty" or some synonym thereof you're still just as censored by Section 13.</STRONG>
Give yourself a break. It's not semantics according to the Supreme Court of Canada, and if you were arguing against somebody who actually disagreed with you, you would be shooting yourself in the foot for claiming it is, unless you're willing and able to make an eloquent case about that matter. I'll believe that when I see it. And I am well aware that you don't care about being correct, you've made that abundantly clear. Really, you're still stuck on the idea that I disagree with you. No -- and I'll say again, since you need frequent reminders -- I'm responding to correct you, because you have a problem with the facts. And indeed, it's your "call a spade a spade" attitude, where you have your own version of reality that you're going to base your arguments on, that gets you compared to Marc Lemire instead of Mark Steyn or Erza Levant like you would like to. You want to make an argument, make it based on the reality of the world around you. It's not semantics when the distinction forms the basis of a Constitutional decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Section 13 takes precedence over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No help there.</STRONG>
Technically, a federal statue doesn't "take precedence" over the Constitution, and the Supreme Court didn't say it does. What happened is that by a 4-3 ruling they determined that it was narrow and precise enough with a reasonable enough goal that, although infringing, it can be permitted, as it posed minimal risk of causing negative effects beyond its scope. As a reminder, since you seem to need them frequently, I have said I disagree with that decision, and it should have been struck down. Mark Steyn argues that with the attack against Maclean's magazine, they have been proven wrong about the minimal risk and that the decision was therefore in error. I have predicted that if the decision goes against Maclean's, the Supreme Court likely will strike down the law.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Finally, as to what about Section 13 is toxic, I've read it, you've read it, we both saw different things, and by using "toxic" and "non-toxic" I'm simply dividing what I'm seeing from what you're seeing -- without rejecting what you're seeing. You didn't understand what I was getting at, so I clarified: whatever part of Section 13 censors the press is toxic. You still didn't get it; I tried again: whatever part of Section 13 is being used against MacClean's, an actual case, is toxic. You still don't get it. Whatever else Section 13 might do, rescuing kittens etc., that part of it which censors criticism of religion is toxic.</STRONG>
You are totally obsessed with kittens, toxicity, and parts. As I've said, I'm responding to you to straighten you out on factual accuracy. We saw the same thing, you just didn't understand it. Really, you claim to know what you're talking about, but if that were the case I wouldn't have responded. I can quote you saying garbage about the act:
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I don't see how editing out the non-toxic aspects of Section 13 constitute a misrepresentation of the toxic part, particularly since Section 13 has already been used more than once to censor the press.</STRONG>
Why is this garbage? 1. You didn't edit out non-toxic aspects, you portrayed incorrectly the one thing it does. 2. Nobody in the press has ever been censored (at least yet) by section 13 -- they haven't decided the Maclean's case yet, and the other never made it to tribunal. Both have the offending material online and out there. To your credit, you conceded this point. Then you did some Marc Lemire BS when you tried to use the argument again anyway. The sad thing is that I'm giving him a bad shake by making that comparison, as I don't know that he's ever sunk that low.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>So we're back to the toxic portion of Section 13, part 1, the part that's being used to censor MacLean's. You mentioned Section 13 protecting women from discrimination in the workplace. Here we go again: if the rest of Section 13 rescues kittens from trees and puppies from the pound, it doesn't mitigate part 1's provisions for censorship of the press</STRONG>
And this? Let me be clear -- again! -- CHRA section 13 does only one thing -- it censors! There are no kittens and puppies and you are the only one who thinks there are. The problem with your argument is not that you're "cutting out" the "non-toxic" parts like you innocently claimed was your own infraction -- no, they are inaccurate about the entire thing -- you were exaggerating excessively, and you were getting corrected, and you were being rude to the person correcting you. That's the point of my first response. But you replied under the misconception that it's criminal hate crimes legislation, so I politely corrected you on that too.
So much for getting the point. Instead you appear to have gotten the misconception that I thought there's something in section 13 that protects women from discrimination in the workplace! An amazing feat of confusion, as that not only is not what I said, but if you'd read section 13, you'd realize that there's nothing that I or anyone else could even remotely mistake for that in it. And the fact that you seemed to think so and continue to talk about the first subsection like it's some part isolated from discrimination in the workplace, with the implication that this would be some later subsection of section 13, indicates you clearly hadn't read it at that point. Or maybe you read an excerpt (subsection 1, which is really the only relevant bit, as the rest is part of that and only serves as clarification for when it's applied), and just didn't understand it ("mention Islam twice and serve hard time"). I believe you have read it now, because regardless of the carelessness you have toward factual accuracy in your arguments, I don't believe you'd tell me straight out that you'd read it without being careful to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I'm going to anticipate your response being something along the lines of, "Well if you'd read Section 13 like I have you'd know it doesn't have two parts!" Yes, it does. You just can't see them.</STRONG>
Bingo. And I've refrained from saying "it has one part" in so many words until the end for this purpose. Here's where we really are getting into the semantics. If you decide to count subsections as parts, it doesn't have two parts. It has -- wow! -- three. But to make that argument is pointless. The other two are guidelines for interpreting the rule about censorship -- it has no bearing on any argument about your inaccuracies being merely editing out non-toxic parts about hypothetical kittens or non-hypothetical women's employment. There is nothing to edit out, there's only one part -- or maybe you prefer there's two parts, maybe the rule, and the two clarifications are part two -- we can divide it up however you want. The underlying point remains: There is no "non-toxic" part to cut out. There is only the "toxic" part you're criticizing. And I'm trying to -- okay, I was trying to, before you went on your "I don't care about the facts and am going to rant using arguments generated from delusion" thing -- help you understand what it actually says. Too bad.
My prediction then would be that despite the fact that I've said in three different posts now that I oppose section 13, and despite the fact that I said so repeatedly here, you're going to reply indignantly accusing me of comparing you with a neo-Nazi making similarly toned arguments on the same issue out of a passion to smear you for your viewpoint because the word Nazi is so juicy. Even though I don't even care about your viewpoint, and I just wish you wouldn't act like a fool when arguing it.
If you continue to obsess over the unflattering comparison between Marc Lemire's arguments and your own, I will simply ignore you. Because -- and I feel I really should remind you, given that you conveniently (for your indignation) either forgot or overlooked this twice now -- I don't even disagree with you in the first place. I have nothing to persuade you of, and I'm only here now to defend my comparison which are so upset over. And that's getting a little old.
Author
Topic: USA election system (Read 24965 times)