I appreciate your attempt to engender a debate on this issue. However, I have not heard you or any of the other defenders of the ‘Socks’ address the question of Elmasry’s role in all of this. Surely, if you believe in a tolerant, multicultural Canada, his publicly stated anti-semitism must give you some pause.

How do you expect the rest of us to take you seriously if you side with such a vile individual in the name of protecting human rights?

I haven’t read your blog so my apologies if you have discussed Elmasry.

Law is Cool: We haven’t sided with anyone.
We took a neutral stance that the complainants had a right to issue a complaint, and that wasn’t good enough for Steyn fans.

There, see? It’s not so hard to admit to having been too quick at the keyboard. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you have not written volumes of authoritative material on the meaning of “Orwellian”? And, while you’re at it, why not admit that the HRCs and the litigants’ actions in this case far more closely resemble Orwellian abuse of power as portrayed in “1984″ than anything Steyn or Maclean’s has done?

I always think its hilarious when blogs (even funnier, one by a lawyer who presumably proudly upholds the standard of free speech) peruse comments BEFORE they are posted. If something nasty is posted on your site, and you don’t want to be associated with it, by all means delete it (there are arguments against even this, but far be it from me to tell you how to deal with problems). But to actually approve the content before it’s posted? I’m not asking this as if you have ulterior motives, but: what the heck are you afraid of? What could possibly be so terrible that, were it on your site for a couple of hours, it would do permanent damage? Kind of defeats the purpose of reading the comments section, when you know that the comments that appear are ‘approved by mod’. Especially since you are perfectly able to counter each point that is made, as you have done in the above.

Phil Guenther seems mistaken on the broad issue. If people go to the trouble of founding and maintaining a publication, their wish to retain editorial control is quite understandable. They don’t found a publication with the intention that it be appropriated by others and turned into a public utility. Publishers, editors, and writers won’t go to the trouble of taking on such difficult tasks, if they know that they won’t be able to maintain standards of content and presentation according to their own lights.

LIC: “Actually, we have a pretty good idea of what Orwell is about. See our posts on the subject previously.”

I visited the link you provide to your “posts on the subject previously” (sic). Actually post (singular). In this post your only reference to Orwell comes in a quotation from one Kelly Talcott, and a “1984″ trailer grabbed from YouTube. Some expertise, alright. You are able to find a reference to Orwell on the web, and cut and paste!

Now Talcott focusses on the issue of privacy. While this is an important plot element in “1984″ it is not the principal theme. In the story invasion of privacy is merely a means to the end of mind control — which is the key concept.

Wikipedia gives an apt definition of the term: “… an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past…” Thus Talcott’s invocation of Orwell is not spurious — it is just not indicative of the meaning of “Orwellian” in that it is too narrow.

The term is indeed relevant to the issue of Freedom of Speech and the HRCs but in a way that flatly contradicts your ham-handed attempt to use it. Indeed, co-opting of this term to serve an agenda in support of state-sanctioned mind control is the very epitome of Orwellianism.

Imagine “Orwellian” as the latest entry in the lexicon of Newspeak! I suspect old George might have found the prospect amusing, in a dark way.

In the meantime I recommend you and the sock puppets actually read the novel, which is available online at

http://www.msxnet.org/orwell/1984

It might help you avoid further embarrassing yourself on this subject, and you might learn something about the real issues behind the HRC controversy.

Law is Cool: You should have kept reading, there are far more posts than just that one.

THE REVIVAL OF THE PROPAGANDA STATE
US Propaganda at Home and Abroad since 9/11
Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor
The International Communication Gazette

The dominance of censorship and propaganda is a triumph of authoritarian
over democratic values. During times of international crisis like the Cold War or now
in the so-called ‘Global War on Terror’, authoritarian values of secrecy, information
control and silencing dissent would appear to take precedence over democracy, the
First Amendment and a free press. The general trend since 9/11, especially in the
US, has been away from openness and toward increasing government secrecy
coupled with what can seem a rise in contempt among inner circle policy-makers
for a public’s right to know that may override national and homeland security
concerns. Every official pronouncement is now framed within the psyche of a nation
‘at war’ – epitomized by the renaming of Newark airport to Liberty International
Airport to the commercial marketing of a hot sauce with the phrase ‘burn, bin
Laden, burn!!’ – a war in which ‘you are either with us or against us’ and in which
‘there is no neutral ground’…

Your claims of government censorship would only be compelling if they corresponded with military activity. The only claim you can make is that the government is promoting multiculturalism, which it is entitled and even encouraged to do by the Constitution.

No, the blatantly false and misleading information promoted by Steyn & co. more closely follows the definition of propaganda.

The father of modern American journalism lays out two essential tools in modern
media collusion with the state: censorship and propaganda. Censorship ends the
free flow of information so essential for democracy and makes dissent less likely.
Propaganda can inject false, misleading or slanted information into the media in
order to influence the behavior of populations at home and abroad. Censorship and
propaganda exist in the news media and come in many flavors – using unnamed
sources in national security stories; using the same elite-level sources repeatedly;
‘killing’ a story before it comes to light; and encouraging self-censorship on the part
of working reporters. Although they will rarely admit to it, news organizations are
often willing colluders with governments and militaries in efforts to censor because
major media owners are members of the political elite themselves and therefore
share similar goals and outcomes. Making profit would appear to rank higher than
telling the truth in the minds of some media owners and many of their employees.
There is nothing so sacred about having a media system driven by advertising and
the bottom line, but in the US the conventional wisdom is that profit-centered
media are as American as apple pie, the Fourth of July and the Founding Fathers.
The events of 11 September 2001 have simply intensified this reality, but they also
help to explain why the question ‘why do they hate us so much?’ had to be asked
in the first place.

ORWELLIAN? Who’s got the orwellian position here? HINT: Its the one that is trying to impose on everyone else its morals as to what is allowable topics of discussion. Its the anti-freedom position. Its the position that suggests government can decide for you which political opinions are okay to have. I mean how can you suggest that its orwellian to support free speech – do you have ANY clue what you’re talking about – oh yeah it was BIG BROTHER, and the people wanted bigbrother to regulate more but the poor people were left to decide what to read for themselves. How horrible.

Those traits are not only orwellian, they are objectively fascist. I dont even mean that as the backwards slur lefties throw around without knowing what it means. Having the state step in to provide a solution in an area that was previously left to the choice of the individual (what to read), is objectively, positively fascist. Mussollini would have LOVED it.

Law is Cool: Actually, we have a pretty good idea of what Orwell is about. See our posts on the subject previously.

Fascism is a far-right ideology, more akin to what Steyn fans espouse, rather than what liberal human rights activists exemplify. Neither fascism or Nazism ever aspired to protect minorities; in fact, both exerted the power you describe to protect majority interests at the expense of minorities.

Let’s look at a description that Mussolini himself endorsed:

A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ” right “, a Fascist century.

Free speech and freedom of religion are both equally enshrined in the Charter. And unfettered advocacy for one, as you espouse, is clearly more Orwellian. Yes they are in tension with situations like this, and an appropriate balance should be reached. But you would have Big Brother silence minorities, infringe on their practices, and completely exclude them from society. That’s pretty fascist too.

Well, when you smear someone, maybe you shouldn’t expect to get away with it. By the way, which “minority rights” or “human rights” are being condemned?

Please try to respond in a way other than sneering about how Steyn may agree with this opinion.

Law is Cool: This is hardly the first human rights complaint in Canadian history, and all have followed a similar pattern. As stated, most actually have a measure of respect and deference to the Commission, allowing them to resolve issues amicably. Instead in these cases, respondents have verbally abused complainants, called the tribunals into disrepute, and even rallied for their disbandment. In at least one related case, this intimidation has resulted in the withdrawal of the complaint.
A truly principled movement would have been established independently of any actual complaint, and instead these measures are seen for what they are, motivated by self-interest. Calls for legal reform are frequently done, and without indignation characterizing this specific response.

Law is Cool:
The Bill of Rights that preceded the Charter had a number of limitations, including applying to Federal issues exclusively. The Charter also greatly expanded judicial review. And assuming “the best” is probably an overstatement – each case is probably best assessed by their respective circumstances.
The Osgoode students in question barely mention the Charter, so your comments do not seem well grounded.
The intent of the Charter surpassed that of giving new rights to Canadians – it was a social contract intended to bind and unite Canada on certain principles of equity and justice. Anyone who escapes that understanding of the Charter truly does not understand Canada.