Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 526 - Franco

  Sep 13, 2009 at 9:16 pm

  518 - STM
  
  Franco: "The European bitter experience you speak of came about in larger part, for the exact reasons I described above".
  
  Actually, Franco, you're completely wrong on that. It happened because no one wanted to speak out and no governments had the guts to crack down on it.
  
  If you can't see the truth of what I'm saying and choose to stick blindly to this ideological nonsense without punting up anything that isn't the same broken-record one-argument right-wing libertarian bollocks you always do, end of conversation.
  
  Well STM, we will have to agreed to disagree on this one point.
  
  But is this all you can come up with to my post #517 that centers specifically with challenging your support of Canada’s decline in freedom of expression? A discussion/debate on Canada no less that you sought me out to start.
  
  You assert that human rights have been advanced through Canada’s hate speech laws and claim it has provided more freedom. Your exact words were - "My view is that Canada has ADDED a basic human right for its citizens, not taken one away".
  
  You love to talk about human rights, yet you haven’t once addressed the outlining of facts I presented about The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recent repudiation of this law and their recent refusal to continue enforcing it any more.
  
  Are we to take you seriously about your support of human rights? Then why haven’t you addressed The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal who stands in oppostion to what you claim STM?
  
  You love to talk about the law, yet you haven’t once addressed Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario who has stated that he sees the effects of these laws turning Canada into a totalitarian theocracy and a country ruled today by what he describes as a secular state religion [of political correctness] where anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."
  
  Are we to take you seriously about your support of constitutional law? Then Why haven’t you addressed this professor of constitutional law in Canada who stands in oppostion to what you claim STM?
  
  Are you telling us that all you can come up with in challenging the merits of these leading Canadian experts, who both stand in opposition to you on this matter, is to throw the above ad hominem attacks at me instead, and then threaten to take your ball and go home.
  
  Not only is that the sign of a losing hand STM, kindly tell us how that's not the act of someone going down in flames and folding!
  
  Believe me, will get to your false assumptions about what you think I know about American History, but first lets stay centered on this Canadian discussion/debate you whated to start with me. I think we’d all like to here your answers to the above questions, without ad hominem attacks this time!

• 527 - STM

  Sep 14, 2009 at 12:09 am

  Franco: Believe me, will get to your false assumptions about what you think I know about American History.
  
  When you have half an idea of them and what you present isn't bound up in ideologocal nonsense, Franco, get back to me.
  
  I'll debate you on the truth of history any time.
  
  And I still maintain the right not to be vilified is a basic human right.
  
  Therefore Canada has added a right that probably wouldn't go astray in the US.

• 528 - STM

  Sep 14, 2009 at 12:26 am

  Franco: "Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario".
  
  That's just his point of view, Franco.
  
  Canada will never be a totalitarian state.
  
  You can tell that by the happy smiles on the faces of the people.
  
  The usual yardstick applies: people from all over the world are knocking down the door to get in, which indicates to me that your assumption - and that of the good professor - is wrong.
  
  Of course, the very fact that there is a healthy debate in Canada in relation to this would indicate to me and any other normal person that free speech is no danger of being denied.
  
  I think you've said before that you weren't born in the US. Where do you come from originally, Franco?
  
  

• 529 - STM

  Sep 14, 2009 at 1:24 am

  Here's another view about your liberty, which you seem to have invested with an amazing, other-wrldy character.
  
  The American revolutionaries weren't engaged in a struggle for liberty - they weren't an oppressed people - they were engaged in a struggle for independence.
  
  There's a big difference, which is also one of the reasons why I believe libertarian ideals expressed as an ideology in this case are an absolute crock.
  
  
  

• 530 - boooo

  Sep 14, 2009 at 6:42 am

  hi!!!
  1

• 531 - joy

  Sep 24, 2009 at 9:31 am

  im just sick of working and still going to bed hungry...