Monday, December 21, 2009

The Grunter and the Hate Speech Gang

I've been trying to get in the mood for Chrissymas, but it's not easy when the homophobic vultures are all over the place squawking out their message of hate.

Are religious liberties in Canada under threat? Pew does not say so. But I think it is fair to say they are, particularly from human rights commissions intent of subjugating religious practices to gay rights.

It seems only a matter of time before one province’s or another’s commission attempts to make churches marry gay couples, regardless of those churches’ doctrines.

Oh sure. I realize that one should try to ignore The Grunter. Because he's not just a feathered bigot, but a climate change denier AND one of the Free Hate Speech Gang. Which means if he loses any more I.Q. points they are going to have to water him eh?

And if he gets any crazier they're going to have to lock him up.

But even a dumbass like him isn't going to get away with that vile nonsense. Because gay people aren't victimizing ANYONE. We are the victims of the hatred and intolerance of others.... just because of who we are. Nobody should have the right to attack us for that. And nobody but NOBODY is going to tell us how to live or love.

Besides, who are these so-called defenders of free speech anyway? I'm not an expert on crawling life, so I asked this Con buffoon to shine a light on them.

And what a scary sight it was. Connie and Marc Fournier, Deborah Gyopang, Barbara Kay, Joseph Ben Ami, Randy Hillier, Brad Trost and only Jebesus knows how many other right-wing kooks and homophobes.

The kind of people who guard freedom, like a fox guards the chicken house.

Oh well, Bruce at Canuck Attitude has some fine words on The Grunter.

And Dr Dawg sums up the right-wing kooks and the Free Hate Speech crazies as only he can.

Defending vicious homophobes and neo-Nazis against the fearsome Human Rights Commissions is, we are told, a matter of principle. It's all about freedom of expression, not the substance of that expression. Odd, then, isn't it, that those who crush that freedom with guns and truncheons attract the cheering support of these erstwhile libertarians?

But I just want to add this eh?

If any of those feathered bigots come anywhere near my back yard in the next few days.

I'll set my cat on them...

Because NOBODY is going to ruin my Christmas.

In fact, I just asked Santa to bring me one more gift: the slow and agonizing death of the National Post. Because I've been such a good boy and I soooooo deserve it.

And so does that filthy rag...


Paul said...

For anyone that actually thinks we truly have free speech or freedom of expression in Canada is sadly mistaken.

Our rights are much more fragile then we think

I suggest you tell that to a person who puts an English sign on there store in Quebec that is larger then the French one or has no French sign.

I suggest you tell that to a person in Vancouver who have an anti-olympic sign (

I suggest you tell that to someone who ends up before the human rights commission for hate speech in Canada.

You have to protect the worst kind of speech to allow all speech. If not we depend on a definition of distasteful which is set by who exactly?

Finally the best argument I have seen for free speech. It really is worth watching.

Here is Christopher Hitchens arguing for a Bill to repeal hate crime legislation in a debate at Hart House, University of Ontario. Members of Parliament participated in the debate. It's the most eloquent argument against legislating hate speech that I have seen to date:

Bina said...

Bleah--Hitchens, no thanks. The man wouldn't know a human right if it spat in his eye. Too fucking drunk to see straight, let alone think straight. And he has nothing to say in Canada. He should stay in Britain where he belongs, accosting lampposts with his gin bottle. It's what he does best.

And if anyone thinks we should be protecting hate speech (defending the indefensible, in other words), let me ask YOU something: Do you seriously believe the "free speech Nazis" you're so passionate about defending would protect YOUR freedom of speech--or any other basic, inalienable human rights of yours--if THEY were in power?

My dad was born in Germany in 1933, and his own father was called up on the carpet by the Gestapo just for complaining that you couldn't buy decent shoes in Germany since that Austrian bastard came to power, and furthermore, he hadn't voted for Hitler and didn't know anyone else who had, either.

Well, what he got was no human rights tribunal. The Gestapo officer threatened him by mentioning in a dark voice that he had four children. Then he let him go, scared shitless (and speechless).

And no, my grandpa was not a leftist, nor even a liberal.

Human-rights tribunals don't do that, and anyone who thinks they do is a fucking loon. They give you an actual hearing. In other words, a chance to defend yourself IN FREE SPEECH. If you don't like it, fine--no one said you had to. And if you can't defend your own speech before them, too damn bad. But don't give me that crap about "them" being out to suppress you. That's not their job. Their job is to stand up for the other guy, the one denied a rental because he's gay, or a job because she's black, or medical care because they're Muslim, or the right to put a French sign in their window, or whatever. Words have consequences, and bigoted words have no place in our open society, because the real purpose of hate speech is not expression, it is to close off that society to sectors deemed undesirable by some. There is nothing "free" about that!

I'd rather see a stupid bigot wet his pants before a tribunal of his peers than see REAL Nazis allowed to proliferate because people here thought, as in Weimar Germany, that the best thing to do about them was to ignore them, let them yell and march, and maybe they would all go away. They didn't--they took over. And they did it by claiming THEY were the oppressed and persecuted ones...sound familiar?

If you don't like being held accountable for what you say, my advice is to keep your mouth shut. And spare me the pious platitudes about how "fragile" our rights are here. The law upholds them, and sometimes it does that by holding a would-be oppressor accountable for what he says, instead of just letting him bully and intimidate others as he pleases. Boo fucking hoo, what oppression!

PS: Hart House is at University of Toronto, not "University of Ontario". If you're going to toss that silly chestnut out, at least get the location right.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Simon m'dear, you should always, always, always refer to that pair of cockroaches as "the immoral harlot, Connie Wilkins, and her partner-in-fornication, Marc Fournier"...

This is all based on their OWN morals and "logic", of course. 'coz what's sauce for the goose outta be great for basting the gander, eh?

*clink* -- cheers, and happy solstice/Saturnalia, ya ol' celtic pagan, you! (from another one)


Simon said...

hi Paul...I believe free speech is worth defending. I would like to see some changes to the HRC to make sure that it is better protected. But all I'm saying is that some of the people involved in that movement are not my kind of people. I think that you should able to criticize people for what they say or do, not for who they are. Gay, Muslim, Black, Jewish or whatever.
But I'm afraid a lot of the Free Speechers spend their time doing that. And their protests move me about as much as an arsonist would.... complaining about a fireman. ;)
The English sign thing is also more complicated than you make it out to be. Is speech suppressed if the letters are smaller, and does a nation have the right to make French predominant?
I do agree that the anti-olympic sign ban is simply outrageous.But the founder of the movement was a fascist so what do you expect?
Look.. as someone who loves words I hate the idea of censorship.
But genocidal words can target people for violence, so just like you can't shout "fire" in a crowded hall, we have to draw the line somewhere...

Simon said...

Hi Bina...WOW...I had to read that one with oven mittens on... :)
See Paul...that's what I shoulda said, if I didn't know that you're pretty decent for a Con ...and I wasn't so LAZY. ;)
But seriously Bina nice comment. I think that's what I was trying to say. Decent people who want to defend free speech should take a close look at the company they're keeping... and ask themselves as honestly as possible what that really means...

Simon said...

hi 'berto...and thank you for Pagan cheer...which I took the liberty of redacting for the sake of our reputations... ;)
Look I don't know much about the Fourniers, nor do I care. And after all I live in sin too.
But all I can say is that when I last checked, about two years ago, the FD website was crawling with the creepiest homophobes I'd ever encountered. So when I see them going on about freedom of speech, I know it means the freedom to whip up hate against me, so they can go and fornicate themselves...
And merry solstice/saturnalia to you too ye ol' Celtic pagan western hill billy you. Up with the gay people. Scotland FOREVER !!!!!!! :)

Paul said...

The law has done such a wonderful job of protecting people that put English signs on there own property in Quebec. Simon it really is that simple on private property in Canada you should be able to sign a store in English without even any French at all. Its not free if it is limited or suppressed.

The law may very well stand up for those in BC, but the resolution will come much to late and the cost will have to come from citizens.

It’s simple really we either have free speech or we don’t. Right now we have limited speech. As per someone’s definition of hate speech, but who defines hate speech. At what point would the criticism of a religion become hate speech. I also wonder what would have been considered hate speech 10, 20, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago and how it will be defined 10, 20, 50, 100 or 1000 years from now.

Its simple yes I support free speech. I don’t have to like something to accept someone else’s right to do it. And no I don’t expect the people that spout hate to support my rights just the opposite. As a general rule of thumb they are most vile and rights hating people in our society.


To clarify I'm not a Conservative. As a matter if fact I am Libertarian who is socially extremely liberal and a fiscal conservative. No major political party in Canada represents me or my views.

'berto said...

Simon --

As far as Freak Dominion goes, you've obviously looked at it *since* I have. But then, I don't spend much time staring into a cesspit, either.

And actually, I'm more from the branch of the family from old Eire, but yeah, "Scotland FOREVER!" (I'm one-quarter Scots.) And besides, I subscribe to that old Irish toast, "Confusion to the English!" ;) gee... maybe that's why we both love Francophones so much, eh? :P

Simon said...

hi Paul...oops sorry about that. I knew you were too nice to be a Con ;)
Of course, that doesn't mean that I don't disagree with you.
On the Quebec sign question... I honestly think you you have to live there...or love the Quebecois like I do... to understand the situation.They are an extremely tolerant people, but they wanted that history and culture to be reflected in the signs around them, and not end up like Louisiana. It made them feel more secure in Canada, which is excellent.
But you know the main reason I and most Anglos don't mind the sign law at all is because it makes Canada more interesting. So instead of saying we're going to the store, we say we're going to the dep (depanneur). Big deal. Vive la difference !!
You know Paul sometimes I think that libertarians are too relentlessly logical. They read things like an instruction manual.
They may be good people, and reason and logic are very important, but sometimes you have to temper it with the better angels of our humanity.
So unlike you I do believe that sensible people can come to an agreement where that line must be drawn. And decide where free speech becomes hate speech particularly when it comes to minorities. Because attacking people for who they are, rather than what they say or do, strikes as bullying and evil and I could never agree with that.
So although I respect your opinion, and believe your motives are decent, I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree.
But at least it will be a friendly discussion... :)

Simon said...

hi 'berto... from Eire eh? Well since you told me that I'll tell you a little secret. My family has lived on the northeastern slopes of the highlands for eons. And I used to brag about that a lot. :) But I only recently discovered that we actually came from the southwest LOWLANDS just across the pond from the Irish !!! And that not surprisingly we might The Shame. The Shame.
On the other hand...I can't disagree with that old Irish toast:
Confusion to the English...just don't tell my mum.
And I do love those hopeless romantics... :)

Paul said...


We can agree to disagree.

In my view we are either free or we are not free. There is no degree or shades of gray in free

And those rights that keep us free are much more fragile then most people realize.

There is nothing wrong with Quebec promoting its wonderful culture, but not at the expense of the rights of the citizens that choose to make it

People such as yourself that are willing to allow freedoms to end are dangerous.