I would like to note that my clarification to Mr. Kinsella mentioned here at his blog, while true, was not offered as appeasement to Mr. Kinsella.
In fact, I felt that clarification was necessary in order to properly convey the meaning of the piece.
I acted too quickly, without first considering the implications of doing so. I believe the piece speaks for itself, and that it is not defamatory or libelous in nature, and I therefore retract the clarification from this post. I do not grant Mr. Kinsella the satisfaction that a threat of legal action gets him what he wants. I clarified for my own reasons, not for his. Since he wishes to paint the matter that way, joking about frisking me for vacation money, I retract to deny him that victory over me.
This whole point of this matter is that we need honest debate. My post was meant to exemplify the fact that there is none of that.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
I Was Not, Will Not Be Bullied
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
What good is honest debate in this venue, Mike? I'm serious.
You start a meme about "freespeechers" allegedly being a Leftist pejorative. You give WK the gears for using defamation law, but give Levant a pass for doing the same thing. You pretend that 13(1) is all about freedom of speech, and ought to be repealed, without daring to ask the salient question, Cui bono. (So far, only a swarm of Nazis. The complaints against Steyn and Levant won't make it past the investigation stage.)
You help whip up this stupid tempest in a teapot, but when Stephen Harper muzzles environmental scientists, and even has a go at freedom of the press, not a word.
Don't preach to us about "honest debate," Mike, until you're prepared to show a little of that quality yourself. I'm sorry to sound a tad irritated, but I've had more than enough of this Pecksniffian bombast.
You help whip up this stupid tempest in a teapot, but when Stephen Harper muzzles environmental scientists, and even has a go at freedom of the press, not a word.
I don't consider myself particularly all that partisan, so you'll excuse me if I don't jump to Stephen Harper's defense at every criticism there is of him.
However, I will respond to these two issues.
Stephen Harper has muzzled nobody. You see, I don't recognize the the right to be heard. Even if I were to disagree with Harper's treatment of the press gallery (I don't), it wouldn't have anything at all to do with freedom of speech. I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way.
Stephen Harper must face the opposition in the house and answer their tough questions.
I don't see him as obligated to answer to the press. Certainly one could argue that having press access to the PM is ideal, but one could not argue it demonstrates a "lack of rights" in any regard.
To that end, Stephen Harper's treatment of the press is no more dismissive than that of Jean Chretien or Pierre Trudeau. The problem with the press gallery, is they got way too used, way too quickly, to Paul Martin's daily press scrums and conferences which served no purpose but to put his head on the six o'clock news every night. The fact that Harper didn't want to continue in Martin's legacy, certainly didn't seem to me, to represent a curtailment of press freedoms. That's just nonsense.
As for the environmental scientists. I'm not even familiar with the issue. I'm a busy guy. I'll admit, I've been a one-trick pony lately.
But from the surface, I can say that, the environmental scientists are hardly "muzzled".
I don't know the circumstances, but we can always let the voters decide, can't we?
Your argument isn't compelling.
Thanks, Mike. Courage is important, even if it's irrelevant and confusing to the left. They run their mouths now, apparently confident their views will always prevail in these kangaroos courts, apparently too dim to realize they may someday be seated at the able. Imagine the crying! We're oppressed and being silenced! We want to speak truth to power!
And, yes, thank you for the honest debate.
Testify, Mike, testify!
Standing aloof in giant ignorance, eh?
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=577362
and, earlier:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/04/13/ambrose-climate.html
But heck, this is it just the State putting the boots to scientists' freedom of speech. A mere bagatelle. Far more important to wring your hands about a bunch of neo-Nazis.
Dr. Dawg,
On the surface, I tend to agree that it doesn't look good what the government has done in terms of it's policy with Environment Canada.
I just don't see the connection though.
I work for a major corporation. If I were to even think about speaking on behalf of my employer, I have no doubt that a pink slip would be on my desk in a matter of hours.
I have a right to my speech. But I don't have the right to represent anyone else with it.
Those climate scientists are more than welcome to their speech. They could be fired of course. But that's sometimes the consequence of free speech.
So I can agree with you, that this heavy-handed policy is bad, and perhaps I will post on it in the future (I have scathed the CPC before on my blog), but this just doesn't seem to be the same bloody thing.
You seem more intelligent than this. You're stuck in this mode of thinking, like others, that we're all hypocrites for not being against "civil actions" or against "employer policies". You're right, those are private matters.
And yes, Warren Kinsella threatened to sue me today. However, I never once accused him of trying to silence me.
I would happily defend myself against his charges. I repeat his charges. Not the state's.
Mike (and sorry, I posted on your most recent article without coming back here first), the distinction seems to be that muzzling free speech is evil if the state does it (although the Levant case has been grossly misrepresented as such), but perfectly OK if it's privatized.
So is the attack here really on alleged opponents of free speech? Or just on the state?
Mike, the horse has left the barn so don't tire yourself closing the door. Kinsella has posted your back peddle, verbatim, on his site. It's more than clear you were intimidated to the point of an underwear change.
Mike, the horse has left the barn so don't tire yourself closing the door. Kinsella has posted your back peddle, verbatim, on his site. It's more than clear you were intimidated to the point of an underwear change.
Warren posted my private e-mail messages to him on his website. I stand by them. I don't consider anything I said to be back peddling, since I don't believe I ever suggested he was a Nazi.
As I said, the post speaks for itself. It is satire.
If you don't recognize the difference between your government preventing you from speaking and a private company firing you for speaking then there is no getting through to you. You do not have an inalienable right to work for a particular employer. You do have the right to speak your mind and suffer the consequences whatever they may be. The government has no right to take that away from us.
Post a Comment