Comments on The Burd Report: Named and Shamed

The Gordon Gilchrist issue makes another blog (Can...

2009-05-13T13:43:00.000-04:00

The Gordon Gilchrist issue makes another blog (Canadian Journalism Project) today:
http://www.j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=3839

Barbara Hall, where are you? hate is loose in the land. It's in Northumberland County.

I suppose I'll have to go to town council meeting ...

2009-05-11T16:23:00.000-04:00

I suppose I'll have to go to town council meeting tonight. I presume I can locate it by the odor if I'm downwind.

You'd have to ask the rest of Cobourg where I shou...

2009-05-11T13:06:00.000-04:00

You'd have to ask the rest of Cobourg where I should be! I know where I am.

Wil that be where you are Ben?

2009-05-11T12:15:00.000-04:00

Wil that be where you are Ben?

Welcome back to Cobourg Wally and if you ask me fo...

2009-05-10T20:37:00.000-04:00

Welcome back to Cobourg Wally and if you ask me for directions i will always tell you where to go (joke!)

William Hayes said: “1) Your comment begins with t...

2009-05-10T19:22:00.000-04:00

William Hayes said: “1) Your comment begins with the claim that free speech is "the real victim."

It begins with this sentence: “The real victim in this pathetic state of affairs, is Free Speech.” It refers to withdrawing the privilege of entry into the UK of certain select individuals. Some were convicted criminals. (Whether some were unjustly convicted or not is an entirely different issue). I have no problem whatsoever with any country denying the privilege of entry to any convicted felon. Nevertheless, I know of some of the individuals, and I do despise some of their views, but I would not deny them entry.

Regardless of the fact that I despise some of George Galloway‘s views, I would have permitted him entry into Canada. Galloway’s body was not permitted to enter, but his speech was. Likewise, with those denied entry to the UK.

Technically, free speech was not denied, so how can it be a victim? In Galloway’s case, his free speech was amplified as a consequence of the ban. It would follow then, that a good method of enhancing free speech is for a govt to deny the entry of more speaking individuals.

That of course would be fallacious. Because they are one-offs. Free speech would become a victim by accumulative backdoor censorshit. If it is George Galloway one day, and Geert Wilders the next day, then when and where does the line stop?

It puts a damper/chill on free speech. There will be many who would not want to lose the privilege to access the lucrative speaker’s circuit in the West. That is how, in the long run, free speech would be victimized. That would be detrimental to free speech.

If Goebbels and/or Stalin were censored, I would be up front in protest regardless of the fact that they would exercise their power to shut me up. Obviously the nameless jellyfish (Anonymous) doesn’t understand Chomsky’s assertion. You have to be in support of the free speech of those views one despises. I am.

William Hayes said, “2) Your comment ends by blaming others for ‘spreading the culture of whiney victimhood.’"

I actually said, “People need to develop some thick skin for the rough and tumble of real life, instead of spreading the culture of whiney victimhood.”

I made reference to the gang-whine against Gordon Gilchrist who had written a letter to the editor. I disagreed with several points Gilchrist had made. There were some other points he made poorly (His literacy level is as mediocre as many posters to this blog).

Nevertheless, there was nothing in his letter that remotely suggested that he was a racist, or held racist views, although he was broadly accused of being such.

Gilchrist was critical of certain segments of people/nationalities/culture. He specified them. It was no more racist than someone making disparaging remarks about old white guys whooping it up all redneck at a hockey rink, or a bunch of black boys gangbanging at a basketball game.

Almost all of the responses I read to Gilchrist, including the videos of the gang-whine in Peterborough by a bunch of unelected Grundy clones were nothing more than a slanderfest, a mud-slinging wingding. The gang-whiners would have done better if they had attacked any of the specific points in Gilchrist’s missive.

The aim of many of the gang-whiners was to shut down such free speech as came out of Gilchrist’s mouth. They were attempting to put a damper/chill on Gilchrist’s free speech. This was well observed by the public at large, and only a few brave and principled souls will stand up and speak against the politically correct.

Politically correct speech is Orwellian newspeak, which is nospeak. The gang-whiners, promote nicespeak, which is newspeak which is nospeak. It is as if the politically correct had been mainlining CBC-speak, (govt controlled) which is often nospeak.

Oh, and get a load of this: I fully support the free speech of the gang-whiners, which doesn’t mean I support the content of their free speech, nor that I should withhold any criticism of their content, nor withhold my observation that their tender widdle sensitive souls spread the culture of weenie whiney hood and thereby undermine robust, vigorous free speech.

My attitude towards those politically correct proselytizers is that they can shove their thin-skinned sensitivities up the hole in their heads.

Gilchrist was critical of the actions/attitudes/values of certain segments of assorted immigrant communities in Canada. He certainly made no comment that would suggest he countenanced any suppression of anyone’s free speech, unlike several of the gang-whiners.

You characterized Gilchrist’s letter as “disgusting.” Perhaps you can provide a couple specifics that you regard as “disgusting.”

William Hayes said: “To continue your kitchen metaphor, I don't suggest that your two remarks are tasteless individually, but that they are indigestible when eaten at the same meal. What you have said is just not food for thought.

You may have overindulged in magic mushrooms; I made no “kitchen metaphor” whatsoever. I have little concern that you or anyone else choke on my words; you would do well to avoid a steady diet of pap, and consume more nutritious reading material -- I suggest the collected works of Canada’s greatest poet, Irving Layton. “Whatever else, poetry is freedom.”

My mantra is; PREVENT MEDIOCRITY - BE POETICALLY CORRECT. I enjoy speaking and writing with 45 calibre metaphors, and surface-to-sentence similes. Mediocrity I leave to the gang-whiners and their politically correct facilitators.

PS: There will be some gaps in my response time to comments on this blog, because effective Saturday last, I have moved from Montreal and set up residency in Cobourg. Unpacking and setting up a new life interferes with my swiftness to respond on blogs.

Allow me a bridf recapitulation: On the general m...

2009-05-10T06:40:00.000-04:00

Allow me a bridf recapitulation:

On the general matter of Ben's original post:

1) Your comment begins with the claim that free speech is "the real victim."

2) Your comment ends by blaming others for "spreading the culture of whiney victimhood."

To continue your kitchen metaphor, I don't suggest that your two remarks are tasteless individually, but that they are indigestible when eaten at the same meal. What you have said is just not food for thought.

Goebbels and Stalin used all the force of the tota...

2009-05-08T15:48:00.000-04:00

Goebbels and Stalin used all the force of the totalitarian state to make sure that opinions were oppressed and people thrown into jail if their opinion differed. Yep, that's just not like Keeler. Poor analogy.

Only wimps stay anonymous, by their own choice.

Keeler doesn't run away. He takes the heat and barks back as good as he gets. He is a pit bull for sure. Not cuddly

Seems to me that Mr. Keeler should consider that h...

2009-05-08T11:14:00.000-04:00

Seems to me that Mr. Keeler should consider that he has much in common with Goebbels and Stalin when it comes to his own attitude towards free speech.

He feels perfectly entitled to make the most outrageous statements, then attacks anyone who dares to call him on it. Thick skin indeed.

He might also consider that his rabid attacks may be the reason people prefer to stay anonymous. It's safer.

Well let it be known that the gang-swarmers agains...

2009-05-07T08:02:00.000-04:00

Well let it be known that the gang-swarmers against Gilchrist by their actions do not believe in real diversity nor practice tolerance. Instead they believe in strict conformity to the orthodoxy of political correctmess

"To-morrow, perhaps, the future:... but to-day the...

2009-05-07T07:51:00.000-04:00

"To-morrow, perhaps, the future:... but to-day the struggle." is bland gland doggeral.

Leaving the hot kitchen? Typical.

You are now stealing my lines, Wally, so I claim v...

2009-05-06T23:16:00.000-04:00

You are now stealing my lines, Wally, so I claim victory in the Gilchrist War and retire from that field. Shoot me in the back if you really need to do so.

On the general matter of Ben's original post:

1) Your comment begins with the claim that free speech is "the real victim."

2) Your comment ends by blaming others for "spreading the culture of whiney victimhood."

I don't know what I can do to help you deal with these two remarkable claims. Taken separately, they may be something profoundly more than I can understand; taken together, they are surely less than any of us can understand. I suggest that you read those two claims over and over and over.... When you begin to hear the sound of one hand clapping, smile.

As for me, I am going to remind myself that, "To-morrow, perhaps, the future:... but to-day the struggle."

Many of the gang-swarmers were also government pai...

2009-05-06T19:10:00.000-04:00

Many of the gang-swarmers were also government paid, full time practitioners of the grievance industry which serves to divide, not unite. They are paid government money to advocate the interests of racial groups (excluding wasps) not the interests of Canadians in general. They are more racist than Gilchrist ever was.

The gang-swarmers were not there to debate the points that Gilchrist made in his letter, they were there to make groundless accusations that he was a racist, to denigrate him, pillory him, villify him. They were largely after his perceived character, not his poorly articulated points.

Gilchrist's letter did not put anyone's feet to the fire. It was the gang-swarmers who put Gilchrist's feet to the fire. It was the gang-swarmers who were the whining bullies in this instance.

You posted:
Having said something equivalent to "those damned immigrants get the best of everything and give little or nothing in return,"

If it is something equivalent to the above, then it is improper for you to place it in quotation marks. You have quoted nothing from Gilchrist. Furthermore he wrote no such thing as -those damned immigrants.

Throughout his letter he specified certain elements within the immigrant community. He made no blanket condemnation, criticism or whine about immigrants as a whole. There was no bullying here, nor was there any racism on his part.

Try again, William. And try to be accurate.

Not only do I write enough for 10 people, I also write more articulately and powerfully than a 1000 people. I have no power of money nor office. I come from the low end of the worker class. I developed the single skill that birth provided to me and I use that skill with the full force I feel is needed in any circumstance, and I couldn't care less about whether the target of my words has lesser skill in this regard.

Having said something equivalent to "those damned ...

2009-05-06T15:34:00.000-04:00

Having said something equivalent to "those damned immigrants get the best of everything and give little or nothing in return," surely it was Gilchrist who did the whining.

And just what is "gang-swarming" other than free people writing and saying freely just what they want to say? Heck, Wally, you write enough for 10 people. Does that mean that you are gang-swarming me and repressing my right to speak freely?

Gordon Gilchrist is a professional bully: professional because he is using paid public office to say what he does; bully because he uses the power of his position to threaten others. He doesn't need your defense; the people whom he attacks do.

Free speech is the primo value in a democracy. Wit...

2009-05-06T12:02:00.000-04:00

Free speech is the primo value in a democracy. Without free speech, the other democratic values shrink.

In my experience, I have put my own freedom on the line to assist those who did not have a lifetime experience of free speech that we have practiced.

In the case of those who gang-swarmed Gordon Gilchrist, the lead whiners were in fact the victimizers. They are professional whiners.

Horse race irrelevent.

Wasp Keeler said: "People need to develop some th...

2009-05-05T20:27:00.000-04:00

Wasp Keeler said: "People need to develop some thick skin for the rough and tumble of real life, instead of spreading the culture of whiney victimhood."

In my experience, Wally, the biggest whiners haven't been the victims, but the victimizers.

Nor, in my mind, is free speech more than one in a pantheon of values.

Another horse race, eh Wally?!

The real victim in this pathetic state of affairs,...

2009-05-05T13:45:00.000-04:00

The real victim in this pathetic state of affairs, is Free Speech.

I wonder if Gordon Gilchrist would be one of the banned. After all there are the pathetic swarmers who had piled onto Gilchrist who would likely find the UK reasoning quite acceptable:
"expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension."

The wording is not much different from that which guides Canada's Human Rights Commissions. The catch basin of "likely to" exists in Canada's HRC legislation.

It is worthy to note the case of Canadian pastor Stephen Boisson who was slapped with a lifetime ban of criticizing gay marriage, including from the pulpit, nor can he criticize gay marriage in private emails.

More details on this here: http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/what-could-mark-steyns-punishm.html

It is noteworthy to add that "Egale", the lobby group for gay rights, criticized the Human Rights Commission for this Orwellian decision. For years the gay community had suffered censorship. They know what it is about when the The State censors.

Noam Chomsky said, "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

The stupid community service groups who self-righteously puffed up their chests in favour of the poor widdle suffering multicultural communities who were allegedly hurt to the quick by Gilchrists' remarks, have done a great disservice to Canada.

People need to develop some thick skin for the rough and tumble of real life, instead of spreading the culture of whiney victimhood.