In this National Post article, Warren Kinsella decided to tell us why he thinks free speech should not be tolerated in Canada. I thought I might have some fun with some of his comments so here goes…
A couple of conservative bloggers have said they want to know my opinion about Ezra Levant’s efforts to defend those infamous anti-Islam cartoons. (I’m not interested in re-hashing Ezra’s personal approach to limitations on the speech.) So here goes.
Well, a couple of conservative bloggers for Warren “the 12-hit wonder” Kinsella is about right, I should think.
Firstly, let me say that I am a censor. I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression.
I see. And who appointed you the censor? Ah, right, the Liberal Party. Say no more. Carry on.
Secondly, I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, persuade people to kill.
It is precisely because words have power that they should not belong exclusively to you or like minded socialists, Mr. Kinsella. That’s really the problem here with the censorship squad: since words are power, they want to keep the words and the associated power under their exclusive control. Because if they lose the power, they lose the ability to rule. So if they can control the words, they control the power, and they control the government.
Thirdly, I believe that we are entitled, as a society, to sanction (civilly or criminally) those who use words and images to deliberately or recklessly inflict harm on others – as with laws relating to the propagation of hate, or laws prohibiting child pornography, or defamation codes, or laws designed to sanction pornography that promotes violence against women and children.
And those critical of historical religious figures? Or those critical of entire religions? Is that “hatred” too? What about the excrement placed on a crucifix, Warren? That sure qualifies as hate to me, but I don’t see you busting down the door going after your fellow liberals. It would be one thing if Warren Kinsella was consistent in his treatment of limiting free speech, that would be bad enough, but like all liberals he cherry picks what is and what is not acceptable according to his own standards. When I see Warren Kinsella going after leftists for defaming Christianity and promoting hatred, then I will have some respect for his position. Until then, he is simply acting in a wholly gratuitous manner which is so typical of leftists.
I will not reprint the cartoons here because I have looked at them, and I can certainly see why pious Muslims would be so upset. The cartoons are offensive and hateful towards Islam.
So is your Lord being depicted in urine, Warren. But you lift not a finger or word to speak against them. What does that tell you?
I say that, too, as the same guy who used a Barney doll and a joke – the “Flintstones is not a documentary” line – during the 2000 Canadian election campaign. (I did so because Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day had repeatedly stated that his religious beliefs had, and would, inform his political beliefs. And because Canadian voters were therefore entitled, at that moment, to fully consider the ramifications of faith-based politics, as Day was then seeking the highest political office in the land. I note, without irony, that the Barney stunt has led to calls for me to be excommunicated and/or sued and/or prosecuted – in Ezra’s former publication, the Western Standard.)
OHHHHHHHHH. I get it. Now we all see the rub. Here Kinsella’s hypocrisy is beginning to rise to the top of the barrel and he tries to diminish his hurtful and offensive caricature of Stockwell Day’s religious beliefs. My goodness, the self serving excuses that Warren Kinsella drums up are too much for us to bear. Hey, Warren, pay attention: “hatred” and “hurt feelings” are in the eye of the beholder. Stockwell Day has as much a beef with you in mocking his beliefs and the same putative right to bring you in front of a HRC hearing as Muhammed has in bringing Ezra Levant in front of the same Star Chambers.
There is indeed a difference between an act of mischief, and an expression of hatred. And that’s my point, here. Certain words and images can cause actual fear and pain and hate.
How can you possibly determine the intent of the person’s heart? I know a lot of Christians who thought you heaped contempt on them when you did the Barney thing. Just because it was a doll does not mean you were not successful in heaping contempt and scoring your cheap political points. Besides, it won’t be YOUR JOB to determine whether your act was hateful, but a Star Chamber Judge who will make that determination. That’s how the system works, friend. You appear before the tribunal and try to “prove” it was not contemptuous or hateful. It just seems to me that liberals are all for defending a system that they themselves are not subject to. One has to legitimately ask if the same standards are applied to them, if they would be so hot for their original ideas. Methinks not.
In early 2006, at a band practice, we were talking about another Toronto punk group, called – and I’m not making this up – T** F*** Me Jesus.
I’m a church-going Catholic, and that band’s name doesn’t offend me in the slightest. Nor the stuff found on the covers of Black Flag records, nor the songs by my beloved Bad Religion. But that’s just me. And I can certainly see how someone else could be offended – really and truly hurt – by something like a band called T** F*** Me Jesus. And, just because I’m okay with that, doesn’t mean that someone else has to be.
OK. So, for the record, if we were to bring this music band before the HRC, you would have no problem with it? Wonderful. I am sure all the leftoids out there who see no problem with the name of this group will be thrilled with you, Warren.
Thanks Warren. You have been useful.