Comments on: More on Voting Well

By: Robert Light

Robert Light — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:21:35 +0000

Canada may be a bit more economically free than the U.S., but it hardly bodes well for the long-term well-being of a society that can engage in such Orwellian prosecution of free speech as exampled by the recent case of Mark Steyn. To wit, Steven Pinker, Canadian, had the following interesting things to say of the Steyn case (via The Corner):

Words and Rules [Mark Steyn]
Professor Steven Pinker of Harvard University was asked about my recent travails with Canada's hydra-headed "human rights" monster and gave a splendidly straightforward response:

I was aware of the Steyn/Maclean's case.

It’s truly shocking that a supposedly democratic government has arrogated to itself the power to censor speech because some judge or bureaucrat thinks it may “expose a person to contempt.” This could outlaw any criticism of a practice that is statistically more common in some groups than others, such as slavery, polygamy, child abuse, ritual torture, gay-bashing, and so on.

It allows haters to decide who gets to say what — all they have to do is say, “So-and-so’s essay made me show contempt,” and So-and-so gets fined or jailed. And it opens the door to the government banning speech that upsets anyone, anywhere — as all-important speech is bound to do.

This is an atrocity against the ideal of free speech, and will make Canada a laughing stock among lovers of democracy and enlightenment.

Well said. I wish Canadian politicians and even my fellow media hacks up north got it as clearly as Prof Pinker does.

By: Robert Light

Robert Light — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:21:35 +0000

I was aware of the Steyn/Maclean's case.

It’s truly shocking that a supposedly democratic government has arrogated to itself the power to censor speech because some judge or bureaucrat thinks it may “expose a person to contempt.” This could outlaw any criticism of a practice that is statistically more common in some groups than others, such as slavery, polygamy, child abuse, ritual torture, gay-bashing, and so on.

It allows haters to decide who gets to say what — all they have to do is say, “So-and-so’s essay made me show contempt,” and So-and-so gets fined or jailed. And it opens the door to the government banning speech that upsets anyone, anywhere — as all-important speech is bound to do.

This is an atrocity against the ideal of free speech, and will make Canada a laughing stock among lovers of democracy and enlightenment.

Well said. I wish Canadian politicians and even my fellow media hacks up north got it as clearly as Prof Pinker does.

By: pedro

pedro — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:50:44 +0000

Er, New Zealand is both cold and full of sheep. Webgrrl is right, except we elected John Howard-lite and instead got Gordon Brown's misshapen clone. But not to worry those guys don't ruin everything.

By: Robert S. Porter

Robert S. Porter — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:21:59 +0000

Anyone who says Canada is too cold is a pansy. I wear shorts in -40. Seriously.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:04:32 +0000

I made the mistake of looking at the comments there at the Guardian site.

Of course, they are Guardian readers, so...

By: webgrrl

webgrrl — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:37:10 +0000

Australia is the country of the future, mate.

By: Carleton

Carleton — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:00:36 +0000

Canada is too cold. My wife and I are going with New Zealand, if the need arises due to government action.

By: Cool Cal

Cool Cal — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:34:23 +0000

Don't tell me you are one of these hysterics who plans to “move to Canada if (insert candidate here) gets elected”.