The lawyer weasels

Or is that, the weasel lawyers? It’s really synonymous, isn’t it? Despite much bobbing, ducking, weaving and trying to point out that America’s free speech rights are not absolute, the Canadian lawyer never quite gets around to directly answering my point:

Finally, if Mr. Day is to characterize my mention that Canada does, in fact, have constitutional protection for freedom of expression as “pulling a fast one,” I am wondering how he anticipates readers might view his erroneous suggestion that Canada does not?

I shall repeat my post for the benefit of Mr. Wise and anyone else incapable of understanding how the nebulous terms of the limits on Canadian free speech “rights” negate them entirely:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The reason Mr. Wise still refuses to post this part of the text despite having posted the following section from it is because doing so would lead to the inevitable demonstration that the “reasonable limits” currently being applied to Mr. Steyn’s speech have been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. Moreover, Mr. Wise conflates civil and criminal law in his attempt to demonstrate that American free speech rights little different than Canada’s so-called “rights” while skipping over the fact that the truth is an absolute defense in the case of perjury, slander, libel and so forth while it is manifestly not in the case before the various Canadian human rights tribunals. As for national security and other exceptions, they are overt VIOLATIONS of unalienable American rights by the U.S. federal government, they are not proof that the rights never existed in the first place.

So what, precisely, are those “reasonable limits”? And are the tribunals legally empowered to define them in the absence of any specific legal definitions? Inquiring Americans would like to know.

Feckless outdoes himself

Can you find the factual errors? There are four objective ones – plus an additional five if you’re willing to get subjective, but reasonable – in this one paragraph alone:

Many of you are doubtless unfamiliar with Ted “Theodore” Beale, better known as completely insane person Vox Day. Foxy Voxy is a Christian Dominionist libertarian, a pairing that makes no earthly sense, as it’s impossible to force people to worship Jesus while still preserving personal liberty. Vox has written some horrible, horrible works of fiction, and his dad is a notorious tax cheat who fled the country rather than go to jail for tax evasion. But Vox is most famous for his personal blog and his column at WorldNetDaily (purchased, I must note, by his father, who was one of the principal founders of the site). In that blog, Vox generally attacks women and minorities, and both if he has his mojo working. But Vox doesn’t just attack women — he despises them. Vox makes MRAs move away, slowly, while muttering about his needing to calm down about the ladies. Vox, in short, is just a cavalcade of evil, and I’ve been tracking him off and on for some time now.

Good times, good times. The comments are particularly amusing; the level of mental acumen of the women there, unsurprisingly, is such that they actually think the above passage constitutes a “takedown”. Hey, this one’s new: It boggles my mind that any self-respecting (or not!) woman would sleep with this guy.. Of course no “self-respecting” woman would, since the proper translation of the feminist term “self-respecting” is “fat, ugly, and unpleasant”. I prefer my women to be hot, slender and blonde, as God intended them to be.

I particularly enjoyed the irony of how one woman claims I “stalked” her – I have no idea who she is but apparently I linked to her post about one of MY columns – in light of Feckles statement about “tracking” me. I hate to disappoint dear Mr. Fecke, but I’m afraid he’ll have to battle Michael Medved for my favors.

Bhutto bombing

This time, they got her. Are we actually supposed to be surprised by this? To me, it was inevitable and the only real question is who got her? It might have been the jihadists, or as some of her supporters obviously believe, it could have been the current military regime which was basically handed carte blanche to get rid of a rival while blaming it on the jihadists after her return to Pakistan.

Shrieking headlines notwithstanding, I don’t see it being of much global significance one way or another as she wasn’t popular enough to return to power anyhow. Unless the neocons were seriously thinking of invading Pakistan and installing her as a puppet like Hamid Karzai – and let’s face it, they’re crazy enough to have considered it – I don’t see this as being either unexpected or internationally problematic.

UPDATE – I haven’t been paying any attention whatsoever to Pakistan, so it’s interesting to learn that according to Bhutto’s former neighbor, Mark Steyn, (!?!), the postulated neocon craziness I mentioned was, apparently, part of the grand plan for World Democratic Revolution:

The State Department geniuses thought they had it all figured out. They’d arranged a shotgun marriage between the Bhutto and Sharif factions as a “united” “democratic” “movement” and were pushing Musharraf to reach a deal with them.

Los Romney

I said a flip flop the flippie the flippie
to the flip flip flop, you don’t stop

There was a Euro dance hit a few years back called Las Ketchup which reminds me of Captain Underoos and his ever-evolving positions on, apparently, everything. In like manner, Drew Cline casts a very skeptical eye on the amorphous Mormon in the Manchester Union-Leader:

OK, here’s a game for the Christmas dinner table. Try to come up with a policy position Mitt Romney hasn’t flip-flopped on. I suggest this after seeing that Romney has even flip-flopped on the one issue where I thought Romney was strongest — taxes.

It would be hysterical to see a “Los Romney” remake of this featuring three blonde women doing the little Ketchup dance in their holy underoos. Of course, it would probably have to be someone from the Ron Paul Revolution; Huckabee supporters obviously can’t do it, since the dancing involved would be wrong.

A Steynian sense of humour

Anyone who would elect to not only quote this particular part of an article written in defense of him, but actually leave out the positive aspects is fundamentally all right with me, whatever his political opinions on various matters might be:

READER OF THE DAY

“Mark Steyn is an overexposed, overrated, Canadian opinion columnist… He’s also not the distillation of P.J. O’Rourke, Ann Coulter and P.G. Wodehouse that the many gushing tributes to him written during the past few years might otherwise lead one to believe.”

I also admire Steyn’s refusal to kowtow to the Canadian anti-free speech fascists, pusillanimous advice from council notwithstanding. I can only assume I fall into the “another” category of defenders he mentions, but the truth is that as with the Ron Paul Revolution, there is no need for freedom’s advocates to be inclined to braid each other’s hair and bake cookies together in order to speak out when Man’s basic liberties are under assault.

An attack on the free speech rights of a pro-war, strong government guy is an attack on everyone, including those of us who happen to be anti-war and anti-government.