Actually, I'd support restrictions on "absolute freedom of speech" if it meant this guy couldn't use the expression "absolute freedom of speech" 147 times in one article.

Earth to the CJC:

A) you don't speak for all Jews, and
B) read this and learn something about the "hate speech" laws in Weimar Germany.

(Thanks to the exasperated Jewish reader who sent this in.)

Okay, I've now mixed three songs in five years for this album.  At this rate, we'll be having a combination record release/retirement party.

(UPDATE to today's earlier post:)

My new hero Kevin Myers reports...

On the one hand, I expected some uproar in Ireland over my piece about Ethiopia on July 10. But there really wasn't any. On the other, I didn't expect an attempt to jail me by a state-sponsored body. Yet Denise Charlton, of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, has urged An Garda Siochana to investigate me under a special law, by which I could be tried and imprisoned for two years without even the benefit of a jury.

Oh, Denise, Denise, you silly, silly little girl: have you nothing better to do with your time and talents than to try to get someone jailed for saying something you dislike? So there we are. The apparatchiks of the equality industry merely have to contemplate the sector of their psyche wherein their self-righteous emotions reside: and if these are sufficiently overwrought, they decide that a hate-crime has been committed.

(...)

Measured hostility is what puts the gunman behind bars: it drives the mugger from the street and the burglar from our homes.

It also protects freedom of speech from those who would steal it from us -- most particularly in Ireland of today, the quango thought-police of doctrinaire liberalism, and single-issue vigilantes in the media.

This latter group is most conspicuous in Metro Eireann, the magazine of full-time, professional immigrants: that is, immigrants who write about immigration. Gosh: what interesting and varied lives you people lead!

(...)

So, "a lot of Africans" are "all very offended", are they? All of them? The poor dears. Well, if the countries on whose behalf they get so easily offended are so bloody marvellous -- Sudan? Rwanda? Zimbabwe? Sierre Leone? Congo? Somalia? Eritrea? Etcetera? -- why aren't they enjoying themselves back home?

(...)

One of these orthodoxies is that Africa's woes are the legacy of "colonialism". But Ethiopia (formerly Abyssinia, and far older than any European state) was never colonised.

My co-defendant's mom writes:

Ayatollah-prescribed fatwas are so pre-9/11. Nowadays, as liberal elites rush prophylactically to ward off charges of tolerating “Islamophobia,” the fatwas (in all but name) against damn good books like Mark Steyn’s America Alone aren’t bruited in mosques; they issue forth from human rights commissioners.

(...)

One way or another we must stop the fatwa industry in its tracks. Begin with removal of speech-regulation from the HRCs’ legal mandate. Build on that with legislation that imposes costs and damages on litigious third parties who seek to chill journalists.

Canada should also pass legislation imitative of the U.S. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) law, presently active in 24 U.S. states, which disallows harassment of those writing on matters of “public concern,” as well as the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, a New York state initiative that will combat libel tourism.

The HRC crisis is not a tempest in a teapot. Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, says: “I don’t think it’s too strong to say that the [HRC] complaint against Mark Steyn is a totalitarian document.”

It is therefore no exaggeration to say that Levant and Steyn are fighting for the defining ideal of Western civilization which, once lost, would spell the beginning of the end of all our other freedoms.

From our "violent retard" files:

But if they want to survive (which cannot be said to be completely clear at this point), Canada and other Western countries are sooner or later going to have to shift focus away from "terrorism" to the ideology that drives that terrorism, which is jihad and Islamic supremacism. And that ideology is not being spread today solely by bombs and terror attacks, but also by numerous other initiatives that have nothing to do with violence at all.

And at some point Western countries are going to have to ask whether those who support violent jihadists in theory are welcome here at all, any more than those who supported Nazis in theory would have been welcome in Canada or the United States in 1943.

Remember: radical Muslims are not the "new Jews." They are the "new Nazis."

And these are the kinds of people we welcome into Canada.

It is time (in fact, the time is long overdue) for ordinary Canadians to man up.

Yes, you'll be called a "racist" by a handful of losers and idiots for simply asking these questions.

But if you don't speak up, the blood of hundreds or thousands of your fellow Canadians will one day be on your hands.

The choice is yours.

Kevin Myers continues his controversial reflections on Africa:

Since dear old Ireland can often enough resemble Lynch Mob Central on PC issues, I braced myself for the worst: and sure enough, in poured the emails. Three hundred on the first day, soon reaching over 800: but, amazingly, 90pc+ were in my support, and mostly from baffled, decent and worried people.

The minority who attacked me were risibly predictable, expressing themselves with a vindictive and uninquiring moral superiority. (Why do so many of those who purport to love mankind actually hate people so?)

(...)

When I went to Ethiopia just over 20 years ago, I saw many things I never reported -- such as the menacing effect of gangs of young men with Kalashnikovs everywhere, while women did all the work. In the very middle of starvation and death, men spent their time drinking the local hooch in the boonabate shebeens. Alongside the boonabates were shanty-brothels, to which drinkers would casually repair, to briefly relieve themselves in the scarred orifice of some wretched prostitute (whom God preserve and protect).

I saw all this and did not report it, nor the anger of the Irish aid workers at the sexual incontinence and fecklessness of Ethiopian men. Why? Because I wanted to write much-acclaimed, tear-jerkingly purple prose about wide-eyed, fly-infested children -- not cold, unpopular and even "racist" accusations about African male culpability.

(...)

...back in Ireland, there are sanctimonious ginger-groups, which yearn to prevent discussion, and even to imprison those of us who try, however imperfectly, to expose the truth about Africa.

Heathers 20th anniversary DVD (I'm OOOOLLLLLDDDDD!) is out. I bought it but I'm afraid to watch it in case I hate it now...

Waters' other issue is the cult of teen suicide, a trend distorted by the media into something glamorous. "Loser" students magically become teen celebrities in death, motivating other confused and depressed kids into killing themselves as well. Veronica and J.D. are shocked when their victims become even more popular, their personalities distorted by eulogies and TV coverage.

(...)

Once again, a young screenwriter makes his mark by setting his cultural clock a few minutes into the future -- the "unthinkable" violence of Heathers would soon become a horrible reality at High Schools and colleges. One can't watch J.D. threaten two abusive jocks with a gun he's smuggled into school, and not think of the impression that Heathers might make on media-damaged young minds. I'm sure I entertained similar violent fantasies against my grade-school enemies, but societal restraints stopped me from even "thinking" them as real possibilities.

7-22-08

BLAZING SADDLES/SLAYER INTRO

BROTHER EDWARD BACK FROM COLORADO

WORST DAY OF GOLF EVER/BEST WEEK OF POKER EVER

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES/VERIZON VS. COMCAST/THE DARK KNIGHT

THE KENNEDYS/T. BOONE PICKINS/ENERGY FROM THE WIND/THE GOVERNMENT

BLIND WOMAN TAZED/DIFFERENT DIALECTS AROUND THE U.S./SHEDDING AN ACCENT

BREAK - BILL HICKS - FLAG BURNING/ABORTION/JOBS/PARENTS

SAN FRANCISCO BILL TO EASE PENALTIES FOR PROSTITUTION

ARGUMENTS FOR PROSTITUTION/IDIOT "RICH" IN THE CHAT ROOM

MORE TECHNICAL DIFFICLUTIES...VERIZON LOSING POINTS FAST

DIO - THE LAST IN LINE

Your support (moral as well as financial) is so inspiring, and more than makes up for the tough times: the hate mail, vitriol about me at other sites, and my own worries about what my future holds.

Yesterday I introduced a new way to support this blog (which is now in its 8th year online btw):

You can sign up to donate just $10 a month -- that's a couple of fancy Starbuck's coffees.

If you value what you read here, I'd invited my thousands of daily readers to consider becoming monthly supporters.

(My lawyer and) I would be grateful! Thanks again...

$10/month donation: 

He writes:

So that's four defamation suits, all filed or threatened by members of the "human rights" industry. And then there's the two "human rights" complaints themselves (one of which was abandoned, one of which continues against me). And then there are other legal assaults (twelve of them, actually) that have been thrown at me, which I’ll describe another day.

And then there’s the odd death threat.

If that sounds excessive, you're getting the picture. It's a strategy. It's called "lawfare", and it's an attempt to smother me under so many hassles and costs that I abandon my criticism of Canada's HRCs and their abuse of real human rights, like freedom of speech.

(...)

Instead of rebutting my criticisms, these folks think that if they just throw enough nuisance suits at me I'll pack up and leave.

Not bloody likely.

And not as long as I have the support of the blogosphere to cover my legal fees. I know that support frustrates my antagonists. See, this is the part in their fantasy where I'm supposed to crumple under the weight of their lawsuits, and beg for their forgiveness -- like so many of their previous targets have done. This isn't where I'm supposed to say "not bloody likely.”

This week our feature interview is with Anne Franklin, a spokesman for Clintons For McCain, Hillary Clinton supporters who are working overtime to defeat Barak Obama in November.

That's right, independents and Democrats who are so alarmed at the prospect of an Obama presidency that they're supporting Republican nominee John McCain.

Ann Franklin, herself an independent, tells SNN's in house spin doctor "Tom Paine" why Clintons For McCain feel America can't afford what would probably turn out to be a Dhimmi Carter second term.

In other news this week we take aim at the BBC's shocking, but unsurprising view that in drama, Christians can cut off the heads of Muslims. Way to go BBC. There are many links in Doug's blog post on this subject (which formed the basis for this news report): Beyond Parody.

The astonishing Hamas hand bunny chop clip has to be seen on Memri.

For the definitive puff piece on Obama, head over to The Onion.

This wee we are graced with pieces from Peter Glover and Doug Payton. Check out their own sites.

The final quote from Dan Gilerman can be found over at Israellycool.

Having an actual defamation lawyer as one of your co-defendants is a major plus!

He writes:

I liked paragraph 4. Warman had sued not only Kate and Kathy, but their website addresses, too. That makes about as much sense as suing a phone number. A URL is simply a place in cyberspace. It's not a legal entity. It's just plain old weird that Warman was suing those electrons, and Ashby pointed that out.

Paragraphs 7 and 8 are good points: the nature of the blogosphere is that people can rebut and respond immediately, and blogs incorporate those changes in real time. There is a rough and tumble -- even rude -- nature to the Internet, but netiquette (and common sense) suggests that if someone complains with merit, those complaints are often incorporated. It's the whole Web 2.0 thing -- interactive.

Warman knows that as well as anyone -- what with his extensive experience as a member of the Stormfront online community. When Warman went online in his various neo-Nazi personas, he interacted with other members of Stormfront, correcting them, insulting them, rebutting them, agreeing with them, plotting with them, dissing Jews and gays with them.

Warman knew his way around the Net. But while he was comfortable chatting on neo-Nazi websites, and chastising people for not being white enough, or Nazi enough, for some reason he didn't deign to write the Internet equivalent to a "letter to the editor" to Kate or Kathy's sites correcting what he thought were their errors. Why's that?

Paragraphs 11-15 are weird, too. Warman has sued Kathy for things she didn't write. If I'm not mistaken, our friend Jay Currie wrote some of those words, but Warman hasn't sued him. I'm not encouraging anyone to sue Jay, but it's a little bit odd that Warman has sued Kathy for Jay's remarks.

Paragraph 16 is a pretty important point, and it goes to a much larger issue than the substance of Warman's suit. Warman seeks to establish new defamation law, in the realm of the Internet. In his statement of claim, he wants the courts to hold websites legally responsible not only for what they publish, but for what they link to. By that theory, anyone on the Internet is liable for everyone on the Internet. For you are liable for everyone you link to, and they're liable for everyone they link to (and so are you, too), and so on and so on. It sets up a cascading series of infinite liability.

Fortunately, such a punitive approach to defamation and censorship is not Canadian law. Yet.

The heart of Kate and Kathy's defence is paragraphs 17 to 22. That's where they plead that what they wrote was based on true facts, and their fair comments on those facts, as part of a bona fide public debate.

Paragraph 24 is deceptively small. It claims that Warman's poor reputation isn't because of Kathy and Kate, but because of Warman's repeated postings of bigoted material. That's just a sentence in the statement of defence. I expect it will turn into a week at trial.

Ezra's readers are having fun in the comments!

Now: This is an opportune time for me to (reluctantly) remind people about my Legal Defence Fund...

The suit will cost about $30,000 (each) for us to fight.

My readers have already been extremely generous -- however, if anyone reading this has a rich friend who wants to play an important role in a history-making lawsuit, which could impact the very nature of blogging...

Thanks in advance, all!

One-time donation:

PS: Another NEW way to support me (that is, my lawyer...) is to sign up for a smaller, monthly donation. I've just set up a button (scroll down) that lets you, in effect, "subscribe" to my defence fund.

You'll donate just $10 a month, every month.

I have thousands of daily readers -- I'd be thrilled if some of you signed up for this "subscription" option. It would serve as a big show of support, not only while my legal troubles are going on -- and they will be going on for years, unless Warman drops the suit -- but for my blogging in general.

Remember: I do this for free, and the candor you appreciate makes it almost unthinkable that I will ever land a paying gig with the mainstream media.

And this isn't just about me.

This lawsuit is an attempt to make blogging as we understand it impossible.

So if you'd like to make a monthly donation of only $10/month, click here:

 Monthy $10 donation:

UPDATE: Human Rights Commission employees make between $54,000 and $77,000 a year!

DUE TO PERSONAL REASONS, I HAVE TO CANCEL TONIGHT'S SHOW.

NOTHING MAJOR, JUST THAT SOMETHING CAME UP THAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT.

No, really... Last week, a couple of Seventh Day Adventist old ladies came around, with copies of 'The Watchtower Magazine' and said, "Have you heard the good news?"

Colonel Neville: "No, what is it?"

Old fruit cake nibblers: "We've got assault rifles!"

He writes:

It is only a matter of time before human-rights censors come after Muslims. Like the Bible, Muslim scripture contains a lot of material that, by modern standards, would be considered sexist, homophobic or even anti-Semitic. One statement attributed to the Prophet Mohammed, for instance, declares that “Judgment day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill the Jews, and then the Jews will hide behind stones or trees, and the stone or the tree will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’ ”

Is this the sort of thing that a human-rights mandarins will someday judge as “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” — to quote the applicable language from the Canadian Human Rights Act (HRA)?

(...)

Since 9/11, there has emerged a cottage industry of pundits seeking to explain why so many Muslim nations remain mired in dictatorship and violence. A leading theory is that Islam has no tradition of separation between mosque and state, and that traditional Muslim religious authorities tend to be totalitarian in outlook — the result being that Muslim societies are intrinsically hostile to the liberal values required for democracy to prosper. Whether or not you see any truth in this political stereotype, there is no denying that the CIC’s efforts to forcibly shut up Islam’s critics play right into it. 

Latest hilarity:

White people view the internship as their foot into the door to such high-profile low-paying career fields as journalism, film, politics, art, non-profits, and anything associated with a museum. Any white person who takes an internship outside of these industries is either the wrong type of white person or a law student. There are no exceptions.

"It gave insiders a rationale for putting their thumb on the scales of the vast lending market in the sacred name of anti-discrimination. Who dared be so racist as to argue that blacks and Hispanics should get fewer loans per capita because they were less likely to pay them back? That's 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.'

(...)

"But it's not just the fault of stupid borrowers, although a national policy of importing more of them by not enforcing the immigration laws clearly worsened the problem.

"Stupidity extended all the way up the hierarchy—and that was intentional.

"Political correctness makes people stupid, so diversity provided the ideal cover story for financial crime of the century..."

You go, John Hawkins!

I don't think most Muslims are "extremists" or "murderers." I'd say that real, genuine "radical Islamists" who dance around whooping with glee when some psychopath flies a plane into a skyscraper in the name of Allah, probably only make up 10-15% of Muslims.

Unfortunately, that small number, in a world that has over a billion Muslims, adds up to over 100 million fanatically evil people.

Moreover, there are two other additional problems related to this group of people:

1) There is no way for the rest of us to tell them apart from "moderate Muslims" who are not Jihadis, because the Jihadis constantly try to obfuscate the truth about what they believe.

2) Many "moderate Muslims," either because they're intimidated by the extremists or because they agree with them a lot more than they're letting on, seem to be in their thrall. Although there are certainly exceptions, and those people should be supported and congratulated, most moderate Muslims tend to follow right along behind the nutjobs who get off on the idea of decapitating Jews and forcing every woman to wear a burka.

(...)

It's impossible not to note that "moderate Muslims" who do speak publicly, as a general rule, tend to get much more upset with people who point out that there are Muslims proudly murdering people in the name of Allah -- than the actual Muslims who are proudly murdering people in the name of Allah.

So that is the world we live in today: one where murderous savages commit atrocities in the name of Allah and moderate Muslims either cower in their presence or generally follow their lead, even if they don't agree with them.

The quicker we acknowledge that reality and take our actions accordingly as opposed to trying to make Muslims into the newest group that it's politically incorrect to tell the truth about, the better off western civilization and the world will be.

He writes:

Where is this going to end? Will it become a crime even to be a Christian in Canada? Will opposition to radical Islam be routinely punished? Here in America, we already know you can get in hot water for opposing gay marriage—like the Christian photographers who refused to take pictures at a lesbian civil ceremony, and ended up being fined by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

Make no mistake. If Canadians do not stand up for their religious and free speech rights, they will soon be gone. And so will ours. For what happens in the beautiful country to the north of us often affects our so-called “enlightened elites” in the United States.

How 2000.

Calling someone a "racist" no longer means a thing, precisely because terrorist sympathizers like El-Mo and his leftwing enablers have overused the word.

A racist is a conservative who's winning an argument with a liberal (or a "progressive" or a Muslim).

That's why I love being called a "racist." It says more about the person accusing me than it does about me.

That is, it indicates that they are brainwashed, lazy idiots who know I'm right, but can't bear the awful truth. And they sense -- correctly -- that most people feel the same way I do, and are just too intimidated to speak up.

Like me, the average person is tired of illiterate losers bitching about "racist words" like "niggardly" and "devil's food cake" or "black holes". And we're really tired of elites trying to get us to feel guilty about making commonsense observations about other people.

The race card is a Joker.