fredom of speech is absolute what about

freedom of movement - seems an acceptable way to prevent discourse is to make certain areas of the world no-go zones.

certaily horrible places but telling your citizens you can have no access to these dreadful places can also lead to all sorts of abuse and disinformation.

civil liberties under attack everywhere...posse comitatus in the states....

A History Lesson

Rafe, I rarely disagree with you but on this one I do.

I have spent a fair amount of time in Germany. The first time was during the neo-Nazi uprisings of 1989. I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing from rank and file (mostly young) Germans in regards to the Holocaust and the Jewish Conspiracy in general. It made me change my mind about free speech laws.

Irving is a different case. As a young man he went to Germany to work on reconstruction and leanred the language fluently. He heard about the terror that allied air raids had caused among Germans. He wrote The Nurenburg Raid and later Hitler's War.Both were extremely well researched and written. Unfortunately, he was not part of the academic elite and historians hated him. Funny thing is that many of his "revisionist" theories are now accepted within the historical community.

Irving started staying that "it was not only Jews that were slaughtered and not only German Nazis slaughtering them." This is in fact true. He went onto disputing the 6 million number, to denying the Germans built the gas chambers and ultimately denying the Holocaust. In a way it is sad because Irving's early works were brilliant.

And Rafe, what Irving worte about Churchill and Arthur Harris is not necessarily rubbish, it is just they were on the winning sides. The British deliberatly targeted German civilians because they knew they could not hit specific targets. Harris called a policy to "dehouse" Germany. There was so much guilt in the UK about it after the war that Harris received no allocades or titles at all, highly unusual for a CiC of a major service.

Keegstra had close ties to the NSB in the Netherlands during the war and there was no way he should have been teaching anything to anybody. As a teacher, your job is to present a provincially approved curriculum and Keegstra ignored that.

Zundel is another case of total freakdom. He is where he belongs-in jail.

Free Speech?

Canada has no free speech, rather we are only allowed speech that Parliament allows. As we become run by idiot bureaucrats and special interest groups, free speech will die in this country as it already has in the Asper Press!

As for anti-Semites, let them spout their nonsense, let the world hear how ignorant and evil they are!

In the open

I agree with Rafe on the issue of free speech, and he is also completely correct about the neo-Nazi, David Irving.

I am personally hesitant about criticizing Germany and Austria for their holocaust-denial legislation as I don't think we in Canada can fully appreciate the catastrophe that anti-Semitism brought to their countries. However, I doubt that the laws they used against Zundel and Irving are, in the long run, effective, and they certainly may have a deleterious effect on the free speech of everyone in those countries. We should avoid such laws, and spend our energy exposing the crazies -- it's always best to have things out in the open.

WAR

Why in the hell should free speech be "constrained" in a time of war? I think i missed that bus.

The Illusion of Free Speech

Notwithstanding the "guarantees" of the Charter, free speech isn't so free in Canada. The benchmark for justification to suppress speech that is critical but not genuinely hateful appears to be whether one or two people come forward complaining of "hurt feelings". The gay community is a frequent user of the Human Rights apparatus for this purpose. For example, in the Hugh Owen case in Saskatchewan, the initial judge in the case pronounced the citation of scripture references (not the actual verses) critical of homosexual behaviour as amounting to hate speech. In the February 22, 2007 edition of Capital Xtra (Ottawa), an article by reporter Krishna Rau declared that the Mennonite Brethren Church was a "sect" that "preaches hatred of the homosexual lifestyle" (virtually all conservative Christian and non Christian religions hold the same position on same sex behaviour). No evidence was offered for this statement.
The purpose of categorizing religious speech as hate speech appears to be to marginalize and silence any organized opposition to the normalization of homosexual behaviour. If that suppresses free speech, oh well...Ironically, there is evidence that the civil liberties associations actually endorse this type of free speech limitation (vis. BC Civil Liberties Association support of the BC College of Teachers in the Kempling case).
I'm with Rafe on this matter. Speech that promotes physical harm must be constrained. Speech that is political rhetoric, religious expression founded on principles inherent in established belief systems, or mere wacky ideology should be allowed to stand and defend itself on its own merits without threat of sanction by the state. Jonathan Rauch, in a piece from New Republic, October 7, 1991, probably said it best: "Speech that merely expresses criticism should not be penalized by the state.Personally, being both Jewish and gay, I do not expect everybody to like me. I expect some people to hate me. I fully intend to hate those people back. I will criticize and excoriate them. But I will not hurt them, and I insist that they not hurt me. I want unequivocal, no-buts protection from violence and vandalism. But that's enough. I do not want policemen and judges inspecting opinions."

Problematic of Total Abstract Free Speech

This is a pretty difficult question and while I always try to lean towards the total idea of freedom it can have its downsides.

Its easy to uphold free speech completely when you are dealing with one or two nuts. In fact, cracking down on people like Zundel often brings more attention to them whereas in the freedom of speech they'd previously ignored people had been free of listening to him! And I think this is the scenario Rafe is operating in, but what if you have large groups attending Zundel meetings. What if, although they have not yet hurt a single individual, they are broadly adopting language such as "nigger" in their speech and numbers? This has, more often than not, been the case in Germany as a fellow commentator pointed out. Do you just write it off as free-speech until we arrive at the Kristallnacht?

This is the problem, and its all well and good to keep fighting the good fight against repressive forces that seek to deny freedoms but also to realize that freedom is not actualized totally as abstract freedom of speech. It is actualized concretely by law and right and when it succeeds it always succeeds short of the mark. Like Churchill said of democracy.

Free Speech and Limits

Philosophers have been grappling with the idea for free speech for eons. For example, can one yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre?

I was in Victoria when Zundel, Keegstra and Irving, along with their lonnie right mouthpiece Doug Christie were attempting to have a meeting at Juan de Fuca Rec Centre. They all struck me as pathetic old men.

Grumpy, there is a risks of sounding like an embittered old flake. There is a limit to free speech. Just ask Coyote, another emmittered old flake.

Criminal speech

There are a number of reasonable restrictions on free speech. The Criminal Code prohibits fraud, slander, libel, false news, and threats.

I'm pretty open to other kinds of speech. I am rather beguiled by the theory that a free society permits speech that I personally find irritating or stupid (otherwise, there would be no country radio).

I also feel that old white nutters get an unfair deal. So many other marginalized groups get to have their pet prejudices and superstitions celebrated as cultural diversity. Why not the racist honkeys? They should have the right to parade in Compton declaring their distaste for black people, say. In fact, I'd buy tickets to see that.

Suppress Speech

Dolphin wrote:

This is completely misleading. Of course. Hate speech is based upon the intention of the speaker, not the feelings of those the speech is directed towards.

No evidence is offered for this here statement. Most mainline Protestant denominations in North America and Western Europe (with the predictable exception of evangelicals [though there are exceptions even within those communities]) do not hold to that position on same-sex sexual behaviour. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews (and increasingly larger segments of the Conservative movement) do not hold to that position. Most Buddhist and several Hindu sects are indifferent on the matter. It is only Orthodox Jews, traditional Muslims, magisterial Catholics, and conservative Protestants who hold to the views you embrace. But there are signs of change among even the most literalist of religious communities.

No it shouldn't. Not all ideas are equally worthy of merit and not all established belief systems are worthy of consideration, especially not those whose principles are fundamentally flawed.

Another conservative booster boy. Quelle surprise. If I had a dollar for every booster boy in the world, I'd be a multi-millionaire by now.

The REAL reason people object to laws against hate speech is not because they are deeply troubled that democracy is under threat -- "Oh dear, what does this mean for my freedom of speech? I feel so constricted!" No, the REAL reason people oppose laws against hate speech is because they no longer enjoy the unrestricted freedom to insult groups and individuals whose lifestyles they find objectionable under the guise of defending "traditional beliefs" or some such nonsense at that. In other words: the jig is up, folks.

Thanks for your post

Thanks for your post Bluenose. One of the most cowardly acts, in my view, is when bigots hide behind the ideals of free speech – Dolphin probably being the worst offender on this site. Spreading hate against a sub-population where the identifying characteristic is not a lifestyle choice is just wrong. Although I don’t recall Dolphin ever calling homosexuality a lifestyle choice even though he/she has cited correlations and has errantly attributed cause and effect relationships where homosexuality somehow causes delinquencies. Also, if I read that correctly, if Dolphin is Jewish and gay, it seems that his/her hated is totally misguided as he/she seems to always bring up homosexuality and abortion instead of anti-Semitism and homophobia. Are these the people that have wronged you to the point where you “hate” them back?

Speaking freely

Bluenose wrote:

I'm not so sure. If I criticize religious fundamentalists, as I've done here before, could they not claim I'm trying to incite hatred against them? Does a court have to decide whether my comments are hateful, or merely critical? It cuts both ways, and so I want the discourse to be free, with a prohibition, of course, against inciting anyone to physically harm someone else. This means I have to put up with people spouting some really repugnant ideas. C'est la vie.

Good Post Rafe!

You make your point well by pointing out how you can deny John A (or whoever) was ever PM or that Harper is human (oh, I denied that).

I think the main problem here is that anything critical of Israel and or Zionists is considered anti-Semetic. There are actually plenty of Jewish people who don't agree with the war-mongering ways of modern Israel, champion disrespecter in chief of UN resolutions involving it and its neighbors.

I imagine the ole Coyote would have something to say on this Rafe. But he's been disallowed, much to the Tyee's loss in my view. I'm sure it was his refusal to hew the Israel right or wrong line that got him exiled, I've never seen a sexist comment by that gentleman.

two quotes

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky

"Freedom of opinion can only exist when the government thinks itself secure."
-Bertrand Russell

questioning assumed truths...

Excellent article Rafe, again :-)

Oppressing opinions and truth seekers from expressing their thoughts and ideas on ANY issue, thwarts the evolutionary process of the human race imho. How else can we learn?? Inquiring and questioning our attitudes relative to history, philosophy, spirituality and the list goes on... can allow for a good chalange of ones truths. This is good as truth seeking, I think, would naturally takes on a life of its own...

We, as an extremely impacting species, need to put a question mark at the end of some assumed truths every once in a while, and not be afraid to do so.

This is all I ever saw ye ol' Coyote do, and the repercussions of his efforts by the Tyee, were, are and will remain unacceptable.

Sexist,... Coyote???....I have never seen it, and this gal finds it absolutely pathetic that it is being mentioned at all.

Again, thanks Rafe.

Peace,

Bear

Weird!

Now isn't this just a tad wierd when Coyote gets banned for criticizing Isreali policies and Rafe writes an article on how we should not have hate speech laws. Not that I think Rafe is necessarily wrong in thinking this, but the contradiction is just a little too obvious perhaps. Could I suggest hypocritical?

Let's ask the Coyote about freedom of speech

I never did think that Coyote intended to hurt anyone or any group when he was discussing Israel and Palestine and got himself banned for life. Au contraire ...

Today as I read Rafe's assessment (above), I kept thinking that Coyote is exactly the right person to respond. He will have something to say on the matter.

As a tribute to the concept of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and a free society, I ask The Tyee to let Coyote have his say.

Otherwise, according to the Laws of Unintended Consequences, our old pal Coyote will eventually become our symbol of Martyrdom whenever free speech is denied.

Right to bear, sorry to

Right to bear, sorry to mention (the sexist thing) but that was one of the things he was accused of. Note I'm not saying it's true and like you I find his banning unacceptable. I think much less of Tyee than I did at one time. Indeed this is the first time I've even looked at this info-tainment rag in a week or two. It was kinda exciting to see ole Rafe giving 'er. What happened to the troll on the front page, you know, Glavin?

I think he has already posted something related to this at his blog, freedomofspeech dot blogspot dot com or something like that.

...injustices...

kootcoot brother,:-) I was simply agreeing with what you said. We indeed are on the same page, and understand in detail the injustices being spoken of here.

No kidding kootcoot, it was a great way to start my day :-) And Glavin, if he is gone, will be missed.....(kiddin') NOT LIKELY LOl :-D

Peace kootcoot :-)

Bear

Oh the hypocrisy....

Amen to so many of the thoughts about Coyote expresssed above.

An excellent piece by Rafe Mair...and courageous in its attempt to traverse the minefield that is freedom of speech. A minefield where criticism of power structures is often met with severe retaliation against those who dare to speak up, including an attempt to sully the reputation of those who risk speaking out in times that are treacherous to do so.

Thanks also, Rafe, for taking on the harder, more complex and more personally dangerous argument, when it comes to defining freedom of speech.

(RE: Coyote: Over and over again he clearly made the distinction between the policies of the Israeli government and the people themselves...often stressing the precarious position created for all concerned when a state is created on the basis of religion alone.

Apparently a precarious tightrope walk is also created for those who dare to criticize the policies of the Israeli government... or dare to express concern for the plight of the Palestinians.)

But oh the hypocrisy of The Tyee for attempting to hide its own simplistic, not to mention brutish free speech thought processes/actions ( enacted so unjustly last month against Coyote) behind the finer, more courageous arguments and distinctions about free speech that Rafe makes here.

Since you allowed Coyote no right to defend himself against Tyee accusations of anti-Semitism and sexism (even though every woman who commented found no sexism in Coyote comments, in fact, they suggested the reverse... that it was very obvious he both liked and respected women )...well, what next Tyee? An article on the importance of habeas corpus? Or an article on unjustified accusations of sexism?

As always your call.

The best and the most just call would be to allow Coyote the right to defend himself here on The Tyee against the unfounded accusations The Tyee has made against him.

Clear it up...

lynn said so correctly...

I agree with lynn... Allow Coyote to defend himself against the charges against him absolutely. It is right to allow this, and wrong to not...

Bear

disbarred from Tyee

OK so everybody loves Coyote right now; but let us be realistic: if he wanted back in all he has to do is to get a new IPS from his server and adopt a new handle!
It is more likely that he decided Tyee is not worth the effort!
Hassling with posters who are not interested in anything you write, and only keep repeating their own pet theories, can be a bore for anyone!

As for free speech,are you kidding?
The media owns everything and controls everything!
Keep a civil tongue, and try to not be too controversial and you will be allowed to post here, but who reads it?

We need free press where it counts in the daily newspapers!

Alive...

Alive, I would venture to guess if I may, that in Coyotes case it is not about cheating to get in Tyee print, but after reading him for the past few years, I believe his thoughts are more likely on something of a much higher purpose and result. He reads to be much more about standing up and by what he believes to be important therefore discussed openly. He always motivated others to do the same, and in many peoples opinion, he cannot be replaced here at the Tyee.

Peace,

Bear

What did Coyote say that got him banned?

I think it would be great for The Tyee to fully explain this, especially in a discussion about free speech.

bring back the wiley coyote

Thanks Rafe,

I have long missed the Coyote, and I believe that you must be lobbying for him with this article.

Alive, Coyote has too much integrity to use another handle. Besides, we would all know him by the style of his text and he deserves not to skulk about in the shadows - though it fits his namesake.

Petition

Let's get an online petition going to get Coyote back. Better yet, lets picket outside the legislature in Victoria.

It must be Gordon Campbell's fault!

I hear a lot of howling!

I cannot believe I am here once again, having to voice my disgust at the Tyee’s peculiar editing rules and hypocritical views on freedom of speech for some (but not all) commentators. I concur with others that Rafe Mair’s fine article only highlights the prejudicial way in which Coyote was banned. Banned without notice or proof. Nice going, except so many people value his opinions around here that his absence is still being felt. BCMary is right…Coyote has become a martyr of sorts LOL! And, it is not the first time since I began visiting the Tyee that Coyote has been admonished for reasons I construed as being unfair. Maybe because he is so influential when he speaks his mind with such spirit and gusto, that he’s a threat to some . Maybe the reason why we women connect with and defend his writing is because he speaks so startlingly to the point, intelligently, and from the heart. He has been wrongly accused, period. It’s my suggestion that Mr. Beers invite him back, posthaste, to speak freely or this site will be seen as compromised, slanted, tainted – definitely not feisty or fair.

A True Test

A very delicately written piece, Mr. Mair, if you truly are, as suggested, weighing in on Coyote's behalf.

You're usually more direct than that. Maybe it's just a coincidence, and your timing isn't really significant, but the chance to make parallels is irresistable.

The point that criticism isn't hate is well made. If it were, then fully half the comments here about Liberal policy would be unlawful. I think the only possible legitimate argument for Coyote's execution would be that he offered hate.

If he didn't do that, then we have witnessed a personal act. Some editor has decided that certain disagreements with his own views must be hidden from the view of others. Excised. Punished.

In that case, this is no longer a place where freedom of speech is welcome. Since Coyote's banishment, other posters have stated that certain of their comments have been disappeared. They say they don't know why, they try to remember the content and speculate as to what could have been so offensive.

It hardly matters. If this is happening here as it appears to be, this place is in some trouble. And the principles Brother David seemed to embrace so magnificently are just trodden underfoot.

I repeat my earlier thought...If my speech can be forbidden, then by the same logic somebody thinks he is granting me permission. The first may worry me, but the second infuriates me. Nobody gets the power to decide that for me to be heard, I must toe some line, except the laws against libel and hate.

I want Coyote back. It seems I'm not alone. If this is a snit, it's gone too far. If it's a new policy, then let's hear it.

Somebody should state the policy under which serious thinking posters can be censored. This silence from the editors here seems awfully loud in my ears.

A rose by any other name would...

Ya, c'mon, ol' Coyote come back under a different handle? Who would do such a thing? Okay, there's Ron Erwin aka IAMC, and Nemesis aka Elliot, and ... well, you get the picture.

I didn't forget you Cappy

Don't worry Cappy, I didn't forget you, but I also realize you had a legitimate reason for changing your handle.

As for your charge that Gordon Campbell is at fault? Well I find that outrageous sir! Outrageous in that your conspiracy theory doesn't jive with the facts sir. Its actually Mikey Campbell's fault because our resident howler had a higher readership so Campbell made some calls.

'I have long missed the

'I have long missed the Coyote, and I believe that you must be lobbying for him with this article.' if this isn't tongue-in-cheek you win the laugh of the day mary. and whatever would canada's lefties do without anti-semitism anyway? it's hip to hate israel.

hey frank, don't forget

hey frank, don't forget hannibal aka sleepswithangels and deepforbidden lake.

Josef would be proud of you!

Typical Nazi-like Big Lie technique
And remember in the 1930's your kind supported and admired Hitler and those lefties you rant about were the ones opposing him, and all other varieties of fascism and I should add dying by the thousands in the process.

sorry, Elliot, not tongue in cheek

I really do miss the coyote's howls. ...and the name ain't Mary, Elly.

SIG

There is no free speech

There is no free speech, just allowed speech. Coyote's speech just isn't allowed.

I generally believe in a

I generally believe in a free expression of ideas. Generally speaking, I believe that people should say what they are thinking. It's a good way of challenging commonly held beliefs/perceptions.

The problem with this particular instance is that holocaust denial is simply code for 'the Jews are running the world.'

The simple fact is that we live in a society that's a little bit gunshy. Given the treatment the Jews have faced over the past 65 years or so, you can understand that gunshy-ness.

DFL

You're right Elliot, I did forget him. He sure tore a strip through here when he was around though eh?

Thanks

Rafe in good company: Jimmy Carter my favourite

Jimmy Carter has been called an anti-Semite. I don't think JC is anti-anything except: disease, ignorance, poverty, greed and oppression.
http://www.nowpublic.com/the_sanity_of_jimmy_carter

Anti-semitism is a funny

Anti-semitism is a funny thing. (like Star Jones' career)

The corporate media has an agenda to muddle the lines between anti-semitism and what is, in reality, anti-Zionism. There is a very clear difference between being against Judaism and being against the state of Israel's domestic/foreign policy. Certainly Izzy would like everyone to think otherwise.

Jimmy Carter isn't anti-semitic. He's anti-terrorism, anti-apartheid, anti-genocide, and anti-Zionist.

So is my Jewish best friend.

Sean Orr

The there is the subtle abuses of Free Speech, like http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=c5b6d2fd-b637-43c2-b80f-e040e9dc3688
the Province basically telling everyone to shaddup about the war in Afhganistan.

Would someone post the link to the thread in which Coyote was banned?

Thats brutal.

And i agree that it would make a great article.

Peace and Freedom...

Well Mr. Beers...with all this upset and disappointment expressed by the Tyee posters, can we regain our trust in the Tyee by getting Coyote back one way or the other? He can't be replaced, and the issues surrounding his banishment from the Tyee the way it is now, cannot be forgotten...

Peace and Freedom,

Bear

The Art of MisFraming the Debate

Jonogold above says:

The problem is that people are either too stupid or mis-lead by misframing. To criticize the current policies of the apartheid state of Israel is anything but Holocaust Denial. The suffering of the Jewish people under the Nazi's (who as someone above correctly pointed out, were supported by the right wingnuts, Republicans and the current excuse for a Presnit's grandfather) is not unique in the history of the world.

The Native Americans certainly suffered almost to the point of extinction at the hands of the interlopers from across the sea. Yet today no-one is accused of "hate crimes" for making jokes about drunk indians, or even as various police do across Canada, dumping natives outside and/or out of town to freeze to death in winter. That sounds like a genuine "hate crime" to me.

Well, that's it for my bi-weekly visit to the Tame One on the Line. Daily I care less and less who Beers allows to post at the Tame One and which info-tainment articles they choose to publish. With the exception of this article by Rafe, the one about re-certifying personal freedom in Canada and the one about Colin Hansen and Tilma, and maybe the budget coverage (I have reservations about the budget coverage because the budget itself was so lacking in substance) most of what the Tame One chooses to publish is fluff covering celebrities, fashion, and entertainment. The comment boards are generally overcrowded by mentally challenged wingnuts from the right with no ideas or understanding of the world. I hope these guys are getting paid by Gordo Harper or Rove, at least they would have justification for either showing their stupidity or pretending to be retarded.

David Irving Released

People on this Web page--including Rafe Mair--seem to have missed the news that David Irving is once again a free man. Last December, Austrian authorities released Irving from prison after he had served 13 months of his three-year sentence. However, Irving must serve the remainder of his sentence on probation. I believe that he has returned to the United Kingdom.

Let's Get Real Here

No, Coyote is not a martyr. He is an embittered old flake. It is that simple.

I would also wager that Mr Beers is trying to make is paper less of an NDP ra-ra site and more of a real journalistic endevour.

Anyway, the sale of me company becomes final tomorrow. My employees bought me out! I am now a full time Dad and I love it!

Note True

Not true. If you have read any of the comments here over the years you would realize that few of us here are "ra-ra" for the NDP. Most of us here are highly critical of it in fact and would welcome articles in the Tyee that are critical of it from a progressive/libertarian viewpoint. But it is precisely this criticism of the NDP that Mr. Beers fears and thus would rather fill it up with fluff or right-wing diatribes by Glavin.

Good point

I agree with you. I would love to see the NDP evolve into a real alternative social democratic movment that can get and stay elected. As an opposition, they are pathetic.

I am not terribly fond of the present government in BC but I don't see much alternative. I am voting Green next time.

illegal to deny a belief?

Rafe - you're really covering your ass here!
Throwing someone in jail for publicly denying a belief? Isn't that what the Nazis did?

Thanks for injecting a dose

Thanks for injecting a dose of perspective on this thread, Working Man.

Up until your intervention, the hagiographic panegyrics in tribute to the dearly departed Coyote were venturing further and further from reality. I'm content to let sleeping canines lie, but there should be some modicum of honesty on the part of his hagiographers here.

Setting aside his political views, the individual in question certainly made participation on these threads not infrequently unpleasant for a specific minority of us. There was a hurtful and malicious streak in him, and those who have been on the receiving end (none of those above, obviously!) know precisely what I'm referring to.

I don't say this to re-open old wounds, but only because I find the commentary in his defence to be a totally one-sided and partisan. It was always distasteful when this same clique of posters habitually turned a blind eye to this person's ad hominem impulses, wink at each other, and then proceed to tag-team those posters who dared venture a contractory opinion.

So by-and-large this individual's departure has been a positive development in favour of free and constructive dialogue on these threads, and has reduced the incidence of mean-spirited attacks on other participants.

Freely Speaking

Booker wrote:

I don't think so. There are many people in this country who disagree with same-sex behaviour; they have found ways of articulating their disagreement without resorting to misrepresentation and demonization (not to mention wild hyperbole). I myself disagree with the dominance of heterosexual privilege, the historical and societal expectations around childbearing, the scriptural literalism of fundamentalist religion, etc., but I do not actively despise or discriminate against heterosexuals, or infant children, or the mothers of infant children, or even the poor delusional religious fundamentalists of the world. Since I don't believe that all ideas are equally worthy of merit, I despise the ideas, not the individuals whom I believe are in bondage to these erroneous ideas (memes).

It is possible to frame a rational and responsible argument against certain expressions of same-sex behaviour without resorting to misrepresentation and demonization, just as it is possible to do the same against certain expressions of opposite-sex behaviour. Unfortunately, very few of the critics seem interested in doing so. They express their contempt in absolutist arguments with complete disdain for the research results of social science.

Hate speech is explicitly or implicitly threatening. Hate speech calls for taking away people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common. Hate speech in not spoken into a vacuum, but into a context in which it could be reasonably interpreted as advocating violence.

Brian Leiter has written:

coyote?

Would someone tell me what happened to coyote?
I miss his comments too!!

Look here:

http://thetyee.ca/Books/2007/01/31/Solidarity/

free speech? only if you're

free speech? only if you're on the left. last night on 'little mosque on the prairie' they ridiculed christianity with great glee. no problem there though. it's not hip to be christian, and i'm sure the toronto intelligentsia class approves.

Re: Criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.

Although written when Ariel Sharon was Israel's PM, the following comments by Uri Avnery, highly respected Israeli commentator and former member of the Knesset, are even more appropriate today:

"The Sharon government is a giant laboratory for the growing of the anti-Semitism virus. It exports it to the whole world. Anti-Semitic organizations, which for many years vegetated on the margins of society, rejected and despised, are suddenly growing and flowering. Anti-Semitism, which has hidden itself in
shame since World War II, is now riding on a great wave of opposition to Sharon's policy of oppression.

"Sharon's propaganda agents are pouring oil on the flames. Accusing all critics of his policy of being anti-Semites, they brand large communities with this mark. Many good people, who feel no hatred at all
towards the Jews, but who detest the persecution of the Palestinians, are now called anti-Semites. Thus the sting is taken out of this word, giving it something approaching respectability.

"The practical upshot: not only does Israel not protect the Jews from anti-Semitism, but quite on the contrary - Israel manufactures and exports the
anti-Semitism that threatens Jews around the world." (Manufacturing Anti-Semites, Counterpunch, 2 October 2002: http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery1002.html

Act like an ass, get treated like an ass!

Nightbloom, The problem is that arguments from reason and evidence don't convince True Believers. You might (like Ed or me) have spent an entire lifetime studying some phenomenon and someone who picked up a couple of cliches from Hate Radio will try to ram his view down your throat and treat your knowledge and experience with contempt. This creates frustration. Coyote, a thoughtful and experience person, sometimes suffered such fools badly and would make his feelings plain. Tough! If people act like asses, they deserve to be treated like asses. This is not to say that I think Coyote or myself or anybody else is right about everything, nor, as I have often pointed out, that intelligent and humane conservatives don't exist (see Rafe for a good example) but it would be nice to have a better level o argumentation here.

BEEP-BEEP

Jack's asked,

The roadrunner finally got him!

Quote:Setting aside his

If free speech must be constrained because someone's feelings might get hurt, silence will reign o'er us all.

denial

The holocausts perpetrated in the name of capitalism (we know the ones done by communism and nazism)need not be denied because they are not readily made known to the public. Debate has never been an easy thing, but at least it brings things to our attention, even the concept of free speech and what, if any, its limitations are. Holocausts prepetrated in the name of religion has been rather a bland subject hasn't it? So many people continue to wallow in the supersititions of a Church whose history has been a horror story of death and destruction, yet, we target Communism and its followers. Let's target them all, and let the deniers deny, since it gives more fuel to prove that these holocausts actually did exist, in all their wonderous forms and "isms" so perhaps we can get down to the real problems of humanity, one of which is the need for hierarchy, the need to want to be better than somebody else.
Look at all the pomp and ceremony that goes on from Popes, Princes and Presidents--and none deserve it!
By limiting nasty free speech is to limit our ability to challenge States whoever runs them; nothing changes when we all think alike.

Quote:If free speech must be

It's actually not a free speech issue. We all have free speech, even Coyote. Coyote is free to start his own blog at any time.

But we all signed the same agreement when we signed up to participate on these discussion threads. It's not about anyone's hurt feelings, it's about chronic violation of the agreement. That's the nub of the nuissance canine fiasco that has dominate the discussion on this thread.

Hypocrisy!

Fine. Over on the"Boy Trouble" thread I get accused of being some kind of Al Queda type because I demand that you and Maestro stop engaging in gutter-press scapegoating and look for the structural causes of problems. This is hardly the first time that I or any of the others you despise, like G. West, have had to put up with insults. Yet, when Coyote threw those insults back in your face he is a bad canine! I call that hypocrisy.

We all signed the same

We all signed the same agreement, Anarcho.

Gwest, you, me, maestro ... we're all still here. We've abided by our agreement. There's a qualitative difference between Gwest & I doing our usual Laurel-&-Hardy routine and some of the ugliness which the individual in question routinely disgorged onto our computer screens.

We all signed the agreement. The Tyee is not obliged to subsidize participants who continually refuse to abide by these agreeements. That's the real issue with regard to that individual, not freedom of speech.

I was so hoping!

I really hoped that The Tyee was going to add an option where we could block certain user's comments from appearing on our screens if we wanted. I am tired of the "usual Laurel-&-Hardy" routine put on my many here. The insults and juvenile comments aren't insightful. This option did appear on a Tyee survey awhile back. I wish they had implemented it!

Taking the Risk

This comment has been removed because it contained only personal insults.

Site Manager

Swimming against the current

First line of the Tyee's "about us"

I think censorship and the limiting of viewpoints is the worst media trend of our day.

Ignoring insults is as easy as a spin of the scroll wheel. Nobody forces the site's readers to read the comments section either.

The site rules no doubt make it easier to police the Tyee, but they certainly aren't the hallmark of a media source ostensibly hoping to kick the ass of the status quo. To paraphrase the hoary old quote, free speech means defending another's right to say things you find repulsive.

To me, a ban based on things one person doesn't like to read (but can easily avoid) is a bit like saying, "When I crane my neck and stand on tiptoe, out my window I can see the fat guy next door sunbathing in a Speedo, therefore I demand he put on some less revealing shorts."

The posters' rules are enforced arbitrarily as near as I can tell. Nothing worse than a bad rule selectively enforced IMO.

If the comments are bait for legal action I can understand their removal. Never having seen Coyote's offending comment I can't offer an armchair lawyer opinion on that.

And as Chris H notes

The technology to 'disappear' comments from posters you abhor and customize your perspective on a debate is available (not that I could see myself availing myself of the option) . Allowing posts to go up and and then deleting them positively reeks of Orwellian information management in my view.

The Ministry of Truth could only wish for that kind of control.

blocking

"Ignoring insults is as easy as a spin of the scroll wheel. Nobody forces the site's readers to read the comments section either."

I usually enjoy reading the comment section. I often learn more by doing so. There are many, however, who contunally clog the comments with their ridiculous and predictable juvenile remarks. They seem more excited that others will see their comments than whether or not they are adding anything meaningful to the discussion. I believe we need a mechanism to "turn them off"! The Tyee could easily add an option that will allow me block nightbloom's comments when I read the comment section. I like watching TV, but nobody forces me to watch particular channels. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing argument.

Chattering cyclops

Psst. don't say it so loud. Lefties are listening!

:-)

TeeVee

Quote:
I like watching TV,

Psst. don't say it so loud lefties are listening

:-)

Too funny, but it's okay as long as you watch Faux News and GlowBall. But them guys at the CBC are commies, hopefully Stephen will cancel their allowance. NOT

Swimming downstream?

Stump writes:

An absolutely excellent comment, Stump. In fact, your whole piece above, every word of it, could not be said any better.

And as Stump writes here:

If the comments are bait for legal action I can understand their removal. Never having seen Coyote's offending comment I can't offer an armchair lawyer opinion on that.

An important point Stump makes above about consistency versus selectivity when it comes to enforcing rules.

Further to delete a post and permanently ban someone with no explanation either to the commentator himself... or to others who comment here short circuits due process and instead uses an invisible, silent hammer of the most heavy-handed kind to control a site supposedly interested in (as Stump puts so well) "ostensibly hoping to kick the ass of the status quo."

Also to not allow the commentator the right to defend himself from the serious accusations of anti-Semitism and sexism made against him is not only morally unjustifiable, but to me at least, it is truly surprising that The Tyee has taken this turn.

If one wants to signal respect and advocate for it among commentators as a value The Tyee holds dear then The Tyee itself and its editors must surely uphold that value first and embody it here through their own actions here as well.

Aw shucks.

Wow. thanks so much for your kind words Lynn.

I'm not an educated person in the sense of having been to university, but I like to think I've given this particular issue (free speech, censorship, and the Internet) a lot of thought. On a different site that faced the same issue I wanted all comments to be anonymous as I thought it forced readers to consider arguments based strictly upon merit and not who said what. Others believe you shouldn't say anything you wouldn't put your name to. It's a fascinating topic made more so by the technology at our disposal.

thanx again.

That's a pretty repulsive

That's a pretty repulsive "contribution" to the thread.

It's unfortunate that this website is becoming a refuge for cranks and and unhinged holocaust deniers like yourself. You present the best argument in favour of selective culling of idiotic abuse of speech at the expense of others.

The fact that no one else in Coyote's hoary clique of anti-Semitic acolytes is willing to call you on it speaks for itself.

I await the next dose of "free speech" directed in my direction with breathless anticipation. Good for you, guys & gals.

amazing

Yehuda Abraham wrote:

I've only heard about your kind -- never actually encountered one myself. Wait, no, I met someone once who told me what a great historian David Irving was. She was crazy. I see you have something in common with her.

See? Repulsive? What on

DELETED FOR DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST A PEOPLE. THE TYEE IS NOT A FORUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS. TYEE EDITOR

Quote:I've only heard about

DELETED FOR DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST A PEOPLE. THE TYEE IS NOT A FORUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS. TYEE EDITOR

Truth

The truth is good. And the truth is that you are a racist fanatic.

Not at all nightbloom

THIS needs to brought to the attention of the editors, NOW.

Quote:THIS needs to brought

DELETED FOR DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST A PEOPLE. THE TYEE IS NOT A FORUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS. TYEE EDITOR

I thought so. Dead silence,

DELETED FOR DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST A PEOPLE. THE TYEE IS NOT A FORUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS. TYEE EDITOR

Where is it again that I am

DELETED FOR DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST A PEOPLE. THE TYEE IS NOT A FORUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS. TYEE EDITOR

I will neither insult you or

I will neither insult you or give you the satisfaction of responding to you.

What you are selling is hate. Pure and simple.

It has no place on this site and no place in this country.

Canada is well rid of Ernst Zundel and his ilk and, in my opinion, when some editor has the wits to realize how you're taking advantage of the rules here we'll be well rid of you and what you represent as well.

Now, I'm out of here for fear of being contaminated by being close to you and your ideas of 'facts'.

The testimony of Elie

DELETED FOR DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST A PEOPLE. THE TYEE IS NOT A FORUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS. TYEE EDITOR

hatred is beyond reason

There is no argument that will suffice to change the minds of those who hate. I have rarely been so saddened as I am in this moment. I do not understand how a human who is educated enough to use the words he does can stand upon such a hatefilled soapbox. May all who read this, redouble your efforts to commit acts of kindness and caring for the rest of your lives. Peace to all.

Attention Tyee Editor(s)

To whom it may concern:

Over an hour ago I wrote David about a poster on the Rafe Mair 'free speech' story.

Obviously he didn't get the message - perhaps he'd gone home.

The situation with respect to a poster calling him or herself Yehuda_Abraham needs to be addressed at once.

Terry Glavin has been slandering people on this website in ways that I think have been grotesque and unfair. If this poster's hate is allowed to remain on the site any longer, everything he's written will be, in effect, justified,

The spirit and the future of the Tyee is in jeopardy as long as this continues.

Please do something to bring this to David's or Richard's or somebody's attention.

Quote: I do not understand

DELETED FOR DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST A PEOPLE. THE TYEE IS NOT A FORUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS. TYEE EDITOR

Flame out

I suggest we bring this thread to a close and let the anti-semite play with himself.

Aw, don't go. We were just

DELETED FOR DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST A PEOPLE. THE TYEE IS NOT A FORUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS. TYEE EDITOR

This has been useful, if

This has been useful, if only to demonstrate to the hypocritical "Coyote Clique" (which dominated much of this thread with their apologetics) the error of their ways.

Since Y-A's comments clearly demonstrate something that is highly relevant to the actual topic of this thread (i.e. rapidly hateful anti-Semitic rants) then perhaps they should remain as they are, to demonstrate the point.

Now do you see how the quality and audibility of reasoned dialogue is safeguarded by minimal impositions on otherwise unfettered "freedom of speech"?

"Freedom of Speech" does not and never has meant the license to emit excreta into public space and then demand free toilet paper from everyone within earshot. Yet that's what many here seem to expect of The Tyee.

They are under no moral or ethical obligation to subsidize every half-baked crackpot notion, theory and prejudice you pretenders dream up. So clean up your act.

nightbloom

There has been a reasoned response to anti-Semitic remarks on this site all along. Not by everyone, perhaps, but certainly by some. Your contribution in condemning what this creature is doing here today is welcomed and courageous - your attempt to turn it into an opportunity for personal gloating isn't.

I hope if there are others out there who, in the absence of some action from the editors - which is by now long overdue, are holding back their condemnation of this guy that they'll come forward now and register their disgust as well.

Your self-respect and honesty require it.

Free speech does not subsume hate speech.

Elliot, maestro, cappy whoever

We may differ politically, we surely don't differ on this point. It's time to stand up and be counted.

I don't care what you think about me or my politics, I invite every one of you to join hands with me and raise them now against what this person is doing and saying. To stay silent is to acquiesce - in my view.

We've waited long enough for someone with the ability to take this guy down to do it - it's time to come out from the shadows and show some real solidarity with the truth.

I will NOT pardon you

And I will not discuss anything with you.

You don't make me angry, you make me ashamed that attitudes like yours still exist in this world.

futility

G West, I think the rest of us believe,

- Joe Walsh

Other than reading/dealing with the insanity, how are you today, G West?

Back, back under that rock, Abraham.

G West, although Yahuda_Abraham is making me feel sick, I'll stand by you and others like you.

But where is Rafe? Where is David Beers? Is this the end of The Tyee as we knew it?

By the way, Coyote does have a web-site of his own where free speech is encouraged. It's at: http://freespeechca.blogspot.com/ and I'd surely like to read his answer to this Abraham guy.

Meantime, G West, you've led by example. Much appreciated, much needed, in this suddenly sad and barren landscape.

Better now Sharing is good.

Better now. But still chagrined that such attitudes live on in a country I love.

Best to you. I'm out of here for the evening - I need to wash my hands.

Thanks to you too MARY

And thanks to anyone else who spoke up, including you nightbloom - I know others would have if they'd known

And thanks to David or whoever ended this. It was long past time.

If my mother were around...

...she'd wash somebody's mouth with soap.
Good evening to you, G West.

Thanks Tyee

Bye-bye Yehuda Abraham. It's been an education (but not the kind you think).

unbelievable!

I am in total agreement with you, G West, on this sad situation. I cannot believe this is allowed to go on! I would love some censorship and quickly! I fully support Coyote's right to free speech and believe he is wrongly accused, but this is a different kettle of fish and not the same thing at all! Hatred is not to be tolerated. It is our duty as citizens of this country to speak out against those that spread hate. I am sickened by this and totally agree with G West and Sharing is Good - I feel violated after having witnessed such disgusting posts. We must all try harder to be better human beings when we have these types in our midst.

Enough, already

It appears this guy is using a proxy server to disguise his IP and avoid being blocked.

I think it's time to close the thread and put a stop to this once and for all.

Furthermore

His remarks about Anne Cameron indicate he's no newcomer to Tyee. He's been around bere before - he's even adopted a Jewish handle (a notorious one) for the frisson it affords.

This needs to stop now - anyone who's been here much longer than I may recall someone who was in on a notorious attack on Anne Cameron. Thsi took place before my time but someone must remember.

Apologies, and patience

At present The Tyee site manager is unavailable. We will block 'Yehuda Abraham' from posting further comments at the first possible opportunity. Until then, I suggest Tyee readers ignore his pathetic slurs.

This is just too much!

Now we have gone from acusing people who are not anti-Semites of being anti-Semitic to getting a full fledged Nazi sympo, Holocaust denier, Jew-baiter bone head in our midst. Well, at least we now know what the genuine product looks like, but in truth we should ignore this piece of crap, until The Tyee is able to pull the plug on him. Maybe now we know what the real thing is, we can start being a little civil to each other ?

Yehuda, your wrong

There is such a thing as Nazi survivors, even to this day. There is a poster here, his name is Ed Deak and he will most certainly tell you that you are wrong, because he was a german soldier... he was there.

Ed has recalled in past threads that what was happening with Jewish extermination was true. Enough said. If you don't believe in witness accounts on both sides, then what will you believe? What will, Yehuda, you accept as real or fake?

Were you there?

If not, then shut the fuk up and let those who were do the talking.

How does that go, who benefits... how you do benefit from this, Yehuda? What's your take outside of what looks like hatred to a religion, nation or culture different than your own?

Like like to hear your "proof" that you aren't a racist hate monger...