First Amendment

Feb 082008
 

As a conservative who will not vote for John McCain, I seem to be on the receiving end of a lot of conservative vitriol.

John Hawkins says there is nothing conservative or principled about me.

Daniel Henninger of the WSJ says I need to grow up.

Kathleen Parker says I’m a cannibal.

Linda Chavez says I’m truculent.

A commenter at In The Agora says I’m a political terrorist.

But I won’t be voting for McCain.  It’s a shame, because there are a couple of important points on which I  agree with him.  I think he would handle the Iraq war better than any of the other candidates, and that is huge.  I agree with him on protecting the ANWR (though would gladly have the whole place strip-mined if that could somehow keep him or Hillary out of the presidency).

It’s too bad, but his stance against free speech and the First Amendment is a show stopper.

I doubt I’ll vote for Barak Obama, but I would much prefer a liberal Barak Obama to an authoritarian/fascist John McCain or an authoritarian/fascist Hillary Clinton.   The question for me is, is Barak Obama really a liberal?  I’m not sure if it’s possible for a liberal to exist in American politics these days.  But if Obama is one and the worst he wants to do is destroy the economy through redistributionist tax codes, I think we could survive four years of it.

Feb 072008
 

An article by Lee Harris in The Weekly Standard got me to checking for the latest news on the Ezra Levant case in Canada.

Ezra Levant has a blog which he tells us is getting a lot of hits:

in the past month, I’ve had 152,000 “unique visitors” of whom 49,000 are “returning visitors”. According to Haloscan.com, I’ve had more than
1,500 comments. And then there’s the YouTube videos, 471,000 views amongst them.”

(That happens to be more hits than this blog gets.)

And a liberal MP (Keith Martin) has submitted a motion to remove the section of the Human Rights Code that allows the sort of inquisitions undergone by Levant and Mark Steyn. But it sounds as though his party has been pressuring him to withdraw it, though there are the usual denials, etc. News item about it here.

If you google for information about Ezra Levant, you will see that while this topic is getting a lot of attention in Canada, the U.S. news media are paying no attention to it. These would be the same news media types who attack Bush for his unilateralism and for ignoring world opinion. These would also be the same news media types who want us to look to Canada for lessons on how to handle health care.

I say it would be worth asking our presidential candidates about it. There are people clamoring for hate crime laws in the U.S. There are concerns about McCain’s attitude towards free speech. There are those who complained about Bush’s unilateralism, and those who threatened to move to Canada if Bush was re-elected in 2004. It would seem to be about as relevant an issue for discussion as you could find (and probably one a lot less boring than the usual gas about “change.”)

I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: The U.S. media will continue to ignore it and will NOT ask our presidential candidates about it.

Jan 262008
 

In the latest issue of The Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last told of an incident that almost made me want to vote for Barak Obama. It was an instance of a Liberal actually being liberal. When is the last time that happened?

The Clintons would have snarled about right-wingers as a justification for refusing to answer their questions. But Obama tried to engage anti-abortion protestors in a dialog. And he reprimanded his supporters who tried to shout them down: “Let me say just this, though. Those people got organized to do that.   And that is part of the American tradition we are proud of. And that’s hard, too–standing in the midst of people who don’t agree with you and letting your voice be heard.”

Jonathan Last in his blog at First Things later expressed disappointment that Obama hasn’t modified his position on abortion. His subsequent words show him to be just as doctrinaire on that topic as any other Democrat. But I still think Obama deserved his praise. He was willing to listen and was liberal on the topic of free speech, at least. These days when the First Amendment is under assault by the Democrats (campaign finance regulation, fairness doctrine) it’s a rarity for something like this to happen. I had almost forgotten what it’s like for a politician to say things like Obama did.

Jan 202008
 

When I say that the next president will be Hillary Clinton, even though s/he won’t necessarily be named Hillary and may even be a Republican, I’m trying to make a point somewhat like John Andrews made in this article, “Who’s President Isn’t the Main Thing.”

He makes many good points, but I’ll quote this one because it’s especially relevant to the issue of Ezra Levant vs the Alberta Human Rights Commission:

Freedom won’t work unless enough of us practice four essentials of citizenship, writes Thomas Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute. We need self-assertion to defend our liberties, self-restraint to behave responsibly, self-reliance to avert dependency, and civic knowledge to participate constructively.

What’s more important than who the next president is is who we are. Are we going to be people like Ezra Levant, or people like his persecutors on the Human Rights Commission. It could go either way. And whichever type predominates will determine what a president can and will do. As Andrews said, “Whoever wins will govern largely between the 40-yard lines.” People like Levant can help determine where those yardline markers are located.

Although this blog is very political, you won’t see a lot about electoral politics here. You especially won’t find a lot about vote counts and predictions of who might win what state. Electoral politics are mostly boring to me. What I like are real politics of the kind John Andrews is discussing.

Jan 202008
 

If we stop short of the totalitarian abyss, it will be thanks to the courage and eloquence of people like Ezra Levant. I got the following YouTube links from In The Agora . It’s the entry titled “Nothing Short of Incredible” by Joshua Clayborn. Levant takes on the speech police in the misnamed Alberta Human Rights Commission. (I’ve only watched the first two so far.)

Part I: Opening Statement
Part II: What was your intent?
Part III: The real violence in Edmonton
Part IV: I don’t answer to the state
Part V: “You’re entitled to your opinions”
Part VI: Attributes of free speech
Part VII: How does the commission make decisions?
Part VIII: Closing argument
Bonus: Details of the complaint

Nov 262007
 

Putin didn’t do too badly for himself by having Gary Kasparov locked up for 5 days. It’s a way of flaunting his aggression, and also of getting people used to just sitting back and taking whatever it is he’s going to do next. So next time, when he does something even worse to Kasparov, people inside Russia and without won’t manage to make much fuss about it, because he already got them used to this much.

I predict that here in the United States the left/media/Democrats aren’t going to make much of a fuss, because they are busy trying to quell dissent, too, via the Fairness Doctrine, McCain-Feingold, hate crime laws, and campus speech codes. So Putin is doing their work, too, by getting people used to the arguments that political dissidents are a threat that must be brought under control.

It’s interesting, though, that even though Putin is wildly popular, at least in Moscow, he finds it necessary to put down all opposition. Is it because he realizes that the prosperity that makes him popular now is not going to last?

Nov 242007
 

It’s presented as a news story at the Boston Globe:  “Blue collar women see hope in Clinton.”   If you don’t believe me, look at the URL.

These are the same news people who are given special privileges in McCain-Feingold to keep campaigning after others are required to shut up.

One pro-speech-restriction blogger wrote thusly a few years ago:

The new line-drawing has a danger: it might encourage more corporations and unions to put on sham news programs or broadcast advertisements supporting or opposing a candidates for public office under the guise of sham advertising for a book or movie. For this reason, FEC regulations are only a temporary solution.

But what about when the major news media themselves put out sham news programs?

Nov 212007
 

The headline on The Seattle Times article is:

Kerry accepts “swift boat” challenge

The punctuation is wrong. It should be:

Kerry “accepts” swift boat challenge

If Kerry had really accepted it, he would have provided evidence that the Swift Boaters lied. But he has not done that; therefore, that term should have been put in quotes.

And it’s cute the way that James Rainey, the writer of that article, is hedging. It suggests that Kerry is an embarrassment to the media/Democrats and they know it, but still they have to stand up for their guy. He writes:

Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as “swift boating.”

You gotta love that term, “unwarranted.” That’s a loophole big enough to drive a slow boat through. According to dictionaries, the term can mean “incapable of being justified or explained.” Of course, if Kerry would release his military records, the attacks could either be explained or justified better. Or they could be refuted, and Pickens would have to cough up his million dollars.

The term can also mean “lacking justification or authorization.” I suspect (through process of elimination) that the latter is what Rainey means. The Swift Boaters weren’t authorized by the Democrat/Media/Celebrity machine to say nasty things about him; therefore, they should not have said those things.

Nov 072007
 

In case anyone ever doubted, this is not about non-discrimination in the workplace. It’s about thought control. It’s not even enough for the government to regulate your speech. They want to regulate your thinking, too.  Rep. Clyburn says as much.   He wants to regulate sentiments, not just words and actions.

Backers of the House bill proclaimed it a major civil rights advance for gays. “Bigotry and homophobia are sentiments that should never be allowed to permeate the American workplace,” said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C.

House passes job bias ban against gays

I wonder if the supporters of this bill recognize the irony of destroying the very foundation that supports tolerance and freedom.

Oct 282007
 

Conservative writer Austin Hill has praise for Bill Clinton’s words, “How dare you.”

As he then attempted to continue with his address, another heckler shouted at President Clinton, claiming that the terrorist attacks had been an “inside job.”

“An inside job?” Clinton retorted, with indignation in his voice. “How dare you. How dare you! It was NOT an inside job!”

In a matter of a few seconds, former President Clinton used a spontaneous moment with rude people in his midst to communicate to a fearful, skeptical American people. What was the message he conveyed? That the worst suspicions about our country and government are not to be tolerated, and certainly not to be believed.

I beg to differ. I think it’s fine that Clinton confronted the hecklers, and it’s fine to tell them they’re nuts or to make fun of them. And it’s fine to have them carted away if they’re not letting him speak.

But to say, “How dare you?” That implies they should not be allowed to say such things. In fact, that’s the message Austin Hill took away, as indicated by his words, “not to be tolerated.” Our Bill of Rights gives people the right to say crazy things. That’s how they dare say that. We do need to tolerate such words; otherwise we’re not much better than those who took down the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

I realize it might just have been a manner of speaking, and that Clinton may not really have meant this kind of speech should not be allowed. Maybe I shouldn’t be so hyper-literal.

On the other hand, maybe in Clinton’s case we should parse his words very carefully and take them seriously. I am reminded of this incident from 1995, as told by Todd S. Purdum in the NYT:

This area is also a stronghold of anti-Government paramilitary groups, and Mr. Clinton addressed them tonight in a question from the daughter of a worker in the Federal Bureau of Land Management, who said the Oklahoma City bombing had left her afraid for his safety.

“The most important thing we can do to make your father safer is to have everybody in this room, whatever their political party or their view, stand up and say it is wrong to condemn people who are out there doing their job, and wrong to threaten them,” Mr. Clinton said. “And when you hear somebody doing it, you ought to stand up and double up your fist and stick it in the sky and shout them down.”

Shout them down? That’s the way dissidents may have been handled in the beginning days of Nazi Germany. But that’s not the sort of behavior the Leader of the Free World should be encouraging.

If people were a physical threat to this woman’s father, that should be reported to the police. If they were just criticizing him for working for the government, that is their right. And it is her right to criticize them back. Or to ignore them, if that would seem to be more effective.

But for an American president to be advising people to be shouted down is to encourage mob rule and the voice of unreason. He should be upholding the right of people to dare to say what the voices in their head are telling them, secure in the knowledge that we are upholding a country where reason and evidence will stand against it. Telling crackpots that they dare not speak vindicates their conspiracy theorizing in their own minds, and lends them credibility. What we need to do is bring these people and their crackpot ideas out into the sunshine, not shove them into a closet.

And speaking of sunshine, what was on those papers that Sandy Berger stuffed into his shorts, anyway?