“Since I had the misfortune to become ensnared in the Canadian ‘human rights’ racket, I’ve come to appreciate more and more the comment one fellow left on an Internet post somewhere or other, remarking that he was in favour of free speech, because the alternatives ‘were just too weird.’”
–Mark Steyn, excerpted from his introduction to The Tyranny of Nice.
On Monday, PJM Political’s Ed Driscoll spoke with frequent Pajamas correspondent Kathy Shaidle (who blogs at her popular Five Feet Of Fury site) and Washington Times contributor Pete Vere, about their new book on Canada’s “Human Rights Commissions”, The Tyranny of Nice, whose article-length introduction was written by Mark Steyn. The interview runs just under 40 minutes; click below to listen:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
(Want to download instead of streaming? Click here. Or click here to download the lo-fi edition.)
You can read an excerpt from the book focusing on Mark Steyn’s show trial this past June, in Canada’s Western Standard, whose publisher, Ezra Levant, along with Steyn and Shaidle, is yet another journalist who has run afoul of the Canadian thought police.
somehow i’m not at all surprised that the canadian “human rights commission” is tinkering with the right to free speech. if an old man’s memory counts i remember this whole concept of “political correctness” originated with the left in communist china under mao, and has become a pestilence wherever the left has gained power since.
“gunner”
I believe in the freedom of the press, not the unassailable right to propagandize. Sadly, this distinction is lost to the intellectual terrorists otherwise known as the Islamists, media & political elitists — which is really an ironic misnomer as they’re not interested in seeking truth. Double standards (definition): the Left’s application on the rules of fairness.
I wonder if the HRC’s could haul someone before them for reading or listening to material offensive to a minority? Might they be considered accessories? After all, like the tree felled in a forest out of earshot, if no one reads or hears the offense, what’s the harm?
epb: “I believe in the freedom of the press, not the unassailable right to propagandize.”
absolutely what is going on. press, huffington post as one example, screamed loud and long about brigitte bardot dissing sarah palin.
brigitte suited their purpose. an ages-old international sex symbol icon bashing the new babe in town, the one toting a shotgun while wearing a red, white, and blue star spangled bikini.
ahem. goof’s on them. they NEVER bothered to check the facts, ma’am. seems miss brigitte was convicted a few short months ago…..
for expressed racism towards…..
muslims.
pie in the face time!!!!
ps at last look, the brigitte story went straight off the huffpo featured list soon after “a little birdie” gleefully shoved same said pie in their face in places *OTHER THAN* their own website.
THEY started it.
)
“*OTHER THAN* their own website.”
oops. sorry. should have said:
*OTHER THAN* their own website where it never would have seen the light of day due to censorship.
)