Saturday, March 22, 2008

Enough Is Enough

Warren Kinsella has finally succeeded in provoking me. I know, I know, it's not usually worthwhile to feed the trolls. Up until now I have managed to avoid tackling any of his pro-CHRC, pro-Warman, pro-Steacy, pro-dirty investigative practices, pro-thought control screeds. But Mr. Kinsella has overstepped the mark today.

In a post about the rather sad 'march' by 25 (or thereabouts) white supremacists in Calgary today, Kinsella has the audacity, the gall, to tell me what my father fought for in the Second World War. According to Kinsella, my father didn't fight for freedom of speech, or freedom from state tyranny, or freedom from state control over every aspect of human existence. No, what he was actually fighting for was to stop those 25 sad muppets from marching in Calgary today.

How dare he tell me, and the millions of other children and grandchildren, what their forbears sacrifice was about? How dare he presume to set himself up as the arbiter of what such a momentous and complex event as the War was about? It's an insult and a slight on every single veteran and every single member of their families.

Now, since I knew my father in person, at least until I was 14, let me tell you what he fought for. He fought for the right to true freedom. Freedom of thought. Freedom of association. Freedom to question. Freedom to judge. Freedom to own and protect property. Freedom to create and publish. He fought for freedom from state control of thought, property, reproductive rights, political views and association.

Now, Kinsella always avoids dealing with the fundamental double standard he espouses. Those of us who recognise that freedom is indivisible, that your freedom is my freedom and vice versa are not debated by Kinsella, but simply labelled Nazis, because today's target of the HRCs and their supporters happens to be the neo-Nazis. It's convenient that an unpopular and undesirable group is under attack by the HRCs, but it is of no reassurance to any right thinking person. Because yesterday the HRC target was white supremacists. Today it's Macleans magazine and Ezra Levant. And tomorrow, well, tomorrow who knows?

My father didn't fight against Nazism just because it is an odious and repellant belief system, although it is. He fought against the tyranny that underpinned Nazi Germany at a deeper level too - that tyranny that exists anywhere a state controls the thoughts and actions and very beliefs of its citizens. It doesn't matter whether the code of belief was drawn up by Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Trudeau, Warman or Kinsella. State enforcement of a code of belief (or a code of non-belief) is tyranny, plain and simple, and it's the enemy of freedom. It was my father's enemy, and he saw it regaining the upper hand in the years before he died. Not long before then, he said to me that there is nobody less tolerant than a liberal, and what prophetic words those have turned out to be.

So don't you dare tell me that my father fought on your side of this issue, Kinsella. You're everything that's wrong with the Canadian political system. You're what Jason Cherniak wants to be when he grows up. You're all about winning and nothing about values. You're all about labels and nothing of substance. You're all about using the HRCs to silence people with whom you disagree. You're all about freedom for you and censorship for them. One rule for you and one rule for them. One rule for Liberals taking taxpayer dollars and another for those poor people who pay the taxes in the first place. You're just as elitist, just as tyrannical, and just as much a dictator as those you profess to despise.

As for those 25 idiots in Calgary today? I'm willing to bet the 200 counter demonstrators shouted them down pretty well, and that's what freedom is all about.

44 comments:

hunter said...

Great, honest post. I feel the same way.

Liberals like Kinsella, know all, dictate all, and expect us to eat it up without thought.

Let Kinsella exchange his pen for a gun and head over to Afghanistan.

Anonymous said...

I have never visited your site before but you have just made yourself a fan. I concur with everything you have said and have never seen it expressed as well anywhere. Happy Easter. Cheers. SOR

Mac said...

Bravo, Clive.

The Friction Of The Day said...

Here, here.

Ardvark said...

Ok,so how does Kinsella explain our fighting against the Empire of Japan?

Or does that create a little problem with his revisionist version of WW2?

jckirlan said...

I happened to read Kinsella's rant earlier in the week re: his father dieing because of the evil tobacco companies, not as the result of his years of smoking or lack of tooking any responsibility for his health. That was the first and last bit of ill thoughtout drivel I have read of Kinsella's. When I saw that he was writing about war and freedom, I couldn't help but snicker and think of what little that asshat knows about either. He has jumped the shark long ago yet I am not surprised he has an audience in the north gulag.
Remember, he had access to the levers of power not that long ago. Poor Canada.
I doubt he will have the fortitude to read your treatise.

Alberta Girl said...

Kudos to you for telling it like it is.

Kinsellas views are what makes him a Liberal and they can have him.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post,
It shows how narrow the views of Kinsella, pathetic as they are.

Lewis

Iain said...

My father also fought for freedom and I am not surprised that Warren doesn't get it. When King was our PM during this war and was told that more Canadians were dieing in Italy due to a lack of replacements and that he should send conscripts to replace them he was more concerned about his chance for a majority after the war than he was about defeating national socialism and reducing the cost in Canadian lives.

I will never consider a political party that puts itself before us and before Canada.

-Iain

Anonymous said...

WOW, well expressed!

Horny Toad

John West said...

Don't be too hard on Kinsella. Rumor has it that his father died at Auschwitz. Apparently, he got drunk and fell out of the gun tower. ;0)

Neo Conservative said...

*
ooooh, clive... right to the heart of it.

that's gonna leave a mark.

*

ward said...

Excellent piece. Bang on in your dissection of Kinsella. Winning is all that counts for him - at any cost. In his own words from June 21, 2006 -

"Conservatives' ideology is their ideology: tax cuts, law and order, and so on. That kind of stuff. The Liberal ideology is, to be blunt, winning. Grits like to win, and they've had a lot of practice at winning. They're good at it. Right now, they're miserable, sure, because they LOST. But there's no better motivator for a Liberal than a loss. It gets them to where they most like to be: with their foot on a Conservative or New Democrat windpipe, watching them gasp for air until Election Day. That's when Liberals are happiest. It makes them smile."

Rick in BC said...

Your dad fought for freedom from control of "reproductive rights"? Is that what he told you? Must have been a lonely war for him, because Churchill never said a word about that.

So assuming that's what he said, what do you suppose he meant? The right to kill your kids without state interference? You don't suppose he was talking about you when he said that, eh?

Other than that little bit of revisionism, a great post.

Pat said...

Well said Clive!!

Clive said...

Rick: The right of the disabled to have children. The right of the intellectually challenged to reproduce. The right of mixed race couples to marry and have children. The absence of eugenics.

Neo Conservative said...

*
hey, rick... aren't you supposed to be mopping up vomit at the safe-injection site?

*

Rick in BC said...

Thanks for the very signficant clarification on "reproductive rights", Clive. I'm sorry for immediately assuming the politically correct connotation.

Mike said...

Wow ... another for the "Best of TDPC", Clive !

langmann said...

Warren conveniently failed to print my comments in reply to his silly pompous self aggrandizing article.

Basically it said exactly what you said. Then I tried to educated Warren on real history: the Nazis quieted the 70% of people who didn't vote Nazi by using the power of the state to persecute, imprison, and finally kill those who protested Nazi ideology. That is why we don't need the state telling us what to think.

Anonymous said...

the movement is growing thanks to blogs like yours my family fled europe in 1709 to live and think freely no roads no bridges no hospitals just freedom and hard work.

Christian Conservative said...

Interestingly enough, I find myself pretty much lined up with Warren on this whole issue. Moron's like white supremasists should be arrested on sight... their ideas are like a cancerous filth that should be cut out of our society.

And John West, I find your comment reprehensible... "Don't be too hard on Kinsella. Rumor has it that his father died at Auschwitz. Apparently, he got drunk and fell out of the gun tower. ;0)"

Everyone knows Kinsella's Dad passed away from cancer, thanks to the tobacco industry... your comment strikes me as a personal attack from a very small mind. You should withdraw it and appologize.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"Christian Conservative says... Moron's like white supremasists(sic) should be arrested on sight...

based on what exactly? your (or kinsella's) assessment of their i.q.?

in fact... what stops someone from arbitrarily substituting the words "christian conservative"... for "white supremacist"?

you can see the problem with that approach... right?

*

Anonymous said...

Excellent post Clive, thank you!

It strikes me that Kinsella (and his like) is also trying to make a parallel between his "fight" to rid the streets of skin-heads and your Father's (and my Grandfather's) fight to rid Europe of the Germans.

Not even close.

jacobus

Anonymous said...

Hate to tell you but Kinsella was right. We went to war so that a small group of people could get what they want and still keep getting what they want. Why does Kinsella support them though? Is his desperation to always win as posters indicate above? Is it this desperate need enough for him to dislocate his own entire ideal and id? Who is really the bitter one here? (real conservative)

Steve V said...

Kudos to Christian Conservative, for calling out that absolutely revolting comment by John West. What a fucking clueless, ignorant asshole of the highest order. If it wasn't for people like you, stupid might still just be a theory.

Clive said...

Christian Conservative misses the point completely. Today, white supremacists. Tomorrow, Christians. Either you believe in freedom, or you don't. And if you don't then the question becomes who decides what's acceptable speech, and who chooses those people? And if (as now) those people are unelected, unaccountable, corrupt and operate under a cloak of secrecy, then what kind of state are you headed for?

It's not easy to let those neo-Nazis do their thing. I don't like it any more than you do, CC. But integrity demands it, because I would be treated as I treat others.

Jason Cherniak said...

I obviously don't know what your father thought, but I'm pretty damn sure that most Canadian soldiers volunteered to fight the NAZIS. If they were to see Nazis freely protesting on the streets today, I doubt they would be cheering.

Do you think counter protesters go for fun? Do you think they go to express their freedom of speech? They go to try to shout the biggots down so that nobody is able to hear their message. I'm sure they would much rather spend their weekend with their families instead of having to respond to a bunch of kooks who are trying to find more volunteers for their white pride crusade.

I'll never understand this argument that we should allow people to go out in public to protest in support of racism, anti-Semitism and violence. They are arguing that others should lose their freedom. By doing so, they lose all "right" to protection from the state.

Clive said...

Jason:

They are arguing that others should lose their freedom. By doing so, they lose all "right" to protection from the state.

And you are arguing that they should lose their freedom. So where does your "right" to state protection come in?

The concept of the state defining acceptable political, religious or moral belief which you espouse is the very beginning of the slippery slope into Nazism you profess to despise. I'll never understand why you, Kinsella and your ilk can't see that.

No, let me rephrase that. I believe you, Kinsella and your ilk do know that, but you're ok with it because your world view has the current ascendency and you'll be granting the gift of free speech to those you agree with. In that respect, you differ little from those you profess to despise.

Clive said...

Just to add to the above and clarify: There are criminal laws against incitement to violence, against violence itself and against crimes against property when motivated by 'hate'. I don't believe anyone in the current debate is advocating those be abolished, and certainly I don't advocate that. What I am concerned with is the free expression of opinion. You would tell me what my opinions can and can't be; I object to that.

Clive said...

Oh, and the counter-protesters who turned out? Kudos to them. Sure, they had to give up their time and I'm sure some might have had other things they'd rather do.

For that matter, the parents of autistic kids in Ontario might have had better things to do with their time and money than have to sue the McGuinty government.

I might have had better things to do on many occasions than respond to some egregious Liberal fabrication, or to fight for the right to equal treatment in the tax system for children raised in the home vs. raised in daycare.

But we all choose to put time and effort into the causes that we believe in. Such is democracy, and I wouldn't have it any other way. No group, no ideology, no belief system is entitled to a free ride. Those counter-protesters did us all a great service. I am grateful to them. But do I believe it's the place of the state to express and enforce their views (and mine) on this or any other issue? No. What makes a democracy is the ability of all citizens to speak freely and equally, to engage in the public discourse on equal terms. When you put the state in charge of deciding what can and can't be said, then to the extent you do that you have killed democracy.

Neo Conservative said...

*
so jason, just to clarify... you're really saying that we should lock people up for saying ugly, simple-minded, defamatory shit?

that's just delicious... don't you think?

*

Anonymous said...

When my father went to counter demonstrate against National Socialism I am certain it was not for the fun of it. Serving from 39 to 45 and completing 2 tours in bomber command was not his plan after leaving school. Nor was it the plan of any of the millions that volunteered for service.
For some reason people seem to think that since we had and won this horrible war against National Socialism that that is it. In truth those people in Calgary are not even National Socialists, they are their own thing mainly based on irrational and poorly realized choices.

I am glad so many people confronted them and would say there is reason for concern if that had not been the case. They deserve to be mocked for their stupidity but not locked up for it.

-Iain

James Goneaux said...

Jason Cherniak:I obviously don't know what your father thought, but I'm pretty damn sure that most Canadian soldiers volunteered to fight the NAZIS. If they were to see Nazis freely protesting on the streets today, I doubt they would be cheering.

Well, quite a few Canadians also fought the Japanese.

Ever wonder what, say, a veteran of the horror of the Japanese rape of Hong Kong would feel about a march by Japanese-Canadians demanding reparations?

I doubt they'd be cheering, either...

Freedom Fan said...

Interestingly enough, I find myself pretty much lined up with Warren on this whole issue. Moron's like white supremasists should be arrested on sight... their ideas are like a cancerous filth that should be cut out of our society.
-Christian Conservative.

What's interesting is that you sound more like a freedom-snuffing liberal than a 'Christian Conservative'.

Liberals believe in jailing folks because of what they believe or whom they associate with.

How would you libs punish black supremists like jerimiah wright?

Anonymous said...

Rick: The right of the disabled to have children. The right of the intellectually challenged to reproduce. The right of mixed race couples to marry and have children. The absence of eugenics."

And yet the social conservatives in the land, like Ernest Manning and the the Socreds in Alberta, were passing and supporting laws before, during and after WWII geared exactly to that end.

AWK said...

Warren Kinsella is a bully, and standing up and facing a bully does take some courage.

Good for you.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon squeaks... like Ernest Manning and the the Socreds in Alberta"

i don't suppose we should constrain the examples to... i dunno... the last couple of decades... because i've got some oppressed irish sharecropper ancestors that i'm just dying to trot out.

*

Jesse said...

State enforcement of a code of belief (or a code of non-belief) is tyranny, plain and simple, and it's the enemy of freedom.

I doubt you actually believe that. All laws advocate some belief or another.

Kate said...

"All laws advocate some belief or another."

No. Laws address conduct. They cannot apply to belief, as beliefs cannot be legislated.

In fact, it is when governments enact "laws" against belief, that you're well advised to plot a means of escape. The creation of thought "crime" is the precursor to thought "cleansing" and the digging of large, long ditches....

Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that Warren Kinsella does not get worked up over the fact that Pierre Elliot Trudeau, undisputed God of Canadian Liberalism, in his youth used to ride his bike with his buddies thru the streets of downtown Montreal dressed in Prussian military uniform, complete with German “Pickelhaube”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau) while Canadians soldiers were getting killed in droves at Juno beach.

Warren should know that, history tends to repeat itself especially when one refuses to learn from it, so he should cool it off a bit as this youth wearing German “Pickelhaube” demonstrating in downtown Edmonton while Canadian soldiers are getting killed in Afghanistan is already so confused at his young age that when he grows older he might become next leader of Liberal Party of Canada.

How dares he call him “Neo Nazi”??


http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080322-141047

Jesse said...

Hey Kate.

. . . beliefs cannot be legislated . . . governments enact "laws" against belief . . .

Sorry. Can you elaborate upon what appears to be a contradiction?

Hooey said...

Kate's busy but blank's says what Kate seems to mean is that the government can't force anyone to believe in "Equality" for woman and homosexuals, Same-Sex marriage, Abortion, "politically correct" speech or that human rights commissions are above the law or to be "believed".
While at the same time they say they can but can't.
Really meaning Kate is obviously good with pen and appearance though lacking intelligence at the same time.
I believe that to be called a paradox.
No offence if that is "the Kate" - Nott. - (See) :0 Sorry I'm posting this. I've noticed the little green badge and feel compelled, I'm done for.

Jesse said...

I had an argument with a friend who took Kate's position to help me understand where she was coming from. I understand her now.

I was saying that anti-abortion laws advocate the belief of pro-lifers (and all laws have some kind of similar belief behind it) while she was saying that anti-abortion laws can only pertain to action, and not speech or thought.

And also... what the hell? This was three months ago. While I was a bit annoyed that she didn't reply, throwing out an ad hominem because she didn't isn't sensible. Also, I find you hard to understand.