Monday, April 4, 2005

I don't have a penis Warren

I don't usually find it worth the time to comment on the vomit that spews from the mouth of Warren Kinsella, as arguing with my cat would be more productive. However, Mike pointed out the following excerpt from today's post hoping to inspire comment from the female member of The London Fog:

The rightist bloggers - you know, the ones who despise feminists, gay marriage, the United Nations, bilingualism, immigration, anti-tobacco laws, liberals, fluoridation of water, the metric system and the Satanic subliminal pro-Stalinist messages used on episodes of The West Wing - should be the guys (and they're all guys, believe me) who want the Gomery inquisition to reach its preordained conclusion, shouldn't they? I mean, these conservative bloggers (whose web sites bear the actual logo of the Conservative Party!) should be doing all that they can to help their man Gomery succeed, shouldn't they?
First let me say that I don't characterize myself as being on the 'left' or the 'right' but rather as a female, (and for the record, I am not a 'feminist', believing in individual rights as I do), who values individual freedom and personal responsibility and also one who hopes the current governmental practice of theft and corruption will finally be recognized for what it is and that one day peaceful and honest people will run the Party out of town. Such 'classifications' as 'left' and 'right', or as in this case, ready-made and ill-conceived stereotypes, are too commonly used as insults when the commentator has nothing productive or useful to say - or to put it a different way, when the person who would argue a point has run out of reasons to support his or her viewpoints. As usual, Warren here resorts to the classic ad hominem fallacy:
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
I don't support the rationale behind the publication ban in the first place, and nor do I think it possible to impose such a ban considering the vast means of communication available. Can I be charged with contempt of court if I stand in front of city hall and shout the name of the blog that published the apparent details of Jean Brault's testimony? Would it make a difference if I printed the url on a placard and paraded down the streets of London? It is also wrong for me to link to a post on a Canadian site that links to CQ? What makes it different if I put up the url to the site on the internet? Afterall, the information is available on an American blog, and thus available for anyone to read who has an internet connection. Maybe those of us living in Canada should only be allowed access to the CBC? Shall we ban all American media?

Mike Brock also makes a good point:
If Justice Gomery wanted to prevent the dissemination of the testimony by Mr. Brault, then he should have done it in quarters closed to the public in the first place [. . .]

If having justice done means suspending the rights of citizens in it’s undertaking, then it is not serving that public at all, it is serving itself. Even worse, justice itself takes the form of the very thing it seeks to redress: injustice.
Colby Cosh also comments on the "efficacy of the ban itself":
Under the metaconstitutional Oakes test, any infringement of individual Charter liberties, such as a publication ban, must have a "rational connection" to the intended benefit and must be the most minimally restrictive measure that can bring about the benefit. The argument here is that if a ban doesn't work in practice--say, because American webloggers are all printing the mind-blowing stuff Canadian ones cannot--it can't meet Oakes.
Ian also questions the rationale behind the ban:
The belief that those charged in relation to Adscam may not get a fair trial if their testimony before the Gomery Commission seems to be the basis for the publication ban.

This belief presupposes that you can’t find 12 good people in Canada that are capable of weighing evidence and making a finding of guilt or innocence. It seems to be one of those opinions that come from days of yore that most individuals don’t know how to think and only governments can take care of them. Unless you’ve been to law school, you are incapable of making sound decisions and incapable of setting aside opinion while carrying out “duty” as a juror.
While it could hardly be said that I necessarily 'despise' people who are feminists, gays or those that support gay marriage, I do indeed oppose many of the laws and issues on Warren's list - although for reasons Warren would not likely appreciate. I oppose the ban on basic principles, which might or might not be relevant to my views on "the United Nations, bilingualism, immigration, anti-tobacco laws, liberals, fluoridation of water". I oppose these things because I oppose the use of governmental force to support their crooked regimes. The most important consideration in the case of the publication ban is that the Liberals stole public money and the public has a right to know how this money was used. The ballot box is the enshrined means for the people to have their say, but how can this be the case if they are kept ignorant. Alas, in Canada, we keep electing the Liberals no matter what. The details about Adscam that have previously been made public should be enough to enrage people as it is.

Just bug off Warren. Why should we believe you as here is one woman who hopes justice will be done for she believes the Liberal Party is for the most part comprised of a bunch of plunders. I don't support theft or legalized plunder, Warren, although I am not a man. I do however support free speech and I think honest people across Canada and the US should be doing all they can to expose the Liberals, in this despicable instance as in others. No offence to Judge Gomery, but public has a right to know how their money has been spent.

In closing, let me also say I don't for one second believe the Party has been the victim of fraud.


basil said...

You must forgive poor, petulant Warren "My mother wears army boots" Kinsella, after all, it's his former boss and buddies who are responsible for these crimes. One must especially forgive the choice of people and ideas with which he affiliates himself (ie. feminists, gay marriage, the United Nations, bilingualism, anti-tobacco laws, liberals, fluoridation of water), as they are the only sorts of folks ideologically narrow and insensitive enough to overlook the Party's shortcomings.

Anonymous said...

So you're a gal. I accept your word for it.

You're still a bit kooky, gender confusion notwithstanding.

Yours in Christ,

Your pal Warren