Richard Moon’s gotten on the bad side of the Speechers, which I guess includes me, which I guess means that Richard Moon is on my bad side too. To be honest, I just don’t get the dislike of the man – but then, of course, I’m not the one whose honesty and character he’s been calling into question.
But whatever. I think I’ve seen the Moonlight by now. In the course of putting together today’s Lynch List, I came across this little nugget of illiberal gold from a National Post article entitled No clear win for fighters of hate speech law: professor:
Critics of Canada’s hate speech laws can hope for nothing more than “a marginal win in a polarized debate,” because of their ruthlessly successful “propaganda campaign,” according to law professor Richard Moon.
“This is the most spin can accomplish,” he writes in comments submitted to a House of Commons committee looking into the hate speech provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, in advance of his testimony on Monday.
“Their claims are repeated, often uncontradicted, in radio and television interviews. They are parroted by politicians and in newspaper editorials and columns. And, although this is more difficult to gauge, they appear to be taken up by Canadians, who watch or read the mainstream media,” he writes. “Why does it seem so difficult to have a serious and honest debate about hate speech regulation?”
As they say: boom! Moneyquote. “Why does it seem so difficult to have a serious and honest debate about hate speech regulation?”
To paraphrase Mark Steyn, oh dear. Have things gotten so hard for the average Canadian apparatchik and assembled apologists that they can’t even have a little ol’ debate about regulating the speech of the ordinary folk anymore?
My heart bleeds, it really does.
It amazes me that someone like Richard Moon would be amazed by Canadians’ unrest at the idea that the government even wants to have a debate about regulating speech, be it hateful or otherwise. Indeed, I think it’s testament to the bit of fight left in our culture that such a resistence has been mustered – and even then mainly in part to folks like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn and a hundred other assorted bloggers and columnists across the West. If it weren’t for them, Richard Moon wouldn’t have a thing to worry about; he’d have such an orgasmic medley of regulatory debates that he’d hardly be able to stand it.
“Why does it seem so difficult to have a serious and honest debate about hate speech regulation?”
It’s difficult because the concept of liberty still holds some currency in this country, and because it happens to be worth a little bit more than $52,200, that’s why. I hate to be harsh, but please, Mr. Moon, can’t you see the lunacy of your position?
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but if you can’t see that, then I’m afraid I’m going to have to just lump you in with the rest of the ridiculous ‘human rights’ poseurs who seem to have accumulated in the Canadian bureaucracy of late. T’would be a shame, but them’s the breaks when you’re in the censorship game.