It was a bad day. A lot of bad stuff happened. And I'd love to forget it all. But I don't. Not ever. Because this is what I do. Every time, every day, every second, this: On five, we're bringing down the government.
Tuesday, May 24
First They Came For The Bloggers
And I didn't speak out, because - Hey! Wait a minute!
Via Debbye of Being American in T.O. and Kate of Small Dead Animals comes the news that Andrew Coyne is being sued for libel by the Chief of Staff of the Canadian Prime Minister, apparently over this or related items. Robot Guy has more.
A commenter at Small Dead Animals points out that the very first sentence in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is this:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
That's real reassuring, that is.
Mind you, Australia doesn't even have such a charter. Fortunately, our Liberal government is actually liberal, in the classical sense.
Glenn Reynolds seems to have stickied a post regarding the FEC's proposal to regulate bloggers under the Campaign Finance "Reform" Laws. Don't think it can't happen here. Um, there. Wherever.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
01:20 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 179 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Pixy, thanks for the support. Things are getting ugly up here and, in a bizarre way, losing international face would actually hurt Ontarians a lot more than passively accepting tyranny.
I guess this next question is where globalization becomes a headache.
In what manner do the proposed FEC regulations affect bloggers whose sites (or should that be domains? hosts?) are in other countries?
For example, as we have a Texas connection, do we therefore weigh in on the FEC regulations or does our personal physicial location, e.g., Canada or Australia, dictate which government we fight?
(This isn't an idle question; I'm an American citizen, so I feel it my right and duty to challenge the FEC, but I might have a better case if my Texas connection carries some weight.)
Posted by: Debbye at Tuesday, May 24 2005 07:55 AM (vMw1f)
2
Unfortunately, the way things seem to work is this:
If you are an American citizen living in Canada blogging on a server physically situated in the U.K. (for the sake of an example) paid for and run from Australia, then your blog is subject to the laws of all of those countries, even when - especially when - they are mutually contradictory.
If you piss someone off badly enough.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, May 24 2005 11:03 AM (+S1Ft)
3
Thanks, Pixy!
You know me well, and probably anticipated a follow-up question:
Is it a problem if I piss them all off? (hypothtically speaking, of course.)
Except you; I don't want to piss
you off.
Posted by: Debbye at Tuesday, May 24 2005 01:22 PM (+oU7B)
4
Piss them off by all means. But be careful - not cautious, but careful - and consider the facts at hand and the statements you make. Saying that you consider Tim Murphy a loathsome slime-mold isn't actionable. Claiming that he committed a specific act may be.
Also when dealing with a weasel, it may be judicious to employ weasel-words.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, May 24 2005 01:36 PM (+S1Ft)
5
Thanks, Pixy. The word "alleged" is my friend.
Weasel: a carnivorous mammal, often used to describe members of Canada's Liberal Party.
Posted by: Debbye at Wednesday, May 25 2005 05:36 PM (WKkzE)
6
One must be aware of possible defamatory comments. Do you think? You post something that steps on Liberal toes. They post smut or smear comments and then get lawyers to phone and intimidate for a shut-down. That may be when servers in Monrovia or Latvia become useful.. Come to think of it. Censorship has pretty well died. As long as expose stuff is on more than one server or can be zapped to any safe site anywhere in the world, it can always pop up again. TonyGuitar.Blogspot PS I see that tech values are heavy here, but why are excellent bloggers drawn to mu.nu?
Posted by: TonyGuitar at Sunday, May 29 2005 08:06 AM (rmMzv)
7
Why are excellent bloggers drawn to mu.nu?
Well, I guess it's because of the free donuts. :)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, May 29 2005 09:00 AM (+S1Ft)
8
ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net
Posted by: ya pidoras at Wednesday, July 26 2006 02:43 AM (w4nDS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday, May 18
He She It We They
Glenn Reynolds
says that Andrew Sullivan
thinks that he (Glenn) should be writing more about Abu Ghraib, and less about Newsweek's recent fuckup.*
I think that Andrew Sullivan has gone insane:
FOUR OTHER CITATIONS: Kos blogger Susan Hu has discovered four other media citations of the allegation that Gitmo interrogators desecrated the Koran: one from the Philadelphia Inquirer, and three from Human Rights Watch. Now we cannot know for sure - yet - if these allegations are real, or propaganda. But we do know for certain that other "techniques" designed to use religion as an interrogative tool have been deployed, including the smearing of fake menstrual blood on detainees' faces. This religious warfare was also deployed at Abu Ghraib. I wrote in my review of the official records of the torture
Do I need to unpack that?
Okay, just for Andrew:
You say "We cannot know for sure - yet - if these allegations are real". In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that these allegations are real.
You say that "we do know for certain that other "techniques" designed to use religion as an interrogative tool have been deployed". In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that these allegations are real.
You refer to "religious warfare", on the basis of these allegations, when you have no evidence whatsoever that these allegations are real.
You say "I wrote in my review of the official records of the torture" in reference to Abu Ghraib. There was no torture at Abu Ghraib; that is, not after Iraq was liberated. Under Saddam Hussein Abu Ghraib was infamous for torture and murder; it was the prison from which people never returned.
The incident of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib has been investigated by the authorities, and the responsible parties brought to trial (and in some cases already punished). Despite being a relatively minor incident, it has been the subject of an ongoing leftist frenzy since it first came to light - at a time when it was already under investigation by military authorities.
It happened eighteen months ago. Oh, and no-one died, or was even injured.
The Newsweek story was published last week. It led to at least fifteen deaths - not that this is the fault of Newsweek. What Newseek can and should be faulted for is their impenetrable left-wing bias that blinds them to questions of fact, proportion and propriety.
Much, Mr Sullivan, like your own.
* Apparently this is now the accepted terminology in the mainstream media.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
11:17 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.
1
http://depthomelandinsecurity.blogspot.com/2005/05/damastean-editor.html
Posted by: Collin Baber at Thursday, May 19 2005 09:25 AM (ScqM8)
2
Yes, Collin?
So you don't have any evidence for these allegations either? Thought not.
Hint: An allegation is not evidence for itself. Making the same allegation a second time is not evidence for the first instance.
Two words for you, my precocious little flowerpot: Matchbox Twenty.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, May 19 2005 09:28 AM (+S1Ft)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
46kb generated in CPU 0.013, elapsed 0.122 seconds.
52 queries taking 0.1127 seconds, 202 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.