The Sport of Suing and other threats to free speech

Welcome to all Blazing Cat Fur readers and thank you to Mr. Cat Fur for the link.

It seems that Blazing Cat Fur has committed the ultimate Canadian offense-he's caught the attention of Richard Warman.  For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Warman, he's a weaselly snailslime of a man who makes his living suing people for sport.  Nice gig if your the type who gets off by ruining other's lives just for shits and giggles.  A quote from Warman's Wiki entry:

I’ve come to the conclusion that I can be most effective by using what I like to describe as a “maximum Disruption” approach … I’ll look at all the potential targets and file complaints against them starting on a “worst offender” basis, although sometimes if I just find people to be particularly annoying this may move them up the list a bit. The “maximum disruption” part comes in because wherever I think it will be most helpful, or even if I just feel it will be the most fun, I strongly believe in hitting on as many of these fronts as possible either at the same time or one after the other. I say this because it keeps them off-balance and forces them to respond to things that focus their energies on defending themselves.

Mr. Cat Fur found himself in Warman's cross hairs because he linked approvingly to Mark Steyn.  Warman really, really doesn't like Mark Steyn:

WARMAN WATCH

During my battles with the Canadian "human rights" regime, we relentlessly exposed the corrupt relationship between the Commissars and Canada's self-appointed Hatefinder-General, Richard Warman. See here and here, among many other places. I also spoke about him when testifying to Parliament. Almost as soon as the truth about his Nazi website postings became known, Warman began suing. He sued Ezra Levant, with whom I'll be appearing on Saturday, as well as Kate McMillan, Kathy Shaidle, Free Dominion and anyone else who got in his way. At the time, many people asked me why he hadn't sued me, both for columns that appeared in Maclean's and for posts such as this one at SteynOnline.

So basically, since Warman can't touch Steyn he is playing "Whack a Proxy" and using Canada's legal system to do it. 

You can find more at American Power, POWIP, five feet of fury, Gates of Vienna, Patterico's Pontifications and Jay Currie.  Above all, throw some money in BCF's tip jar to help with his legal costs and never forget how precious our First Amendment is.

Danish Cartoonist Attacked

A few days ago the Danish rag Politiken wrote a piece comparing President Obama favorably to Jesus Christ. More than a few us noted that comparing Obama to Jesus rather than to Mohammed was a far safer (and wussier) bet. It didn’t take long for that to prove true.

Mark Steyn:

Remember the Danish cartoons? A 27-year old Somali does:

Danish police on Friday shot and wounded a man trying to enter the home of an artist who drew controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

The man, a 27-year-old Somalian who was armed with an axe, was caught trying to break into the home of Kurt Westergaard at 10pm local time, police said.

Police shot the man, injuring him in his leg...

Mr. Westergaard's cartoon was seen at the time as the most controversial, as it depicted the Prophet with a bomb in his turban.

"Controversial" but entirely vindicated by events since. To return to the theme of my post a couple of days back, a significant percentage of Muslims in the west do not understand concepts such as pluralism and freedom of expression. A further percentage understand them very well but reject them as loser fetishes incompatible with the requirements of Islamic supremacism - and have a shrewd sense that when, push comes to shove, a lot of these fine liberal concepts crumble to nothing. Is the percentage of Muslims who support Mr. Westergaard's right to free expression and the broader principles of intellectual liberty sufficient to make the importation of legions of "27-year old Somalians" a net benefit to Denmark?

The answer to that seems obvious. But Mr. Westergaard is 74, and I'll bet his half-century-younger attacker grasps however crudely the demographic symbolism, in Scandinavia and beyond.

I seem to remember that at the time the cartoons were published more people expressed disgust at the cartoons than at the literally murderous riots that took place in several cities in Europe. It struck me odd that the same people who defended Piss Christ and statues of the Virgin Mary smeared in dung were the same people who condemned the Mohammed cartoons.

It really does matter whose ox is being gored but beyond that, if you support free expression then support it across the board. But those who claim that their “out thereness” is brave are only brave when bravery is not required. A quick look at Memeorandum reveals that only right of the center blogs are speaking out on the attack against Mr. Westergaard. The left of the center blogs who consider themselves to be the champions of all things great and small are their usual silent selves when it comes to Westergaard’s right to express himself with the fear of being beheaded.

More at:

Fausta’s Blog
Jules Crittenden
Gateway Pundit
The Jawa Report
Cold Fury

No Compromise on the First Amendment

Both Smitty at The Other McCain and Pamela at Atlas Shrugs have posted the following video of Pat Condell discussing the Islamic threat to our free speech. Muslims throughout Europe are using blasphemy laws and religious insult laws to prevent citizens from expressing opinions critical of Islam. Now they are using the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as weapon against free speech throughout the world.

We already have laws that protect citizens from libel, slander and credible threats of violence. No free person should ever allow their speech to subjected to the whims of the state.



h/t Memorandum

Conservatives' Dissent Will Not Be Stifled

Via Memeorandum:

Writing in Real Clear Politics, Michael Barrone writes in Strangers to Dissent, Liberals Try to Stifle It:

It is an interesting phenomenon that the response of the left half of our
political spectrum to criticism and argument is often to try to shut it down.
Thus President Obama in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress told
us to stop "bickering," as if principled objections to major changes in public
policy were just childish obstinacy, and chastised his critics for telling
"lies," employing "scare tactics" and playing "games." Unlike his predecessor,
he sought to use the prestige of his office to shut criticism down.

Well, yes there’s been a lot of stifling going on. Wasn’t that the goal of Media Matter’s Eric Boehlert’s re-write of the Kennedy assassination or Nancy Crocodile Tears Pelosi’s sniff, sniff, references to violence in San Francisco? Every time Jimmie Carter, et al, throw out “racist” or some insufferable twink like Janeane Garofalo says “tea bagger”, the intent is to stifle debate.

For too long Conservatives have sat largely on the sidelines as Liberals pushed their agenda unchallenged. Finally, Conservatives have woke to the idea that while the meek may inherit the Earth that won’t do them a bit of good as their country descends in to Hell.

Conservatives will not “tone down” so it is left to the Liberals as to whether they want to engage in honest discourse or not. Currently, it appears not.

Christian Couple Arrested In England For, Drumroll..Expressing Christian Beliefs

Via Memeorandum:

Apparently in Great Britain these days you can be arrested for merely expressing an opinion.

According to the story in The Daily Mail, a Christian couple, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were engaged in a conversation with Muslim woman was staying at a small hotel they own in Liverpool:

It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam,
was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.

They deny, however, that their comments were threatening and argue that
they had every right to defend and explain their beliefs.

Apparently not under British law.

The use by the police of the Public Order Act to arrest people over
offensive comments has dismayed a number of lawyers, who say the legislation was
passed to deal with law and order problems in the streets.

Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious
law, said: ‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I’m
very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.

This, for want of a better term, is horse hockey. No person should ever face persecution for stating an opinion, even if it is an unpopular opinion. The way that civilized people handle differences is to ignore them.

We have seen many in our own country trying to stifle honest discussion and debate by calling disagreement "racism." How long will it be before someone proposes actual speech codes?

Oh, Nancy

Via Memorandum:

Oh Nancy, we're not a violent people. We are nothing more or less than a population who has grown weary of an unresponsive government. We're sick of you. Want to know why? Let's start with your own words:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

To which I say:

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Matthew 7:5

Or to paraphrase, cut the crap on your own ugly rhetoric before you get all exercised about the rhetoric of others.

Madam Speaker, we have been called thugs, mobs, racists, white supremacists, teabaggers, lunatics, ad nauseum, simply because we think that this country is heading in the wrong direction and have stood up across this great country and said so.

We love this country. We are going to stand up for what we believe is right. But dry those crocodile tears because we are not violent. We do however, resent the hell out of you implying that we are.

I Am Fishy And Un-American

As a single parent without child support I worked two jobs to support my family.

I have voted in every major election (and most lesser ones) since I was eighteen years old.

I pay my taxes.

I love my country.

I am fishy and un-American.

For the first time in my life ordinary Americans are being demonized because they are exercising their First Amendment rights and because they are becoming involved in the democratic process. For the first time in my life good people are being racist because they oppose the President not because of the color of his skin but because of the content of his radical policies. For the first time in my life decent citizens are being compared to Nazis, not because they are anti-semitic but because they dare to raise their voices in the streets.

Call me what you want. I won't let petty name calling silence me. I am a conservative woman and I will stand up for my country whether the Left likes it or not. Get used to it.

Community Organizing or Astro-Turfing?

When handfuls of Code Pink ladies disrupted congressional hearings or speeches by Bushadministration officials, it was taken as evidence that the administration's policies were unpopular, and that the thinking parts of the populace were rising up in true democratic fashion.

Even disruptive tactics aimed at blocking President Bush's Social Security reform program were merely seen as evidence of boisterous high spirits and robust, wide-open debate. On May 23, 2005, the Savannah Morning News reported:

“By now, Jack Kingston is used to shouted questions, interruptions and boos. Republican congressmen expect such responses these days when they meet with constituents about President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security.
Glenn Reynolds AKA Instapundit, writing about the changing definition of dissent:

This was just good, boisterous politics: "Robust, wide-open debate." But when it happens to Democrats, it's something different: A threat to democracy, a sign of incipient fascism, and an opportunity to set up a (possibly illegal) White House "snitch line" where people are encouraged to report "fishy" statements to the authorities.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the "Tea Party" protesters Nazis, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman --forgetting the events above -- claims that left-leaning groups never engaged in disruptive tactics against Social Security reform, and various other administration-supporting pundits are trying to spin the whole thing as a deadly move toward "mob rule" and – somewhat contradictorily -- as a phony "astroturf" movement.

Remember: When lefties do it, it's called "community organizing." When conservatives and libertarians do it, it's "astroturf."

Under the current administration, dissent is de-legitimized. This would come as quite a shock to the patriots who felt so strongly about citizens' right to dissent that they guaranteed this right in our First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let them call us an "unruly mob" and liken us to "Nazis." Our Founding Fathers had a name for us-Patriots.