The Individuals vs. You, Me, and Steyn

Mark Steyn is getting a lot of support from various factions regarding the CHRC, but he's also taking some shots from the left.

I still can't figure out the "liberals" in Canada. They're for every right under the sun: gay rights, women's rights, environmental rights, freedom of speech*, freedom of expression*, so forth.

But notice the asterisks. According to liberals in Canada, freedom of speech is only protected as long as you're saying something they agree with. Expression? Well, they haven't a clue.

Want proof? Here's a piece from Jason Cherniak. Reading his stuff is an interesting study in the Canadian Left's intellect.

"As a matter of principle, I support this law. Hate messages should not be protected expression. Indeed, they are an attempt to silence the free expression of others by removing their individuality. At its heart, I believe that freedom of expression, and the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is about protecting the individual. People who attempt to use their individual rights to remove the individual rights of others should not be surprised when they end up on the wrong side of the law."

Got that? Me neither. Cherniak thinks that an individual's right is sacrosanct, and should be protected from other "individuals" trying to remove their right. Okay. Then why is he saying that neo-Nazis should be silenced? If they, as individuals, are speaking their minds, then their speech should be protected from individuals that want to shut them up. Cherniak runs around in circles and never gets anywhere. The man actually disagrees with himself while agreeing with himself. Tough to do, but he manages.

I sent him a comment asking if he was kidding, but it was probably a waste of time: lefties don't kid, and their sense of humor and irony is completely non-existent. Here's another bit from Cherniak:

"For example, we all have freedom of opinion, assembly and expression. Perhaps somebody has the opinion that everybody with red hair should be tied up. Perhaps that person might gather together a mob of people with the same opinion. Perhaps those people will express themselves by tying up a person with red hair and leaving him in the middle of the Trans-Canada Highway. Obviously, such a chain of events should be illegal. However, it can be described as a group of people holding an opinion, assembling and then expressing themselves."

Er, no. Tying someone up and leaving them in the middle of the highway cannot be argued as "freedom of expression." I doubt that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn would say that kidnapping and assault are protected freedoms. Nobody would. Cherniak's observations are so completely void of logic that they're laughable.

Then there's this knee-slapper: "I do not know enough about the specific accusations against Mr. Levant, Mr. Steyn and Macleans to give an opinion in their individual cases. However, I do know enough about the law to understand that their cases will be tried according to constitutional and legal principles."

What a buffoon. If you don't know enough about the accusations against Steyn and Levant, then what the hell are you doing writing an opinion about it? And while we're at it, since when are their cases going to be "tried"? This isn't a criminal court proceeding, and they aren't being tried for anything. Maybe Cherniak just made a slip of the tongue. I'm sure he'd love to see Steyn tried, drawn, and quartered. But not this time, pal.

If this is Cherniak's evidence for how much he knows about the law, I can only hope that no one will ever need his legal advice.

In the end, Cherniak's arguments all amount to the same old leftist anthem: "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others."