*sigh*

Ok, if you find proving arguable points too taxing, perhaps you will at least provide some rationale as to why smaller governments are better than bigger ones. Or why regulation is a bad thing.

I'll go first. Terrorist are bad because they kill innocent people - which is generally bad. Women should not be raped because it is a degrading and horrific experience - which we can agree is also bad. Poison Kool-ade is bad because it kills people - which we agree is bad.

See, that wasn't so hard. Now, back to mopping.

You are right to point out that the Charter guarantee such freedoms. However, the charter was not handed down by God. It is a piece of paper with some things written on it. Those things were written by people who made a choice - for better or worse. Similarly, legal rights are not imparted to us as living creatures, rather they are extensions of the state (and associated 'democratic history') - which again is an artifact of history. As such, they exist only to the extent that the state exists. (which, is the source of my objection to the HRC process).

By the way, I did not mean to suggest that Confucius got it right - by any means. Instead, I pointed out that a range of views exist. But it rather it is important to remember that there are other perspectives in the matter that can't simply be ignored. We are all permitted to disagree with them, but to simply ignore such positions, or to right them off as the product of ignorant unenlightened minds is likely not the most productive approach. First consider, then reject.

My final point was to the point that we should continue to uphold the reasons for having a free society, not just say that it is great and leave it at that. If we are to have strong opinion, (as evidenced by this conversation), those should be reasoned opinion, based on some rationale - whatever that might be. To simply espouse a view is not enough.

Okay, yes. If there is a fire and you yell fire that is a good thing.

However, I will respond here to your responses (for which I thank you) in aggregate. First, it is a metaphor, as you rightly point out. The thing about metaphors is that they are not meant to be literal examples, but rather illustrations of a point. As such, whether or not yelling fire in a crowed theatre would actually cause panic or death is immaterial. The point is: if you cause panic and death, that should be illegal. And it is (reckless endangerment.). So, it's time to update the metaphor - let's go with yelling 'bomb' in an airport or pulling the emergency brake, which are most certainly illegal if done falsely - but we should argue about the principle at issue . But if people engage in such endangerment (like uttering threats at an airport) they should dealt with in the appropriate legal manner (i.e. not in a quasi-judicial manner such as the HRT process). Their punishment should be issued to the degree they cause actual danger (not moral indignation).

Second, there is a much more tangible limit free speech in Canada and in the US - slander/libel legislation. My point was not that there should be arbitrary limits to the kinds of things we can say, but rather that reasonable limits (like not printing defamatory, false thing about people) exist.

Recall also that I agreed with Mr. Steyn's stance on the HRC, which is imposing what is clearly unreasonable limits to free speech.

While I don't want to take a position on this liberalism/conservatism argument (which doesn't seem too productive anyhow - especially is someone points out that neither are static monolithic viewpoints, but groups of roughly aligned socio-political thinkers), I should point out that you have not made any case to suggest that it is an a priori bad thing that the state have oodles of power, that there be restrictions on free speech or "so forth." Nor is there an argument to support your notion that less government regulation or unrestrained freedoms is best for Canadians.

Uncritical moralizing does no one any good. You might be right, but you will have to prove it, or at the very least argue it. (note that I have the same criticism for your 'liberal' antagonists).

Two other small things:

1. Recall that i agree with Mr. Steyn's position on the HRC (note that the acronym CHRC is used by several Canadian institutions). As such, I have no objection to pointing out the clear deficiencies in its procedures, nor would I quibble with argument that point to the clear skirting of the rule of law. Rather, my point was that freedom of speech is not a natural good. It is a choice - with good bits and bad bits. As a consequence, factors limiting freedom of speech (like the HRC) are not natural evils, they also are choices - with good bits and bad bits. And while this choice is, in part, historical we continue to make it (if we think critically enough).

2. re antagonism: Mr. Steyn and subsequent commentors (on both sides) do not enrich any debate or point of view with unconsidered remarks or swift generalizations. Indeed, part of granting people you detest equal rights is learning to reign in one's own tendencies towards fractious outbursts. Caustic tones, on the other hand, are very amusing and are good for rallying people to a cause (and as I mentioned, selling magazines). However, as with most rhetorical devices, they're not too good for considered debate (such as the one in which we are now engaged).

Ok, so I have two issues.

1. I find myself agreeing with Mr. Steyn's standpoint on this issue. The related tenets of free speech and of rule of law are - in my view - important to preserve. (Before the pitchforks come out, I must note that free speech does have its reasonable limits - no one should be yelling "Fire!" in a crowed theatre). However, I find it difficult to align myself with the caustic tone taken to the issue. It does no one any good to muddy a perfectly reasonable debate with polarizing hyperbole (dressing up as Nazis is rarely kinky by the way). It does, however, sell papers (or magazines, or website advertisement). As such, let us all try to refrain from petulant name-calling and focus on the issues at hand.

2. There is a presumption of absolute morality contain in this piece and its subsequent commentary. The presumption is that we all want to live in a violently "free" society. Many thinkers (from Aristotle to Popper) have pointed out that true debate is often confrontational (though it's best if it remains civil), but others have placed emphasis on harmony (e.g. Confucius, Cicero). As such, one can think of a spectrum: on one end completely open debate with all the strife and paralysis that such debate can lead to (see the US heathcare debate as an example) and on the other end a harmonious society with little positive individual freedom (i.e. the freedom to do various things). Countries like Malaysia, with several vastly different ethnic/religious groups often trend towards harmony (to reduce he risk of civil unrest); whereas, Western democracies have tended to privilege freedom. In this way, we can see that "living in a free society" is not an a priori right, nor is it anything like an absolute moral good. Rather, "free societies" are the outcomes of specific historical circumstances and should be evaluated on their merits (and flaws). If on balance, we as a people decide that we should be allow to voice hateful speech (because our society is presumably strong enough to handle the ensuing 'beef'), then great. But it doesn't start that way and we must have a good reason for wanting it to remain this way.