What Liberal Fascism? Part 3
June 8th, 2008 at 12:16pm Mark Noonan
From Canada:
What could Mark Steyn’s punishment look like, if he’s convicted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?
It could look like this order, issued just last week by Alberta’s human rights commission, against a Christian pastor named Rev. Stephen Boission.
The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk, (pictured at left). That’s her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.
Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week she ordered her “remedy”.
It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.
I’ll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…
That’s insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh — and for his “suffering”. Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint”. People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint — as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who’s going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
There’s a lot there, starting with a small but telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He’s a professor. But Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But Andreachuk calls him “Mr. Boissoin”. No “Rev. Boissoin” for her.
But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin can never — ever — communicate anything “disparaging” about gays. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.
But nothing “disparaging”? That means nothing critical.
She didn’t order him not to communicate anything “illegal” or even anything “hateful”. She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.
A divorce lawyer from Lethbridge with a second-rate patronage job just ordered a Canadian pastor to stop communicating to anyone, ever, about gays. Not to stop “hate speech” — whatever that malleable legal definition is. She just told him to shut up, period.
Its from Canada, but this is precisely what the left wants to bring to the United States - and if we don’t stop them, cold, it is whaat they will do. They don’t want the free play of ideas amongst thinking people, but unthinking acceptance of liberal orthodoxy in all matters. In the United States they are handicapped by the First Amendment and a staunch desire for liberty amongst the American people…but if, say, they ever get a solid, leftist majority on the Supreme Court, you just watch them push this sort of thing through via judicial fiat.
Each election matters; each battle matters and as we’re dealing with people who’s concept of freedom is sexual license coupled with slavery in all other matters, we daren’t compromise. Its fight for freedom, or become the mindless robots of liberalism.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Foreign Affairs, General Government, Grassroots, Justice System, Kook Left, Popular Culture, Religion, Republicans, Social Issues, Supreme Court
42 Comments
1. Casper | June 8th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
This is your third post on Liberal fascism and you have yet to come up with an example from our country. I’m betting I could find a few examples of what I could label conservative fascism it I tried.
2. js | June 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
wow, maybe you should post one the issue instead of change it stooge 1….this is a severe hit for freedom of speech in Canada….on our border…socialism….facism….they seem to walk hand in hand here….if they dont stand up and defend thier constitution….sodomites will end up running thier country….
3. Pain | June 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
This Conservative judge in Alberta [the Tories are the same party in Canada that Stephen Harper the PM belongs as well as the one in Mulroney's time marched in lock step with Reagan and Thatcher.] did the right thing. And you are right Noonan this is exactly what will happen when religious zealots try to harass people and break the law.
If the courts have to be packed with liberal activist judges to end theocratic tyranny in the US so progress can come about We are all for that. Maybe some of you will finally grow a set and take your principles seriously and give up and leave. Nah, your side would never do that because things even as bad as they are today are still bettter than anywhere else,– right now that holds . . .
4. Robin Naismith Green | June 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
You know that is the same sort of decree that could get abortion declared a violation of human rights and I bet you’d all be jumping up and down and waving your Bibles in support of that ruling. The law is gas tight in this case Boissoin did vilate the rights of not only Lund indirectly but virtually every homosexual on the planet. Good call for Alberta. Funny this is a Conservative QC!
5. PeterPan | June 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I can’t write or express the things I want to say on this website. If your such an advocate of free speech, why can’t I freely express myself right here?
Because this is a family website? Because Jay-sus would “frown” on it?
Cut the crap Noonan. There’s a time and place for everything. Hiding under the cover of free speech does not camouflage hate speech.
You and Margolis have gone so far out there that you CAN’T see your distorted images anymore. You have become caricatures of the far right. Clowns.
Go ahead. Make us laugh.
6. Pain | June 8th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
5. PeterPan | June 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Oy!
If they were ONLY caricatures!
7. js | June 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
maybe you should make a website, start your own blog, and then you could chat it up all ya want, eh peter peter? take pain anda few of the sodomites wit’cha, pleeze
8. Harry | June 8th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Go easy on the vodka this weekend JS.
You only have so many braincells.
9. CanadianObserver | June 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Oh Canada, my home and native land. Thank you for your liberal ideals, even under a conservative government.
Down with hate speech with the desire to incite. Down with ignorance and intolerance against fellow citizens. Down with malignant homophobia however well it is religiously disguised and thank you, Mark, for posting this thread as it reminds me once again why I am proud to be called a Canadian.
10. cam | June 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Problem with the opinion expressed here by Mark Noonan is that he has taken on example of a judge making a ruling which appears on its face, as it has been reported here, to be extreme and out of step with US Constitutional freedoms. He then jumps acrross a huge casm of coorrelation and extrapolates between what has happened in a obscure court case in Canada and generalizes about all liberals even though he has not proven such a connection.
11. js | June 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
actually harry, ive sober longer than youve been outta school, much, much longer….by the looks of the content your pushin….skin the horse and not the rider, eh? sadistic ya are…but an empty sadist that i dont fear….
12. js | June 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
well said co
every pee pee puffer north of the border with be your friend for life….
13. js | June 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
so tell us cam….if what you said was true…where are all the liberals who are outraged about this ruling if mark really is so far off the truth, eh?
line em up, go ahead….
14. phnx | June 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Casper,
The Supreme Court ruling upholding the taking of private land to give to other private parties, under the guise of eminent domain, is a perfect example of liberal fascism at work in the US.
15. Some Assembly Required | June 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
phnx, in a previous thread, you cited the vast amount of oil in Colorado in the form of oil shale. Among many, a major problem developers face is the land is privately owned. The Government would have to step in and take the land in order for one of three select companies to develop it (eminent domain). Of the Three, only one boasts the technology to do it. So I ask you, would you have a problem with this?
16. cam | June 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
js,
Every ruling by some yahoo judge in Canada should not be reason to conclude the sky is falling. To raise concern, such a ruling must be an indication of a trend or it is a precedent issued by a higher court that affects how judges rule in similar cases in the US. In this case it is neither.
As far as lining up anyone, I can only speak for myself. If anyone else agrees they are free to say so. I prefer to live where free speech is allowed even if it means the President will have to drive by it or answer questions from those who disagree with his policies or speeches.
But this has not been the case. What we have seen is “free speech zones” where those who disagree a relegated to fenced in location far from the elites who so disdain such dissent.
The trend toward restrictions on free speech and other constitutionally guaranteed rights is what should raise concern, not one ruling which is statistically and legally irrelevant
17. Ricorun | June 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I haven’t been around much lately, so I’m not sure. But has Mark definined what he means by “liberal fascism” yet? Is fascism okay as long as it isn’t of the liberal variety?
18. js | June 8th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“and generalizes about all liberals ”
beyond the rest of your hogwash cam, you did testify about all liberals…so you cant produce your own evidence but demand mark too?
as a reality check, this is a blog, right? its purpose to debate issues at large…but you want to throttle free speech and opinion about a “yahoo” judge in canada because of what…your a liberal sypathiser and dont want to hear marks view? you suck….bad….
19. Mark Noonan | June 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
As for generalising about all liberals - I’ve yet to see one of our liberals denounce this outrageous usurpation of the rights of the people; heck, Canadian O asserts he is PROUD that a person can have their speech curbed…to him, that is a blow for freedom, and he doesn’t even realise what an Orwellian “freedom is slavery” view he has…
20. Casper | June 8th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Mark,
I haven’t seen you come out against human sacrifice, or cannibalism, therefore I assume that you and all conservatives support human sacrifice and cannibalism.
21. phnx | June 8th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Casper,
I gave you an prime example of liberal fascism alive and well in the US, and you fail to respond. How can we take you seriously?
22. Casper | June 8th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
phnx,
You didn’t provide any links backing up what you claimed. How can we take you seriously.
23. phnx | June 8th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Casper,
Have you been living under a bridge somewhere or don’t property rights issues mean anything to you. I’m not going to do your homework for you. But I’ll give you a hint: Kelo v New London.
…and you call yourself a teacher.
As to the nature of fascism, the definition has changed over time as leftists became uncomfortable with the association of their ideas with the likes of Hitler and Mussoulini, thus the mealy mouthed misinterpretation posted above.
Perhaps the words of Benito can shed some light on the subject:
“Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity…. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.”
As has been expressed previously, the main difference between communism and socialism is that of private property. Under communism all property belongs to the state. Under fascism, personal property does exist, but only as long as it serves the interests of the state. Thus the Krupp empire could exist and profit, as long as it did the bidding of the Nazi regime.
24. Casper | June 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
phnx,
Thanks for the hint. You do realize that three of the five justices that voted for Kelo v New London were appointed by Republican presidents don’t you. I appreciate the hint though. As for doing my homework for me, I would like to point out that you are the one brought the example up, so the burden of truth was on you. I would agree with you that this was an example of fascism,, but since three of the five judges were appointed by conservatives, I’m not sure this is an example of Liberal fascism.
As for calling myself a teacher, yes I am. However, that doesn’t make me an expert on everything. I don’t teach political science, nor do I claim to be an expert on it. However, if you wish to have a discussion on Aztec religion or a number of other subjects, I think I could hold my own.
25. phnx | June 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Casper,
The appointment of these judges is meaningless. You have to do better than that.
Their voting records show four of them (John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) to be consistent liberals. The one exception (Anthony Kennedy) at best is a moderate and certainly not a conservative. Dissent of the decision came from three conservatives (Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas) and one moderate (Sandra Day O’Connor).
Since you have recognized the decision as fascism, you will have to accept that it was LIBERAL FASCISM…either that or deny reality.
Game, set and match.
26. Brian (Boston) | June 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Phnx, I grew up in Germany, studied German history in school and University. The liberals have not changed the definition of fascism, it is you and Mark that are trying to change the meaning. The National Social Worker’s Party was founded on Marxist beliefs, but by the end of 1920’s and into the 1930’s their message changed and it had nothing to do with socialism or communism. In fact, they eventually banned socialists and communists. Fascism remains a far right ideology.
If you want to read a good book at the Nazi party, may I suggest: Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland 1933 - 1945. Führertum und Gefolgschaft by Enrico Syring.
27. phnx | June 9th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“Fascism remains a far right ideology.” Brian
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to what you mean by this.
Once again, the principle difference between communism and fascism is property rights. If you disagree provide something other than sound bites.
BTW: It was Benito Mussoulini whom I quoted, not Mark. You know, Benito Mussoulini, that fgamous FASCIST! I accept his definition before i accept the politically corrected version of some modern day leftists.
OBTW: Growing up in post war Germany, when they were desperately trying to distance from their NAZI past, and embrace a new socialism is not refereence for objective authority on the subject. But nice try.
28. cam | June 9th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Mark, js
Go ahead and discuss obscure if you wish. My intent is not to “throttle” free speech but to point out that what happens in a far corner of the Canadian legal system has little relevance here. But if you must tilt at windmills, be my guest. It provides an indication of who you are.
29. Robin Naismith Green | June 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
26. phnx | June 9th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
The principle difference between fascism and communism is the fascists embrace the Church and use it to the benfit of their political ends and the communists reject the Church in favor of worshipping the state. Period.
I point you to the case of Marie Jeanne La Tour who was guillotined in 1943 by the Vichy government for perfoming abortions. She was escorted to the guillotine by nuns who served as her jailers.
30. Robin Naismith Green | June 9th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
23. Casper | June 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Heck Casper six of the nine Roe v Wade Supremes were appointed by GOP presidents.
31. FmrMarine | June 9th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
CO
>>>Mark, for posting this thread as it reminds me once again why I am proud to be called a Canadian.<<<
I think you should be called a freeking NUTBAG! in your little marxist gaydom.
32. FmrMarine | June 9th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
pain, RNG from…..
Editorials from Hell’s leading daily newspaper
Anti Christian, porno, gay promoting site from the UK……WTF?
>>>>”Today in the Orwellian fascist state of Amurrikah there is a moveable feast prepared to fill the bellies of every gas pump weary nationalist from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. Dividing the wheat from the chaff when it comes to people and their opinions is never easy nor is it ever safe but man is it ever fun. Those of you who know me know that I am a LESBIAN and most of you it seems could really give a fuck as long as I write something that either makes you think or makes you laugh; the point is eliciting emotive response not whether the source is trying to procreate so white Amurrikah never comes under some mythical whip being held by the angry brown hand of the “Other.”<<<
33. Danish Artist | June 9th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“the communists reject the Church in favor of worshipping the state”
Oh you mean like the present crop of Obamaniacs?
You just described the entire liberal democrat party.
Thanks for affirming what we have been saying all along.
you need to work on the rest of the BS in your post. What happened? You had a momentary lapse of sanity and then reverted?
34. Robin Naismith Green | June 9th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
31. FmrMarine | June 9th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I see the heat is melting brains on the Sun Coast. Lovely Polk County, Florida. Better you than me.
35. phnx | June 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Robin,
“Religion is the opiate of the people” K. Marx
“The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.” B.Mussoulini
A state religion or a religion that serves the state, there is no difference between the two.
By ignoring the issue of property rights you reveal your ignorance.
36. phnx | June 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“Heck Casper six of the nine Roe v Wade Supremes were appointed by GOP presidents.” Robin NG
Your point must be that while Republican Presidents have appointed both conservatives, moderates and liberals, Democrat Presidents have appointed only leftist partisans to the bench.
Very perceptive of you. Thanks for pointing that out.
37. Robin Naismith Green | June 9th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
32. Danish Artist | June 9th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Good luck finding a fascist regime that rejected the Christian Church. Not Mussolini and not Hitler for sure. Even Marshal Petain embraced the Church as his right hand clasped with the fasces and for the left hand, nothing.
Liberal fascism is like a unicorn a pretty fantasy in the minds of right wing little boys who write silly revisonist books for money.
38. Brian (Boston) | June 10th, 2008 at 3:49 am
phnx, I never said you quoted Mark.
There are severe difference between the two, not just property rights. For example, fascism is driven by nationalistic or ethnic differences and fascism does not try to have total control over business. Fascist regimes also believe in a class structure, while communism tries to make everyone more or less equal.
Read any German or Italian history book about their leaders during the second world war. They were not liberals.
39. Danish Artist | June 10th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Robin did I try to?
Nope. - the topic I covered was communism.
go away foolish little girl.
hitler a Christian?
Snort!
40. Pain | June 10th, 2008 at 7:34 am
38. Danish Artist | June 10th, 2008 at 7:22 am
That’s not what she said.
The point made was DA that fascist governments use the Church as a tool to control the population. The NDSAP did that as well as the italian fascists. this was because the fascists sought the moral acceptance of the the population and thereby the complicity of the fascist leasdership and subordinate organs and the Church in how they dealt with those outside the state and the Church.
41. Robin Naismith Green | June 10th, 2008 at 7:48 am
38. Danish Artist | June 10th, 2008 at 7:22 am
So you get to control the conversation now do you?
“little girl” Ha! How quaint a thing to say to a woman who is taller than you likely stronger than you and definitely quicker witted than you. Mister Napoleon complex man. And now you are going to tell me you are 6′5 and weight 280 pounds and what you could do to me . OOOOh I sooo vewwwy skeered.
Go learn something instead of believing everything Bill O’Reilly says. Being an arrogant white man was so yesterday. Nobody owes you crap little boy and all the wolves your momma warned you about weren’t only males.
42. young nudist&hellip | September 5th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
young nudist
While I’m not sure if many people will agree with this opinion, I think your thoughts are really interesting regarding it.