We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, June 3. 2008
Section 7.1 of the British Columbia Human Rights†Code states, re a "hate" offense accusation:
Apparently there is no defence, since taking offense is a subjective experience or, more likely, a manipulative power play out of the Al Sharpton handbook.
MacLean's blog is live-blogging the Mark Steyn/MacLean's
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I see that we can't post a comment now if we mention someones name who I guess has been banned from commenting.Thats too bad especially considering the above post. For the last 2 years I've considered Maggie's my favorite site, more of a home. The comments section and the people who post are one of the main reasons I consider Maggie's home. I hope Maggie's doesn't become one of those site's that I just peek in on once a week.
Still your home. When he reforms himself and sobers up, we'll take him back as a prodigal son.
Sean,I feel the same way you do. Been here about as long as you, could'nt have said it any better.
I don't get the indignation at the owner's right to manage their site as they wish. This is their site, not some bi-polor rager's or any other's site. They have stated a desire for and maintain themselves a respectful decorum. If commentors cannot comply then it is well within thier rights as the owners to do as they see fit. If you don't like it, you can always start your own blog.
I've watched Mr. H go through the same cycle at three other blog sites. It seems to be a behavioral pattern. I wish him well and hopes he can come to grips with whatever it is that causes him to periodically crash and burn.
I don't think anyone is debating 'rights'. And it was not the result but the manner in which that result was obtained that bothered me. And lest you think I am defending H. personally, keep in mind that few here have called him to task, rightly or wrongly, as often as I. Just that the base principle of fairness seemed to be lacking during this whole episode. I suppose I set myself up for disappointment by expecting other than the ordinary from MF.
I also think it rather presumptuous to reference the Biblical 'prodigal son' and in the same breath label someone a drunk in a public forum. Nothing like beating a man when he's down and banned and can't defend himself. And where did that information come from anyway... that he's a drunk? To me just another example of the basic unfairness of the whole episode.
Yes, that was unfair. It just seemed like sane and sober blogging sometimes, and something disinhibited and aggressive at others. Jekyll and Hyde. That is a typical sign of drunk blogging - a well-known phenomenon.
While drunk blogging may be a well known phenomenon, I don't understand the basis upon which you make that judgment based purely on an individual's writing style. You have in the past, and seriously it seemed, advised this person to 'take his lithium'. So, is it drunk or bi-polar?
In addition why do you make these diagnoses and assertions that further besmirch this person's reputation and to which he is unable to defend himself? From where do you gain the right and or justification to do so? "It just seemed like" is hardly an honest or erudite explanation for treating a person in such a manner. It makes your apology half-hearted and insincere and does nothing to further and/or repair the loss of face that the blog has incurred from the way in which this matter was handled. Again, not the result but the execution was the issue.
So now we are debating 'rights'. It is simple BD has the "rights", it is his site.
To quote Phil B "If you don't like it, you can always start your own blog."
True, Tucker. I'll give you that. This blog can do whatever it likes. And it has, to its detriment. In the 'real' world there are libel laws. Though of course those laws aren't applicable to anonymous blogs and commenter's. Oh wait... I notice you post anonymously as well... brave man are you.
I run a few web forms (not blogs). Anyone we have a problem with, we watch for a few weeks. Then warn them. And when the behavior doesn't change we ban them.
Maybe I am old fashion in my ways. Is there a better way to handle the manner?
We are fair. We asked him politely to cool it countless times, then forcefully, then directly with some annoyance - and then gave him one last chance, which he wasted no time in defying. We were too fair.
He has played this game many times at other sites, with the same victim act when evicted. It's his shtick. It's a shame.
As the webmaster of MF, I can say that this decision was not made lightly or quickly. BD, the other authors and I spent two weeks discussing the matter.
Deleting Meta's comment is the perfect example of how ungentlemanly this whole affair has been handled.
Reading the minute by minute action I cannot help but think: This is how Hitler started. IN THE COURTS.
Hitler didn't do anything that was "illegal". He always had German courts to back the actions of the Party.
Consider how in England it's okay for Muslims to demand unequal access to public services. Muslim only swimming day at the rec. etc. Minnesota has the public foot baths etc. Now they are stomping on responsible journalism.
Enter Barak Hussein Obama (a thoroughly Muslim name) and we get the same unequal laws here in USA. Soon we will be sent the bill for the bullets required to "re-educate" our loved ones.
Here are a few more of the things that Barak Hussein Mabus has claimed that simply aren't true: (WARNING TO CANADIAN READERS: YOUR GOVERNMENT MAY TRY TO JAIL YOU FOR READING THIS)
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is
Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means
'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he
would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black
President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side
and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While
Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family
was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African
Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states
he's Arab, not African Negro).
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it
daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that
faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run
for office. 4-3-08 Article "Obama was 'quite religious in
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you
were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic
Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a
year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to
prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed
delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks),
Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest
sounds on Earth at sunset." This is just one example of what Pamela
is talking about when she says "Obama's narrative is being altered,
enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts."
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one
teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign
Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and
couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the
Koran and watch cartoons.
The demands for free expression on otherís personal property, like blogs, might be compared to the Muslims demanding five pages in Macleans magazine to rebut Steyn, i.e., help, help, Iím being repressed.
About the BC Human rights commission:
I checked their webpage here:
I looked at section 7.1 (and at the rest of the document) and could find nothing that indicated "...innocent intent is not a defense, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism."
I detest what is happening to Steyn, but I think it's important that we always have our facts straight.
Get your context hat on Doug. Reading the document precisely shows what was said to be true. The statement you take issue with describes possible defenses to the charges which are not specifically listed as a defense in 7.1.
In other words- you are making the author's point. There is no defense, at least not the reasonable kind listed by the author listed in 7.1. So the fact that it's not in there- proves that it's not in there!
Here's a relevant passage from 7.1:
A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or without a hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or panel determines that any of the following apply:
(a) the complaint or that part of the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal;
(b) the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint or that part of the complaint do not contravene this Code;
(c) there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;
(d) proceeding with the complaint or that part of the complaint would not
(i) benefit the person, group or class alleged to have been discriminated against, or
(ii) further the purposes of this Code;
(e) the complaint or that part of the complaint was filed for improper motives or made in bad faith;
(f) the substance of the complaint or that part of the complaint has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding;
(g) the contravention alleged in the complaint or that part of the complaint occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was filed unless the complaint or that part of the complaint was accepted under section 22 (3).
So you see: telling the truth, or not being a meanie about it, or actually trying to help the public, and a few other good excuses, ARE NOT LISTED AS REASONS TO DISMISS THE CHARGES. Instead you get reasons like: only if the accuser is lying (and we'll be the judge of that) etc.
Good job on keeping the facts straight there pal.
I think Maggie's is fully within their rights for banning H. See Luther 2.1. We are not advocating commenters rights either. Mr H has at times acted as a bully and a dick. When I come to the comments section of a post and see comments by him that are intelligent and articulate I read them. When he acts like a dick I scroll past his comments. I guess some people can't do that and he must get their goat. I can understand that also. He, like everone else here, is part of the fabric of Maggie's homey atmosphere. By banning H the fabric changes. Like Luther, I hope I didn't expect too much from MF.
Re: H-man...The problem with his rants are in the reading. Let's be realistic here, you can't ignore them until after you've already wasted your time reading half of one. If you knew who was posting before reading the post, it would be much easier to take it or leave it. Let him back, just give his posts a disclaimer (or font or filter or whatever).
Like Doug, I also didn't get your inset box about Section 7.1 as a summary or interpretation of its meaning, however accurate. I thought it was put forward as an exact quote. I'm usually pretty good at picking up intentional hyperbole for effect but didn't in this case, so I concur that the point is oversold.