I read the article and was completely confused. The only concrete issue the article seemed to address was Mark Steyn (whoever he is) and "governmental tribunals" with no reference to specifically what tribunals or in which country or countries they are being held, other than the parenthetical reference to Canada and Europe.

So I googled "Mark Steyn government tribunals" and was confronted with the usual barrage of quasi-related links so I randomly selected Free Mark Steyn. I found a number of points in this editorial interesting. First off as far as the source, this is from the editors of the National Review Online and since it was founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., the organization's conservative credentials can hardly be doubted.

Besides the source there were two other interesting points that this editorial brought out. The first is that the current Canadian government that is holding these tribunals is *conservative* and secondly that the primary opposition to these tribunals is the introduction of legislation by *liberal* Canadian MP Keith Martin.

It seems that in this case it takes a liberal to at least make the attempt to alleviate the worry of conservatives.

I wish he said something concrete too. All I've taken away from his lament is a general 'get-off-my-lawn' crotchettiness and that he had trouble returning to civilian life after military service.

What did you get out of it, Brad? I'm curious because it all seems a bit vague and generic - with a few very minor changes he could have been complaining about almost anything - declining school standards, young people, popular music, tool manufacturing.

steynonline.com

Spend a little time there.  You could (conceivably - anything's possible) learn some things.

And your point would be?

My point is that a conservative source seems to not only find that it’s actually a *conservative* government that is responsible for the tribunal in question but that the primary objection to such tribunals comes from a *liberal*.

This is totally contrary to the subjective opinion that “I observe how clever liberals are at labeling people and then getting laws passed to silence their branded enemies”. The facts in this case actually support the opposite opinion.

I have to Inigo Montoya that.

Well, the general tone of the thing was whiney...but with the low no brow angry little man Limbaugh and his huge mouth representing her, those fears should be allayed.

What I find disturbing is the blatant hypocrisy of complaining that:

If relating to and clumping people by degree of agreement with one's own views isn't "labeling", what is? Is her "labeling" any more valid? Should her demonizing be granted public venue? Might it not be better to (once demonizing appears, and 'labeling' is done) limit that?

A better question might be, "What is gained by the practice of 'labeling' and demonizing?"

The answer is an unhappy one: Dehumanizing and an effort to diminish another through emotional methods rather than deal objectively with one idea versus another.

Suddenly 'labeling' and 'demonizing' should be 'limited' now that the labelers & demonizers are in political control (another sophomoric one-liner for ya mumble ).

It's beginning to sound like the Middle-East, Daiwa. By that I mean the unwillingness to let go of the past and proceed in a straight forward, honest manner.

The "he said she said" has to end. It's illogical to expect that by doing the same thing over and over again to get to a different result.

The "gotcha" and the "nyah nyah" have to end. The stakes are too high.

Which is why disagreement should not be labeled 'nyah nyah.'  Those who previously and proudly proclaimed 'it's my patriotic duty to dissent' now wish to silence it, claiming that dissent is harmful and must be 'limited.'  After all, the stakes are too high.  We must put no obstacles in the way of His success.

Not buyin' it.

As for the Middle East, there's really only one side in that conflict with an 'unwillingness to let go of the past.'

I didn't label it that.

You don't seem able to just discuss ideas beyond the one liner almost zinger.

I don't expect you to have read all of my posts & replies, but you're quite wrong.  However, I'm under no obligation to please any other blogger or respond to putdowns (speaking of nyah nyah).

steyn should indeed cause conservatives worry.  last thing they need on their side is another self-aggrandizing misanthrope proclaiming himself their new martyr-in-chief.

a canadian tribunal?  oh, the humanity!

when did yall start weeping and gnashing your teeth over canada's restrictions on anything--much less its constraints on publishing?  (a magazine i used to edit had no choice but submit copies to canadian customs prior to printing our canadian edition so we could redact any portion they found objectionable, not one of which was, say, an apology for bosnian genocide, or anything more inflammatory than good ol american soft porn, the kind regularly pulled off the stands and/or prosecuted in ohio and georgia; one issue--the one in which i lampooned their process by depicting mounties throwing darts at a board divided into sectors representing the usual areas of concern--was rejected in its entirety.) 

while i can't speak for the rightly mourned and badly missed william f. buckley, i'd be flat fuckin amazed if he felt solidarity with steyn. 

i certainly defend steyn's right to publish whatever atrocious hateful crap he dreams up, but i gotta wonder why he hasn't renounced his canadian citizenship (having been so badly victimized in the greet white north, is he living here under a grant of asylum) or when he plans to return to his native land to battle the forces of oppression?