Asshole Gets Another Classic Novel Removed from Curriculum

I've been lacking inspiration lately, and posting has reflected it. Fortunately, even in the dog days of summer, eventually some stupid shit is bound to come along and kick me loose from my torpor. This is in honour of said stupid shit.

Said shit for brains hails from Brampton and, concerned about language in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, complained to the school board and had the book removed from the grade 10 curriculum.

When I started this blog, I seemed to be focusing on the "Human Rights" kangaroo kourts, and their efforts to ban speech that people might find offensive. Six months later, here we are again, and I shall proceed with my usual delicate touch.

Yo, fucknuts, what the hell do you think you're doing, banning TKaM? Judas Priest on a pogostick, what are you using for brains, three day old maggot shit? I'm going to try to let you in on a couple of secrets here.

First, the era and area about which Lee was writing were racist, so to capture the flavour of the times, racist language and characters need must be used. Are you so fucking stupid you don't get that?

Second, have you even read the goddamned book? The book itself is a lesson on racism, and the evils inherent therein. Do you not get that, moron? Are you so lost to reason and sanity that, in your world, the use of the word "nigger" in a book automatically puts it beyond the pale?

Guess what, asshole, you haven't done a good thing here. The book is a pulitzer prize winning classic, and all you've done is proven that I've got house plants with better reasoning faculties than you have.

Let me sum up, TKaM is a lesson in the evils of racism. In order to accurately give that lesson, racist language was required. You got that book pulled from the curriculum, preventing your child from (1) reading a great work of art and (2) discussing the lessons therein. You also have taught your child that puling, whinging titty babies can get what they want, if they prey on white guilt, and that wimps and pussies give in.

Nice work, you fascist dickhead.

A Review of Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"

To lead off, a quick and somewhat overdue (I read the book 2 months ago) review of Ezra Levant’s recently published “Shakedown,” which chronicles his adventures with the Canadian, Alberta, and BC so called Human Rights Commissions.

It’s an excellent book, well written, engaging; a thoroughly enjoyable read. Get it, read it, and DO SOMETHING.

Hey, I said “quick,” didn’t I? For more information, visit his site. Or, read the book. Or both.

Reading the book was something of a trip down memory lane for me. I’ve long been a reader of George Jonas, who has been against the HRCs as long as I can remember, probably right from the start (I’m a bit young to be able to say for sure, he came to Canada before I was born, and the HRCs are older than I). In fact, it was through his writings that I was originally persuaded of their inherent wrongness. Time has borne him out, although the HRCs’ evil has only, in the last year, started to become apparent to Canadians as a whole.

For this story, we travel back to the mid/late nineties. The place was Alberta, and the issue was a man who sued his employer for wrongful termination. He was openly gay, and his employer was a Christian private school, which terminated him for violating the terms of his employment contract. Said contract included a morals clause, which he violated by living his chosen lifestyle.

IIRC he lied to get his job, then flaunted his violations of the contract in order to get fired, so he could haul them into court, force them to take him back, and thus make a point. I don’t even remember if it was a “Human Rights” kangaroo court. What I do remember is that he won (point made, you're an asshole), and that I was royally pissed off at this abrogation of the schools property and freedom of assembly rights. At that time, I did not realize that Canadians have no property rights, Pierre F’ing Trudeau having chosen to leave them out of the constitution. But that’s not the point. The point is the conversation this led to.

I had a great friend at University, Steve. He and I saw eye to eye on a great many things, though not all. One thing I thought we agreed on was freedom of speech. We’d never actually broached the subject, but hell, we’d discussed just about everything under the sun and, agree or disagree, we were great pals. As he’d recently hung out his shingle as a lawyer, in Detroit, it never occurred to me that he’d believe in the hammer of state being an appropriate tool for regulating speech. Back then I simply didn’t understand the power of tribalism. Not being afflicted with that particular disease, I doubt I really do, even today.

We were chatting about this, that and the other one evening, and the aforementioned case came up. Somewhere along the way we got into whether a man may be punished for speaking unpopular opinions, such as Holocaust denial (there’d recently been a couple of high profile cases on the subject). I said no effing way. He responded with, “What gives you the right to hate me?”

Huh? Oh, yeah, Steve is Jewish. Barely (the first meal his family fed me was Polish sausages). But, seriously, wtf? I have never heard from him since, and this is a man who told me of a friend of his who had said he’d make a nice lamp. Steve is from a badly depleted line of Polish Jews, so, yes the Holocaust is a mightily sensitive subject, and I never could, would or did make a crack like that one. I simply think you have the right to air stupid opinions.

What gives me the right to hate him? That would be natural law. What gives him the right to use the hammer of state to try to prevent it? Anti-Semites, hell bigots of any sort, are nasty little shits who should be exposed, held up to public ridicule, and shunned. But this is not the purview of government; it is the purview of polite society. Only when they exit the arena of words and enter the arena of violence do you bring in the hammer of state.

What is the connection? Read the book. Or go to Mr. Levant’s website. The HRC’s are in large measure a creation of what he calls Canada’s “Official Jews,” created specifically to punish Neo-Nazi’s and other holocaust deniers. Such as Syed Soharwardy, the complainant who tortured Mr. Levant, by way of the HRCs for almost three years.

Who is Mr. Soharwardy? A Calgary based, Hamas and Hezbollah supporting, holocaust denying, radical Imam who took offense at Mr. Levant’s republication of the Jyllands Posten caricatures of Mohammed. You know, those cartoons whose initial publication sparked off globe spanning riots, which resulted in over 200 deaths.

To recap: The HRCs were created, in part due to pressure from Canadian Jewry, to be used to punish Jew hating holocaust deniers. Mr. Levant, a Jew was dragged through these kangaroo courts for 900 days by a Jew hating holocaust denier, whom Mr. Levant offended.

Can we get rid of these fucking commissions now?

And Steve, NOW do you see the danger of putting government in charge of policing thought?