tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6573533210099052368.post7465277826999462855..comments2024-03-16T00:26:41.051-04:00Comments on Scaramouche: The Truth Is That Canada's Supreme Court Really Messed Up By Placing Inane Limits on--and Even Criminalizing--the Truthscaramouchehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04380374512378209528noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6573533210099052368.post-47404689652979767692013-03-16T17:01:32.800-04:002013-03-16T17:01:32.800-04:00I propose a compromise: The Whatcott ruling shows...I propose a compromise: The Whatcott ruling shows that the Supreme Court of Canada is callously indifferent to principles of both common law and equity established at least as far back as the courts of Henry II. (In passing, lest the good blog-readers of Canada take my remarks as anti-Canadian xenophobia by a Yank, I readily, if sadly, admit that an alarming portion of our own federal judiciary south of the 49th parallel think as your Supremes do . . . and we are one Obamite U. S. Supreme Court appointment away from getting a slew of rulings similar to the Whatcott decision.) Carlos Pererahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253355647824872032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6573533210099052368.post-61595710379356656992013-03-16T16:13:47.021-04:002013-03-16T16:13:47.021-04:00No, they are stupid. They have bought into the &qu...No, they are stupid. They have bought into the "human rights"/victim group bollocks, which is of Marxist origin, and which has so undermined our body politic lo these past few decades. In fact, they do indeed stand by principles. Alas, they happen to be imbecilic, destructive ones.scaramouchehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04380374512378209528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6573533210099052368.post-4919031303949132792013-03-16T12:18:04.513-04:002013-03-16T12:18:04.513-04:00But Scaramouche, wasn't the real point of the ...But Scaramouche, wasn't the real point of the Whatcott ruling to make toast of the truth? By hedging speech with all those caveats about "tone," the HRCs are given carte blanche to rule as arbitrarily as they want to, precisely because judging the tone of someone's speech is such a squishy-soft endeavor. Your Supremes strike me not as stupid, but as unprincipled: they want the likes of Mr. Whatcott to be muzzled by their ideological congruous demi-colleagues in the HRCs, so they provided them with a case-law nail on which to hang whatever arbitrary ruling they want to make against politically incorrect types.Carlos Pererahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253355647824872032noreply@blogger.com