Terry Heinrichs:

However, the Canadian government is currently considering a bill which would amend the hate speech section of the Criminal Code in ways that expand the reach of the Act and give the government greater power over the content of what Canadians may say. 

One amendment would add “national origin” to the list of “identifiable groups” which would then read: “any section of the public distinguished by color, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.”  (…)

The “national origin” amendment simply adds another basis for grievance to an already expansive collection.  For example, referring to Germans or Poles as “Krauts” or “Polaks,” or saying that “the French are “surrender monkeys,” could earn the person who utters such words a visit from the police. 

And don’t think that because everyone has a race, sexual orientation, and national or ethnic origin, if not a religion, that the act will apply across the board.  Not a chance. 

The Canadian Supreme Court has narrowed the application of an “identifiable group” to cover only those who could be considered “disadvantaged.”  For the Jews and Yanks among us, this means Palestinians and Pakistanis, not Israelis or Americans.

It’s the sadly obligatory “What is up with Jim Carrey??” edition, with bonus stuff on a black stand-up comic’s anti-Mexican rant; Will Farrel’s next bigoted movie; why Dennis Miller is my favourite talk radio guy, and more.

Check out this week’s Showbiz Assassin here!

The fallout over Dr. King statue thing continues.

Yahoo!News:

Poet and author Maya Angelou says a recently unveiled monument to civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. is inscribed with a quote taken out of context that makes the reverend seem “arrogant.”

“I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness,” the inscription on the 30-foot-tall statue of King reads.

“The quote makes Dr. Martin Luther King look like an arrogant twit” (…)

Angelou was on a committee of historians who helped choose the inscriptions, and the memorial’s chief architect, Ed Jackson Jr., said that she didn’t attend any of those meetings.

Black women obsess about their hair the way white women obsess about their weight.

As well, the barbershop and hair salon rank just under church as their main meeting places and “conversation pits.”

So black pro-lifer are taking their message where their listeners are:

According to the organizers of the “Samson Project” – named for the long-haired Nazirite of the Old Testament – over 1,000 people committed to watching their DVD, and talking about abortion’s tragic impact on the black community in their shops.

***
Thanks to this obsession, black people don’t know how to swim and are often obese black hair is big business. It is no surprise that the first African-American millionaire was “Madam” Walker.

However, that isn’t always a good thing — look out for the “weave mobs”:

The break-in at Angie’s Beauty Supply and Salon in the 1100 block of Ralph David Abernathy Boulevard in southwest Atlanta was the latest in a string of smash-and-grab burglaries where thieves stole hair extensions.

Burglars drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee through the front doors of the store as well as a iron security gate, doing extensive structural damage to the business, which is in a strip shopping center near Joseph Lowery Boulevard.

Once inside, they made a beeline for the wall where high-dollar “Indi Remi” hair weaves were displayed.

UPDATE — Abortion: is it all bad…?

says Paul Tuns:

…because she simply cannot tolerate bullshit.

***
Alas, I can’t take credit for the line he highlights; it came from a gun writer for Human Events.

So bite me.

PS: great stuff — LANGUAGE WARNING — about marketing, career development, hard work and fandom by three experts:

I can’t believe this even got staged, let alone won a Pulitzer. The whites must be REALLY nasty, then.

Steve Sailer writes:

The most relevant, though, is Lorraine Hansberry’s 1959 Broadway smash, A Raisin in the Sun. Hansberry based it on her family’s famous NAACP-backed lawsuit Hansberry v. Lee that supported their efforts to buy a house in an all-white Chicago neighborhood she calls “Clybourne Park.”

Raisin is now a standard on school reading lists. Yet after years of living in Chicago, Norris, a Jim Carrey lookalike, asked himself:

” …what if we turned the story around and told it from the opposite angle, the angle of people like my family, the villains, the ones who wanted to keep them out?”

Thus, the first act of Clybourne Park is set in 1959 in the house at 406 Clybourne St. that Hansberry’s heroes are trying to buy. Norris has Raisin’s bad guy, Karl Lindner, try to protectively purchase the house not just from the black family moving in, but also from the white family moving out. (…)

My late in-laws owned a two-flat in Chicago’s working-class white Austin neighborhood. When middle-class black families much like the Hansberrys started to move in during 1967, their less liberal neighbors told them to Sell Now. They vowed to stay and make integration work.

Unfortunately, underclass blacks quickly drove genteel blacks out.

After their small children were mugged three times on the street, my in-laws finally fled in 1970, having lost half their house’s net worth.

Paul Tuns notes:

 and he wrote Das Kapital without stepping into a factory.

***
Also? Much of the basic arithmetic in Das Kapital “proving” this or that theory is flat out wrong.

Thanks to TCM, I’ve seen a number of Lon Chaney silents. A case could be made that he is the finest movie actor of all time. There are probably a few film buffs who wouldn’t hesitate to literally kill someone to get their hands on one copy of London… And I would probably watch it — feeling maybe a little bit guilty, mind — if they did.

Inexplicably absent from the list is Greed, the complete 6- and/or 10-hour version of which is lost.

Von Stroheim was the victim of many studio “edited versions” of his pictures, leading him to utter one of my favorite insults, this time regarding The Merry Widow (1925):

“The man who edited my film had nothing on his mind but a hat.”

It is especially effective if you imagine von Stroheim (an Otto Dix painting come to life) actually saying it, which is easily done if you’ve seen Sunset Blvd. (1950)

Today in Belligerent Muslims of North America!

Earlier, a park cashier told a Journal News reporter that a woman wearing a hijab either pushed or hit a ride operator who forbade her from going on the ride.

She said a police officer tried to restrain the woman and the woman’s husband took offense, at which point a multiple-person fight broke out.

A five year column at The Guardian newspaper ended in acrimony in 2003 – Julie says she was outraged to be offered a sofa in place of a pay rise and maintains fellow writer Barbara Ellen had a similar experience.

“Instead of offering me a rise at The Guardian, they offered me a new sofa. Barbara Ellen is also one of the few people who was working class in origin and didn’t go to university. Then I found out they had offered Barbara a kitchen, so while Polly Toynbee and her ilk get paid in actual money – we weren’t worthy of money. We were worthy of a fucking sofa. I didn’t feel rage to myself, but when I found they had done what they had done to Barbara Ellen, I was so fucking cross. There is no other way I can interpret this, we were the only people working at the newspaper who hadn’t been to university and weren’t middle class women.”

The Times then took her on and paid her “double the money” …

Steyn writes:

Now he’s moved on to Christie Blatchford, and the same question applies: Whose cuttings would you rather have to look back on? Blatch’s or the Shagged Sheep’s?

His attack on Christie over her coverage of events at Caledonia is particularly pathetic because on that story she did what almost every other “journalist” declined to do: She pierced through the euphemisms of multiculti squeamishness to expose the ugly truth. On this as on free speech, Miller is content to play the eunuch in the PC enforcers’ harem: That’s his consistent view of journalistic “integrity”.

PLUS: last night, Mark Steyn helped welcome Michael Coren to Sun News:

As I’ve said before, Dominionism is barely a thing.

Charlotte Allen writes in the LA Times:

But linking Rushdoony to present-day evangelicals involves connecting a dubious series of dots. In the case of the New Yorker’s Bachmann profile, the dots included the fact that she attended law school at Oral Roberts University, where professors taught her to seek “legal means and political means” to change laws that conflicted with biblical values. It also pointed to her admiration for the evangelical theologian and bestselling author Francis Schaeffer, who died in 1984. No matter that Schaeffer specifically condemned Rushdoony’s proposal that Old Testament law should govern America.

Ron Radosh adds:

What Douthat does is tear apart the bulk of Lizza’s conspiracy theorizing, showing that he even gets Schaeffer entirely wrong. (…)

Unlike Lizza, Douthat’s blog gives his readers Schaeffer’s actual views to consider, not a parody of them. The man was closer in thought to Thoreau or Martin Luther King, Jr., than to any advocate of armed terrorism. He notes that most New Yorker readers take Lizza’s article at face value, and since they know nothing about evangelical thought, believe most of what he says. If Bachmann’s mentors are shown to be essentially nutty zealots, then she too must be the same.

He shows that Lizza incorrectly tied her and Schaeffer to a Christian Reconstructionist named R.J. Rushdoony, who really does favor a Christian theocracy, although even Schaeffer dismissed him as an advocate of “bad theology and bad politics alike.”

Finally: it sounds like the legal establishment is coming around to my “hockey fight” view of the blogosphere — fights on the ice are excused and even encouraged, even though the same fight would get the players charged if they happened on the sidewalk outside the arena.

The blogosphere has its own rules and standards.

This is great news for FreeDominion, my co-defendants in our separate, ongoing legal battle.

From the decision:

[58] Although I am satisfied that the words complained are not capable of damaging the reputation of the plaintiff, I am of the view that there is another contextual factor that would further bolster this conclusion, namely that the alleged defamatory words were made in the context of an ongoing blogging thread over the Internet.

 [59] Internet blogging is a form of public conversation. By the back and forth character it provides an opportunity for each party to respond to disparaging comments before the same audience in immediate or a relatively contemporaneous time frame.

 [60] This distinguishes the context of blogging from other forms of publication of defamatory statements. One exception could be the live debate, of which blogging constitutes the modem written form.

 [61] I am not suggesting that defamation can never occur in a live debate. I do say however, that the live debate forum should be considered as a contextual factor to determine whether the statement is defamatory in so far as whether it is complete.

[…]  

(KEEP READING...)