...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

Watery words: Here, in really iffy English translation (at least, one assumes it’s the translation that’s at fault, since a highly educated individual couldn’t possibly be this opaque and inarticulate in his first language, French) is Stephane Dion’s response to CJPAC’s query re his position on censorship and Canada’s HRCs:

Thank you, thank you very much for the question. Well listen, us, one believes much - as you know, one is to it the party of the Canadian Charter of the rights. One believes much in the Canadian law on the human rights and in the Commission of the rights of the person of Canada and one believes that it is something that it is always necessary to reinforce and that was crucial to fight racism, the sexism, the anti-semitism and all the forms of intolerance. Thus you have in us a strong guard of these - of these tools. Now it as should be seen as there were complaints recently saying that them - that the cases which are carried before the Commission were - went too far and blamed freedom of expression and some, by this situation, proposed radical solutions and as - blaming the whole of the process, therefore to throw the baby with the water of the bath. That, one is extremely against that and if there are causes which are frivolous, well the Commission will draw aside them. It is as that which one thinks that the thing should arrive and I believe that some use these fears compared to freedom of expression like a way of putting to tackle the concept in its entirety, the concept of - that one does not accept speeches which are calls to hatred in Canada. Thus not only me, I believe that one must have ramparts against the calls to hatred, of the heinous speeches in our country, but moreover, we propose in our own action plan to also add to it heinous speeches, calls to the hatred which are related to the women, i.e. thus who put the question of the kind, of the sex among the criteria. Thus one wants on the contrary to reinforce the process. Thus I am completely open so that one discusses the thing, so that it is made - that one makes sure that the frivolous demands are refused, but at the same time I do not support and our party does not support some change which could weaken, amend significantly or to even remove article 13.1.

Um, come again? The "nuances" of the above, what with its "ramparts" and "heinouses" and "sex among the criteria," are too much for my widdle brain to handle (although I'm pretty sure he's coming out foresquare in favour of continued censorship). Love that sage observation about not wanting “to throw the baby with the water of the bath," though. Now, where have I heard it before?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:49 | link | comments

Comments: