Naomi Lakritz’s true calling was missed when the Soviet Empire collapsed and she lost out on a chance to write for Pravda under that regimes stewardship.
After being skewered for her original junk article she has stepped once more into the breach with an even more asinine rebuttal of sorts.
Naomi doesn’t get it, in this latest piece of nonsense she argues that the recent public censure of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Wingnuts by the citizens of Winnipeg when Phelps threatened to picket the Maclean funeral somehow justifies her advocacy of state imposed censorship.
Here’s a sample of Naomi at work:
When Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day heard of Westboro’s plans to be at the funeral, he moved quickly to block the U.S.-based church from crossing the border. Not one peep of protest was uttered by the free-speech absolutists; nobody condemned Day’s action. No one accused him of censorship or of trampling on free speech. In fact, nobody had a bad word to say about Day at all. It would probably be fair to conclude that every Canadian applauded him at that moment.
Later, when hundreds of people gathered at the funeral and formed a protective barrier, on the alert in case the Westboro folks showed up, no one decried this as potential interference with the group’s right to free speech. That’s because absolutism is a nice topic to kick around in academic discussions at a coffee shop, but it doesn’t work in real life.
The McLean family’s right to be left in peace to grieve this terrible thing that had befallen them so overwhelmingly cancelled out the Westboro nutbars’ right to free speech that not even the most fervent absolutists could have found a reason to defend Westboro, either on intellectual principle or in their hearts. That’s why there was silence from them. That’s why there was silence from them.
Naomi’s first “Straw Man” argument is her continued reference to Free Speech Absolutism, needless to say few if any have argued that position, most agree that speech that advocates violence is to be dealt with under existing provisions of our criminal code. Naomi is at best being disingenuous here.
Even faintly praising Stockwell Day must have had poor Naomi losing her lunch, but she pitifully invokes Day’s efforts to stop Phelps at the border as means to buttress her unsound position. Naomi as a sovereign nation we have the right as Stockwell Day did, to refuse entry to any undesirable. That is not an advocacy of censorship Naomi, it is simply good housekeeping.
As we see Naomi desperately tries to leverage the citizens public censure of Phelps et al as a justification for nanny state intervention and proof that the “Absolutist” Free Speech argument is defeated. Yea right;)
Actually, Naomi the Good Citizens of Winnipeg through their laudable action of public censure neatly proved your argument false. Citizens acting of their own volition proved the Nanny State is not needed, that censorship laws are not needed. I don’t expect a miraculous conversion of Ms Lakritz in the near term if ever, because in order for Naomi and her Liberal Fascist friends to understand the inherent danger of state censorship, she and they would actually have to get off their elitist high horses and learn to respect the good common sense of ordinary people, and that is a very unlikely possibility for statists who “always know best for others”.
To top it off Naomi adds an extra ladle of ludicrous to her argument by the invention of her second “Straw Man” argument that Free Speech advocates were “silent on the issue” Naomi clearly doesn’t get out much.
We are heartened by this independent, personal approach. Too often, the first instinct in such cases is to demand government do something: block the controversial performance, ban the protesters, launch a hate-speech investigation. But ultimately, nothing the state could have done would have been half as effective or satisfying as having 300 or 400 ordinary Winnipeggers take a few hours out of their Saturday afternoons to stand in quiet solidarity with the friends and relatives of Tim Mc-Lean, to let them know others care and to spare those already grieving the added indignity of a few extremist lunatics capitalizing on one man’s grisly death.
You can read the rest of Naomi Lakritz’s junk screed here.