Blog Comments

  1. ponchi101's Avatar
    I can't "like" your post because there are no buttons here. Bu I really like it.
    I was not aware of the NUCLEAR OPTION event. As you say, terrible indeed. Plus the precedent was then set.
  2. dave g's Avatar
    I am going to disagree, but focus on the narrow issue of the Canadian Government not allowing Anne Coulter to enter Canada to give a speech. The problem with being Intolerant of Intolerance is that Intolerance, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (your slippery slope). I am less concerned about individuals not tolerating Intolerance, I am concern about how Not Tolerating Intolerance gets enforced. That is, allowing a government to decide what ideas can be tolerated and what ideas can not be tolerated. This is especially a problem in democracies. Granting the government new powers can have unexpected consequences.

    Here is an example from recent American history. Until recently, it took 60 percent of the US Senators voting in favor to elect someone to the Supreme Court. However, Harry Reid created the 'nuclear option' by allowing a simple majority to vote to change the rule from 60 percent to a simple majority. When the republicans took control of the Senate, they used this precedent to elect Brett Cavanaugh to the Supreme Court. While I am quite sure that Harry Reid's intent was not to get Brett Cavanaugh elected to the Supreme Court, getting Brett Cavanaugh elected to the Supreme Court is one of the consequences of Harry Reid's action.

    In a democracy, you need to remember that any power you give yourself, you also give to your opponents should they win an election. From this point of view, the Canadian governments action is a bad precedent.