The name Missing Sockpuppet serves several functions. It preserves the anonymity of this site, and thus shields its author(s) from the slander and ridicule from its future dissident readers. Secondly, it makes reference to contemporary human rights issues in Canada. Particularly the media blitz and political campaign to rid Canada and the provinces of specific discriminatory provisions or in the alternative, to dispose of the commissions altogether. And finally, it is an example of a derogatory epithet created by neoconservative bloggers to ridicule the efforts of select minority communities in their quest for social justice.
Missing Sockpuppet takes the view that like the majority of media news outlets, the blogosphere is also dominated by proponents expounding neoconservative ideology. This doesn’t have to be a problem in itself.
However, when news and information is spread in a manner that is underinclusive, selective and unrepresentative of the issues and people in question, the potential for injustice is exponentially elevated.
This site is here to develop counter views to mainstream propaganda, fill in some of the gaping holes, represent the unheard voices and to reveal the lack of objectivity and debunk the discursive tactics employed by many conservative writers.
No assumptions should be made concerning its creation or authorship.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Beyond Rationalism
There are many blogs and websites that deal and address issues that you put forth. What makes yours unique and integral is that it is not over the top or extremely one dimensional. Your views are ones that don’t prescribe to any political doctrine or dogma. The opinions put forth are those that address the issues that are relevant and pressing when it comes to exercising free speech.
I can appreciate the opinions of those who want to protect free speech, I think many of us who have come from a Western culture will also feel this way. We want to protect our right to speak our minds. I’m sure you also believe, judging from your commentary. But I what I think you are trying to say is: how far does this right extend? You are describing situations in which free speech serves a purpose and should be protected but it should also not be dominated by those who can afford to monopolize content and venues.
Immanuel Kant had said that your right only extends so far as it interferes with another. Meaning you can enjoy the rights you have and use them as freely and liberally as you like but once it encroaches upon another’s right then that right does not have supremacy. It should no longer be used. What people like Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn are doing is exercising a right that we all value and elevate to the highest level. For people in who have lived and been educated in western thought, we cherish our rights, it defines who we are as people. We will do whatever we can never to lose those rights. Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn know this. They, however, have abused this right because they have encroached on other people’s rights to fair treatment and respect. These men use their forum for speech to create discrimination to a culture. This is inexcusable.
I’m not advocating for their removal, what I do advocate is that free speech does have a limit if it’s result is discrimination. Now the rights of those who have been stigmatized and chastised have been breached. Should we allow this to happen?
I have read arguments for both sides. I appreciate what the human rights tribunals were doing when they made their decisions. This is a political issue not just one that deals with the applicability of law and the philosophy of rights. These tribunals were in a difficult position due to the pressure placed on them but also the gravity of their decision. These same people have been educated in western thought and as such believe that the protection of free speech must be upheld. They did try a give a warning to Macleans and other publications but in the end their reach could only extend so far so as not to have an uproar in our society.
The tribunals failed in their decision regarding the Macleans issue. They needed more time and research to explain why the right to free speech can only extend to a certain point. The tribunal looked at cause but they didn’t look at effect. The cause and effect of any action or the exercise of a right must be viewed when rendering a decision of this magnitude. But I do believe the pressure and internal bias of our supreme right to free speech was a weight that left those to make that decision slightly blindfolded.
Hopefully in the future the blindfold will be removed. The application of law and assessing its reach must be viewed in a way that considers cause and effect. Law is not linear, it is lateral and as such its epistemology must be considered. It is understood that we have substantive laws. It is what governs our nations whether civil or common law. However, substantive law is the child of natural law. And natural law has dictated what is right and what is wrong; what is acceptable and what is not. Reason must be used in relation to ethics. Has not empiricism taught us anything? Rationalism is only one aspect of modern political thought.