The Canadian Free-Speech Inquisition

The lovable Canuck's have taken to setting up commissions to interrogate people for free speech. Sounds like all is not well in the north, save for those who want to oppress free speech.

The specific example: Ezra Levant, publisher of the Weekly Standard, published those Danish Mohammed cartoons two years ago. A Canadian imam complained, first to police, then the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which is now interrogating Mr. Levant and deciding if it should proceed to a 'human rights complaint hearing'.

The government is suppressing freedom of speech.

The summary on Mr. Levant's website:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/whats-this-all-about.html

His YouTube page with videos of his interrogation:
https://www.youtube.com/user/EzraILevant

I'm glad I live in the USA, where I have the right to free speech.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm glad I live in the USA, where I have the right to free speech.

CR

---

so we hope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm glad I live in the USA, where I have the right to free speech.

CR

---

In free speech zones, no less!

Also, this "my country is waaay better than your country" is so... childish, to put it mildly, Rabbitp. I'm a bit surprised at you. But whatever, if you feel the need to trumpet your patriotism by pointing fingers, whatever rocks your boat.

I would take a long hard look though at all those constitutional rights trampled upon by the administration, by all the "executive privileges" that add up to more than all the others presidents used up in the last few decades, at the free-speech zones, at the beautiful DMCA, at the craziness at your borders (I'm talking about fingerprinting and photographing everybody, and treating everybody like a terrorist), at Guantanamo Bay (yay for freedom, eh ?), at all the gov't agencies collecting data on everybody and their dog, on spying on their own citizens, on the **AA's hunting down innocent people, on creating gov't agencies at the request (and for the benefit) of corporations, at indefinite copyright laws and draconian fines, at no-fly lists that you cannot get out of, at granting retroactive immunity to corporations that broke the law, and, believe me, I can go on and on for much longer, and that's only recent stuff.

But yeah, hey, you're right, you're enjoying lots of freedoms, while people are being beheaded in Canuckistan... so pat yourself on the back some more...

Childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The lovable Canuck's have taken to setting up commissions to interrogate people for free speech. Sounds like all is not well in the north, save for those who want to oppress free speech.

The specific example: Ezra Levant, publisher of the Weekly Standard, published those Danish Mohammed cartoons two years ago. A Canadian imam complained, first to police, then the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which is now interrogating Mr. Levant and deciding if it should proceed to a 'human rights complaint hearing'.

The government is suppressing freedom of speech.

The summary on Mr. Levant's website:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/whats-this-all-about.html

His YouTube page with videos of his interrogation:
https://www.youtube.com/user/EzraILevant

I'm glad I live in the USA, where I have the right to free speech.

CR

---

I also really liked how the President of the USA supported free speech in that particular context you're mentioning...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/po...04mideast.html

Quote:

---

U.S. Says It Also Finds Cartoons of Muhammad Offensive

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOEL BRINKLEY and IAN FISHER
Published: February 4, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — The Muslim world erupted in anger on Friday over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Europe while the Bush administration offered the protesters support, saying of the cartoons, "We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive."

---

Ahem. :laugh4: Yes, supporting free speech, clearly.

Hm, how about a bit more rope?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten's_Muhammad_cartoons

So, according to wiki, for United States, we have precisely 2 (two) medium newspapers that touched those cartoons - and both of them only published 1 (one) cartoon.

Austin American-Statesman 177,000 daily 1 cartoon 3 February 2006
The Philadelphia Inquirer 382,000 daily

The rest are hardly what you would call newspapers, or publications with any significant circulation. Where were all the major newspapers ?
Not a lot of coverage for all that free speech you're touting, was there ?

Aww, why not some more on this freedom of speech thing...
So, let's see, this was published in a paper, so it's a freedom of the press kinda thing, right ?

Leaving aside the FCC which is a censorship body, let's look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporte..._freedom_index

Canada: 18th place (out of 168 countries)
USA: 48th place (out of 168 countries)

I'm sure that this study is somehow flawed and invalid, though. It's (mostly) the damn Frenchies, after all.

Pathetic, blodrast. Really, truly, pathetic. Why don't you try addressing the issue, huh, instead of throwing in a bunch of red herrings?

People here know I do not spare criticism of what I view as wrong in the US. Your attempt to portray my post as some sort of bragging contest is fundamentally wrong.

This isn't about the US. I can only view your attempt to turn it into that as an attempt to turn the debate from Canada.

How about you stop spouting irrelevant information and post on what the thread is about?

CR

Do you, Canadians, have some oil or plutonium BTW?
If so, you and your lands are always welcome to accept Mother Russia Warm Embrace.
We friendly here
and caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad would be your least concern :yes:
and what's even more important your children would be obliged to learn many russian poetry at school :yes:
and every next Quebec referendum on Quebec independence would ends with them 95% support unity I can promise you that :yes:
and being part of Holy Russia you could call yourself Europeans and play in European chokey championship, not only NHL :yes:
tempting, isn't it?

Love our freedom of speech, as long as you shut your mouth you can say everything you want.

Trading Holland with their hydroponic plantations for Chechnya from EU was second part in my Great Imperialist Plan :yes:
The beauty of it is this time we don't even need to ask citizens of Holland to approve of my plan cause all matters will be solved with Brussels

What I think we need is free-speech cubicles, available in most large public spaces. Only in there may people rant and say what they think (monitored, of course); once outside only the politically correct government view may be propagated. Any takers?

I think we turn it around, we put the politicians and their politically correct views into cubicles, make me supreme ruler of this planet* and grant everyone free speech except those in cubicles.
Also in case of an alien invasion we should put a lot of explosive barrels next to our defenses.

*that doesn't make me a politician

It's only an issue because it is Islam - and the Canadians fear the wrath of Muslims.

Watch this - Nobody was interrogated over this. Probably because they were making fun of Jesus.

Clear Double Standard

I think both should be allowed. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't believe in free speech. But they are both funny.

All Christians need to do is start threatening to kill Canadians and I'm sure they would never be insulted again. Trade-off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The lovable Canuck's have taken to setting up commissions to interrogate people for free speech. Sounds like all is not well in the north, save for those who want to oppress free speech.

---

We're fighting it out all the time, and my side isn't even close to getting tired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm glad I live in the USA, where I have the right to free speech.

---

My American friends are just as vulnerable on this issue as anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Your attempt to portray my post as some sort of bragging contest is fundamentally wrong.

---

CR, it was the last sentence in your original post (quoted by Beirut above) that turned your post into a "bragging contest". It was an unnecessary (and thread derailing) statement to the point you wanted to discuss.

Just FYI:

As written in the Canadian Constitution. :canada:


Fundamental freedoms 2.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

And somewhere along the line, not only in Canada, those freedoms were gradually removed from the individual and given to groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

And somewhere along the line, not only in Canada, those freedoms were gradually removed from the individual and given to groups.

---

Freedom of speech is nothing more then protection against the government, it is all still intact here but but the government could take some more responsibility, let's take Hirschi Ali, that is pretty shameful, way too terrified to take a stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

We're fighting it out all the time, and my side isn't even close to getting tired.

---

Glad to hear it.

Quote:

---

Just FYI:

As written in the Canadian Constitution.


Fundamental freedoms 2.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

---

That's good, but sadly the HRC doesn't seem to be following that.

What would you say is public opinion about the HRC?

CR

Nobody expects the Canadian Free-Speech Inquisition!

hahaha.

Frag, you'll love this.

http://martinstanford.typepad.com/fo...braced-fo.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

hahaha.

Frag, you'll love this.

http://martinstanford.typepad.com/fo...braced-fo.html

---

Best thing, movie is a hoax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

It's only an issue because it is Islam - and the Canadians fear the wrath of Muslims.

---

The U.S. needs to start exporting spines to the rest of the Western World. Guaranteed quality. Our spines might break under excessive weight, but they never bend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The U.S. needs to start exporting spines to the rest of the Western World.

---

Would that help our sagging trade deficit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Freedom of speech is nothing more then protection against the government, it is all still intact here but but the government could take some more responsibility, let's take Hirschi Ali, that is pretty shameful, way too terrified to take a stand.

---

In theory the individual still has freedom of speech. It's just that when push comes to shove the rights of minority groups, be they religious or racial, trump those of the individual when that person is in any position of power. Incitement to hatred, indeed.

Quote:

---

The government is suppressing freedom of speech.

---

If they are suppressing his freedom of speech then how can he get the video of his interview (that you call an interogation for dramatic effect:dizzy2: )posted and how can he still be writing about it ?

Well obviously they are not doing a very good job at suppressing freedom of speech then , what they are doing is simply following up on a complaint by an individual about another individual .....
shock horror its the end of the world its the inquisition:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

If they are suppressing his freedom of speech then how can he get the video of his interview (that you call an interogation for dramatic effect )posted and how can he still be writing about it ?

---

Did I say they totally eliminated free speech? Nope. Strawman.

Quote:

---

Well obviously they are not doing a very good job at suppressing freedom of speech then , what they are doing is simply following up on a complaint by an individual about another individual .....

---

Are you saying it is appropriate for governments to force citizens to go before a commission and explain themselves for practicing free speech, resulting in lost time and lawyer fees?
Are you saying people should be able to complain about other people's free speech and, importantly, get the government to investigate?
That free speech should be subject to suspension when anyone complains?
That people should be prepared to waste their time and money defending themselves when they practice free speech?

People have been fined by Human rights commissions in Canada for quoting the Bible.

One man has filed 26 complaints against people and been awarded 48,000 dollars.

One man was fined 17,500 dollars for material objecting to an ad in a gay Newspaper seeking boys for activities, and objecting to material promoting 'gay culture' in schools.

How is that not suppression of free speech? How many (if any) Western countries have such systems?

CR

Quote:

---

Are you saying it is appropriate for governments to force citizens to go before a commission and explain themselves for practicing free speech, resulting in lost time and lawyer fees?

---

Yes , of course it is appropriate , even Levant says it is appropriate , he just claims it isn't appropriate in his case .

Quote:

---

People have been fined by Human rights commissions in Canada for quoting the Bible.

---

I am not surprised , there are some pretty nasty quotes in there .:yes:
Its all about context and intent isn't it .
Why don't you try it with your government , make a call for mass slaughter , throw in a few quotes from the bible and see if youdon't get fined for "quoting the bible"...see rabbit ...context and intent:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

One man was fined 17,500 dollars for material objecting to an ad in a gay Newspaper seeking boys for activities, and objecting to material promoting 'gay culture' in schools.

---

So he was fined for objecting to someone elses free speech then , it must have been something he said . :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

How many (if any) Western countries have such systems?

---

Well at a rough guess I would say ALL of them without exception , including your own .
Oh sorry Rabbit , you naively thought that "free spech" actually means free speech . :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well at a rough guess I would say ALL of them without exception , including your own .
Oh sorry Rabbit , you naively thought that "free spech" actually means free speech . :dizzy2:

---

Is that so? Care to provide some linkage? I can't say I've heard of a system outside the normal civil court system that fines people for offensive speech in the US.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Is that so? Care to provide some linkage? I can't say I've heard of a system outside the normal civil court system that fines people for offensive speech in the US.

CR

---

I make a nickel everytime an American here at the org cusses or gets offensive, and gets edited by a Moderator. You'd hardly notice it - it's on your phone bill under "FCC internet enhancement fee", and is usually less than a buck.

Keeps me in beer & cigarettes; I made enough from DevDave to make a few car payments.

Don't tell the other Mods tho', K?

But I thought I opted out of that!

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Would that help our sagging trade deficit?

---

:laugh4:

...and here I thought human organ trafficking was illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Are you saying it is appropriate for governments to force citizens to go before a commission and explain themselves for practicing free speech, resulting in lost time and lawyer fees?

---

The government manages the Constitution and the law so they will be the ones who force someone to explain themselves and what they said to see if it did violate constitutional limits or the law. Mind you, this might also be a court process depending on the country and what was said.

Free spech has limits, in your country and mine. Some legitimate, some insane, but only through a process of confrontation and debate will the middle ground be found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Are you saying people should be able to complain about other people's free speech and, importantly, get the government to investigate?

---

Depends on what they said. But 99.9% of the time, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That free speech should be subject to suspension when anyone complains?

---

It's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That people should be prepared to waste their time and money defending themselves when they practice free speech?

---

Yes and no. Free speech has limits. If you're going to push those limits then you have to be prepared to stand up for what you said. Also, since most governments detest true freedom of expression, Joe Citizen should always be prepared to fight for his rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

People have been fined by Human rights commissions in Canada for quoting the Bible.

---

This? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...6929b5&k=55879

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How is that not suppression of free speech? How many (if any) Western countries have such systems?

---

Freedom of speech is being attacked everywhere, including :unitedstates: & :canada:

*Edit - CR, do you know if the information in this article is true?
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Freedom of speech is being attacked everywhere, including :unitedstates: & :canada:

---

:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

True. Anyone who has been to college knows this.

Enough talk. When does someone burn? :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

The government manages the Constitution and the law so they will be the ones who force someone to explain themselves and what they said to see if it did violate constitutional limits or the law. Mind you, this might also be a court process depending on the country and what was said.

---

Do you support one constitutional limits based not on criminality (libel and incitement to murder, etc.) but on offensiveness?

Quote:

---

Free spech has limits, in your country and mine. Some legitimate, some insane, but only through a process of confrontation and debate will the middle ground be found.

---

Where do you stand on the HRC?

Quote:

---

Depends on what they said. But 99.9% of the time, no.

---

Great :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

It's not.

---

I'm sorry, but I've seen people get fined for what the HRC finds to be offensive speech, and even if they don't get fined they had to spend money and time to defend themselves. Does not that threat make them less likely to engage in free speech?

Quote:

---

Yes and no. Free speech has limits. If you're going to push those limits then you have to be prepared to stand up for what you said. Also, since most governments detest true freedom of expression, Joe Citizen should always be prepared to fight for his rights.

---

People should face no punishment or retribution from the government for practicing free speech. The only consequences should be from society - government should have nothing to do with punishment for offensive or hateful speech.

Quote:

---

This? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...6929b5&k=55879

---

No - Christian pastors, Catholic Magazines have had complaints put against them and fines levied:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08010207.html

Quote:

---

Freedom of speech is being attacked everywhere, including :unitedstates: & :canada:

---

But we don't help it by providing excuses for the government.

Quote:

---

*Edit - CR, do you know if the information in this article is true?
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

---

[/QUOTE]

Free speech zones? Sadly, they exist, and are an abomination.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Do you support one constitutional limits based not on criminality (libel and incitement to murder, etc.) but on offensiveness?

---

If I understand your question correctly, no. A legal limit on offensive material exists already as a prohibition based on age access to the material, for example, but should not be a constitutional matter other than what is already covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Where do you stand on the HRC?

---

Like testosterone; possibly a good idea gone horribly wrong. I have no problem with having an HRC, but there should be limits on their jurisdiction and authority. They should be an advisory body only. Leave the law to Parliament and the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm sorry, but I've seen people get fined for what the HRC finds to be offensive speech, and even if they don't get fined they had to spend money and time to defend themselves. Does not that threat make them less likely to engage in free speech?

---

Possibly. The state and those who can influence the state has always used civil and criminal penalties to protect their own interests. It wouldn't stop me, but I know it stops some people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

People should face no punishment or retribution from the government for practicing free speech. The only consequences should be from society - government should have nothing to do with punishment for offensive or hateful speech.

---

Assuming that there is a seperation of powers between the courts and the state, which there should be, the system, as it exists now, should work. Legal penalties are fine as long as those penalties are imposed by a free court and the constitutional rights of the person accused are protected to the same degree as the person seeking redress through the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

But we don't help it by providing excuses for the government.

---

And we do? I don't anyway.

I apologize dearly for bringing this up, but didn't the American public, for right or for wrong, voluntarily give up certain freedoms by electing a government that, as part of it's 9/11 response, place increased limits on personal freedoms? The Patriot Act and Free Speech zones, for example.

Quote:

---

I have no problem with having an HRC, but there should be limits on their jurisdiction and authority. They should be an advisory body only. Leave the law to Parliament and the courts.

---

There are limits on their jurisdiction and authority , they are only an advisory body , they gather information and advise the tribunals if they think the tribunals should address the issue , the tribunals then address the issue and put it to a court .

You might know more than me. I though they could find a person guilty but then they shift it to the court for the penalty phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If I understand your question correctly, no. A legal limit on offensive material exists already as a prohibition based on age access to the material, for example, but should not be a constitutional matter other than what is already covered.

---

Then we agree.

Quote:

---

Like testosterone; possibly a good idea gone horribly wrong. I have no problem with having an HRC, but there should be limits on their jurisdiction and authority. They should be an advisory body only. Leave the law to Parliament and the courts.

---

I think it might be better to take them and the tribunals imposing penalties, which operate outside the normal civil and criminal legal system, out of the picture completely. Let complainants file in a court of law, where legal rules hold sway, not in a commission or tribunal, and prove their case like in normal civil court. And don't make it a crime to be offensive or hateful.

Quote:

---

Possibly. The state and those who can influence the state has always used civil and criminal penalties to protect their own interests. It wouldn't stop me, but I know it stops some people.

---

And that is wrong.

Quote:

---

Assuming that there is a seperation of powers between the courts and the state, which there should be, the system, as it exists now, should work. Legal penalties are fine as long as those penalties are imposed by a free court and the constitutional rights of the person accused are protected to the same degree as the person seeking redress through the courts.

---

I disagree - I do not think here should be any legal penalties for offensive or hateful speech.

Quote:

---

And we do? I don't anyway.

I apologize dearly for bringing this up, but didn't the American public, for right or for wrong, voluntarily give up certain freedoms by electing a government that, as part of it's 9/11 response, place increased limits on personal freedoms? The Patriot Act and Free Speech zones, for example.

---

Free speech zones are just scumbag politicians wanting protesters kept away.

There are parts of the Patriot Act that should be repealed, but some of the criticism is hyped and overblown.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Then we agree.

---

See, there's more that unites us than divides us. :hippie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I think it might be better to take them and the tribunals imposing penalties, which operate outside the normal civil and criminal legal system, out of the picture completely. Let complainants file in a court of law, where legal rules hold sway, not in a commission or tribunal, and prove their case like in normal civil court. And don't make it a crime to be offensive or hateful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I disagree - I do not think here should be any legal penalties for offensive or hateful speech.

---

If there are limits to free speech, and I believe there are, the limits must be legal in nature, not just moral. Otherwise, the immoral amongst us (damn those immorons!) will run amuck. And as much as I appreciate amuckness, it can be taken to an extreme that should not be tolerated in a civilized society. Even a democratic civilized society.

Democracy and freedom do not mean anarchy. There is nothing wrong with the rule of law as long as free and open debate about how the rule of law is applied is protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And that is wrong.

---

Yeah, but what are you going to do? It's been like that since Adam and Eve sewed the leaves on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

There are parts of the Patriot Act that should be repealed, but some of the criticism is hyped and overblown.

---

Some feel otherwise, and they do have the right to say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If there are limits to free speech, and I believe there are, the limits must be legal in nature, not just moral. Otherwise, the immoral amongst us (damn those immorons!) will run amuck. And as much as I appreciate amuckness, it can be taken to an extreme that should not be tolerated in a civilized society. Even a democratic civilized society.

Democracy and freedom do not mean anarchy. There is nothing wrong with the rule of law as long as free and open debate about how the rule of law is applied is protected.

---

But those limits must be based on libel, slander, etc. There can be no limits on what one person, or even the vast majority of people, consider offensive or hateful speech.

Quote:

---

Yeah, but what are you going to do? It's been like that since Adam and Eve sewed the leaves on.

---

Fight to make it right. What else?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

But those limits must be based on libel, slander, etc. There can be no limits on what one person, or even the vast majority of people, consider offensive or hateful speech.

---

On a constitutional level, no. On a legal level, yes.

As a staunch defender of free speech, I have no problem with society having standards that are enforceable by law.

To use an extereme example; magazines that depict child pornography. Obviously any civilized society would see this as beyond the scope of what should be considered freedom of expression.

But if we have one example, that means we're eventually going to have two. And three. Therefore, society, through the government or the courts, has to have a legal method to deal with these abberations of free expression and separate the wheat from the chaff. That means laws, and that means penalties as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Fight to make it right. What else?

---

S'what I do, baby. ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

On a constitutional level, no. On a legal level, yes.

As a staunch defender of free speech, I have no problem with society having standards that are enforceable by law.

To use an extereme example; magazines that depict child pornography. Obviously any civilized society would see this as beyond the scope of what should be considered freedom of expression.

But if we have one example, that means we're eventually going to have two. And three. Therefore, society, through the government or the courts, has to have a legal method to deal with these abberations of free expression and separate the wheat from the chaff. That means laws, and that means penalties as well.

---

Okay, I see what you're talking about and I agree. I should clarify my statement by saying offensive or hateful political speech, or speech regarding one's opinions. Courts must exist to rule on the difference, of course.

Quote:

---

S'what I do, baby. ~:smoking:

---

Glad to hear it.
~:smoking:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Okay, I see what you're talking about and I agree. I should clarify my statement by saying offensive or hateful political speech, or speech regarding one's opinions.

---

Political speech? That's easy. Every man, woman child, cat, rat bat, and albino field mouse should be allowed to wear a "The King is a Fink" t-shirt without the slightest hint of government molestation.

And 'Mr. X, or Group Y are also finks'.

How's about a "The HRC is composed of Finks"?

CR