What's all this junk about getting some expert panel to appoint the Senators? Ol' Pepall thinks that sounds like the "Guardian Council in Tehran," and he's not in favour of turning Canada into a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy, which I think we can all agree is the real crux of this issue.
Calling an editorial "offensive" simply implies hurt feelings, which implies cruel motive, which demands censorship. Not a string of conclusions I'm eager to draw in a society with constitutionally-protected freedom of expression. No, the following five editorials are merely "outrageous," in the sense they got a great many folks riled up, shocked, annoyed, or befuddled. That's not always a bad thing.
In the June 24 edition of his National Post column, "Full Pundit," Chris Selley singled out a piece by the Calgary Herald editorial board. The Herald was feeling mighty proud of its city in the aftermath of the big flood, especially restrained dignity of its residents. What happened next was a week-long media backlash, and a helpful reminder that context matters.
Edmonton "twitchy-eyed-savages" took what was a massive sarcasm fail in the part of a National Post opinion writer with grace
A satirical comment in the National Post, while southern Alberta deals with the aftermath of a devastating flood, has infuriated
If someone wants to post a quote from anything written by the National Post, they are now presented with pop-up box seeking a licence that starts at $150 for the Internet posting of 100 words with an extra fee of 50 cents for each additional word (the price is cut in half for non-profits). None of this requires a licence or payment. If there was a fair dealing analysis, there is no doubt that copying a hundred words out of an article would easily meet the fair dealing standard. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that copying full articles in some circumstances may be permitted.