The past few days has seen the chorus of stupidity reach a fevered crescendo never before heard in the Canadian blogosphere. At the heart of this irritating noise is Ezra Levant’s circus sideshow that has every rube in Canada (both on the left and right) forking over their two bits to have a gawk at the purported freaks inside.
So what is the real story? Well it certainly isn’t that Levant is being prosecuted for “thought crimes” as many of the rubes are claiming. And it certainly isn’t that Levant is being censored by the government as many of the yokels are braying.
The truth of the matter is that nothing more is occuring than what is supposed to occur when one Canadian citizen has a complaint about the actions of another Canadian citizen. An arbitrator (the Alberta Human Rights Commission in this case) is working to resolve this dispute between two citizens of this country.
So lets examine this case. You’re probably aware of the details already, but here they are.
Ezra Levant published some cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in the Western Standard Magazine. Syed Soharwardy, a Muslim, took offense to the cartoons and filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission claiming they violated his human rights as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Alberta HRC informed Ezra Levant of this complaint against him. They then attempted to arbitrate a resolution to this dispute. This attempt failed as Levant refused to accept the resolution offered by Mr. Soharwardy.
The Alberta HRC then moved to the next phase by asking both parties to present their side of the story. That is now complete and this is as far as the this story goes.
As you can see, none of the ridiculous claims about what is happening are true. Nor are they likely to come about since the next step by the arbitrator (the Alberta Human Rights Commission) will be to determine if this case has any merit to it. And as has been pointed out by numerous people familiar with our Charter of Human Rights, it’s almost a certainty that this complaint will be found to have no merit.
This brings me to the other ridiculous claim being peddled by the gawking rubes; that the Alberta HRC is wrong to have let the complaint go this far. That is absurd simply for the reason that without this preliminary hearing they simply wouldn’t have the facts of the case at their disposal to render such a decision. Only an idiot would render a decision before hearing from both parties.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission is handling this dispute between two Canadian citizens as it should be handled; not by listening to braying of the ignorant mob but in a way befitting a society that believes their citizens should resolve their disputes in a civilized manner.
Right, everyone is a rube or a yokel except you. You are the grand pubah the all-knowing, all-wise. Know one know what is really going here other than your label of ‘circus’.
You must be in secular clown heaven al Robert. Face book is featuring a post with the title .”Ezra Levant is a piece of shit Jew”.
That’s right up there with your famous “Fuck the Jews” remark.
Check it out … you have peers at this site. …
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8809718828
Ezra, then Mark Steyn and Macleans are going to give the HRC indigestion that will never recover from. They and their enablers (you) have had their shot. Canadians don’t want speech police and we won’t have them.
Everyone who sees this differently than you is an ignorant rube? Geez.
Everyone who sees this differently than you is an ignorant rube?
No, everyone who doesn’t understand what’s going on is an ignorant rube. Unfortunately it seems that nearly everyone commenting on this issue hasn’t taken the time to get their facts straight in regards to what it is that human rights commissions in Canada do. Oh well, such is the blogosphere.
I see the free speech warriors still think defamation is a way to argue their case.
These people are precious.
1. One individual (A) says or publishes something that hurts the feelings of (”offends”) another (B).
2. B complains to the government.
3. The government then demands that A present himself, tells him that he may not bring persons C, D, etc, with him, and requires him to submit to an interview that demands to know his state of mind.
4. Having determined the merit of the complaint of B, the government then may take action against A in accord with a mandate of some sort .
This is a scenario straight out of a science fiction horror novel, of the sort inspired by Brave New World and 1984 and Animal Farm. It is redolent of Stalin, Hitler and the fourteenth century.
You fail to grasp the fact that step 2, above, is illigitimate from the first. I quote the British leftist Oliver Kamm: “…respect is not an entitlement: beliefs earn respect to the extent that they can withstand criticism in the public square. It’s undesirable, because if public policy concerns itself with people’s feelings then there is no limit to the intrusions of the state.”
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/12/index.html
It is absolutely not the state’s concern whether any individual or group is offended by expressions of opinion published in a free press. Only if the press is deemed properly subject to state censorship are compaints such as the one against Levant taken as something more than meaningless babble.
You begin from a censorious position that admits that a thought crime might exist, or could possibly exist. This rediculous complaint against Levant should have been handed back to its author without comment. It is not just ipso facto void, it is offensive to all who understand Liberty. There was neither need nor propriety in the conduct of this inquiry, any more than there was any need or propriety in the conduct of the Inquisition.
Note that the bureaucrat questioning Levant responded to his question about the legality of some possible statement he might make with a hesitant, “Well, anything is possible.” For the Alberta HRC, that is indeed the case, but Western Civilization does not champion arbitrary and ad hoc governance. Instead of making things up as we go along (as the HRC does), we depend on evolved ethics, standards, principles and legal precedent. This is the 800 years Levant refers to. At the base of this enlightened understanding of the role of government is freedom of speech, which is the heart of freedom of the press. The HRC has decided that it may now, however, question that freedom, in the event that someone whines about his feelings being hurt by a publisher. That is an absurdity wrapped in the raw police power of the state, which is why Levant denounced the HRC’s arrogance as “Kafakaesque and Stalinist.”
You trivialize an event that is vile, infamous and alarming. It is no less than another politically correct/fascist assault on the Enlightenment.
“No, everyone who doesn’t understand what’s going on is an ignorant rube. Unfortunately it seems that nearly everyone commenting on this issue hasn’t taken the time to get their facts straight in regards to what it is that human rights commissions in Canada do. ”
So you and others have been insisting. You seem to not understand that some of us don’t think the HR Commission has any business involving itself in what people say or publish. Some of us vehemently disagree with the very idea of hate-speech laws. So no matter how times you and others “explain” that it’s not an interrogation, it’s not criminal prosecution, it’s not this, it’s not that, YOU are missing the point that I and others are making.
We are ignorant of the facts. We are reading the situation differently than you. There’s a difference.
Some of us vehemently disagree with the very idea of hate-speech laws.
This has nothing to do with Canada’s hate speech laws. Those are criminal laws that are enforced by the police, not the Human Rights Commission.
So no matter how times you and others “explain” that it’s not an interrogation, it’s not criminal prosecution, it’s not this, it’s not that, YOU are missing the point that I and others are making.
I personally am not missing any point, since it’s the same one that’s made over and over again.
I think an issue here is that some people are getting upset that others are not supporting them or agreeing with them.
None of these things of course, have anything to do with misreporting the simple facts of the case.
Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission
Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let’s consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This “investigation” will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals’ claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and moderate Muslims will be pushed towards radicalization. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/canada-freedom-of-speech-succumbing-to.html
Free speech bitch John West hisses over at KKKate’s to Jeff Davidson:
You’re a fucking nazi, John West. If you think I’m going to agree that the law has no place in protecting us from the consequences of your spew, you (and the rest), you’re fucking deluded.
Fortunately baby lawyer Daniel Simard makes the intent of the Muslims going after Steyn (and, arguably, by extension, Ezra) as clear as the English challenged Mr. Simard can make anything:
“Nothwithstanding, by the nature of your position, that Muslims are the ones being portrayed as barbaric savages whilst adhering to a radical form of Islamic fundamentalism, your remarks trodden down the path of vigiliantism to justify the perfidious tactics used against legitimate (and seemingly necessary) state censorship.”
Comment by Daniel Simard Lawiscool
Danny wants state censorship. I don’t. Danny sees the HRC as a means of achieving state censorship. So do I. Which is why I think they should be thrown out of the free speech/hurt feelings game altogether.
Just imagine if you will that the liar Kinsella sat in judgement of your every utterance with the power to fine you if you cross the line.
Not a pretty picture.
Thanks for putting it so succinctly, Robert. It’s rather a pity so many people don’t get it.
Just imagine if you will that the liar Kinsella sat in judgement of your every utterance
You mean like he already does? I’ll take a civilized process where my side of the story isn’t drowned out by someone with a megaphone over a politically driven mob of idiots any day.
My gawd! This thread even has Jay Currie crawling out to misdirect. It must be serious even if Jay’s arguments aren’t.
This isn’t about state intervention or interference with the freedom of the press, you jackanapes! Robert explained that in a way that even cognitively challenged individuals like you should be able to understand, Jay.
It’s about Ezra Levant taking advantage of his position as a publisher to purposefully offend whole swaths of our world’s population because he thought it would boost the circulation of his lousy and boring magazine that nobody read while appealing to the worst instincts of his fellow travelers. Ultimately, his intention was to line his own pockets, but by doing so, he offended not only Muslims, but people like me too - all kinds of people disgusted by his nudge-nudge wink-wink racism and Zionist-centric bullshit. And now he’s offending us all over again with the disingenuous, whiny and self serving justifications he’s using to cloak his original bad intentions.
So… A Canadian citizen, one of those obviously offended by his deliberate and hateful actions, complained… and here we are - one small part of our system of governance attempting to get to the bottom of things in the way Canadians do it - systematically, calmly and as thoroughly as possible, given the demands placed on our system by those more interested in personal advantage than seeking fairness.
If anyone deserved to be hauled on to the carpet for his pernicious editorializing and outright lying - it was this snarly, snarky, I-Me-Mine prick.
Self-serving attention whores like him should be figuratively flogged in the public square for what he’s done and for why he did it - not celebrated as some beacon of free speech or noble sentiment. He’s a creep, plain and simple, and he deserves much more than the minor slap on the wrist this interview represented for the month after month of screeching and wailing about Islamofascists!!! and Muslim Terror!!! on his blog and, to a lesser extent, in his magazine.
He’s a venomous snake, Jay. And you’re a fool to defend him – even peripherally, through obfuscation.
Arthur, we went around this mulberry bush at the time however, by publishing the cartoons Ezra was reporting the news. Large numbers of the more excitable members of the religion of peace were running about burning down consulates and killing nuns over these cartoons. Ezra decided to show his readers the cartoons in question.
They were news, he reported it.
Jay Currie said: “
Arthur, we went around this mulberry bush at the time however, by publishing the cartoons Ezra was reporting the news. Large numbers of the more excitable members of the religion of peace were running about burning down consulates and killing nuns over these cartoons. Ezra decided to show his readers the cartoons in question.They were news, he reported it. ”
What’s left makes sense.
I agree with Jay and others.
My point is only this(said earlier): “..because if public policy concerns itself with people’s feelings then there is no limit to the intrusions of the state.”
Because it’s muslims, jews, homos, lefthanded..it don’t matter.
How many times does it have to be pointed out? It’s not just about people’s feelings. It’s about actual or very predictable harm.
This case is complicated by the fact that the artifact in question is a publshed work of the press. But I have no doubt whatsoever about what Ezra Levant’s intentions were. He could easily have published cartoons disparaging native people, who were the other focus of The Western Standard with its burning imperative of highlighting “cultural degeneracy.”
Too bad.
Because agreeing “with Jay and others” proves you to be incapable of recognizing or acknowledging nuance, malicious intent or principle.
“..The truth of the matter is that nothing more is occuring than what is supposed to occur when one Canadian citizen has a complaint about the actions of another Canadian citizen”
I think we still have freedom of the press and speech(somewhat), and reporting offensive news is protected by the constitution, until the hrc came along(or is it because of muslims?)
until the hrc came along(or is it because of
jewsmuslims?)It was the Irish, pre-WW2.
I don’t now if you read the Wise Law blog (by lawyer Gary Wise), but he seems to think that there is a fair bit of merit to the Omams claim. Probably not enough to get ole Ezra shut down, but this complaint is apparently not as dubious as the one against Steyn. Let the system work, sez I!