I got im on tape. Might be a BCL exclusive.
...who thought it would be amusing to affront Canadian Muslims by publishing cartoons that he knew would be profoundly offensive to them.
Yeah - that's about the size of it. I am not an expert in the field; could you outline the statutory basis of the human right not to be affronted or the freedom from offense - even if "profound?" In general, I find all flavours of religions to be varying degrees of nonsense, so I am offended by most of the things they say - or at least, by their claim to authority based on ancient scribblings; should the CHRC compel Michael Ingham to shut the hell up? I am also profoundly offended by gay pride parades, but I have learned to simply look the other way; should I instead invoke the power of the state to ensure that I am not offended?
The fact that Ezra is - at least in your eyes - a twerp does not somehow reduce his rights to publish what he wishes or express his beliefs, short of a call for violent action. If it does reduce those rights (which is the implicit argument in bringing him before the HRC, with which you seem to be in agreement), then you have to accept that the rights of those you do not consider twerps (such as yourself, or Jack Layton, or pick a couple of random names from your blogroll) are equally circumscribed - and that the people delimiting those rights may not share your point of view.
I agree that the Commision should let him off, not because that would be comeuppance but because that is the only just outcome.
"should I instead invoke the power of the state to ensure that I am not offended?"
If you want to. That's the point. If your complaint is frivolous, it'll be thrown out. If it has any merit, it'll be considered.
The ravings of Shaidle, MacMillan et al. are missing the point. We don't have a federally appointed Hate Police that monitors levels of "offence" - we have a body that responds to and weighs complaints from citizens, and assesses their merits on the basis of law and precedent. That's all.
I am not an expert in the field;
That's correct. Your expertise is in the field of racial differences in IQ.
Bored - thanks for the constructive contribution.
balb - I'm still waiting for the pointer to the prohibition on affronting or offending another citizen. The Canadian Human Rights Act is silent on it, as is the Alberta Act. The closest either comes is in prohibiting publication that would expose a class of people to hatred or contempt; if the "Mohammed cartoons" fall in that category then so do most editorial cartoons in our daily papers. Note than even if the action is dismissed, which you seem to think clears things up - the costs and inconvenience are not recoverable.
"Note than even if the action is dismissed, which you seem to think clears things up - the costs and inconvenience are not recoverable."
I hope you don't think I'm whoring here, but I do have some thought on the "cost and inconvenience" caused to Ezra by this little charade.
http://www.stageleft.info/2008/0...fun-and-profit/
Dr.Dawg, as a polemicist fond of routinely (but unjustifiably) accusing identifiable groups of being racists and fascists, you should probably be a little more heavily invested in the outcome of these kinds of witch-hunts…as should some of your more vituperative commenters.
Ignore, for a moment, the team colours you’re wearing. Within these star chambers, you can’t be sure that the hammer will always be wielded by those who share your ideologies.
2Sheds, you go too far. Whom have I identified as fascists who shouldn't be identified as such? (I'm thinking here of Vlaams Belang.) Ditto racists. I don't use these terms polemically: I use them properly--unlike, for example, the stupid and dishonest conservative use of "anti-Semitic." Or, come to think of it, "fascist." You don't have to caricature my positions to make your point.
I was sincere about wanting the complaint dismissed. Publishing the cartoons was offensive, but I can't see that this stirred up hatred within the meaning of HRC mandates. Levant has done much worse in his time.
Smug looking little prick, isn't he?
Well, uh, yes, actually, now that you mention it.
He had the nerve to raise the "banality of evil" meme at his blog today to describe the HRC official asking him questions. A reference to the Holocaust. What a surprise. Pretty soon we'll be told that the HRC is motivated by anti-Semitism. Hold on--it's already happening.
Levant has done much worse in his time.
In what way do you consider the cited articles worse, Dawg?
balb - so what? Obviously, not all those accused in such proceedings are in a position to profit from the accusation; in fact, I suspect that in this Ezra is by far in the minority.
I didn't think you were whoring, by the way - of course, others may differ.
What, the blatantly racist attack on a Muslim bus driver that got pulled by the Sun? A vicious and baseless attempt at character assassination of an MP because he's Muslim?
And let's deal here with the code: "Muslim" means "Other." Usually swarthy, and from someplace else. Each of those articles could have been construed as a deliberate attempt to arouse hatred against an identifiable group. Compared to that, publishing the cartoons was pretty small potatoes.
"balb - so what? Obviously, not all those accused in such proceedings are in a position to profit from the accusation; in fact, I suspect that in this Ezra is by far in the minority."
Which, in my opinion, makes his histrionic, cynical, and profitable prostations of martyrdom all the more odious.
My investigation by the HRC ate up about two days of my time. It was annoyance, but it was an investment of time in a process that I felt was justified, even if, in my case, it was in error. It was a tax paid in time, not in money. I didn't begrudge it.
...the blatantly racist attack on a Muslim bus driver...
So it never occurred to you that anything interfering with peripheral vision might be a problem in a professional driver? I think it is unlikely - but I wouldn't suggest that identifying the issue is blatantly racist, either.
A vicious and baseless attempt at character assassination of an MP...
What factual elements of Levant's article do you dispute? I am inclined to accept Carolyn Parrish's version - if only because I suspect that if she were to misrepresent the events it would be to minimise them, not to exagerate them - in any event, Levant referenced both the doubt about the course of events and Alghabra's subsequent claim that the whole issue was fabricated. If the quote had been "This is a victory for Communism, Communism is entering Canadian politics" (etc), whether uttered by the candidate or his associate, would it be unworthy of comment? Change "Communism" to "Catholicism" (or better yet, to "America") - would that not attract comment from yourself or someone else on the progressive blogroll? Is "Islam" immune to questioning and commentary, when any other ideology or belief system is expected to withstand them? I would suggest that such sensitivity is, at the least, overdone. The assumption that anyone who is willing to comment on or question Islam (particularly when an adherent is allegedly celebrating the intrusion of that faith into the secular world) is prima facie a racist is untenable. It seems that you are under the impression that anything written by Ezra (or perhaps, anything that you don't like) can simply be dismissed by claiming it to be racist. You are wrong in either case.
dcardno:
The attack on the bus driver was so vile that the Sun pulled the column. It was a completely gratuitous series of anti-Muslim slurs.
As noted, I think racism is at the bottom of this. We are not here dealing with religious differences, after all. Levant has mocked Muslim immigrants for their spelling, their speech, and their countries of origin. I am aware that Muslims aren't a "race," but Levant's visceral hatred effectively constructs them as one.
Parrish herself acknowledges hearing those words -- not from Alghabra, but, as it turns out, from Alghabra's political lieutenant, a Markham alderman named Khalid Usman.
But that was only a warm-up, in any case, for the rest of the article. Does this help at all?
"So it never occurred to you that anything interfering with peripheral vision might be a problem in a professional driver?"
Yeah, and the cellphone wasn't a significantly greater contributing factor, was it?
And let's not forget that the babooshka (it wasn't a hijab, as Ezra implied)) as seen in the photograph, was well back from the woman's eyes and was hardly "like blinders" as Ezra implied.
And finally, why are we to assume that this woman drove with her eyes straight forward and neck rigid, and that only an alleged impairment of peripheral vision is the cause of this accident? Do people not look left and right to check their blindspots anymore? Do people not use their mirrors?
The cellphone, and a failure to check one's mirrors, are the likeliest causes of this accident, and a driver who drove in this fashion would be charged, hijab or no hijab. The hijab was immaterial, and Ezra's jumping to conclusions really amounted to character assassination.
Dean Cardno...ass-holo.
Let's keep things civil.
If Levant also had published the winners of the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest, he could have claimed to be a champion of free speech.
Since he didn't, the least offensive and most politically correct label for him indeed is "twerp". I would qualify that as "opportunistic little twerp on the make". And, zounds, he didn't make it. There were not enough neo-cons willing to shell out to make the Western Standard profitable.
Bored - go tell your mother she wants you, 'mkay?
The hijab was immaterial, and Ezra's jumping to conclusions...
But he didn't "jump to conclusions," James - he speculated as to why no one had mentioned a possibly relevant consideration. In some quarters, that means he is blatently racist
Agitfact - no, not taking both sides of every issue does not mean one is not a proponent of free speech; in fact, it makes one a (capital-L) Liberal. Is your argument that being "an opportunistic twerp" means that one forfeits one's civil rights? I just want to get that straight, before I become "opportunistic," as well.
You appear to miss the importance of standing up for free speech. Ezra is doing a brilliant job. Those who do not appreciate the significance of this episode do not deserve to enjoy the privilege of freedom of the press. This is not a trivial event. It cuts to the chase in terms of democracy and freedom in Canada. I also think it trivializes the issue to reduce it to partisan perspectives. An important principle is at stake -- pay attention!
BTW: Bored, Dawg, balb - hell, anybody.... I'm still waiting for your citation of the section of the Alberta Human Rights Act that provides for freedom from "profound offense."
My investigation by the HRC ate up about two days of my time.
You got off easy, balb. Might I suggest that's because they were on your side all along?
I'm still waiting for your citation of the section of the Alberta Human Rights Act that provides for freedom from "profound offense."
You know it doesn't. Why are you being such an asshole by demanding it?
You know it doesn't.
Thanks for the admission. Has the Dungeons and Dragons gang gone home already?
Why are you being such an asshole by demanding it?
Because that's the only basis for bringing Ezra up before a Commission, Tribunal, or Hearing, isn't it? Absent that, he is merely another Canadian citizen exercising his right to freely form and express an opinion. I am sincerely sorry if you think that defending that right makes me an "asshole" - I'm not sorry for you of course (honestly, I couldn't give a shit), but I truly regret what it says about my country.
Good job dcardno. You are a credit to your country. I wish the others were as principled as you.
Thanks for the admission. Has the Dungeons and Dragons gang gone home already?
Asshole.
Because that's the only basis for bringing Ezra up before a Commission, Tribunal, or Hearing, isn't it?
No, it isn't...asshole.
Absent that, he is merely another Canadian citizen exercising his right to freely form and express an opinion.
Absent what, asshole? The antecedent in the previous sentence wasn't defined.
I am sincerely sorry if you think that defending that right makes me an "asshole"
That's not what makes you an asshole.
I'm not sorry for you of course (honestly, I couldn't give a shit), but I truly regret what it says about my country.
I regret it more than you, asshole.
Thanks, Keith from SF.
Try the veal - I'll be here 'til Thursday.
On a serious note, I do absolutely support the right of Muslim spokesmen (or women, although that's unlikely) to speak their minds. The remedy for stupid speech is thoughtful speech, not supression (and the remedy, or response, to thoughtful speech is introspection and considered response, possibly even a change in position). Of course, others may disagree - and for that, I mock them. 
Bored - you are more fun than words can express. I imagine that you are the target market for three or four acne remedies. Save your money; they don't work - only age and a cessation of high hormone levels will help.
Th antecedent you were looking for was "the freedom from offense" that we can't find in any of the Human Rights Acts - try to follow from there, okay?
When you get tired of arguing by insult the adults will start to take you seriously - until then, you are an object of amusement. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
On a serious note, I do absolutely support the right of Muslim spokesmen (or women, although that's unlikely) to speak their minds. The remedy for stupid speech
Ass...
is thoughtful speech, not supression (and the remedy, or response, to thoughtful speech is introspection and considered response, possibly even a change in position). Of course, others may disagree - and for that, I mock them.
...hole.
I never saw any evidence that the bus driver was Muslim; that was probably just a product of Levant's fevered imagination. I did see her name mentioned once and it seems to me it might be Chinese in origin, but I can't be sure. They talked about pending charges, but I've never heard if charges were actually laid against her. The story seems to have disappeared from the radar.
I heard Ezra Levant once on the radio calling some Muslim people "Jew-haters." He sounded full of hate himself.
Any Canadian has the right to lay a complaint with a human rights commission if they think a person is spreading hatred, and reasonable people will wait for the process to play out. Levant has had a fair chance to explain himself, and can sleep in the pee-soaked bed he made for himself if he was stupid enough to tell the commission they embody the banality of evil or some such idiocy (did he actually use that phrase to them? what a drama queen!)
Find out what the commission decides before spouting hysterical nonsense about Orwell, kangaroo courts, the decay of our moral values, the destruction of our way of life, yadda, yadda, rightwing buzzwords, blah, blah, etc.
Bored - in the interests of full disclosure, shouldn't you change your sig to "Bored and Stupid?"
Holly: Any Canadian has the right to lay a complaint with a human rights commission...
Yes, and that's the essence of the problem, isn't it?
BTW - please cite any of those "right wing buzzwords" in this thread.
Thanks much.
Bored - in the interests of full disclosure...
Ass...
shouldn't you change your sig to "Bored and Stupid?
...hole.
It doesn't get easier than that.
I never saw any evidence that the bus driver was Muslim; that was probably just a product of Levant's fevered imagination.
Absence of evidence is not... etc. That was sort of Ezra's whole point, Holly - no one asked that question; and aside from Muslims, you meet few women wearing head coverings in Canada. The issue, though, is not whether he was correct, but whether pubishing (or writing an article that contains) that idea makes him blatantly racist. I would think not, but obviously Dawg disagrees.
It doesn't get easier than that.
And you know, it's just a crying shame you still can't make anything of it. Give up while you're still not too far behind.
dcardno, why don't you read the whole thread again and see if you can find some rightwing buzzwords. If you can't I will congratulate you on displaying greater self-discipline than Levant has shown, or most of his acolytes.
"...On a serious note, I do absolutely support the right of Muslim spokesmen (or women, although that's unlikely) to speak their minds..."
Perhaps you could expand upon this, dcardno. Are you saying you have not heard any Muslim women in Canada speaking their minds? Absence of evidence is not... but you can fill in the rest.
Why would you think Muslim women in Canada are unlikely to speak their minds?
I missed Dawg's link to Ezra's blog, which is where he misuses the phrase banality of evil. What a nasty little post. What a jerk. I wonder if the Commission members are reading his blog, or if anyone is, much.
aside from Muslims, you meet few women wearing head coverings in Canada.
Er...nuns? (not that they drive buses, mind). And some other women do wear babushkas and the like. It's interesting, though, that the first thing that came to this career hater's mind was "Muslim! Muslim!" The man is simply obsessed, no two ways about it.
Two things on a more serious note. First, "Bored," you're banned. Secondly, has none of my opposition here noticed that I think the AHRC should let Levant off?
As for blatant racism, perhaps dcardno should look once more at the string of spittle-flecked utterances from Levant as a whole--I've cited several. I note that he has backed away from the Alghabra topic altogether--you know, the case I cited in which Levant made slimy references to Alghabra's Saudi origins.
And here is Lying Levant's latest. [H/t BigCityLib]
Chalk up another Lefty blog making apologies for censorship. The New Left will be the first to turn to totalitarianism via statism in the name of the "common good". This is a textbook example. Look anywhere in academia for many other examples.
This blogger has absolutely NO idea what is at stake here. ZERO. I surmise he is willfully ignorant so long as the speech being censored is speech he disagrees with.
As I just said.
Does stroking rightwing ideology make you blind?
dcardno,
"Is your argument that being 'an opportunistic twerp' means that one forfeits one's civil rights? (sic)"
By going for publicity under the cover of protestations of principle, one does not forfeit one's civil rights, merely one's credibility.
Dawg,
I am curious about your ideas of race. You stated above that, "As noted, I think racism is at the bottom of this. We are not here dealing with religious differences, after all.....I am aware that Muslims aren't a "race," but Levant's visceral hatred effectively constructs them as one."
Why are you trying to bring race into this when it clearly has no place? This case certainly has origins in the conflict between Jews and Muslims that exists in the world these days. Ezra even reminds the inquisitor that his synagogue was firebombed.
My theory is a religious difference puts them on an even playing field because both are belief systems that are their respective responsibilities. However, when you assign muslims a race this suddenly isn't a belief system but something that they were born with and can't change, hence putting it beyond the pale of reasonable debate. This would indeed make Ezra look like a horrible person.
This strange mental gymnastics says more about your yearnings to demonize him than about the reality of the case. Instead of trying to place this disagreement beyond the pale of reasonable debate by inventing a race(you) or intimidation (the HRC) why can't both sides continue to practice free speech and let the most compelling arguments prosper?
Keith:
To begin with, the HRC is not trying to intimidate anyone. Where did you get that idea? No one appears less intimidated than Ezra, now in full spate. This is a preliminary screening exercise, in which the validity of a complaint (which any citizen may lodge) is being tested. I suspect the complaint won't get past the screening--although I could be wrong.
The Levant case is simply being used as an excuse to knock the HRCs. But the AHRC has done nothing wrong whatsoever--it's simply examining a complaint duly submitted to it. Don't get swept away by Levant's mock heroics.
On the question of racism, race is a social construct. The Irish used to be considered a race. And the Jews. I submit that Levant's single-minded, hateful obsession with the Muslims as Other, his continual sleazy references to their countries of origin and so on, is nothing less than an attempt to construct Muslims as a race.
Dr.Dawg, I apologize if you feel I’ve gone too far, and it sincerely wasn’t my intention to lampoon your positions. However, I believe you’ve attributed racist and fascist ideals to more than just Vlaams Belang. You’ve impugned anyone that adopts the (inadequately descriptive but convenient) label “conservative” with statements like:
“Fascism, in fact, is just conservatism with the gloves off.”
“Once again, those who believe in an invisible curtain dividing fascism from conservatism are encouraged to comment.”
“Racism is an ugly reality on the conservative side of the spectrum, with some honourable exceptions.”
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you’re basically calling all conservatives racists who are also one small and unavoidable step away from being fascists – pretty harsh and insulting stuff. And, possibly due to your observations, some of your commenters seem to work themselves into a full blown hatred of conservatives (even though you may characterize it as anger only).
While you may agree the Levant complaint should be dismissed, you don’t have a problem with the process to which he is being subjected. My point is that, given some of your own posts, you should also object to the complaint process as a threat to your free speech. You won’t agree that your comments could stir hatred, but your judgement doesn’t matter…theirs does.
In my opinion, administrative agencies shouldn’t be determining questions of “hate” and meting out punishment. Such important issues should only be resolved through the rigour of proper judicial proceedings.
2Sheds:
I have argued all along that fascism is a form of conservatism--not that all conservatives are fascists, as you correctly note. But I have indeed stated many times that racism is more prevalent on the Right than on the Left. I make no apology for what appears to me to be simple empirical observation.
With respect to the HRCs, these are quasi-judicial tribunals, which, like many other such bodies, do the grunt-work of the court system. Without them, the juridical arteries would be fatally clogged in a very short time.
The HRC process is complaint-driven, and there are problems with that, but I don't object to their existence in the absence of something better. The complaint against Levant is currently undergoing screening, and I would be surprised if matters proceeded to a full hearing after this. His histrionics aside, this is due process. He has access to legal counsel, he appears free to post videos of his "interrogation," and, if he would just focus a little, the process would be considerably shorter.
This isn't about "freedom of speech," which in any case isn't absolute. It's about stirring up hatred. I don't think Levant did that by publishing the cartoons, but if someone thinks differently, they have a right as citizens to complain.
If someone does something similar against me, I would cheerfully rise to the occasion and take part in the process, which is pretty informal, as it happens. I would avoid, however, casting myself as a latter-day Jesus Christ or Martin Niemoller, and just get on with it.
Dr. Dawg,
Your last paragraph addresses what I really can't understand. You say, "On the question of racism, race is a social construct." Yet, you don't follow this thought to its logical conclusion. Couldn't someone socially construct conservatives (I don't really read this blog much so fill in another group if you like) into a race (neatly trimmed hair and bow ties!) and then say you are racist? All groups, liberals/leftists, environmentalists, neo-Nazis, Christians, creationists etc. could qualify, then where is free speech? I would call this a reductio ad absurdum, but my hunch is you don't think this is so absurd.
Your other point about the AHRC not being intimidating is puzzling to me. I would be intimidated, and I think most people would be.
2 sheds makes an excellent point here. A case could be made that you are stirring up hatred against teh conservatives. Lets set aside your 'simple empirical observations' for a sec, professor. Are you serious when you say you would 'cheerfully' take part in a process which would have you dragged into a kangaroo court and forced to explain your guaranteed freedoms of expression/speach to a beaurocrat with a heavy fine to pay if you lose?
You are either lying or you are retarded. Mock Levant's grandstanding if you must, and judging from this article, this is something you must do ad nauseum, but im sure you would be just as pissed as him were you in his shoes.
Keith:
You have indeed introduced a reductio. Or a red herring. Or something. Whatever I might say of conservatives, I hardly construct them as an anthropological Other. I don't talk about their origins, appearance, customs and personal habits. I don't think any of these things can be homogenized.
At the very least, Levant is an ethnocentric loon. But his homogenization of "the Muslim" is what takes things beyond that. (I notice, for example, that the fellow he just finished calling a "tinpot fascist" heads up an organization called Muslims Against Terrorism. For Levant and others of his stripe, though, this would be a distinction without a difference.)
The odd thing is that Islamist Muslims probably have more in common with conservatives than with those of other political stripes. Socially conservative; supportive of the death penalty; God-fearing to a fault.
I like debate; I wouldn't be in the least intimidated by explaining my point of view to a quiet bureaucrat somewhere--not that I'm easily intimidated, mind you. Incidentally, Levant chose to appear--I don't think he was subpoenaed, not for an initial screening process. He could have just as easily sent a letter, but that doesn't lend itself to exposure on YouTube. : )
Medic:
You are either lying or you are retarded.
When I decide which of these two options to choose, I'll get back to you.
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 radicalize moderate Muslims. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!
Excuse me, could you re-state that in Swedish please. Thanks.
Looks like I posted the link just in time. : )
Muslims Against Sharia sound about as authentic as Jews for Jesus.
Well, we get astroturf websites denying that humans are causing climate change; no doubt the astroturfers have to keep busy producing other fake sites.
Levant could have sent a letter, but he could not simply have ignored the whole thing. I think the question of whether the process is intimidating or not speaks to one's political views. Dr. Dawg apparently feels that a "quiet bureaucrat" would be a reasonable, harmless person to deal with. Others perhaps feel that, when bureaucrats interest themselves in your affairs, trouble is likely to result. This is why this is a left/right issue: people on the left, by and large, really seem to believe it when they hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". People on the right generally don't.
"This is why this is a left/right issue: people on the left, by and large, really seem to believe it when they hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". People on the right generally don't."
The reduction of political discourse to simple minded cartoons and dichotomies doesn't really further discussion, does it? After all, "people on the left" are generally held to include Bakuninites, anarchists and others even more anti-government that your average neocancon.
However, folks grown up enough to understand that the governance of an entity as large and complex as a "Canada" is going to require some state intrusion in our lives. The question is, to what degree.
Now, the good folks of Herouxville and others of their ilk believe that state intrusion to point of dictating wardrobe is justified. I personally think the existence of a Human Rights Commission is several degrees more reasonable that that. Don't you agree?
Muslims Against Sharia sound about as authentic as Jews for Jesus.
Now who's stereotyping Muslims, hmm?
Here, this link might help you understand where I was coming from.
Dawg,
I am glad you don't socially construct a race out of conservatives. In fact, I am still wondering how that is possible, but I guess I am just not getting it.
Good luck with your blog. I hope both you and Ezra are aloud to say whatever you want without the interference of the government.
Kaith:
I don't think it is possible. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that--I guess I was being too subtle.
Many thanks for your good wishes.
Dr.Dawg,
"Here, this link might help you understand where I was coming from."
If one idiot makes something up and another idiot repeats it, does it become true?
"has none of my opposition here noticed that I think the AHRC should let Levant off"
Interesting word choice there Dawg. "let Ezra off".
Perhaps a better choice of words would be, "reject the complaint as having no merit". An even better one would be to decline jurisdiction all together stating that people are entitled to their opinions. (One could be cheeky and add, "It's the Charter Stupid")
If the Religion of Peace - or a faction thereof - wants to have a hissy fit about Ezra or Mark Steyn they are perfectly entitled to. Have a march, write an MP, start a magazine, write a blog - Hell, issue a fatwa saying Ezra is a poopyhead. All fairball in a free and democratic society.
Where I draw the line is when the state gets involved in the regulation of speech. Ezra did not, unlike the rest of the media, play nice on the Danish cartoons. They were news, he published them. That is what news magazines do (or should do). The recourse of the Religion of the Easily Offended is don't buy the magazine. That's it.
Unlike housing discrimination or workplace discrimination where there is a degree of state interest in the outcomes, there is no state interest in either preserving, regulating or destroying Ezra's now defunct publication. No one is forced to read it and, in the end, not enough people did. The print end went under.
Ezra should not be "let off"; rather he should never have been brought in for questioning in the first place.
And good for Ezra bringing in a video camera and recording the whole, sorry, episode.
What needs to happen, and happen quickly, is for Human Rights Commissions to lose jurisdiction over speech and publication. These are basic values in a democracy and to have them abridged by bureaucrats without the procedural and Charter protections of the Courts is a travesty.
Ezra's tapes may just kill the Commission's thought policing in Alberta. I hope so.
Perhaps you could expand upon this [female Muslims speaking their mind], dcardno. Are you saying you have not heard any Muslim women in Canada speaking their minds?
Holly, I should have been more careful in my construction: I welcome any spokesman claiming to speak for the entire Muslim community to speak their mind - in general, that will be a man, based on empirical observation. I also support the right of any person, of either gender (or neither), of any religious persuasion (or none) to speak their mind on any issue (or none) - as people do here, for instance.
dcardno, why don't you read the whole thread again and see if you can find some rightwing buzzwords
Because I wasn't the one accusing others of spouting hysterical nonsense, including the aforesaid 'rightwing buzzwords,' Holly. It is traditional for the one relying on evidence to produce it; and in this case, that means you.
[on women wearing headcoverings...] Er...nuns? (not that they drive buses, mind). And some other women do wear babushkas and the like.
Some Nuns do drive buses, I am sure (or maybe that was just a movie). Note, my comment was not an absolute, but a relative comparison: you find few women wearing headcoverings aside from Muslims. I am sure that you know the difference between few and none, dawg - so let's stop playing silly buggers, okay?
I think Jay summed up my concern accurately: other than the Commission declaring that they have absolutely no interest in this matter and disclaiming jurisdiction (and charging the complainant for the misallocation of time and resources), there is no acceptable outcome to this process. The fact that -say- balbulican found the process to be entirely painless and a completely reasonable intrusion on his right to form and express an opinion is of no comfort to the next person to get a letter from the HRC saying that a complaint has been made against him or her.
"If one idiot makes something up and another idiot repeats it, does it become true?"
No, it becomes a religion.
"The fact that -say- balbulican found the process to be entirely painless and a completely reasonable intrusion on his right to form and express an opinion is of no comfort to the next person to get a letter from the HRC saying that a complaint has been made against him or her."
Not quite. I found it intrusive, and quite nervous-making, not unlike the times I've been stopped by cops in a routine roadside check. But I accept it as a minor inconvenience to achieve a social goal I support.
unaha-closp,
""If one idiot makes something up and another idiot repeats it, does it become true?"
No, it becomes a religion."
You're not talking about Christianity, are you?
balb - so it was a "nervous-making" reasonable intrusion? Obviously the difference between the two sides is whether the HRCs, at least in the context of free expression of opinion, are:
> a reasonable limit;
> prescribed by law, and;
> can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I would say no, just on the face of it: there is no 'reasonable' limit on the expression of ideas, and such limits as have been promulgated have never been justified (or even discussed), and change over time; consider Alan Borovoy's comment that the HRCs were 'never intended to address' the matters currently at issue, and were never intended to be an instrument of censorship. We can note in passing the astounding naivete exhibited by one of the leading architects of the system, but the point stands: they have exceeded their anticipated mandate, and are operating in a way antithetical to their original purpose.
I am also troubled that the HRCs fail the second requirement, since they typically disclaim reliance on precedent, and never implement procedural safeguards other than those thought necessary by the investigator or the panel hearing the issue. That strays too far in the direction of a 'government of men, not laws' for my taste.
I suspect that you wouldn't (and shouldn't) tolerate that in parole hearings, refugee determination, or allocation of cellular spectrum; as a culture we have had a long struggle to eliminate that process in the criminal and civil law. I suspect that the only reason "progressives" by-and-large accept it in the HRCs is because in general the "progressives" and the HRCs see the world in the same way - witness balb's comment that the HRC investigation was an inconvenience worth bearing for the value of a social goal he supports. We may see more concern from the leftists among us if that worm ever turns.
Deaner, it seems to me improbable that we will ever have an objective, purely quantifiable measure of "reasonable limit", any more than the distinction between pornography and erotica can accurately be measured by degrees of penile agitation or clitoral swelling. It seems to me that the HRC is an uneasy, flexible solution that treads that uneasy and ever shifting ground between law and social values.
Sorry, sent too soon. As for your final comment - do I understand that you brook no intrusion on your life as a concession to social order? You ignore traffic lights and police checkpoints, refuse to pay your taxes, and so on? Because if that's not the case, you're simply setting your bar at a slightly different point in the continuum.
balb - no, what would make you think that, or draw the conclusion the HRCs are simply another form of -say- traffic lights?
First, it is trivial to demonstrate the need for traffic lights; they allow traffic to operate more smoothly and safely - there is a benefit to all road users, at negligible cost. Second, traffic lights are operated under an identifiable regime - we don't have a police presence at each intersection randomly switching lights from red to green, or inviting complaints from the public that the light I went through was 'pretty close to red' or very nearly offensive, nor do we have a traffic officer determining whether we were allowed to proceed through the light based on our "intention" or our "feeling" about the colour of the light, or ruling that on that particular day red meant go. It is clear that you haven't thought through what seems to have been intended as a provocative question.
To clarify; I do not believe that as a general policy state interference in the area of formation and expression of ideas is tolerable "in a free and democratic society." Since it is in general an intolerable act, I would set the bar to undertake such interference at a very high level. It may be justified at the level of incitement to violence, but even then I have concerns: we don't practice preemptive arrest and detention for people who are likely to commit violence, even when solidly based on their past acts and lack of rehabilitation; sometimes we won't even identify such people to their neighbours. Why would we practice preemptive arrest of ideas, which must in any event be put into practice by human beings (subjecting them to criminal sanction if appropriate), and which can be fought by other ideas?
In any event, we have criminal law provisions dealing with ideas that involve incitement of violence and encouragment of hatred - why do we need an HRC to cover the same ground?
Sorry, Deaner. Argument by analogy doesn't work unless both parties are trying to understand the point of the comparison instead of pointing triumphantly to points not actually being compared. I won't try it again with you.
You're welcome to try it again, balb - but I guess I just missed the analogy. It seemed to me that you were saying that accepting any limitations on my action, in any area of my life meant that I had accepted the principle that all limitations, in all areas, were "reasonably justifiable (etc)." If not, just what were you trying to say?
The analogy does not (IMO) apply across different activities and pursuits: regulation of safe movement or determination of food safety is orthoganal to formation and expression of opinion (and to each other, I suppose). Some intrusions demand a relatively low demonstration of the value; some demand a rigourous proof of the value, and should be adopted on a 'least-possible-intrusion' basis in any event.
As for pointing triumphantly to points not actually being compared - I saw more than a bit of triumphant pointing in ...do I understand that you brook no intrusion... Because if that's not the case, you're simply setting your bar at a slightly different point in the continuum. That seems awfully trimphalist to me for a commonplace observation; of course the bar is set at a different point, else we would not be having this discussion, would we?
Muslims Against Sharia,
"You're not talking about Christianity, are you?"
Why not?
Mark Twain: "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
