Further to this, a few thoughts culled from yesterday’s comments.
There’s a debate rumbling over at Harry’s Place, part of which revolves around Ezra Levant’s character and motive, as if they were the issue on which one’s view should hinge. But if Levant wished to be gratuitously offensive towards the deceased founder of a dismal superstition, why shouldn’t he? That wasn’t his intention, of course, as is clear from the original article (which was about press freedom, cowardice and intimidation) and subsequent statements; but the point remains that once state bureaucracy presumes to divine a person’s innermost motives in this way, the road to hell is being paved.
The state cannot be empowered, or trusted, to avenge hurt feelings – or injured pride, or vanity, or delusions of heresy. And it cannot extend preferential protection to those who may choose to be “offended” in order to gain political leverage or to censor ideas they happen not to like. Being “offended” has often been the claim of bad people hearing good ideas, and those who find their censorious umbrage rewarded will be inclined to seek it out more loudly than before.
Vitruvius has provided the following quote, by H. L. Mencken,
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
Yet I’ve seen several commentators, chiefly on the left, indulging in self-satisfied ad hominem and hoping for whichever outcome will do most harm to Levant’s standing, as if the actual outcome and actual precedent were of no intrinsic importance. But those who hang their argument on whether or not they happen to like Levant, or on whatever they take his motives to be, are missing the fundamental point he’s raised, which exists whether or not he’s a scumbag or a saint. This isn’t about whether one feels Levant’s political views make him a bad person or a terrible dinner guest. This isn’t simply about personal animosity and the individuals in question. If Levant is subject to this bureaucratic harassment, then others may share his fate – people whose views and personality one may be less hostile towards. If I moved to Canada, I might conceivably find myself in a similar situation, given time. Would that be okay? Or would I warrant some exemption because I’m such a nice guy?
If Levant can’t publish those cartoons, or other things deemed heretical or “hateful” by Islamist ideologues, then freedom of conscience and freedom of expression are profoundly compromised. If Levant isn’t free to “insult” or “defame” Muhammad, or to disdain the religion he founded, then a precedent will have been set and all Canadians will have a new problem. And it’s unlikely that this problem will be confined to Canada. If Syed Soharwardy and the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada prevail, rational debate will most likely be inhibited when similar subjects arise, as they no doubt will. As Levant makes clear, “the process has become the punishment” and the potential risk of similar, costly, experiences will affect decisions as to what may or may not be published and what facts may or may not be stated. The threat of nuisance complaints, considerable expense and state interference will influence serious public debate in areas of religious sensitivity – or at least in areas of Islamic sensitivity, which, unfortunately, covers quite a lot.
For instance, one would have great difficulty explaining in detail and with rigour why it is one isn’t a Muslim, or why the Qur’an is not the “uncreated” word of some hypothetical deity, or why one finds Islam to be an absurd contrivance. That so many people calling themselves “progressive” should hesitate to extend this basic right to someone they happen not to like is, if not offensive, then hazardous, self-preoccupied and somewhat depressing.
Perhaps, David, you should remind yourself what “ad hominem” means.
What has been going on is simply an investigation of a complaint–not a hearing. My bet is that the complaint will not proceed. Nor should it, as I’ve said before. Whoops, no martyrdom for Levant. He may feel vindicated after all this–but also a tad disappointed, I suspect.
Dr Dawg,
“Whoops, no martyrdom for Levant. He may feel vindicated after all this–but also a tad disappointed, I suspect.”
Perhaps, but that’s entirely beside the point. And as Levant has said, the inconvenience, expense and low-level harassment of the investigation may well be enough to chill the publication and debate of related subject matter. Not everyone will have the confidence, resources or sheer bloodymindedness that may be required. Some may – will – simply avoid publishing contentious material.
And, again, it doesn’t matter whether Levant is grandstanding, or whether he’s someone to avoid sharing a drink with. Yet a great deal of commentary has hinged on whether or not Levant is a nice guy or politically agreeable. The actual principle he outlines should operate irrespective of whether the individual concerned is charming or likeminded. Surely that’s what makes it a principle?
Even Glenn Greenwald, of whom I’m not exactly a fan, said,
“Here are the noxious fruits of hate speech laws: a citizen being forced to appear before the Government in order to be interrogated by an agent of the State — a banal, clerical bureaucrat — about what opinions he expressed and why he expressed them, upon pain of being punished under the law… Political life in Canada has seen numerous prosecutions for political opinions under that country’s oppressive hate speech laws. Government investigations for political opinions are thus an accepted part of their political culture… The mere existence of the “investigation,” interrogation, and proceeding itself is a grotesque affront to every basic liberty. For those unable to think past the (well-deserved) animosity one has for the specific targets in question here, all one needs to do instead is imagine these proceedings directed at opinions and groups that one likes.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html
Greenwald got his facts ludicrously wrong. This was simply an investigation to see if there were grounds for proceeding with the complaint. Levant wasn’t “forced to appear.” He could have sent a letter, but as I said in a later piece, you can’t put a letter up on YouTube. He has not run afoul of “hate speech laws,” which are part of the Criminal Code and are dealt with by the regular court system. The legal bar for successful prosecution under them is set very high indeed. What we have here is a complaint under provincial human rights legislation, where the aim is primarily conciliation.
Any complaints-driven process will have unfounded complaints to deal with. Before everyone jumps up and down and shrieks about star chambers and what-not, they should wait for the outcome of what is, in fact, a screening process. My bet is that the complaint will not proceed.
If it’s chill that concerns you, libel laws are a far greater threat to freedom of expression, in the UK, Canada and the US. Just ask any activist on the wrong side of a SLAPP suit, or check out the bullying that such notables as Conrad Black have engaged in–and, incidentally, this tactic is not foreign to one Ezra Levant.
Dr Dawg,
“Levant wasn’t ‘forced to appear.’ He could have sent a letter, but as I said in a later piece, you can’t put a letter up on YouTube.”
You seem determined to trivialise the inconvenience of the “investigation” and to belabour your suspicions regarding Levant’s sense of drama. The point is that being compelled to attend (or send letters to) a “screening process” of this kind is itself intimidating and objectionable, and, given the alleged grievance, faintly sinister. The fact that this particular complaint may not succeed doesn’t alter the fact that the risk of being compelled to expend time and effort doing this kind of bureaucratic dance may inhibit what gets published by others with less theatrical flair.
If your argument is that, because this complaint appears unfounded, the legislation itself is invalid, then libel laws, which have proven considerably more prone to abuse, should be abolished as well. I didn’t see any such frenzy on the Right when Conrad Black was suing his critics into silence, or when community activists have been bullied by corporate SLAPP suits.
I think the good outweighs the bad when it comes to laws against inciting hatred. In fairness, though, where a complaint is found to be trivial, reasonable expenses of the respondent should be covered.
Levant’s “time and effort” could have been minuscule if he weren’t such a political drama queen. But his politics, and his demeanor are, as you say, beside the point. Otherwise I’d be supporting the complaint against him.
Dr Dawg,
Sorry for the delay, was busy making lunch.
“I didn’t see any such frenzy on the Right when Conrad Black was suing his critics into silence, or when community activists have been bullied by corporate SLAPP suits.”
You do throw up quite a bit of chaff, but, for what it’s worth, I wasn’t aware of the events you mention and I don’t presume to speak for “the Right”. I work for Xenu, as well you know.
“I think the good outweighs the bad when it comes to laws against inciting hatred.”
But in what sense could Levant’s publication of the cartoons, or the article they accompanied, be regarded as “inciting hatred”? The complainants, Syed Soharwardy of the ISCC and the Edmonton Muslim Council, claimed, ludicrously, that publication of the “hateful” cartoons “incited hatred” of Muslims, and that Levant was “insulting the prophet Muhammad” and “advocating hatemongering cartoons in the media.” That such loaded and unsupported nonsense should occupy the time and attention of the AHRC is surely absurd, even perverse, and way beyond its remit?
“But in what sense could Levant’s publication of the cartoons, or the article they accompanied, be regarded as ‘inciting hatred’?”
Well, they can’t be. I expect, therefore, that the complaint will be dismissed. I do think we’re all on the same side here on that.
Xenu (pbuh) be praised.
In a free country, there are no grounds for complaint. Our troll is dancing around that, which of course, is the only issue.
Dawg:
In the past, you have occasionally written things which offend me. Since you think preventing hate speech is more important than free speech, I hereby order you to burn your computer and never post anything again.
A dancing troll? What a charming thought.
In his version of a free country, rightwingprof would no doubt oppose laws against inciting riots, libel and slander, and so on. And I shall give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to Black, SLAPP suits and so on–I’m sure he is consistent.
But my vision of freedom includes those who, without legislation, would be fair game for bullies and bigots of every stripe, and have no comeback. Bullies and bigots should be free to say anything they want unless it is deliberately causing harm to people because (for example) of their race or ethnic origin. “I think Muhammed is an idiot” is OK. “Kill all the Muslims in your neighbourhood” is not (that would be considered bona fide hate speech). And “Hiring Muslims means hiring terrorists” on a picket sign outside a taxi company (in Canada, many cab drivers are Muslim) might *conceivably* fall afoul of provincial human rights legislation, although not necessarily.
As for that legislation, which is what is under discussion here, the salient passage of the Alberta Human Rights Act is this:
***************
3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
***************
There is nothing in Levant’s actions that “expose[s] a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt.” But I, for one, think it is entirely appropriate to legislate against stirring up hatred against minorities, just as it is appropriate to legislate against inciting riots. There is a distinction to be made, in my view, between simply expressing an opinion and setting out to cause harm to others.
Trimegistus:
I might well have offended you in this forum, and I am perversely pleased at the thought. But I have never expressed hatred for anyone, here or anywhere else. I think the distinction is an important one. No law can guarantee a “right” not to be offended, so take your lumps like a man. 🙂
I’m sorry, Dawg, that’s not acceptable. As with the Muslims using the Canadian HRC to silence critics, all that matters is that I say I’m offended. It doesn’t matter what you actually said. And I’m afraid you’re wrong that “no law can guarantee a right not to be offended” — that’s EXACTLY what the Canadian HRCs undertake to do. Please mail David the charred fragments of your laptop so we can be sure you never offend us again.
Starting to understand now? It’s not about Ezra Levant, it’s about all of us.
Trimegistus:
You’re starting to offend me. 🙂
The HRCs do *not* undertake to prevent people from being offended. I quoted the relevant passage from the Alberta HRA above. It talks about hatred and contempt and discrimination. I don’t see the phrase “give offence” anywhere in the Act.
The reason I raised the “chaff” that David complains about is to illustrate the fact that “freedom of speech” is as much a political as a moral concept. Depending on the politics of the person invoking this sacred phrase, sometimes it will come into play and other times it won’t. I don’t have difficulty proscribing certain types of speech, but then, nobody else here does either, right? Freedom of speech is relative, although we all like to be consistent.
So perhaps we should look at what speech we can agree should be proscribed, and why; see if there are any general principles that underlie such proscriptions; determine if those principles can be extended into other areas; and try to come to some agreement. Then we can talk about regulatory mechanisms and how to prevent abuses of process. If we’re still awake.
“There is a distinction to be made, in my view, between simply expressing an opinion and setting out to cause harm to others.”
Sure, and it is always the wise and good charged with ferreting out the difference, knowing as the egotistically arrogant often do, that there opinion is needed to help the “less fortunate”. I find it sad that you are willing to give up the right to free expression for the foolish hope that it will stop the spread of so called hate, which is in Canada, apparently a problem so insidious that it needs its own court system.
If a woman accuses me of rape, then that complaint should be investigated. If she accuses me of wearing a red-sweater, she should be told that this is not a violation of her rights to begin with, even if her faith prompts her to hold red as the devil’s color.
Freedom of the press is finished law. We know how important it is. For centuries, in both the US and Canada, immigrants have decided that freedom of speech is more important to them than any customs that they have brought with them. Christians did not bring John Cleese into court just because of “The Life of Brian”, and even Catholics, who lean towards authoritarianism anyway, never demanded that “Piss Christ” should be banned, even though, as Federally funded art, it clearly violates the separation of church and state. They knew that any act of censorship is horrifying.
You are dealing with people who clearly believe that Islam and Sharia will triumph in other countries as it has in the past, through terror. The sight of a government agency kowtowing to their demands, even though it goes against age-old traditions and common sense, even though it would never be brought to bear for other groups — to them, this confirms their belief. Canada is on dangerous ground here.
Dawg:
You are not agreeing with me. Therefore you don’t respect my opinions. Therefore you are exposing me to contempt. Therefore you are violating my human rights. Therefore you must be silenced.
This is how it works. And it’s no good saying “that would never happen” because we can see it happening RIGHT NOW in the Ezra Levant case.
Education Guy,
In Canada, we are so far ahead of Great Britain in managing multiculturalism that the subtleties of how we keep everyone happy might be eluding you in this instance. No one is required to give up an inch of free expression in this process and, as has been pointed out, the complaint will be dismissed. In fact, Ezra will be in far more difficulty for his boisterous defence where he makes false statements about Soharwardy that may expose him to genuine discrimination or contempt from fellow citizens. Stupid Ezra.
As has been pointed out by Dr. Dawg, Levant needn’t have appeared and could have sent his opening statement in the form of a letter which would have been sufficient, in my view, to shut down any pursuit the complaint by the AHRC. The fact is someone – wrongly – has lodged a complaint and the AHRC would be negligent if they did not at least inquire further. As to the “chilling” effect this may have, that is debatable. The rejection of such a complaint could be a huge re-affirmation of free speech in Canada, and for that I thank the scoundrel in question.
“is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt” – cold that “class of persons” include politicians? Aren’t fascist dictators a class of persons? Members of death squads? Guantanamo interrogators? Terrorists? White House incumbents? Tories? Heads of Multinational Corporations? Wingnuts? Moonbats?
Dr. Dawg,
Your department Head hereby notifies you, that, based on a formal, complaint, you are under investigation for beating your wife.
Answer the following question very carefully. “When did you stop beating your wife? Give exact dates.”
Dawg, if you’re a cog in a patronage-machine (like, say, a credential-ist meritocracy, or an opaque religious sect) then you are operating with a compromised autonomy, and you MUST answer your superior’s inquiry. But if, like Levant, you are a practicing, free citizen, you can freely critique the state’s interrogation, ridicule the questioner and still maintain your freedom of action.
From the tone of your rebuttals, I’m sensing that you are accustomed to operating with a constrained realm of autonomy, and that, like an aging burro accustomed to its pinching halter, you may have completely forgotten what real Freedom is.
Cue random music interlude.
http://fp.ignatz.plus.com/feets.mp3
“No one is required to give up an inch of free expression in this process and, as has been pointed out, the complaint will be dismissed.”
This is not true, and if you have been paying attention to this system, you know this is not true. People have been forced to give up their right to free expression, and even worse, have been forced to explain themselves for a crime no more horrible than expressing an opinion. Whether this particular act of this maddening play will end up dismissed is only part of the issue at hand.
“In fact, Ezra will be in far more difficulty for his boisterous defence where he makes false statements about Soharwardy that may expose him to genuine discrimination or contempt from fellow citizens. Stupid Ezra.”
So, a man who has committed no crime is made to answer the charges before him, and in so doing possibly opens himself up to other charges. I really cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could not see a problem with that.
You smile gladly at this tyranny, not understanding that it will be brought to bear against you in time. Man will never have a right to not be offended, and those currently pretending that it could be so will help to usher in a new age the same as the old, where your betters get to determine what you can opine on.
“Whether this particular act of this maddening play will end up dismissed is only part of the issue at hand.”
Indeed. Irrespective of whether Levant faces no further action and basks triumphantly, a precedent for intrusion has effectively been set. Others may well face similar “screening” by the AHRC and, indirectly, by ideologues, whingers and people with axes to grind. It’s important to remember that the plaintiff, even a nuisance plaintiff, faces no financial cost (unlike the taxpayer), while those accused have to pay their own legal expenses. All other issues aside, this is simply unfair and serves as an open invitation to grievance pantomime.
Common law gentlemen. This complaint is likely the first of it’s kind to be addressed by the AHRC. Clearly they should have dismissed it out of hand, but as part of their process required more information. This is not a hearing he is speaking at, so be careful about what Levant is selling here – himself.
“So, a man who has committed no crime is made to answer the charges before him, and in so doing possibly opens himself up to other charges. I really cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could not see a problem with that.”
No problem. Remember, Levant wants action taken against him. This is an opportunity for him to grandstand and potentially bring down the AHRC itself. Something he would be more than proud to do. Also, he is answering to a complaint to a body charged with arbitration of complaints, rather less serious than a legal charge of hate mongering or something. I thought it quite ironic that in his enthusiasm he went far overboard in maligning the complainant. Who is a) not educated in Saudi Arabia b) does not propose that sharia law stand in Canada c) not an extremist, radical cleric or anti-semite, in fact he organizes an annual shared holiday festival with the local Jewish community. He now has a case that due to Levants ranting he has cause to fear for his life. These untruths, broadcast to the world via Youtube, actually do open him up for slander charges. As I said, Stupid Ezra.
Canada: the future…http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019553.php
Dr Dawg and Brendan
You mention that Ezra Levant need not have attended the hearing. Well, perhaps not, but consider this: had he not appeared then far fewer people in Canada and beyond would have been aware of what was happening. In a democracy the state has no business interfering with a free press, and certainly not at the behest of Islamist bigots. At least Levant’s appearance has ensured that the sly activity of the HRC has been widely exposed.
And don’t start on again about how this isn’t really a trial, and probably no action would be pursued etc. For heaven’s sake, how would you feel if you were asked to answer to a state body for something you had written? For me, I would feel very afraid. This is state-sanctioned bullying. It seems as though Levant is a tough character, who won’t be intimidated. But what happens the next time some religious bigot fancies taking a pop at someone? And the next time? Well, let’s just hope that we get more grandstanding.
“He now has a case that due to Levants ranting he has cause to fear for his life.”
You’re kidding, right? Who has threatened his life? Other muslims, who want him to stop sharing holidays with Jews?
“No problem. Remember, Levant wants action taken against him.”
She was asking for it, did you see what she was wearing?
“Also, he is answering to a complaint to a body charged with arbitration of complaints, rather less serious than a legal charge of hate mongering or something.”
First, the “body charged with arbitration of complaints” has the weight of the Canadian government behind it, so your claim that is less serious is laughable. Second, the taxpayer is footing the bill for the complainant, but not so for the accused, which just adds another insult to the whole proceeding. Lastly, if this man is worthy of condemnation over his conduct then he should be brought up on charges and tried before his peers, or sued. This HRC system is a farce that bypasses individual rights to due process in the hopes of securing group level protections to not be offended.
You still don’t seem to understand why it is an abhorant wrong that the investigation itself (rather than the charges the investigation is attempting to sort out) has created potential legal problems for Levant. You can try to lessen the impact, but you cannot hide the truth, this is the new version of the star chamber and it must be killed off now before it does more harm.
You seem to think that some people have a right to tell others what they can legally think or say, and what’s worse, you seem to think that certain lines of discussion which are very relevant to the world we live in and to decisions our society must face, are beyond the pale of acceptable conduct. As such, you shut down even our right to question the status quo or to dissent against that which we disagree with. You are allowing the government to once again act the tyrant, and history should inform you what the likely outcome of that will be.
Oops, the first and third paragraphs in the last comment should have been in quotes (or italicized), as they are what I was responding to. I guess html is not enabled in the comments here.
Corrected for clarity.
[ wheels phonomogram into middle of room. ]
http://fp.ignatz.plus.com/porkchops.mp3
David
I think you’ve upset the drink soaked trots:
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2008/01/14/ezra-levant-is-not-being-persecuted-by-the-state/
‘D-List conservative libertarian’ surely not?
Andy,
Thanks for that, but I doubt I can take credit. And the author seems to make much the same error as seen above, i.e. of confusing the man and his argument. It’s possible to support the argument being presented, and do so quite emphatically, without in any way endorsing other things Levant may have said or done.
A few further thoughts.
While Soharwardy claims that the cartoons have incited “violence, hate and discrimination” against him and his family, his complaint largely hinges on religious indignation. As I understand it, the central thrust of Soharwardy’s complaint, and that of the Edmonton Muslim Council, concerns the cartoons allegedly “defaming” Muhammad and making “false accusations” about Islam’s founder – of whom Soharwardy claims to be a direct descendant – and thereby doing “serious damage to the reputation of all Canadian Muslims” – supposedly by associating Muhammad with violence.
http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf
If this is indeed the crux of Soharwardy’s complaint, it’s an absurd and dishonest position given Muhammad’s fondness for piracy, beheadings, abduction and brutality, as documented in the Qur’an and Sunnah and noted by centuries of Islamic jurisprudence. One might bear in mind the dissonance between Soharwardy’s assertion of Muhammad as “kind and merciful” and the realities of history – or indeed the contents of Islam’s sacred texts, with which Soharwardy must surely be familiar.
(Incidentally, Muhammad is mentioned endlessly in the complaint, with the ridiculous “pbuh” added every time, like some nervous tick or OCD. Again, dissonance springs to mind as a matter of some importance.)
Gorges,
“is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt”
The “classes” are defined in the legislation: “race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status.”
David:
When an institution is complaint-driven, that doesn’t guarantee that every complaint will be of the same quality. Complaints darned well should be examined before a hearing is decided upon. There is nothing invidious in that–indeed, it’s part of due process. If simply having a complaint investigated for validity is “sly” (Horace Dunn) or oppressive (Greenwald), and hence the entire system should be dismantled (I don’t know if the latter is your argument, but it is the main argument of the Levant-supporters), then what do you do about the regular court system? Is a preliminary hearing (or whatever the UK equivalent is) a dreadful intrusion into the life of a citizen unfairly or improperly accused of a crime? Or is it a protection of that self-same citizen, allowing matters to end before a trial commences?
People here seem to be confusing the process with the complaint. The present law does not sustain the complaint. It’s not a speech law, although it’s being constructed that way. Everyone is rightly concerned about the complaint. But that’s precisely what the process is for.
Dr Dawg,
The comparison of the AHRC’s actions with the regular court system is somehow less than convincing, and, further to my post above, I see no basis for a hearing or “screening” of any kind.
David:
The AHRC is a quasi-judicial tribunal. Would you prefer that all complaints go to trial, or are you calling for the dismantling of the HRCs altogether? My apologies if I missed something obvious in the post or the thread.
Why the investigator is getting the lumps here, I cannot fathom. I think my comparison with the regular court system is entirely apt. One shouldn’t be subjected to the ordeal of a trial without passing through filters. The HRC investigator is just such a filter. She’s not the enemy; right now, she’s likely to be, effectively, an ally–if, as I strongly suspect she will, she stops the complaint in its tracks.
If I wanted to engage in ad hominem arguments, I could point out that that the Dawgs and Brendans are clearly basing their judgements on the “who” of the issue, rather than the “what”. That is, since they don’t like Levant’s politics, they are quite happy to trivialize the fact that he is under investigation by the government for his thoughts. In the highly unlikely event that, say, Heather Mallick or Rick Salutin–two leftist Canadian pundits–were facing the same investigation, I’d venture the Dawgs and Brendans would be far less flippant about it.
But I don’t want to engage in ad hom, so…
Brendan: “In Canada, we are so far ahead of Great Britain in managing multiculturalism that the subtleties of how we keep everyone happy might be eluding you in this instance.”
Oh, barf. Is there no limit to Canadian sanctimony? I have lived in the country 16-plus years, and never cease to be staggered at the Canadian propensity for preening and self-aggrandizement.
Brendan: “The fact is someone – wrongly – has lodged a complaint and the AHRC would be negligent if they did not at least inquire further. As to the ‘chilling’ effect this may have, that is debatable.”
Debatable, sure, but not in the least implausible. As for the negligence argument: nonsense. The AHRC could and should have replied, “Canada’s tradition of press freedom does not leave us room to impose penalties for your hurt feelings. If you believe that the publication of the cartoons has exposed you to hatred and contempt, please provide evidence supporting your claim.”
You can find a link to the original complaint here:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/monday-morning-update.html
The complainants attach e-mails that they claim expose them to hatred and contempt. As far as I can tell, every “hateful” message (most of the attached messages are certainly imbecilic and offensive) was received AFTER they began the complaints process, and are in response to that process. They offer no evidence that I can see from a quick perusal that the original publication of the cartoons caused them to experience hatred and contempt. If I’m correct, that should be adequate grounds for a dismissal out of hand.
Of course, I believe that the entire section 3(1) cited by Dawg should be struck from the books, which may itself be a violation of section 3(1), since my position could (in a stretch, admittedly) itself be taken as advocacy of discrimination. And on it goes.
The process is the problem, and this complaint is merely a symptom of it. Canada has a criminal justice system, and if someone runs afoul of it, that and not this HRC is the proper mechanism for making complaints and seeking justice. Otherwise, as I have said before, it is merely an attempt to get around your due process rights.
“If I wanted to engage in ad hominem arguments, I could point out that that the Dawgs and Brendans are clearly basing their judgements on the “who” of the issue, rather than the “what”.”
This is simply not so.
Dr Dawg,
“Would you prefer that all complaints go to trial, or are you calling for the dismantling of the HRCs altogether?”
Are those the only options? Is it not possible to have a human rights body that concerns itself with, erm, actual human rights issues? Egregious and unlawful discrimination in housing or employment, say, rather than the incoherent metaphysical grumblings of Mr Soharwardy. Again, I see no credible basis for AHRC action of any kind. Were I a Canadian taxpayer, I’d probably be complaining about what appears to be an inexcusable waste of public money.
Publishing cartoons is not “stirring up hatred,” and perhaps the troll should review the distinctions between American libel and slander law, and the other nations of the Anglosphere. Nor is publishing cartoons incitement to rioting, since no reasonable person would riot over a cartoon.
Dawg sez: “People here seem to be confusing the process with the complaint. The present law does not sustain the complaint. It’s not a speech law, although it’s being constructed that way. Everyone is rightly concerned about the complaint. But that’s precisely what the process is for.”
No, Dawg, we’re not confused. We’re saying that the _entire process_ is wrong. There _should not be_ such a process. People should not be able to bring complaints against publishers simply for things which offend them.
Your “don’t worry, the government will reach the proper conclusion” attitude isn’t supported by events: the Canadian HRCs _don’t_ acquit people. All complaints are upheld.
Try this thought experiment: would you be as blase if it was Alberto Gonzales questioning Michael Moore?
“First, the “body charged with arbitration of complaints” has the weight of the Canadian government behind it…”
No, it doesn’t. It is a low-level, Provincial, quasi judicial body that arbitrates discrimination such as “they won’t rent me an apartment because I’m gay.” If they can’t settle things then legal action follows.
“You seem to think that some people have a right to tell others what they can legally think or say, and what’s worse, you seem to think that certain lines of discussion which are very relevant to the world we live in and to decisions our society must face, are beyond the pale of acceptable conduct. ”
I think nothing of the kind. I think anything can and should be discussed and I believe wholeheartedly in free speech without limitations. Where you are confusing matters is in believing Mr. Levants spiel. He has presented you with high drama (as he always does by the way) and you are cheering him on hook line and sinker. Beware the obvious I am telling you. I do not agree with the complaint that has be lodged against him one bit and would fight on his behalf, while holding my nose, to assure he suffers no ill consequences. The idea that he already has suffered consequences is debatable. Or at least not very clear from the information we have now. You may scorn at the government for “inconveniencing” him, by I find that laughable as he is determined to ALWAYS be inconvenienced.
“I could point out that that the Dawgs and Brendans are clearly basing their judgements on the “who” of the issue, rather than the “what”. That is, since they don’t like Levant’s politics, they are quite happy to trivialize the fact that he is under investigation by the government for his thoughts. ”
I think I’ve been quite clear on this and you have made an inaccurate assessment of what I or Dawg have been saying.
Dr Dawg
If the legislation defines the classes in this way then it is very bad legislation.
You cannot help your race, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry or place of origin. These are brute facts of nature about who you are. Short of freakish Michael Jackson -type surgery you can’t change any of them. If someone attacks you for your DNA or your chromosomes they are being not just rude and offensive but also absurd. But if they attack your opinions – such as your implausible belief, unsupported by any evidence, that when Muhammad claimed to hear voices he was definitely in contact with an angel – surely that’s fair game?
Trimegistus:
“the Canadian HRCs _don’t_ acquit people. All complaints are upheld.”
Wrong. Where on earth did you get that idea?
I ask that because, unlike, say, “rightwingprof,” you can clearly read. So have a look (and these are complaints that actually got heard–records are not kept of the ones screened out by investigators or intake officers): http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/legislation/panel_decis_2007.asp (The latter thinks I want the cartoon-publishing prosecuted, which indicates that he is far past his academic best-before date.)
Brendan:
“cheering him on hook line and sinker”
Careful, now. 🙂
georges:
“…fair game?”
Of course it is. We’re talking discimination, here, and hate, not simply mocking a religion. I think it’s generally uncivil to do the latter in front of believers, but it shouldn’t be illegal, and that’s not what the AHR Act calls for.
Trimegistus:
“records are not kept of the ones screened out by investigators or intake officers”
Sorry, that has to be incorrect. Numbers (not details) will almost certainly be kept. I could plumb for them, but I think I’ve made my point with what I posted. And remember, this is just one of ten provincial, one federal, and three territorial commissions.
Dr. Dawg correctly opines:
There is a distinction to be made, in my view, between simply expressing an opinion and setting out to cause harm to others.
So Dr.D. concludes that Levant will not be tried.
But the Canadian law – 3(1,a,b-2) – defines “setting out to cause harm to others” to occur when a free expression of opinion about others involving a negative value judgment is simply made public. The opinion could even be true.
So simply by publishing the Cartoons and admitting it, Levant is guilty of “setting out to cause harm to others”, because either the Cartoons do express a sad truth about Islam, or they don’t.
Therefore, my money’s on The Queen ruling that Levant will not be tried, because a trial is not even necessary. Only Levant’s punishment will be at issue.
David,
This letter was sent to the AHRC, by ET (who has posted here before). I think it gets right to the point and should muzzle a certain commentor on this thread:
Dear Sirs:
As a taxpayer, I am asking that the federal and provincial governments examine the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the activities of the Human Rights Commissions (HRC) with a view to disbanding the HRC.
The HRC began, to my understanding, as a forum to review alleged cases of discrimination in the workplace and housing. I am assuming a paucity of such cases that has led to the self-generated new role for the HRC, which can only be defined as State Censorship.
Section 13.1 of the HRA can only be described as a degenerate section. Incredibly, it bases its grounds for prosecution on pure speculation rather than facticity. I quote it below:
1)” It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. ”
Please note the basic axioms of analysis in this section:
a) The allegations referred to as ‘hate messages’ are ‘likely to expose’. This removes the focus from any requirement for empirical evidence that the message actually did have an observable result that some members of the population were moved to a feeling of being hated and viewed with contempt by virtue of that message. Instead, this section refers only to the supposition that, in the future, the message ‘might’ expose… Not did expose, but ‘might expose’.
Speculation has absolutely no validity in any legal procedure. Speculation is a subjective, irrational and non-factual process. To condemn a Canadian citizen on the basis of speculation about a future and purely hypothetical result is a violation of our rights.
b) Furthermore, basing a judgment on a future event, and attempting to directly link that future event (feeling of being hated or view with contempt) to one specific message betrays a profound ignorance of the cognitive process.
There is no way that we can directly connect a subjective and personal perception to one and only one cause. Such a direct and singular link can only be found in mechanical systems. Human cognition is not mechanical and instead operates as a complex network of a lifetime of embedded experiences and memories.
c)The emotions of ‘hatred or contempt’ are entirely subjective. What may be viewed as an act of hatred or contempt by one person may be dismissed by another. No legal process should be based on randomness, that is, on the subjective perceptions of any one person.
In addition, three other factors must be emphasized.
The first is that there is no inherent ‘right to be not offended’. The basic infrastructure of a democracy is its capacity to question, examine, explore, and debate its basic systems of belief and behaviour. This is the method – and it is the only method – by which a people can advance in their civilization. Certainly, those who hold one set of beliefs may be offended when an alternate set is offered; the only way to deal with this is the ancient rational method of dialectical debate and discussion. Such debate and discussion may offend, but our beliefs and behaviour cannot be removed from such ongoing rational examination. If we remove them, they rapidly become dogma. And we become trapped in that dogma.
Second, and vitally, this section of the HRC is in direct violation of the Charter of Rights, Section 2b, which guarantees us freedom of expression as a fundamental right. Not as a peripheral right but a fundamental right. I would like to question the governments, both federal and provincial, how they can permit a legal procedure to operate that directly contradicts a fundamental right.
Third, the unfairness of the financial aspect of the system is yet another violation of Charter rights, guaranteeing equality of treatment in the legal system. Under the HRA, the complainant bears no costs of the proceedings; the defendant, however, bears all the costs. This unequal financial burden sets up a situation where the defendant is, fiscally, immediately guilty. The complainant’s costs are born by the taxpayer; the defendant’s costs are born privately, which inserts a supposition of immediately being judged as guilty. This is a violation of our fundamental rights of innocence unless proven guilty.
The HRC has degenerated into what can only be called ‘kangaroo courts’ , operating against the basic principles of a free and open democracy, in violation of our rights, in violation of the necessary infrastructure of a rational and progressive people.
They should be disbanded immediately.
I shall cover your bet, JP. Perhaps David would be kind enough to keep the book.
Publishing the cartoons is not promoting hatred of any ethnic or religious group. Offensive, yes. Deliberately so, yes. But against the law? Not on your nelly. Otherwise we’d have every backwoods pastor submitting complaints about, well, people like me who are not kind about the excesses of organized religion, including Christianity, and have published in that vein.