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.
Dawg: Please accept my abject apology — linked to ‘Clell by mistake. Just inexcusable. So sorry.
I certainly do accept your apology, EBD, although none was necessary in the least for a simple error.
I look forward to your response on the substantive points.
No, I continue to disagree with Dr. Dawg; I think he is confusing slander and libel with the HRAct.
Slander and libel refer to disparaging remarks about an individual. The HRAct has nothing to do with the individual per se, but the individual as a member of a category. This category is group membership>
“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. ”
And what are the group categories?
“the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.”
Please note, Dr. Dawg, these categories do not refer to individual attributes but to group attributes.
The HRAct has absolutely nothing to do with individuals, which, again, are dealt with by the legal processes of libel and slander. This Act refers to an individual’s membership in a ‘group’ and refers to their subjective feelings of ‘being hated or viewed with contempt’ because they are viewed as a member of that ‘discriminated group’.
Kindly note that many of these groups are not biological but are social, ie, the attributes in that category are created by man and changeable by man (religion, family status, marital status, national and ethnic origin).
Therefore, the HRAct is openly stating that Canadians cannot evaluate and reject the axioms within these groups because to do so ‘might’ ‘expose’ some of its members to feeling ‘hated’ or ‘viewed with contempt’.
Therefore, the HRAct is setting up a Star Chamber process where social ideologies are immune to debate, dissent, doubt, exploration and evaluation.
That is not only a violation of our fundamental right to freedom of expression. It’s a violation of our basic nature as human beings, which is – to be rational, to think.
Thanks for your graciousness, Dawg. The red has disappeared, and I’m now back to being a pink man.
On the substantive points, based on your summary, we are in complete agreement, except on one point: I don’t think publication of the cartoons is necessarily gratuitously insulting. In light of the riots and so on, I think a person has a right to see what caused all the hoo-ha. The cartoons might be *offensive* to some people, as you noted, but I doubt that any previously reasonable person would be suddenly moved to treat Muslims poorly on account of having seen them.
BTW, in the interests of preventing any future faceplants, I have separated you and ‘Clell in my drop-down bookmarks — you are now sandwiched between “Renegade Nuns on Wheels” and “Pottery Barn.”
Daisy,
I was referring to your statement that “Multiculturalism is surrender. Canada will have to live with Trudeau, the inventor of multicularism, with shame.”
I do believe there are a few other types of immigrants to Canada who might hold other beliefs than Islamic. I do note your indignation and send heart felt apologies if you are not in fact a bigot.
ET,
On this idea of… “..feeling ‘hated’ or ‘viewed with contempt’. I suspect the grounds for for complaint would exclude “feelings”. There must be *actual* hatred or contempt resulting from the any actions in question. That is why this particular complaint is frivolous.
Brendan, Please read Section 13.1 of the HRAct. I repeat it here:
“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. ”
Note that the Act does not differentiate ‘hatred or contempt’ into ‘feelings of being hated or viewed with contempt’ and ‘an action of hatred or contempt’.
The reason for this is because ‘hate and contempt’ are subjective emotions. I may feel that the actions of X means that X hates me; you may feel that the very same actions of X are reasonable and you don’t feel that X hates you.
Furthermore, the focus in the HRAct is not on actual evidence of ‘being hated or viewed with contempt’. The focus is pure speculation that the actions of X ‘are likely to expose a member of a group to hatred or contempt’.
Please note- there is no requirement for actual evidence of being hated or viewed with contempt.
Merely the speculation that ‘it is likely’. And who makes the decision that ‘it is likely’?
The State, in the personhood of a bureaucrat, has absolutely no business in deciding what speech or expressions are offensive, are hateful, are contemptuous. The State has no business in dealing with the thoughts and emotions of the population. That right belongs to the people as individuals.
The fact is, that the Alberta HRC did not dismiss the complaint as frivolous; they had the ‘legal’ right to do so (Section 41.1.d). Instead, they have gone ahead with it.
Brendan,
Multiculturalism is nothing more than ghettoization of minorities. It is the policy that separates rather than unites. With this in mind, and given your implied support for it, perhaps it’s you that’s the bigot?
After rereading this thread, Dawg’s advocacy is much clearer to me.
Taken in total, his profligate commentary is designed to deny Levant’s deligitimization of the commission, while allowing that Levant may be innocent of the charges against him.
Dawg may concede that Levant did no wrong in publishing the Mo’toons, but he will not concede Levant’s larger point: that the commission itself is illegitimate, and has no right to interrogate publishers in a free country.
Dawg’s attempt to walk a tight=rope between these two contradictions may be the reason why he feels “misunderstood” in this thread. He admits the vessel, the HRC, may be empty, but he won’t allow that that may be because it leaks, and should be thrown-away.
Some breaking news to pass along from ezralevant.com…
Late last month three women lodged a complaint to the CHRC against Soharwardy. They claim that at a November 11, 2007 meeting at the Al-Madinah Islamic center they were subjected to abusive language, physically and verbally threatened, and that these incidents were followed-up by obscene and threatening phone calls and letters in the mail.
If the allegations are true (apparently there’s a DVD of the meeting) it sounds like a job for a real court, not the CHRC.
“Taken in total, his profligate commentary is designed to deny Levant’s deligitimization of the commission, while allowing that Levant may be innocent of the charges against him.”
Bingo. Gosh, it took a long time. No wonder “profligate commentary” is required sometimes.
I think, Dr. Dawg, that most of us were aware from the start of your unswerving support for the HRC.
What most of us, again, were waiting for, was some reasonable argument from you that grounded such support. It was this ‘reasonable argument’ that has been missing from your posts.
Speaking of reasonable ET, the word ‘contempt’ is indeed insufficiently clear. It has two specific implications, one of which is marginally appropriate and the other not at all. I have degree of contempt for most people and see nothing inappropriate with that. See Irwin for instance. The act would be more concise without that ambiguity to be sure and I am trying to find some logic to it’s inclusion, without much success.
Daisy Duke,
Ahhhh ya got me. I am indeed a bigot by your definition, and as you well know offense is the best defense in hiding one’s own bigoted views. I feel much better now having that burden of my chest now.
David, where’s the food man. The music is lovely, but I’m after the delicious snacks.
ET:
You should be careful. Straw is known to spontaneously combust.
But, Dr. Dawg, I’m not the one who sleeps in the barn and barks at the moon.
Have some cheese, Brendan: http://tinyurl.com/248l9e
I’ve reread this thread again, and I must say that this really has been an excellent discussion of the matters at hand. Thanks, as always, David, for hosting these civic events.
If I were to summarize the situation, I would say that the argument here isn’t much about what the limits to freedom of speech should be (though there is some bickering at the margins), rather it’s about whether or not the adjudication of questions relating to our charter’s section two guarantees about *fundamental* freedoms should be handled by Her Majesty’s official Courts of Law, with full recognition of common law history and charter provisions for due process, or by some traffic-ticket bureaucratic functionaries. Apparently one of us is in favour of the latter, he’s the one who’s big on statist “process”.
Early in this discussion, Brendan said, “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”. You know, it occurs to me that Mr. Levant may have actually succeeded in setting up a win-win situation here. If prosecuted, he is a martyr, if dismissed, he is a saint of re-affirmation. (Modulo the law of unintended consequences, of course, time will tell, we shall see.)
Here’s a thought I had while rereading. While I have never hated myself, I have on rare occasion felt contempt for my behaviour after making a large intellectual error. So I’m going to file a complaint about myself at the AHRC under the mental disability provision. (Queue the episode of Spock feeding a Godelian incompleteness into the machine and then having it shake and smoke and blow up.)
PS to ET: Dogs bark, dawgs bawk.
PS to Brendan: Please don’t defame Daisy Duke: http://tinyurl.com/3czcvn
My Case Before the Human Rights Commissariat
I was working with some people, in public, nailing up a porch, when I hit my thumb with my hammer. Feeling *contempt* for what I did, I yelled out, “What a stupid thing to do”. I was offended by the contempt expressed in what I said, so under section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act, in particular the “mental disability” provision, I filed a complaint against myself before the Alberta Human Rights Commissariat.
The commissar interviewed the complainer, me, and was told that I was offended by the contempt that was displayed by me toward me. The commissar interviewed the complainee, me, and was told that they are ultra vires on the matter of freedom of speech about the wisdom of hitting one’s thumb with one’s hammer.
As a result, the commissariat had to decide whether to award me, or to award me. At that point, it got confused. It was overheating badly. I’m sorry, look, there was nothing else I could do, I had to shut down the AHRC 9000 machine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA4e239eyrg
The obelisk aimed only a single radio emission toward Jupiter.
The HRCs aim oppression into the hearts of free-thinking humans.
“David, where’s the food man. The music is lovely, but I’m after the delicious snacks.”
[ Wheels in tray of finger food and small marzipan fancies. Nudges phonomogram into life. ]
http://fp.ignatz.plus.com/benzedrine.mp3
Gee, this place is classy. It’s not every thread that comes with catering and a disco.
“…and as you well know offense is the best defense in hiding one’s own bigoted views.”
And to think you were the first to hurl the bigot insult. And then the ridiculous attempt to smear my name.
Typical cowardly leftist, hurling insults while scrambling in retreat.
“Port Cheddar Stilton”? Oh dear, I’ll be up all night.
Irwin, have some marzipan and enjoy the day.
Do try the Shropshire Blue: http://tinyurl.com/2qehg8
I see where over at Daimnation our dear Dawg has now written: “The more I think about this, the more I think the complaint should have been dismissed at the outset, with a public statement that echoed much of what we’ve been saying here, from both left and right positions. I wonder if there aren’t AHRC folks thinking the same thing.”
As we say in Canada ~ Ezra shoots, he scores!
I’ll cheer Ezra on with a fresh baguette spread with Lincet Delice de Bourgogne. Sigh…
Alas, while there is a space reserved for Lincet’s Le Délice de Bourgogne here in the David Thompson cheese cellar shelves, the space is empty. I’ve checked with our supplier ~ http://tinyurl.com/yp7ovr ~ and apparently it’s been shipped but has not yet arrived. My apologies, madam.
May I interest you in a triple creme Brie: http://tinyurl.com/3ap292
(So, David, do I get the maître fromager job?)
(SFX: teletypes clacking in the background…)
This just in at the David Thompson newsdesk, ladies & gentlemen,
Ezra Levant addresses the question, “What Can Be Done?”:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/what-can-be-done.html
Islamofascist-Dhimmi Axis Assault on Free Speech
Muslims Against Sharia are proud to be the first Muslim group to publicly support Ezra Levant and denounce HRC inquisition.
Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous. HRC legitimizes radicals’ claims that Islam cannot be criticized and Freedom of Speech only applies to radical Muslims.
But Ezra Levant is not alone. The latest casualties of Islamofascist-Dhimmi Axis Assault on Free Speech include Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Fouad al-Farhan, Joe Kaufman, and Mark Steyn. Are you going to be next? http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/islamofascist-dhimmi-axis-assault-on.html
How the complaint came about:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/how-the-complaint-came-about.html
Media coverage:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/media-coverage.html
Indeed, how it quietly ends. Read the whole thing, in particular the rather different conclusions of Mr. Bronstein of the Jewish Free Press:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=303895
“After the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada filed the complaints against the two publications in 2006, Mr. Soharwardy and Jewish Free Press publisher Richard Bronstein met with a human rights commission mediator in March 2007. They settled their dispute with a handshake and Mr. Soharwardy withdrew his complaint. Mr. Bronstein later spoke to Muslims at a meeting at the mosque where Mr. Soharwardy serves as imam.
“I think Syed got something out of this process, too,” said Mr. Bronstein. “I think this kind of complaint harmed his interests more than it helped.”
Brendan,
Thanks for the update. Though I suspect the issue hasn’t ended quite yet. And the fact that Mr Bronstein’s encounter with Soharwardy ended “with a handshake” doesn’t seem to address any of the fundamental objections raised above. As has been suggested, license is being given to expensive nuisance and pretentious indignation, and the process itself has become a form of punishment.