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 would be kind enough to keep the book.”
There will, of course, be my handling fee to consider.
“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.”
Has anyone ever been hauled before the Star Chamber …er… Committee of Public Safety …er… NKVD …er… AHRC for the gratuitous US-bashing that seems to be Canada’s national sport?
I’m thinking not.
Publishing the cartoons is not promoting hatred of any ethnic or religious group.
True. The irony of this situation is that, by the complainants’ own proffered evidence, the “hatred and contempt” they were subjected to resulted directly from their bringing the complaint! In order to maintain consistency, the complainants should now bring a complaint against themselves for exposing themselves to hatred and contempt.
Where this will end up, unless more people like Levant take up the task, is here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,528549,00.html
Note that I endorse neither calling Mohammed a pedophile (which is done deliberately to offend and incite and polarize), nor the pressing of charges against this politician. She is not being stupid. She is deliberately setting out to appeal to a significant minority of Austrians who feel like they have lost control of their country. In the same way that the BNP is growing in England.
This type of situation arises when apparati of political correctness, like HRC tribunals, muzzle open debate, so anger is forced to simmer and grow, until it overflows.
As Ezra Levant puts it so perfectly in one of his videos, you can’t order people to agree with you. At most you can hope that through civil discussion and debate a mutual respect can emerge.
Shutting down the right to criticize an ideology or a religion will in the short term muzzle or hide discontent, but in the long run create a simmering brew of hate that will spill over and destroy a society.
Well, Dawg, I did trust you to quote the Law, which you now say is not the Law – I guess you must know The Queen! So my position is unfairly compromised. What we need is a Duel.
Hmm… if there’s no charge to file a complaint, and the complainant doesn’t have to appear or even make a case, perhaps we should all start filing one every time some leftoid Canadian says something uncomplimentary about the United States.
If nothing else, that might keep these button-down Stalinists out of everyone else’s hair, since they obviously have far too much free time on their hands.
“What we need is a Duel.”
Again, there’s the small matter of my handling fee. I can rent you pistols or swords. For a little extra I could probably dig out some army surplus flamethrowers.
And it ends up here too.
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2008/01/finnish-blogger-gets-fined-and-shut.html
and here
http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/
Watch out bloggers…. first they came for the publishers
David:
If you are renting out pistols and swords, please supply me with a pistol forthwith. And I am prepared, out of pure generosity, to spring for JP’s sword.
You’ll be needing tights, tabards and powdered wigs, too. Got to do things properly. Oh, and if you want extra authenticity, I can sell you a set of wooden teeth.
Whatever the nature of Levant’s character, and the validity of the claims by the complainant, there is one fact of this mess which is more chilling than the rest and that is the lack of fitness of any such “amateur” body as an HRC to consider questions more suited to constitutional jurisdictions.
What we have here are questions of freedom of expression and individual rights to freedom from religious persecution being decided upon by bodies which have not the legal competence nor the moral authority, let alone the evidentiary rules and established precedent of court procedure and judicial and parliamentary oversight, to make them fit venues for the consideration of such questions.
It strikes me that the Canadians are putting matters of vital constitutional weight in the hands of a bureaucracy barely qualified to adjudicate parking offenses.
We have groups in the UK, such the Christian Voice (successors to the unloved National Viewers and Listeners Association, run by Mary Whitehouse – and I am sure that Canada will have it’s own such groups) which has sought to prevent “Jerry Springer: The Opera” being staged, amongst other things, and I dread to think what havoc such groups could wreak upon our cultural, artistic and other freedoms if empowered by such bad legislation cast in such immoderate language – which this legislation is – to seek redress for injury to feelings.
For surely if this law were not so wrongly formed for the purpose it is now being used, we would not be able to argue up hill and down dale about the nature of the case.
If it were a law fit for the purpose for which it is being used, there could not be so many interpretations of either the law or the process.
I find it similarly disgraceful that the process itself is so one sided. We offer common thieves the benefit of due process and clear rules of evidence, the removal of the cost of defence against definitive charges and established tariffs of sanctions if such charges are proven, and the separation of legal process from the consideration of guilt or innocence. Any failure to follow a clearly prescribed process leads to a mistrial. Levant and others taken to task by this process have no such guarantees.
I believe Elizabeth I said “I have no desire to open windows into men’s souls”. This is very good advice, since it addresses one of the fundamental limits on the ability of legal process to reach useful and therefore *just* outcomes. But this advice is being explicitly ignored here. The idea that the intentions of the publisher, rather than the published material, are being adjudicated is clearly an attempt to use legislation and punitive state procedure to address matters of taste, morality and opinion – matters to which legal processes are totally unsuited.
Dr Dawg
I don’t want to force you to write anything against your conscience. But, for my benefit, could you post an example of something which you think constitutes hate speech against a religious opinion, as distinct from racism. Because I can’t imagine anything that one could write which wouldn’t already be covered by anti-racist considerations. For instance, if someone started referring to certain groups as (forgive me) “towel-heads”, or “camel f***ers” – disgusting language which I of course condemn unreservedly – they’re really just using racist slurs. On the other hand, when the Reverend Ian Paisley refers to the Pope as “the Whore of Rome” – even though I think he’s being a stupid and ignorant w***er – I think he should be completely free to say that.
It’s pretty obvious that Ezra Levant is both ethnically and religiously Jewish. Again, for me, attacks on his religion are fair game in a way that attacks on his ethnicity aren’t. I think it’s awful that Jews, Christians and Muslims admire Abraham because he heard voices telling him to murder his son and he very nearly acted on them. Disgusting. I also think Moses comes across as a terrible and disgusting role model – just read Numbers 31! But if someone attacks Jews in Eric Cartman style, for being mean with money or something, that’s different. It’s wrong.
“But, for my benefit, could you post an example of something which you think constitutes hate speech against a religious opinion, as distinct from racism.”
I’m having a hard time being understood. I don’t think there is such a thing as hate speech against a religious opinion. Otherwise I’d be doing twenty-to-life. 🙂
The Act prohibits hate speech against individuals and groups of people, not against thoughts. I can say anything I want against Islam, Christianity, you name it. But if I say, “Mr. Smith is a Catholic, so keep your kids away from him, they’re all pedophiles” on, say, a (very large) picket sign outside his house, I might fall afoul of the Act.
“It strikes me that the Canadians are putting matters of vital constitutional weight in the hands of a bureaucracy barely qualified to adjudicate parking offenses.”
The bureaucracy, as it is currently established, probably cannot simply reject trivial complaints. Trivial complaints are their raison d’être. Likely they are required to investigate, to some degree, anything that is brought to their attention. This is a definite flaw that will be brought to light by Mr. Levant and as a taxpayer I would hope this situation is never repeated. The higher courts of this country wouldn’t hear such a complaint in a million years.
I will be bringing my own pistol to this ‘duel,’ just in case things escalate. (I don’t trust David’s damp English powder)
Dr Dawg
So what’s your take on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hot_Catholic_Love
Dr. Dawg wrote:
“I’m having a hard time being understood. I don’t think there is such a thing as hate speech against a religious opinion. Otherwise I’d be doing twenty-to-life. 🙂
The Act prohibits hate speech against individuals and groups of people, not against thoughts. I can say anything I want against Islam, Christianity, you name it. But if I say, “Mr. Smith is a Catholic, so keep your kids away from him, they’re all pedophiles” on, say, a (very large) picket sign outside his house, I might fall afoul of the Act.”
The above, to me, doesn’t make any sense. The Human Rights Act, under Section 13.1 Hate Messages, states that it is a ‘discriminatory act’ to express:
“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. ”
The above Section, to me, clearly includes ‘hate speech (message) against a religious opinion’.
Section 3.1, Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination, states: “For all purposes of this Act, 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.”
Therefore, according to this HRAct, there most certainly is such a thing as ‘hate speech against a religious opinion’.
Dr. Dawg states that the Act ‘prohibits hate speech against individuals and groups of individuals, not against thoughts’. But I don’t see the distinction. Presumably, the speech is an expression of a thought.
And the whole point of this ‘trial’ is that, according to the HRAct, Canadians CANNOT say anything they want against Islam, Christianity…” After all, those political cartoons were saying something critical against Islam. And Mr. Levant has been called up by the HRC to ‘explain’ his ‘hate message’ that ‘might expose Muslims to hatred or contempt’.
If Dr. Dawg or anyone were to post a sign on his neighbour’s lawn, that would more readily be dealt with by actual laws against defamation and trespassing.
ET’s reading makes little sense, at least to me.
In everything he quotes, it is *people* who are protected–not ideas.
This is precisely why the complaint against Levant will go nowhere.
Happy New Year, ET, by the way.
Dawg and his fellow travelers are not upset because they have a valid complaint about Mr. Levant or his behaviour, they are angry because Mr. Levant is doing such an excellent job of getting his message out to Canadians and the world at large.
Some of Dawg’s fellow travelers have resorted to calling Mr. Levant a “drama queen”. They do this because they are angry that they have spent their whole lives trying to become drama queens, only to be danmingly upstaged by Mr. Levant’s natural ability as a Drama King. Thus they feel sexually inadequate.
Even if the complaint against Mr. Levant is now dismissed, which will have to be done under the consideration of his appearance at the inquisition, he will have succeeded in letting all of us know how to approach these kangaroo courts in the future.
For these services rendered for all Canadian citizens,
Mr. Levant should be invested into the Order of Canada.
Dr. Dawg, you cannot separate, unless you are, alas, a Platonist, people and ideas. There is no such thing as an idea existing on its own, without someone articulating that idea.
Therefore, the issue is that the Human Rights Act in Canada works against the freedom of individuals to express ideas. People’s right to express ideas, is what ought to be protected. Not ‘people’ per se – that’s dealt with under criminal laws against physical harm to the person.
This is the right of the individual to think, and to express those thoughts. The HRA expressly rejects this right. It states that it is unacceptable to ‘express any matter’ (that’s an idea) that is likely to expose someone to ‘hatred or contempt’ because of the content (idea) of that which is expressed.
I’ve commented in the invalid nature of this Section, with its focus on a future-oriented speculated result of that ‘expression’.
My point here is that the Act is not protecting individuals. It is harming one’s individual right to freedom of speech, the right to dissent, discuss, debate, reject, examine..ideas. And since ideas are expressed by individuals, the Act represses the individual right to freedom of speech.
“And I am prepared, out of pure generosity, to spring for JP’s sword.”- Dawg
On the public dime, to be sure.
Dawg (@00:39), it’s a cartoon. If Elmer Fudd gets shot by Bugs Bunny, is that a hate crime against white people? You have never, and I suspect, won’t ever make sense.
————————-
Here’s excerpts from the bill of Islamic rights enshrined in Cairo, which competes with the UN’s declaration of Human Rights:
“The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam”
Adopted and Issued at the Nineteenth Islamic Conference
of Foreign Ministers in Cairo
on 5 August 1990.
The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.
Wishing to contribute to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.
Freedom of speech, thought, press?
Article 22
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
All the ‘reasonable’ articles preceding the final two (below) are abrogated (just like the Quran):
Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
Article 25
The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.
———————
All one can surmise from this is that certain unnamed Saudi born Imams (Soharwardy) who call for shariah law in Canada are manipulating the rights we give them in order to install their own.
And Dawg should add ‘lap’ to his chosen moniker.
“My point here is that the Act is not protecting individuals. It is harming one’s individual right to freedom of speech”
Well, not quite. It’s harming one’s individual right to discriminate against other people on a number of grounds with which you are familiar. And it’s harming a person’s right to defame people on those same grounds. In the case of religion, it’s not forbidden to defame the Prophet Muhammad, or Jesus Christ, or the Buddha, and the ideas associated with same–it is forbidden to defame or otherwise discriminate against the *people* who believe in and follow the precepts of such figures.
Let’s be quite clear. This isn’t about “freedom of speech” grosso modo. It’s about a small subset of same–the freedom to defame, the freedom to spread hatred against minorities. We’re talking people here, not ideas. It’s been a salutary experience to note the ferocity with which people on the Right are prepared to fight, not for the wider principle, not by a long shot, but for the “right” to spread hate and to defame. Most were quite absent from public discussion, for example, when Conrad Black was suing ordinary people for saying things that the now-jailbird disapproved of. All of ET’s casuistry will not change that fact.
And in case I forgot to mention it, for the third or fourth time, and for the benefit of the trolls arriving here from SDA, I think Levant has broken no law and the complaint against him should not go forward.
So, it appears Dawg, you would agree with this double standard in Canadian law?
CTV.ca News Staff
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial for former aboriginal leader David Ahenakew, who had a hate-crimes conviction quashed by a lower court.
The Crown will have to decide whether to proceed with a new trial, stay the charges or appeal this latest decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In its 3-0 decision released Monday, the appeal court said while Ahenakew’s 2002 remarks about Jews were “shocking, brutal and hurtful,” the trial judge didn’t consider all the relevant evidence as to whether he wilfully promote hatred against them.
Ahenakew, the now-74-year-old former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, called Jews “a disease” in a December 2002 interview with a newspaper reporter.
Trolls? And to think you were the one chased back under the bridge.
What double standard? You are making no sense, as usual.
No, Dr. Dawg – you are quite incorrect. Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act is quite clear. It is talking about the possible, not actual, but the possible ‘effects’ of your speech. Its concern is that the effect might, just might, mean that someone who is a member of X-group might be viewed with hatred or contempt as such a member.
The derogative meaning of ‘discriminate’ (as opposed to its meaning of ‘differentiation’)is actually a process of evaluation. That is, if I reject the axioms of Islam and Sharia Law, that’s an evaluation. If I express my rejection of such an ideology, and examine it as unsuitable for a modern industrial society, this analysis might well, according to the esteemed HRC, expose some members of this group to being viewed ‘with contempt’.
I am NOT defaming any one individual; I am evaluating and rejecting an ideology that is held by these individuals. That, in the view of the HRC, is a ‘hate message’. I am, in that sense, defaming the Islamic ideology, because I am rejecting it as primitive and dysfunctional in the modern world. According to you, this shouldn’t be allowed. Why not?
Why are you removing religious axioms from evaluation?
You are also absolutely wrong when you state that it’s not ‘forbidden to defame the Prophet Mohammed’..etc. It most certainly is, according to the Islamists. They were urged to riot and kill, because they felt that the political cartoons ‘defamed Mohammed’. In Sharia Law, it is most certainly forbidden to ‘insult the prophet’.
These cartoons, according to the HRC, are ‘hate messages’ because they express….READ THE ACT:
“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. ”
The point is, the these political cartoons were making very pointed observations about the fault lines in Islam. Muslims could indeed be offended…and state that Other People will ‘view us with contempt’. Well, on the basis of analyzing the axioms of their beliefs, maybe we should. That’s up to us. NO RELIGION or ideology ought to be immune to critical analysis.
And No-One has any ‘rights’ not to be offended.
It is absolutely not about the ‘freedom to defame or spread hatred’. You simply don’t get it, Dawg. And don’t get into the weeping zone of ‘minorities’. The issue is not about demographics.
It’s about the freedom to think, evaluate and judge. And judging something includes rejecting it. And declaring why you reject it.
And don’t slither into the diversionary area of ‘the right to spread hate’. Heck, if you were genuinely concerned about that, Dawg, you’d be calling for a censorship of the Islamic Koran, with its specific statements about the necessity for killing Christians and Jews as infidels. How about those texts and their defamation? Are you calling for them to be censored? hmmm?
The issue is about the right to speak one’s opinions. To make judgments. To evaluate. These conclusions may indeed offend someone. So what?
Maybe anyone who holds those views I’m judging needs to re-examine them and think..heck..”Viewing me with contempt is ‘right on’..because my views are contemptible”.
In your relativist world, Dr. Dawg, there’s no such thing as analysis and judgment. Just ‘smoothies’ because..if Someone Holds That Opinion (eg, that stoning women is OK), it’s OK, because that’s them and they are a Minority’.
No, Dr. Dawg. I reject your opinion.
This is a simple event: AHRC has no business questioning publishers about what they choose to publish unless it is clearly intended to provoke hatred. Nothing in the motoons could ever be construed this way. The contortions of the complainant in trying to construe defamation of Mohammed as an act of hatred toward all muslims are clearly frivolous and ridiculous. Mr Levant, rather than simply point this out, has taken umbrage with the (likely) required actions AHRC to request information of him instead of simply dismissing the complaint itself in a letter. Who cares? Both outcomes are the same, except, perhaps, for the value of publicity to Mr. Levant. So, can someone explain to me why all the wingnuts here are wearing their war panties on their heads?
ET:
Please give me a ride in your time machine.
“I am NOT defaming any one individual; I am evaluating and rejecting an ideology that is held by these individuals. That, in the view of the HRC, is a ‘hate message’.”
Wrong. The HRC has made no ruling. It hasn’t even had a hearing. It likely won’t.
“I am, in that sense, defaming the Islamic ideology, because I am rejecting it as primitive and dysfunctional in the modern world. According to you, this shouldn’t be allowed. Why not?”
According to me? You’re just making stuff up as you go along, aren’t you?
“Why are you removing religious axioms from evaluation?”
It wuzn’t me.
“You are also absolutely wrong when you state that it’s not ‘forbidden to defame the Prophet Mohammed’..etc. It most certainly is, according to the Islamists.”
But not according to the AHRC, which I thought we were discussing.
As for your other strawmen, it’s proving to be a cold winter. I propose that you set fire to them and go toast marshmallows.
Multiculturalism is surrender. Canada will have to live with Trudeau, the inventor of multicularism, with shame. On the other hand, Islam may well have to live with Mohammad, the inventor of “Submit!”
“Multiculturalism is surrender. Canada will have to live with Trudeau, the inventor of multicularism, with shame. On the other hand, Islam may well have to live with Mohammad, the inventor of “Submit!”
More thinly veiled bigotry. Are all the non-muslim cultures who form part of the mosaic equally detestable in your view daisy?
Alas, Brendan, while I know nothing about war panties, the value of the publicity achieved by Mr. Levant goes well beyond that accrued to Mr. Levant, it accrues to all humans who are interested in the problem of state sanctions against political speech and freedom of the press. This may not matter to you, as a closet fascist in the first place, but it does matter to honest thinking humans everywhere. It is because of Mr. Levant’s effectiveness that the state’s minions like you and Dawg are so worried about Mr. Levant’s expose of your fraudulent pandering.
“This may not matter to you, as a closet fascist in the first place, but it does matter to honest thinking humans everywhere. It is because of Mr. Levant’s effectiveness that the state’s minions like you and Dawg are so worried about Mr. Levant’s expose of your fraudulent pandering.”
Heh, this from a “charter member” of the Western Standard no less. If you believe what you just wrote I expect you value my freedom to discuss the nuances of this situation, with you no less, without being labeled a “fascist.” Unless you are making reference to Johan’s comedic attempts to link fascism with any type of progressive thought, in which case, I’d tell you I don’t read fiction.
By the way, Dr. Dawg, what’s your agenda in calling those of us (Irwin Daisy and myself) who post at SDA – ‘trolls’? Why the ad hominem?
Brendan – no, the AHRC could have, right from the start, refused to hear the case. Instead, it chose to hear it. That’s already an action of the AHRC against freedom of expression.
Dr. Dawg – the AHRC has already held a ‘hearing’ with its official representative.
And you are ignoringn the HRACT, which is very specific in its view that IF you express an opinion that may move others to view others with ‘hatred’ or ‘contempt’, then, your opinion is indictable as a ‘hate message’.
Dr. Dawg, your wrote: “In the case of religion, it’s not forbidden to defame the Prophet Muhammad, or Jesus Christ, or the Buddha, and the ideas associated with same–it is forbidden to defame or otherwise discriminate against the *people* who believe in and follow the precepts of such figures.”
Now – where do you get the data that allows you to come to this conclusion that you can indeed ‘defame the religious icons and the religious ideas’? The HRAct is quite specific; it says that a hate message is defined as one that might make someone view someone else with ‘hatred or contempt’. Well, if I explain how the religious ideas and icons of Islam are primitive and intolerant, then, this ‘might’ lead others to view Islamists with ‘hatred or contempt’. Your error, Dr. Dawg, is that you separate the idea from the individual. Impossible. An individual who follows Islam is going to feel ‘hated’ if you view his religion with disdain.
Sheesh…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to follow simple logic!
YES-IT IS an axiom of the AHRC — IF,IF, IF, IF someone complains that because YOU DEFAMED the ‘prophet’. then, I, an Islamist, am exposed to people ‘hating me and viewing me with contempt’….
No, my other points aren’t strawmen, Dr. Dawg. The fact that you don’t want to deal with them, is your problem.
At fist viewing I thought Mr. Levant was making a valuable case on behalf of free speech, and indeed he may be. Once the context of the situation was provided, I had second thoughts knowing too well Ezra’s propensity for grandstanding. As I have stated frequently here and elsewhere, I would do anything to assure not only that Mr. Levant suffered no consequences from the AHRC, but also do anything I could to assure that it should never occur again to any other. And I don’t need to like the scoundrel to take that position.
Charter subscriber, Brendan, not member. I value your freedom to say what you want without interference from the state. Whether or not you label me as panty-wearing is not relevant. Whether or not I label you as a fascist is not relevant. Whether or not David kicks me or you off his private property blog is not relevant. Who Conrad Black sues is not relevant.
Mr. Levant’s expose of statist oppression is relevant. In fact, it’s re-Levant.
“no, the AHRC could have, right from the start, refused to hear the case. Instead, it chose to hear it. That’s already an action of the AHRC against freedom of expression.”
I am only familiar with the processes of other like ombudsman type organizations, so my knowledge of the AHRC is not specific, but to dismiss a complaint brought requires the bureaucrats to check certain boxes on certain forms as required before rejecting a complaint. If you have information that the AHRC has the discretion to reject complaints then please post it. To me this is a process, nothing more, and Levant will come out off it just fine. If not, then we can talk –about signatures for ET’s letter.
Mr. Lorne Gunter has an essay on this matter in today’s National Post:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=235985
Well Vitruvius, are you still a subscriber would be my question? It now has a track record with which you can happily associate yourself or not. This is also irrelevant of course, but it speaks to your sympathies for Ezra on this issue. Liking or disliking the man is not germane to criticizing the actions of the AHRC but if you have deep affection for the man, perhaps you too easily overlook other, more cynical motives on his part.
Vitruvius,
Don’t misunderstand me here. I was happy at the publishing of the cartoons. It was a bit of a jonny-come-lately event by the WS, but more should have done it.
The Western Standard magazine has folded due to market pressures, ergo I am no longer a subscriber. To the degree that I am a fan of Mr. Levant it is because of his skills as a conscientious public gadfly. I do not consider his other motives (and I am aware of them) relevant to the matter at hand.
For the first couple years of the Western Standard’s blog, The Shotgun, I was a frequent commenter. I left because Mr. Levant’s commitment to freedom of speech, even for aszholes, meant that eventually only aszholes commented there. Yet Mr. Levant kept his commitment to freedom of speech, even for aszholes, even if it cost him Shotgun readership.
We are watching a man who has dedicated himself the to ancient tradition of freedom of speech, even when others would rather not hear what is said, and worse, prosecute for what is said.
We owe him our greatest thanks.
PS: Mr. Levant’s closing remarks video is now available here:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/my-closing-argument.html
PPS: For the record, and as you might imagine now that the Western Standard has shut down, the Shotgun blog is no longer associated with the Western Standard (and it is in the process of being re-engineered).
Brendan – the Commission could have refused to hear the complaint. That’s in Section 41.1 of the HRAct:
(1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that
(a) the alleged victim of the discriminatory practice to which the complaint relates ought to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available;
(b) the complaint is one that could more appropriately be dealt with, initially or completely, according to a procedure provided for under an Act of Parliament other than this Act;
(c) the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission;
(d) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; or
(e) the complaint is based on acts or omissions the last of which occurred more than one year, or such longer period of time as the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances, before receipt of the complaint.
I would call it under ‘d’, because it is in violation of the Charter, Section 2b. And, of course, there cannot be any relationship shown between publishing the political cartoons and any feelings of ‘hatred’ or ‘contempt’ against Muslims – if, even if, one accepts (which I don’t) that it is illegal to evaluate an ideology/religion.
I suppose the subject boils down to a) it was important for Mr. Levant to use his opportunity to expose the AHRC (and all HRCs for that matter) to proper scrutiny. It is also, in my view, important to determine exactly how coercive the AHRC is in regards to Mr. Levants rights to free speech. With that added context it does seem to be, as I read somewhere, “like yelling at the call centre receptionist.” Had that opening statement been made a the supreme court I’m sure we’d be minting coins of the man by 2012.
If he manages to better define the role of, or even eliminate these commissions then he has been successful, as I’m not convinced a duplicate system is cheaper than a more robust legal system. If that happens to be his contribution, then great, it’s certainly a step up from everything he has contributed to date.
I’ll be happy if he can get the HRCs to wear red robes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o
“Life does not cease to be funny when people die any
more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.”
— George Bernard Shaw
As I review my thoughts on the great many discussions on this matter that I have perused over the last few days, I find that there are a lot of people who agree with Mr. Levant’s dialectic argument, yet who are unhappy with his rhetorical style and the way he is droll.
But is this not the point? Given that we agree with his dialectic position, does it not behoove us to appreciate the success that his style and wit have brought to this cause, even if does not meet one’s standard of propriety?
Look, I’m the high-functioning autistic engineer around here, I’m not supposed to be the one who is pointing out Mr. Levant’s dramatic success, but we can’t just leave that aside. We would not be having this discussion in favour of freedom of speech if it were not for his performance.
Shakespeare said that all the world’s a stage and yada yada. Mr. Levant’s public presence takes that into account. So do I, in each blog comment I write. So, I think, should others, but that’s not for me to decide.
Now that Mr. Levant’s videos have had time to be carefully viewed multiple times, can we not see that in terms of dramatic classics, Mr. Levant is performing at the level of the role of Howard Roark in his defense in The Fountainhead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9udFmsNO0
Morning all.
[ Scratches head, blinks, surveys floor strewn with beer bottles. ]
Gosh. How busy we’ve been. I’m still reeling from the idea of Brendan’s “war panties.” Er, by which I mean the “war panties” to which Brendan referred. Not whatever garments may be fastened about his person. I feel I should make that clear.
Hm. More coffee.
I would like you consider a hypothetical situation.
Imagine that someone much more modest and timid than Ezra, call her Judith, had decided to print the cartoon, entirely for the sake of news reporting – figuring that in Alberta, there was no possibility of any unpleasant reaction.
Now imagine that the complaints had been lodged, and this Judith was told to apologize to the Muslim community for “insulting the Prophet Mohammad”, as the complaint says, and told, on pain of some much more serious punishment that she must never publish anything that insults Mohammad or Muslims again. (This, by the way is precisely what the commission will do to Ezra).
Now imagine that in the Alberta’s Muslim community is a girl facing being killed by her family for renouncing Islam – that DOES happen, by the way. Now after reading that the government her government just censored a man for “insulting the Prophet Mohammad” (which is Islamic terminology for a kind of heresy, punished by death), do you think she’s going to know that she can go to the Alberta authorities and trust her life to them?
A different view from the drink soaked trots
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2008/01/15/the-real-issue/
Dawg: I’m confused — good morning.
ET wrote that the Act is “harming one’s individual right to freedom of speech, the right to dissent, discuss, debate, reject, examine…ideas. And since ideas are expressed by individuals, the Act represses the individual right to freedom of speech.”
You replied that the Act only harms one’s individual right to discriminate against other people, and that “in the case of religion, it’s *not* forbidden to defame the Prophet Muhammad, or Jesus Christ, or the Buddha, and the ideas associated with same”; all that’s forbidden is “to defame or otherwise discriminate against the *people* who believe in and follow the precepts of such figures.”
So in other words, it’s NOT forbidden to defame the prophet Muhammad, and it IS forbidden to defame the prophet Muhammad because in doing so you would “defame or discriminate against the people who believe it is forbidden to defame the prophet Muhammad.”
Er, let’s just cut to the chase: is it forbidden, or not forbidden, to defame the prophet Muhammad?
I guess that would depend, to a certain extent, on whether it’s forbidden or not. When Soharwardy, who says “Islam is a service to humanity as well as a civilizing force for humanity wherever it is introduced and established”, first heard about the cartoons he went to the Calgary Police and asked them to *arrest* Ezra Levant. When told that the police don’t generally arrest people for printing cartoons, he went to the AHRCC, where Ezra Levant is now appearing under duress before their commission.
In Sowarhardy’s letter to the AHRCC, on “Islamic Supreme Council of Canada” letterhead, he wrote:
“Thanks for meeting with me today. Although in our meeting, I provided you the detailed reasons of my complaint and the explanation of the offensive nature of the cartoons, however, you asked me to provide you the explanation in writing as well. Here is my explanation:
“The holy book of Islam, Qur’an describes the deepest love and the highest respect for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as an essential requirement of faith. There are hundreds of verses in Qur’an but I am just quoting few of them:
1. The Prophet is closer (dearer) to the believers than their own selves (chapter 33, verse 6)
2. Allah (God) and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him and salute him with utmost respect (chapter 33, verse 56)
3. Ye have indeed in Messenger of Allah (God) a beautiful pattern of conduct. (chapter 33, verse 21)
4. By the Lord, They can have No Faith Until they make thee (the Prophet Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them. And find in their souls No resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction (chapter 4, verse 65)”
You wrote, Dawg (on your own blog) that “The truth of the matter is that nothing more is occurring than what is supposed to occur when one Canadian citizen has a complaint about the actions of another Canadian citizen…The Alberta HRC informed Ezra Levant on this complaint against him. They then attempted to arbitrate a resolution to this dispute. This attempt failed as Levant refused to accept the resolution offered by Mr. Soharwardy.”
Mr. Soharwardy’s “offer” consisted of a series of *demands* — that the Western Standard “apologize in the newspaper”, that “the publishers condemn their actions”, and “they have to come to our centre and apologize to our congregation, too.”
Brendan,
Thinly vieled bigotry? Islam means submission (USC archive). It is the ideology, regardless of what some, many, or most Muslims do. Unless you’d like to believe the shoveled, “Islam means peace” meme.
Typical lefty. Feelings trump facts and ad hominem attacks trump all.
EBD:
I guess I’m confused, too. I didn’t write what you just attributed to me. At least, it doesn’t sound like me, and I’ve never been able to spell “Soharwardy.” But if I’m having a senior’s moment, please give me the reference.
Here, in any case, is my take on the process:
First, I don’t think mediation would have been successful in this case. What I’d really like to do is to put Levant and Soharwardy in a bottle and shake it. But that’s just me.
Second, the AHRC had the option of simply dismissing the complaint at the outset. I think (or speculate) that it is very wise that they did not. They will dismiss this complaint without a hearing, but after an investigation. Any similar kinds of complaints will be dismissible at the outset based upon this procedural precedent.
Third, since you have come to the party late, I personally think that the complaint should be dismissed, for many of the reasons people have already expressed.
But to your meatier point: I cannot see in the legislation, which I have now read and re-read several times, that it is a human rights violation to defame the prophet Muhammad. And I fail to see why my earlier words have you tied up in knots. I even provided what I thought was a non-emotive example, referring to Catholics. But once again:
An attack upon a person’s beliefs, no matter how dearly-held, is quite permissible, and should not be subject to any legislation whatsoever. An attack on a person, however, is not. We have libel and slander and defamation laws in place, and no one is calling for them to be repealed. We have an extension of that principle in hate speech laws (Criminal Code), and we have HRAs in 14 jurisdictions that make it an offence to expose people to hatred or contempt. Note, and this is important, that the wording does not refer to hating or showing contempt oneself, but, rather, engaging in communications of a public nature likely to sow such hatred or contempt in the community.
Attacking the notion that God wanted us all to learn 7th-century Arabic is hardly spreading hatred or contempt for people who actually believe such a thing. Publishing cartoons of the Prophet, which violates various Islamic injunctions against idolatry, besides being gratuitously insulting in themselves, is an offensive act, but, in my view (and I suspect the AHRC investigator’s), is perfectly legal. It might offend believers, but it doesn’t expose them to hatred or contempt on the part of others in the community.
Best for 2008, by the way.