"And their point is...what, exactly?"
That's the thing. He has every right to do so for the reason they're imputing on him, or the most offensive reasons possible, or for no reason at all. The idea that he has to sit before the government and be asked to explain himself is insane.
You really should watch those clips, Damian. He came prepared.
When someone applies ad-hominem as a serious criticism - "dose of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement" - it means that there's no substantive counter argument to be made.
Treacher self to those videos. Please. (Nod and apology to Jim).
Of course Ezra is being overly dramatic. He does not wish to lend credence to the whole procedure and is treating it exactly like what it is - a kangaroo court. I guess the "progressives" want him to be obsequious and display gravitas - how Canadian of them.
For an excellent primer on what liberalism really means see Mike Brock's post:
[External Link]
"Can we please stop using the fine word 'liberal' to describe these people?"
I never confuse Liberal with liberal or Progessive with progress. Call them socialists, or social democrats, as they do in Europe.
"He probably published the offending material ... in order to raise his magazine's profile."
No wonder the Left is so offended. Can you imagine what would happen if newspapers and magazines started publishing things to raise their profile and garner new readers? Why, next thing they'll be letting people publish their own opinions on the Internet, and we can't have that. Unfettered 'citizen journalism' is just too damn risky! [External Link] (Because we all know the best reporting is from countries where reporters are regulated and licensed.)
I'm very disappointed in, of all people, Baglow. I had rather expected him to (if begrudgingly) side with Levant on this.
Posted at 2008-01-13 17:35:10 [PermaLink]I'm on record as opposing the complaint going forward--which is what the current preliminary investigation (oh, sorry, forgot my audience--Star Chamber inquisition) is to decide.
I think an apology is due.
Levant has done a lot worse in his time. He wrote a vile column for the Calgary Sun attacking a bus driver for being Muslim--that caused the paper to drop him like a hot potato. (And for those who don't know, the Sun is a conservative newspaper.) He also launched a vicious (and grossly inaccurate) assault upon an MP because he was Muslim, and took pains to add sneering references to the man's Saudi origins. Compared to that, publishing the cartoons was small potatoes. As gratuitously offensive as it was, it doesn't meet the test of inciting hatred.
How is it not a star chamber? Someone who is not a judge is sitting in judgment of him, on behalf of the government. You say "preliminary hearing," I say "the banality of evil."
Posted at 2008-01-13 17:42:58 [PermaLink]Why not "Kristallnacht?"
[External Link]
McGovern's job is to determine of the complaint should go forward. My bet is that it won't. It doesn't meet the legal test of inciting hatred. Everybody take a fricken Valium.
Dr Dawg: Demerol might do the job better. But only for a while.
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
Apology due? Please... take it to the HRC and sue for one. You've forgotten more than your audience, you've forgotten irony.
As for your testimony about Levant's "vile" this and "sneering" that, your own sorry history of reactionary ad-hominem around here makes a sick joke of it.
Opposed the complaint, you say? Have you condemned the HRC's decision to even hear the case as a real threat to your own free expression? I do hope so. It's one thing to "side" with a defendant after the fact; It's quite another to grant legitimacy to an amateur, self-appointed tribunal in the first place.
No kidding, "only for a while." That's what they gave me a few years back for a kidney stone. The pain went away--for ten minutes. And I had to wait nearly three hours for the next dose.
I'd prefer a much longer stretch of anxiety relief for you lot, but that's just the kind of guy I am.
"Opposed the complaint, you say? Have you condemned the HRC's decision to even hear the case as a real threat to your own free expression?"
The HRC hasn't made any decision to hear the case. Can't you get even your basic facts right?
Dr.D; you can't use the "Kristallnacht" reference until the windows get smashed...mind you Levant's pointing out the firebombing of 'his' synagogue would seem to qualify.
Old Blighty seems to be a lot closer to that point than here. See the current uproar over the denial of the existance of 'No-go areas' in England. [External Link]
It's time to re-evaluate the 'I Am Canadian' piece:
[External Link]
"Why not 'Kristallnacht?'"
Why not some other non sequitur?
"It doesn't meet the legal test of inciting hatred."
The whole point is that "the legal test of inciting hatred" is ridiculous. Anyone can claim they've been incited, and under this system they can harass anyone who says anything they don't like.
"The HRC hasn't made any decision to hear the case. Can't you get even your basic facts right?"
OOOPS! Sorry, they've decided to hear whether they'll hear the hear-say, or, um, they're hearing whether they'll decide to hear the case, ah, they've decided to consider hearing whether the case deserves to be heard...
I mean, Levant wasn't in front of a sockie, was he? Basic facts? His no-show could have had very real consequences. Please don't pretend that this non-hearing is some benign non-event. Treacher is on point. It's that the HRC hasn't made any decision about whether... to follow the law that establishes (and thus limits them to) their original responsibilities. Cripes!! Basic facts?
Yeah, Demerol. Thanks Dan!
Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission
Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let's consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This "investigation" will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals' claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and radicalize moderate Muslims. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!
"He also points out that the questioning occurred as part of the investigation, and that a final decision on moving the matter forward hasn't been made."
Why does there need to be an investigation into someone's motives for publishing something?
Check that: What business does THE GOVERNMENT have investigating someone's motives for publishing something?
Posted at 2008-01-13 19:39:27 [PermaLink]Jim:
The investigation is actually into whether sufficient grounds exist for a complaint to proceed under the legislation.
Ran:
You wanted grudging, you got grudging. There's no damned pleasing some people.
Damian:
Thanks for the clarification.
"The investigation is actually into whether sufficient grounds exist for a complaint to proceed under the legislation."
Which involves asking a publisher what his motives were for publishing something. Actually. Which is none of their business. Actually.
(I just realized that the "Kristallnacht" reference has a link to Kathy Shaidle. Try Googling our two names sometime, Doctor...)
Posted at 2008-01-13 20:57:29 [PermaLink]Dr. Dawg has kidney stones! Uh-oh He's not perfect after all!
Posted at 2008-01-13 20:59:25 [PermaLink]As long as we're addressing the word "liberal" could we do something about "lefty" as well.... something like either defining it in terms that actually mean something, or not using it?
Posted at 2008-01-13 21:09:06 [PermaLink]Millie; I'm pretty sure someone around here has suggested that the Good Dr. has been, on occasion, stoned...:)
(just kidding)
"As long as we're addressing the word "liberal" could we do something about "lefty" as well.... something like either defining it in terms that actually mean something, or not using it?"
Just what was that name of your blog, again?
Muslims Against Sharia...
Hey, welcome aboard! Thanks for your thoughts. Please post here again. Stick around. We're a bit raucous at times, and it does get heated.
That said, your views would be welcomed. Get a helmet, strap on your seatbelts, and pedal to the metal.
Cheers!
Sounds like the Doctor's making a diagnosis!
Posted at 2008-01-14 07:11:35 [PermaLink]Dawg -
You seem to be missing the largest part of the point. Whether the complaint against Levant is dismissed after this hearing means nothing when the AHRC - and its federal twin - can and is used as a means of harassing citizens, who are forced to seek legal counsel out of their own pocket, while the HRC advances the plaintiff's case free of charge (but at the taxpayers' expense.) I don't know the state of Levant's finances, but he does have a lawyer sitting next to him, and that would cost anyone some cash. If such a complaint were leveled against me, I know that I couldn't afford counsel, and there's the likelihood that my employer would be mightily unnerved by the whole incident, and I might lose my job on top of that. Tut-tutting that Levant is a "blowhard" and that we're making a mountain out of a molehill is a sort of willful blindness - the molehill makes itself a mountain on its own, with gov't complicity.
I'm sure someone else has said this by now, but it has to be stressed.
Yeah, if it was, say, a left-wing publisher being called before a government "human rights committee" to explain his motives for disrespecting, say, Christians, I'm sure the Doctor would be every bit as sanguine about it. "They just want to ask him a few questions, what's the big deal?"
Posted at 2008-01-14 07:43:05 [PermaLink]Rick:
I've said before that something should be done about being out of pocket as the result of being a respondent in an unsuccessful case. But there really doesn't seem to be much interest in that debate.
Jim:
As a matter of fact, I think that would be an interesting case. I'd probably be rooting a little harder for my comrade than for someone, well, like Ezra Levant, although I've been consistent on my position, I think. But the instant case may decide such matters in general: it will have precedential value, will it not, Damian?
"I'd probably be rooting a little harder for my comrade than for someone, well, like Ezra Levant"
No kidding.
Whoa, we've got 2 doctors here now. Dr.Dawg, meet Dr.Dag. Dag, Dawg.
As for "So what?", so I'd be just as outraged if Jann Wenner got called before some sort of government kangaroo court for offending a Christian with that "Kanye as Jesus" cover. It's wrong.
"But there really doesn't seem to be much interest in that debate."
The debate should simply be - do we or do we not have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects free speech (including the press) as a fundamental freedom. And just what qualifications do the appointees to the HRCs have to override the Charter ?
Jim, you asked me to be honest about my feelings, and I was. But the principle is the same in either case, and so is my position. Surely that's all that counts.
Posted at 2008-01-14 09:04:22 [PermaLink]Canada's problem is that it has the "British" idea of Government, which means that the subjects (oops, sorry - "citizens") have only those rights which the Government deems not worth taking away from them.
Posted at 2008-01-14 14:04:11 [PermaLink]