Interesting reading, to be sure. But didn't Levant try to have the U of Alberta campus newspaper The Gateway punished--for publishing a cartoon he didn't like?
[External Link]
[in the comments]
I have seen all sorts of secondary references to this incident, of which the above is but one, but nothing firmly reliable, so at this point I'm merely inquiring.
Aw, cancel that. I hadn't read Mike Brock when I wrote the above, and he makes a decent point, too. I've certainly changed my views (more than once) since I was 19.
Apologies all round.
Let's say, hypothetically, that he's a total hypocrite. So what? What does that have to do with a government agency attempting to censor speech?
Or are only certain persons privileged with the right to free speech? It’s difficult to justify the government’s actions, so the usual suspects just attack the victims reputation, instead.
"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Anybody know what happened to that one? Our society seems to have forgotten it.
I would agree that Levant's character, while worthy of remark in its own right, is not, or should not be, a factor in the current AHRC imbroglio.
Posted at 2008-01-17 08:48:04 [PermaLink]And anyone who thinks we're "overreacting" might want to take a gander at this article (via Steyn & Shaidle):
[External Link]
Absolutely terrifying. This is where it all leads, people.
I think a larger sign of hypocrisy is the number of frivolous lawsuits Ezra has launched (some quite recently).
Posted at 2008-01-17 10:35:35 [PermaLink]"Interesting reading, to be sure. But didn't Levant try to have the U of Alberta campus newspaper The Gateway punished--for publishing a cartoon he didn't like?
[External Link]
[in the comments]
I have seen all sorts of secondary references to this incident, of which the above is but one, but nothing firmly reliable, so at this point I'm merely inquiring."
That's odd. You were treating it as "firmly reliable" when safely ensconced on your home turf:
"Perhaps the hypocrisy doesn't lie in deleting comments form his own blog--Deaner has a point--but his attempt a few years ago to go after a newspaper for--yes--publishing a cartoon.
Dr.Dawg | Homepage | 01.14.08 - 8:05 pm | # "
"I think a larger sign of hypocrisy is the number of frivolous lawsuits Ezra has launched (some quite recently)."
Lawsuits, you say? Presumably you speak of civil suits: i.e., suits pursued through the courts. If Mr. Levant ever pursues one of his grievances through the Star Chamber proceedings of the HRC, *then* you can accuse him of hypocrisy. Not before.
Jay,
So you are okay with someone's quashing dissenting speech through the frivolous use of the court system but not through the use of HRCs?
[External Link]
Some groups are quite committed to censorship through traditional legal proceedings.
Hey... Ellie, thanks!
[External Link]
Britain is a free nation?
If I hadn't read Brock and noted when Levant had been up to his tricks at the U of A, I guess I'd be sticking to the position I took somewhere over at my place. I had never really thought about the length of time between then and now. Brock has a point and I accept it.
But BigCityLib has a different point--although, once again, references seem hard to come by. I'm aware of Levant's Chuck Strahl lawsuit, but haven't found others--although the fault may be mine for not looking hard enough. But suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that Levant uses lawsuits to shut people down (as Warren K. has done, or threatened to do, on occasion). Ironically, I first heard the accusation about Levant "papering the courts" or some such at Warren's own site.
I think the question is a good one: why is it that muzzling free speech through submitting a complaint to a tribunal is more culpable than muzzling free speech by submitting a vexatious lawsuit to a civil court? In each case, it's a misuse of a judicial body.
I raised Conrad Black's well-known propensity for squelching dissent at some point (maybe not here), and the practice of SLAPP suits to squelch activism in connection with the Levant issue, and was told that these things were "not relevant." Or Not re: Levant. Or something.
It seems to me that we should, and by "we" I mean all of us, be consistent on these things. I have said my piece about Black and SLAPP suits, and I've tried to be consistent by expressing opposition to the current complaint before the AHRC.
But Jay Random thinks that a civil court is somehow nicer than a "star chamber" HRC hearing (and let's remember that Levant hasn't had one of those yet, and IMO is not likely to). If he were at the ass-end of one of those lawsuits, I think he might change his mind right quick. It's an abuse of process, either way.
Well, well. An addendum is in order here.
[External Link]
"But BigCityLib has a different point--" Not so fast.
BCLib has an undemonstrative accusation, not a point as such. The Court has upheld Lib's view that, yes indeed, Levant's complaints are "frivolous"?
Ran:
We'll never know, because the addendum that I posted indicates that the fellow who annoyed Ezra simply caved at the threat of a lawsuit. Indeed, Mike, over at Rational Reasons, has altered his text for fear of a similar suit.
Which I thought was the point that you and others were making--namely, that it's the process and not the outcome that is oppressive.
I've been soft on the question of process, I freely admit. Citizens use the courts and quasi-judicial processes in all sorts of ways, and some are simply abusive. Yet these processes are there to filter out frivolous complaints and to do justice in the cases of those deemed substantive. I would be affronted if the complaint against Levant were deemed to be justiciable, but I've had less problem with an examination to determine the opposite. Yet, as I've said here, on reflection it would have been better to reject it at the outset, for a whole lot of reasons.
But here is where consistency comes in. If the issue isn't the merits of the complaint, but, rather, free speech in itself, then Ezra's threats don't really seem qualitatively different from those of his current antagonist. In each case, the judicial process is being used as a club. If it's wrong in one case, it's wrong in the other. It seems to me, then, that Levant can dish it out but not take it.
Here's the offending article, thanks to Google. Judge for yourself if this goes beyond acceptable speech.
[External Link]
[Damian, if posting this link compromises you in any way, please delete it forthwith.]
"I would be affronted if the complaint against Levant were deemed to be justiciable, but I've had less problem with an examination to determine the opposite. Yet, as I've said here, on reflection it would have been better to reject it at the outset, for a whole lot of reasons."
At minimum there should be a "disincentive" for frivolous claims. Having to answer to a an official regarding a bogus complaint, either from a nobody or someone with muscle, takes time and effort that is the respondant's to loose with no compensation as I see it. Even if respondant was temperate in his response using only a pithy but professional letter, the dishonest complaintant wastes not only the time of the respondant but also of the HRC so as to harass the respondant at apparently minimal loss except for some face when it his complaint falls.
It's one thing to insulate a valid complaintant against a vengeful repsondant but I'm not seeing the flip side here.
I think you are all missing the point. Civil trials are absolutely not the same thing.
1. The state is not on either side, i.e. both sides have their own lawyers and pay for them. With the HRC, the state is paying for and conducting one half of the investigation for the complainant, the target the other. Yes the judge (paid for by the state) decides the case, but the state is not helping, investigate or to advocate any position.
2. There are rules of evidence, procedure etc. Not so HRC.
3. The big one. If it is frivolous (or even not frivolous), the losing side pays costs. So someone cannot just take a run at you, for no reason, with no risk to themselves and have the state pick up the tab. If it is frivolous, the costs awarded against them can be higher. Or you can get the whole thing dismissed before you go to trial. If the HRC is just going to dismiss this as frivolous, why even interview Ezra. Just look at the cartoon, the magazine and say sorry - not worth proceeding on the basis of what you have shown us.
4. I'm not sure of the libel/slander laws, but I doubt it really is the same as what is going on here. Those laws "limit" speech in the sense that you destroy personal reputation, of an actual person. I.e. John Doe is a child molester. But truth is a defence (whereas it is not with the HRC). I also imagine that political figures also have a higher standard so as not to unduly limit debate. Otherwise Harper could have taken Jason Cherniak for all he is worth by now. In any case, you cannot launch a civil trial for discussing politics, philosophy, insults. Seriously? Who is being libeled/slandered? The prophet himself? The dead can't launch actions. Do all you liberal really think the Pope can sue you for libel?
I have expressed the view before that one way of rebalancing, if that is needed, is to cover the reasonable costs of the respondent of an unsuccessful complaint. This, however, must come from the HRC and not the complainant, because the HRC has undertaken to screen out frivolous complaints ab initio.
Posted at 2008-01-17 18:36:41 [PermaLink]I mis-spoke. Frivolous complaints or simply unsubstantiated complaints should require that the respondent is reimbursed expenses.
Posted at 2008-01-17 18:38:50 [PermaLink]"But truth is a defence (whereas it is not with the HRC)."
Not sure on that: If someone were to totally mock the Scientologists' OT3 training, that's the one with Xenu, the galactic federation, spaceships that look like DC8s, volcanoes, movie theatres and the rest... It's dumb, It's funny, It holds the CoS and its followers up to ridicule and it's true (i.e, it accurately represents OT3, jeeze what did you think?). I suspect that it would be hard for any functionary of the HRC to keep a straight face themselves.
Dawg: I'd agree that would support the respondant to my satisfaction, but your first response with *reasonable* compensation strikes me as more appealing. Said compensation would of course have to vary with the seriousness of the charge. A malicous harasment in the workplace (that strangly doesn't go through the "real" courts) may require more legal support than what is required to hold off some petty fool who lost an argument fair & square, was made to look foolish and wants backsies. But a common sense sliding scale a clear overreaction to a bogus charge for publicity!
But I'd accept it more if the documentation from the dismissal of the complaint could be used towards a tort complaint against a demonstrably malicious complainant.
Bill:
I think (and the lawyers here will have to confirm) that acquittal before a judicial or quasi-judicial body doesn't mean that you can then proceed to sue your accuser.
I see the point, but consider this hypothetical. A malicious but demonstrably false charge (e.g., the oversight about not being in town when “it” happened) against a respondent is filed with an HRC body and the complainant goes public with the lurid but false details (anything from harassment in the workplace to being a member of an active member of a hate group). The respondent is effectively publicly libeled and suffers an unduly sullied reputation, and associated tangible losses (e.g., loss of job, business or contracts, isolation, threatening phone calls at night). If the HRC rejects the claim, reasonable and proper relief from legal expenses regarding the preliniary investigation provided from the HRC would not make up for the balance of the damages, tangible and intangible. I’m pretty sure a civil suit would be justified, any anti-retaliatory verbiage in a province’s code be damned.
Posted at 2008-01-17 20:00:43 [PermaLink]If I hadn't read Brock and noted when Levant had been up to his tricks at the U of A, I guess I'd be sticking to the position I took somewhere over at my place. I had never really thought about the length of time between then and now. Brock has a point and I accept it.
That doesn't change the fact that with your first comment in this thread, you limped in with an equivocating depiction of the U of A allegation, which was very much at odds with the manner you depicted it at your blog. You read Brock's post after you posted your first comment, not before.
"But here is where consistency comes in. If the issue isn't the merits of the complaint, but, rather, free speech in itself, then Ezra's threats don't really seem qualitatively different from those of his current antagonist. In each case, the judicial process is being used as a club. If it's wrong in one case, it's wrong in the other. It seems to me, then, that Levant can dish it out but not take it."
Then what would you propose Levant do, plead guilty to the AHRC complaint? That's what it sounds like you're angling for, in a moral context. Your comparison is an apples and oranges one, when it comes to the question of "wrong." The issue should always be "the merits of the complaint." If Levant deserves to "take it," in your theory, it must be for something deserved, rather than the current complaint. Without merit as the determinant, everything half-assed controversial coming out of someone's mouth becomes fair game for litigation, in your model.
"everything half-assed controversial coming out of someone's mouth becomes fair game for litigation, in your model."
No, no. You misunderstand. I'm arguing *against* frivolous court actions, not in favour of them. Surely I wasn't that unclear.
The issue of Levant's "hypocrisy" is before us. Brock disposed of one such claim. BigCityLib pointed to another one, the link to which is now up. If we can agree that his character has nothing to do with the merits of the current AHRC complaint/process, then (I suggest) we might also agree that Levant's targeting of Fast Forward is oppressive.
"In each case, the judicial process is being used as a club. If it's wrong in one case, it's wrong in the other."
Helloooo? In an actual court case you get to be judged by a judge -- not an untrained bureaucrat, who is probably also a political activist.
You get a jury of your randomly-selected peers.
Your accuser must provide solid evidence of harm, not simply their hurt feelings.
Your accuser is not funded for free by the state.
I can't BELIEVE you liberals are not getting the distinction here.
"No, no. You misunderstand. I'm arguing *against* frivolous court actions, not in favour of them. Surely I wasn't that unclear."
It is unclear, because you're arguing against frivolous court actions in one comment, then allowing them (in a theoretical argument)in the comment I linked to in my most recent post. In the latter case, the intent is to set up equivalence, to justify your conclusion that Levant can dish it out, but he can't take it. You don't have equivalence, and that's why you prefaced your hypothesis with "If the issue isn't the merits of the complaint, but, rather, free speech in itself,...."
Your theoretical argument is only valid if you substitute the Iman's complaint (which you have conceded numerous times is "BS"), with a complaint against Levant that is valid, one where he has clearly attempted to suppress speech that shouldn't constitute anything actionable in a courtroom or HR tribunal.
"If we can agree that his character has nothing to do with the merits of the current AHRC complaint/process, then (I suggest) we might also agree that Levant's targeting of Fast Forward is oppressive."
I haven't yet seen anything on this "Fast Forward" allegation, and I don't have time at the moment to read up on the subject. However, as Bruce pointed out, (and you have agreed with?)what difference does it make if Levant is a hypocrite, in the context of the complaint before the AHRC? And as I pointed out earlier, what would you have him do, plead guilty to something he's innocent of? Because really, that's what the past several days of commentary from the Left side of the Canadian blogosphere amounts to. We'll "stand by" Levant on the specific complaint he's facing before the AHRC, but we'll marginalize it so that Levant's character becomes the central issue, and we'll try to ensure he comes out the loser in this process, even if acquitted of the complaint.
To repeat myself from another thread, I don't have a problem with that, I'd just like to see some admissions (from you in particular, Dawg)that this is what's going on.
Uhhh...., change "Iman's" to "Imam's."
Apologies to David Bowie's wife.....
I can't see how Levant can possibly "come out the loser" on this. This is his finest hour. He's a superhero, a saint, a free speech martyr. He's Howard Roark, standing up to thugs, star chamber proceedings, an inquisition, Kristallnacht in slow-mo, even a crucifixion.
I think it's possible to oppose the complaint on principle--it's a nuisance complaint, right enough--without blowing it up as a major threat to our way of life as we know it, or as proof positive that we should abolish Human Rights Commissions outright. It's just a dumb, unfounded complaint that the HRC will dismiss without a hearing. There's a hell of a lot of anti-climax waiting a piece or two down the road.
Now, Levant has, during this process, put his character before us, in his videos and other carrying-on. Truth to tell, I didn't know a whole lot about the man before this started up. In any case, it's his damned posturing that is worthy of note, and I don't see why that doesn't merit a discussion separate from the one about freedom of speech, basic principles under ferocious assault, yadda yadda.
I'm simply not prepared to see the complaint as anything more than what it is. If--inconceivably--it were to go to a hearing, then I would change my tune right quick. But what is before is is simply an unfounded complaint and a fellow using it as an opportunity to pose, and pose, and pose. And, Lord knows, he has enough people lapping it up.
The post for which this is a thread puts the question of his character before us as a topic of discussion, doesn't it? Of course it's irrelevant to the other topic. But that doesn't mean that it's off-limits for discussion in its own right.
"I can't see how Levant can possibly "come out the loser" on this. This is his finest hour. He's a superhero, a saint, a free speech martyr. He's Howard Roark, standing up to thugs, star chamber proceedings, an inquisition, Kristallnacht in slow-mo, even a crucifixion."
Thank you for proving my point. You and your compatriots are fighting hard to ensure this isn't Levant's finest hour, that he doesn't become a superhero, a saint, a free speech martyr, etc, etc. If your faction prevails, then he does "come out the loser."
"I think it's possible to oppose the complaint on principle--it's a nuisance complaint, right enough--without blowing it up as a major threat to our way of life as we know it, or as proof positive that we should abolish Human Rights Commissions outright"
I don't have a problem with that. And I don't believe we should abolish Human Rights Commissions either. They just shouldn't have jurisdiction over matters relating to speech.
"Now, Levant has, during this process, put his character before us, in his videos and other carrying-on. Truth to tell, I didn't know a whole lot about the man before this started up. In any case, it's his damned posturing that is worthy of note, and I don't see why that doesn't merit a discussion separate from the one about freedom of speech, basic principles under ferocious assault, yadda yadda."
Well, what angers you is the fact that he's aggressively standing up for himself, rather than meekly curling up in a ball and sucking his thumb. I'll repeat what I said in an earlier thread. He's entitled to be pissed off, and to exhibit that fact, if he's the subject of an unfair, illegitimate complaint. As I said before, I agree it's fair game to criticize Levant beyond the specifics of the complaint. And there have been many "separate" discussions on Leftist blogs. Getting you to admit that the complaint has been used as a vehicle for same is what annoys me.
"But what is before is is simply an unfounded complaint and a fellow using it as an opportunity to pose, and pose, and pose. And, Lord knows, he has enough people lapping it up."
Whether he wanted to be the subject of this complaint is a matter known only to Levant. If he's using it as an opportunity, as you claim, then let's admit that you and others are using it as an opportunity as well, to attack Levant's character and views.
"The post for which this is a thread puts the question of his character before us as a topic of discussion, doesn't it? Of course it's irrelevant to the other topic. But that doesn't mean that it's off-limits for discussion in its own right."
I'm not saying it is off-limits. I'm just asking that you be more transparent concerning motive.
On double-checking, I see I got something wrong. The link I posted isn't a cache--the article is still up. The publisher of Fast Forward is being sued by free-speech advocate Levant for $100,000 for "libel."
It was a letter that was posted at Dust My Broom that was taken down. Read all about it over there (and my hat's off to Darcey for being completely consistent):
[External Link]
Dawg
There's no doubt that Levant has some "consistancy" issues and he's sexed this case up to the nines in manners that keep him from ever being invited to a progressive's dinner party. But faults and inequities in the system don't get challenged by pretty people, saints, nuns, or grannies. They get challenged by murderers, rapists, robbers, conmen, terrorists, telemarketers, people who give fruitcake for christmas and most often of all hypocrites. Looking at possible cards in front of us (and I am no Levant fan by any means), I think I'll hold since I'm never going to get a 21 at this table (a Dawkins, Hitchens or other intellecutal A-Lister). As much as I don't like him, better him than a genuine neonazi.
Dawg, how is this in any way "inconsistent"? Are you saying that by championing free speech Levant has no right to protection from libel and defamation? Since when did he say libel was free speech? In fact he says the opposite in his video. So yes, he's being completely consistent.
Posted at 2008-01-18 13:51:26 [PermaLink]Libel is not, and never has been, protected under the rubric of free speech, so Dawg's attack on Levant's character for hypocrisy is not only off-topic, but incorrect. It's sleazy, like accusing a rape victim of promiscuity.
What I find more interesting is this observation by an HRC investigator:
MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?
MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.
MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.
MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept. [External Link]
Bruce:
At least read the alleged "libel" before making comments like that. The link is above. You've been around long enough to know all about libel chill and SLAPP suits. They are means by which relatively well-off and powerful people and corporations have stifled free speech and dissent. Conrad Black was famous for it. Levant is apparently no stranger to this technique either.
You and others appear to think that freedom of speech is only a state issue. That is morally and logically inconsistent. I'm not arguing against libel laws--that would be inconsistent on *my* part, given that I don't oppose hate speech laws in our Criminal Code, nor human rights legislation that proscribes the deliberate stirring up of hatred in the community.
But rather than use the broad brush-strokes that are so favoured by ideologues, I can see justified and unjustified HRC complaints, and justified and unjustified libel and slander actions. The current complaint against Levant is unjustified, in my opinion. But so is his libel action.
As I say, read the offending article with an open mind. There is also the matter of a letter from a former employee of his, by one Merle Terlesky. Here it is:
[External Link]
At least I'm consistent on this stuff. You people seem to be simply picking and choosing what speech you want to protect. Now, *that's* sleazy, especially when you dress it up as principle.
"At least I'm consistent on this stuff. You people seem to be simply picking and choosing what speech you want to protect."
More precisely, in fact, picking and choosing who gets to suppress it.
Without knowing more, for example seeing the Complaint (or whatever you call it in Canada), I don't know what it is that Levant alleges is libelous. I do know that if you're going to write a hit piece, like Lowering the Standard, then you'd better dot your I's and cross your T's because you're asking for a defamation suit. In the U.S., and I presume Canada, there are sanctions for bringing frivolous actions in Court, so truth is your best prophylactic defense.
I reject the implication that a libel action by the publisher of a small failed magazine is comparable to the coercive power of censorship by the state. The notion is laughable, and if that is the best argument you can come up with then you might as well leave the thread and retire to your website.
I'm not going to let you draw me into a debate about Levant's character, or lack of it. I don't care. I do care about freedom of speech, which agents of the HRC apparently seem to regard as a strictly American concept.
Judging from a number of cases recently, Bruce, I'd have to say that the rich and the powerful have tremendous coercive power. And here the "state," if you will just pause for a moment, is present only as a mediator between two citizens. It hasn't *done* anything yet. And the law won't let it, either.
Besides the rich and powerful, we have lawyers (no offence). They don't really need to be rich and powerful. Their knowledge and authority give them the social capital they require to terrify people into compliance. Warren Kinsella's done a bit of that. So has Levant. If I were the publisher of some rinky-dink little newspaper somewhere, and got an official letter from an officer of the court telling me I was going to be sued, I'd probably be terrified.
I don't want to engage you in a discussion of Levant's character. What I would appreciate from you is a little consistency. You say that "there are sanctions for bringing frivolous actions in Court, so truth is your best prophylactic defense." Try making a similar argument about Levant's situation, and watch your fellow conservatives come out swinging.
Besides that, there is the doctrine of fair comment. I see nothing in either the article or the letter that doesn't qualify as such, except possibly the reference to "junkets," and even there nothing illegal is alleged or implied.
I would, finally, remind you that the "coercive power of the state," in the form of a civil court, need not even be exercised. Most people threatened by a lawyer will simply cave.
"You say that "there are sanctions for bringing frivolous actions in Court, so truth is your best prophylactic defense." Try making a similar argument about Levant's situation, and watch your fellow conservatives come out swinging."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Levant isn't being sued for libel, he's being investigated by representatives of a state tribunal on allegations that have nothing to do with the truth of falsity of what he published.
"If I were the publisher of some rinky-dink little newspaper somewhere, and got an official letter from an officer of the court telling me I was going to be sued, I'd probably be terrified."
If you're that easily intimidated you should probably find another profession.
With respect, Bruce, most people are afraid of lawyers. I don't happen to be, but it's only because I know a few. : )
Posted at 2008-01-18 21:47:19 [PermaLink]Dawg:
I had a peak at your archives, and I found something rather interesting from February 2006, when Levant and the Western Standard published the Danish cartoons. Your post is titled "Of free speech, hate and hypocrisy."
[External Link]
"In this corner, "free speech" as an alibi for causing offence and discord in our own communities and around the world. In the other, those who argue that respect and decency should, at least sometimes, prevail; that "freedom of speech" is not an absolute, that freedom does not mean license.
I am, no surprise, in the latter corner."
[...]
"In fact, the hypocrisy of the Right on the cartoon issue is simply breathtaking. They have never, ever, believed in an unqualified freedom of speech. They have supported, either actively or through silent complicity, the shutting down of dissent or opinions that they don’t happen to like. They get strategically red in the face about antisemitism, using that label to smear critics of Israel, but Muslims are fair game for their visceral hatred.
Hatred? You bet. The re-publication of blasphemous cartoons in the blogosphere may indeed be a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada:"
(you then go on to cite the section from the Criminal Code dealing with inciting hatred)
"Will the RCMP investigate? Not likely, unless enough noise is made. Like the Jews in the first half of the 20th century, Muslims are expected to suck it up in silence: "As for peace-loving Muslims who are offended, well, too bad. Being offended is the price of freedom ."
Behold the triumph of "freedom of speech," in all its tainted glory."
Looks like you've got some 'splainin' to do, Dawg. No, make that a lot of 'splainin'. It also looks like I was right all along, as to your real motives when it came to Levant's complaint.
Actually, what it looks like (and is) is a change of opinion. I'm not nearly as hard-line on that sort of thing as I was at the time.
I used to support university speech codes, for example. The "water buffalo" case shook me, but the scales really fell from my eyes when I was asked to participate in drafting one for a blogroll.
I soon discovered that it simply can't be done without catching too much wheat in there with the chaff, and some chaff is always going to get through anyway. The words kept feeding on each other, the code got longer and more complex, and that's when I think I really understood the phrase "The letter killeth."
I still support hate speech laws, but I would put the bar much higher than I used to.
Publishing the cartoons was a deliberate, ugly act of provocation--Muslims consider any representation of Muhammad to be idolatry, and attacks on him in this crude fashion, to be blasphemous. And I'm talking about ordinary, common-or-garden, 9-5 hard-working Muslims, not terrorists here. But the current laws don't touch the publication of the cartoons, and nor should they. If they did, as Damian pointed out about a million years ago now, we'd all be in the soup.
I appreciate your visits to my place, Mike. Come back any time. You'll discover, as you read further, that I'm not a person of dogmatically fixed opinions. If I were, I wouldn't spend so much time over here. :)
By the way, here's the link to my post:
[External Link]
If I had this to do over again, every point except my over-the-top reference to the Criminal Code would stand. The main thrust of the piece was to document the inconsistency of conservatives about freedom of expression, a point that we've been continuing to discuss in the here-and-now.
"If I had this to do over again, every point except my over-the-top reference to the Criminal Code would stand."
That doesn't mean much, considering "over-the-top, doesn't begin to describe how far you've apparently moved on this core issue of the Levant controversy. You've gone from demanding an RCMP investigation and possible criminal charges, to your present position, which is the brouhaha doesn't even come close to meeting the standard of an offence under provincial legislation ("BS, " as I recall).
Do you recall articulating this dramatic transition in your opinion, anytime between your 2006 post and the current debate? This seems highly out of the ordinary, and I'm having difficulty making sense of it.
I can't recall, no. I've been pretty engaged with the Levant affair since it broke, though, and earlier, with the HRC case against Maclean's magazine. The latter might have been a tipping point for me.
What's the problem, here, Mike? I realize you've likely never changed an opinion in your life, but I guess I'm just not, well, like you.
Let's stick to issues from now on, OK? This interrogation is getting a little tiresome. I'm not accountable to you.
"What's the problem, here, Mike? I realize you've likely never changed an opinion in your life, but I guess I'm just not, well, like you."
Naturally, I've changed my view on certain things over the years. However, what I've just pointed out in your case is rather startling, and I am really having difficulty resolving the inconsistency. And no, you're not, well, like me.
"Let's stick to issues from now on, OK? This interrogation is getting a little tiresome."
I can see why you're finding this " a little tiresome." I can think of some other adjectives that might more accurately reflect your sentiments. But your implication that I'm not playing fair is nonsense. Typical nonsense for you, but nonsense. More and more, the "issue" is your inconsistency on the issues. I make no apologies for pointing them out.
"I'm not accountable to you."
No, that won't do. We can't have you feeling accountable to someone you purportedly hold out to be a liar.
"No, that won't do. We can't have you feeling accountable to someone you purportedly hold out to be a liar."
Precisely. This ends here.
"Precisely. This ends here."
Who says? I'm not accountable to you.
And since you're falsely accusing me of lying again, I think a little mini-summary is in order:
"I've been consistent on the Levant thing from the beginning, and I've got the posts to prove it. Your stupid and malicious questioning of my motives just makes you look, well, stupid and malicious."
Posted at 2008-01-16 18:03:15
"Hatred? You bet. The re-publication of blasphemous cartoons in the blogosphere may indeed be a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada:"
[....]
"Will the RCMP investigate? Not likely, unless enough noise is made."
Posted Feb 2006
"I, for one, will get upset if the complaint proceeds, Damian, but I think both of us realize that it won't, precisely because people like Ms. McGovern are around to separate wheat from chaff."
Posted at 2008-01-16 08:53:56
Stupid and malicious? As you say, you've got the posts to prove it, haven't you? How ironic, that...