Ezra Levant channels Dylan Thomas:
Gundara forgave me and the Western Standard our sins because, according to him, the offensiveness of the (Mohammed) cartoons was “muted by the context of the accompanying article” and we ran letters both for and against the cartoons in our subsequent issue. He also acquitted us because “the cartoons were not simply stuck in the middle of the magazine with no purpose or related story.”
Let me translate: You’d better be “reasonable” in how you use your freedoms, or you won’t be allowed to keep them. You’d better not run political cartoons “simply stuck in the middle” of a magazine. You’d better have a “purpose” for being “negative” that is approved by (a) bureaucrat, when he finally gets around to it three years later.
That is not acceptable to me. I am not interested in Gundara’s views about the cartoons. I’m not interested in learning his personal rules of thumb for when I can or can’t express myself. This is Canada, not Saudi Arabia.
Rage on, brother.
Yeah, right, it’s just more of what I said before. He’s *disappointed* that he’s been vindicated because it gives him less to rant about … and less ammunition in his fight to scrap the entire system. The last thing in the world he and others of his ilk want is to have to admit that the human rights system can and usually does work properly.
I do agree with Ezra when he says this, though:
“Both managed to hijack a secular government agency to prosecute their radical Islamic fatwa against me — the first blasphemy case in Canada in over 80 years. “
It’s just that I don’t think for one minute that our Islamic friends [term used usely] are the only ones with an agenda in this piece of theatre. Yeah, yeah, I know. I’ve got it all wrong here. I guess on this one we will just have to agree to disagree.
I don’t tend to disagree, Michelle, but one might suspect that the human rights system is being exploited against you rather than used for its intended purpose. Freedom is like that — it can be exploited for nefarious purposes, but that is the risk inherent in allowing said freedom.
Ezra has a point, though — why did this even require defending in court?
Not to worry, we in the USA have darned near perfected the art of the lawsuit.
http://stiffrightjab.com/2008/08/04/fischer-outrage-in-idaho-feds-send-man-to-prison-for-protecting-town-from-flooding/
I think, at some point, juries need to start remembering that they, and not the judge presiding, are the ones who are in command. One is judged by a jury of one’s peers, not by a black-robed group of acolytes. It’s called Common Law for a reason.
This is likely the reason I’ve never served on a jury. Been called thrice, when I answer engineer to the question of occupation I’m always dismissed.
I’d submit that is the root of the problem, the legal system no longer cares about justice, it cares about outcomes. At least in some areas.
– Max
Some of the best discussion I’ve seen in years concerning collectivism and the Locke’s idea of what the social contract was intended to impart on society.
I am sure something substantially similar to this has occurred already in the United States, and additionally convinced that we are on a divergent track from Canada.
Also, I am sure there are arguments to some effect that a socialist nanny-state has arisen in certain sections of the United States, but it does not appear to me to have affected national government. Granted, there are abberations (such as the one mentioned above by Max), but these seem to be isolated and overturned on appeal.
Michelle, I agree and disagree with the substance of your reply. I agree in that there are some (quite) petty comments made by Levant in the piece. Where I disagree is with your assertion that the human rights commission worked as intended. There seems little point in the original suit, therefore I would submit that the idea that an ill-conceived suit is eventually abandoned is fallacy: meaning it should have not been brought in the first place.
The U.S. has come close to this sort of chilling of speech in the past, to wit the call to revoke federal support for the NEA after it turned out they funded a body (bad joke intended) by photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. Although the work in question is no doubt quite offensive to some, it is a valid form of artistic expression.
To clarify this, citizens in a collectivised Locke-style democracy have surrendered certain responsibilities and rights to the state. However, we have certainly not placed the state in charge of producing an authoritative codex of materials that are good or not good for the citizenry. The definition of obscenity is one determined by collective and not the minority.
This shifting social vision of what defines good and bad changes over time – meaning that my marriage today to someone other than caucasian is not at all a big deal. A scant half-century ago I am certain this would have caused something of a stir among certain social circles in which I travel. This would be a social change for the better, as it isn’t necessary for society or the state to determine the racial profile of a particular relationship.
This same issue is at hand here, only now a small (but vocal) minority is leveraging bureacracy against the collective society in order to enforce a change that is ultimately good for neither the individual or the whole.
The test (according to me) for obscenity and offense is simple:
- Does it appeal solely and wholly to the prurient interest?
- Does it, through the mere fact that it exists, do harm?
- Does it negatively impact or exploit a segment of society without the necessary means to object to this material?
- Is the material presented in such a way as to deprive others of rights that the larger whole currently possess?
If all four of these questions can be answered firmly yes, then someone ought to take a serious look at the work in question and a collective decision made as to the validity of the material as a valid form of speech. Although I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh, the news channel wholly owned by Rupert Murdoch, Marylin Manson, Michael Moore, or other adherents of both the extreme left and right, I still support their right to say what they will.
Frankly, I don’t think I need a committee action to dicker over every point made in a public forum. Vigorous debate, not litigation, is required more often.
Drew C…I agree that vigorous debate by the citizens involved is better than dragging the issue through our court system. But the old-fashioned art of courteous and reasoned argument is no longer taught in most schools, either secondary or advanced. And most folks don’t apparently have any idea how to conduct a debate, many of them resorting to name-calling and other childish pursuits.
One of my regular blog “reads” is Betsy’s Page, the proprietor of which is a secondary school civics teacher in a charter school, in, IIRC, South Carolina. She seems to involve her students in consideration of many current problems, and has taught them the art of reasoned and reasonable debate to hammer out their agreements and differences on current events. On top of that, she accompanies her debating teams to debate other teams on weekends. Now that’s devotion to her job! How many teachers do you know who will give up weekend after weekend to help her students to learn how to think?
Not enough, I suspect.
Marianne
Drew
Here’s the thing – I don’t think such cases should be taken on by human rights commissions at all. Period. Ever. This is not, IMO, the type of issue they were created to deal with. That being said, most people consider claims of defamation worthy of being aired and decided in court. And if the complainants had taken the matter to court (which, if they were going to take it anywhere, is where I think they should have taken their completely frivolous claim), I highly doubt that it would be have been dismissed outright as something along the lines of frivolous, vexatious or disclosing no known reasonable cuase of action.
The standard a plaintiff has to meet is too low for that to have happened. So it would have drug its way slowly and labriously to trial, complete with pre-trial discovery, exchange of documents and God knows how many Chambers applications. I could easily see it taking the three years which I believe the HR process took in this case and costing Levant even more in legal fees. And when the matter was ultimately dismissed … what then? Would we have people screaming that we should dismantle the entire court process because a group of people are using our own democratic institutions against us?
Admittedly, however, I don’ t really think the Commission should have taken the matter on at all. Unfortunately the legislation has been badly amended to purport to include such claims, though, and I do think some heavy tweaking is needed in that regard. But tweaking isn’t synonymous with scrapping the entire system which is what Ezra and his ilk are all about. Although I suppose it can be argued that as long as we have this over-reaching legislation on the books, now that the Commission has ruled on the matter, we will have some relevant precedent which
shouldmight help put an end to more of these sort of claims before they can get out of the gate.So do I understand you to say that the courts’ purview should not include defining and enforcing standards of what is and isn’t pornographic?
Ran out of time with the edit function, which could mean that the comment was just a little too long, eh?
But this is what pi**es me off about this whole matter, I am starting to think that Ezra published those cartoons with the sole purpose and intent of getting dragged in front of a human rights commission so that he could have a platform from which to spearhead his real agenda. Sure I could be totally in left field with that thought, but if you really read enough of his website …
So, we only get to exercise our rights for transparent reasons? Who would get to decide that?
And if he did, Michelle? So what? Why should the government of a free people persecute someone for airing their opinions? Raising a stink in a forum? Why can’t you print what you want in your own magazine?
I find your opinions offensive and feel they chill my rights to free speech. Can I haul you before a tribunal? Because that’s the same hurdle complaints to the HRC had to meet.
You are arguing that if anyone, anywhere takes offense or even just claims to take offense, that should be grounds for the government to prosecute and persecute you. How is that the hallmark of a free society?
Sorry, XBrad, but that’s not what I said. What I did say was that these kind of complaints shouldn’t be going in front HR commissions. Period. And just to be clear, I don’t think there should be a cause of action anywhere for “being offended”. However, I also said that I am not sure Ezra would have been any better off at the end of the day if a court action had been started against him.
And your comment about “If he did? So what?”, I am not sure which “he did” you are referring to. The pornography thing?
Lex, were you responding to me or someone else? If ’twas me, Im afraid I no follow …
Marianne, I agree wholeheartedly, and I mourn the loss of “the art of reasoned and reasonable debate”. Any kind of manners seems to be gone, and as for reasoned debate…well!
But recently I spent several days with our own Michelle, and we practised it. (the art of reasoned and reasonable debate) It was lovely, and so soon over.
I miss those kinds of things, since both the pace of life, and the scarcity of reason, tend to make them rare.
Michelle,
I do not think that the courts should take up the matter of what constitutes pornography, simply because they have already established a legal test for this (literally one of the questions I mentioned above, which is does the work in question appeal solely to the prurient interest and serve no secondary artistic purpose,) and they don’t really have the time. I would much rather have a judiciary concern itself with more weighty manners than debating the merits of breasts versus thighs. (I am, of course, talking about chicken here.)
I do not see a need for transparency in the exercise of basic rights, so long as we aren’t using this as a vehicle to infringe on others. Being opaque is fine, so long as you aren’t being a kuromaku (kabuki reference to Yakuza godfathers who manipulate national politics without ever being seen.)
The notion that a faith (western or eastern) could utilize the courts as a weapon to harm the overall tone of freedom I find ridiculous. If it was Levant’s objective to be hauled in front of the Canadian HRC to prove a point, then so be it, point proven. The problem I have here is that intentionally engineering your own martyrdom to increase the size of your soapbox (as a means to further your own agenda) is patently ridiculous and abusive in itself.
Just as I won’t pity or support someone that shoots themselves in the foot to prove that guns are dangerous, I am not going to say that Levant pointed out something that may have already been known. He may have brought this to the forefront of public discussion, but his actions from this point forward will may prove to be hypocritical if executed incorrectly.
What I mean here is that if the man decides that “they” (whoever that might be) need to be censored, then what has been accomplished? All he would have done at that point is actually proven the necessity for a state intervention through a narrow (court enforced) definition of acceptable speech, which is not something that I want to see at all.
People in a collectivized Lockean democracy have the surrendered the right to make certain types of infringing speech if it actually harms individual or social good. This is why crimes such as espionage and child pornography are not protected by the First Amendment. However, if cartoons published by a magazine as satire (well defined by the Larry Flynt case brought by Jerry Fallwell,) annoy or offend a minority, they absolutely do not have a right to censor these works. This means that the range of protection afforded here runs the gamut from the KKK, to the New Yorker, to the Wall Street Journal, to depictions of the Prophet. We do not and cannot censor one without censoring them all.
Now if there is a sea change in social mores that alters this protection, then it would likely be enacted as law. As I said before, Levant is substantially right by (either through mission of action or unintentionally) bringing this issue to the front in an effort to prevent a future erosion of rights. What remains to be seen is how he capitalizes on that success and to what end.
Michelle, my point was not that the Levant case shouldn’t have been brought before the HRC. Rather, it should not have been ABLE to be brought before the HRC. Is there any doubt that had Levant not had access to a huge media audience, he would have been found guilty? The HRC is a kangaroo court of the worst sort, trying people for thought crimes. It is quite Orwellian.
I don’t think Levant was trying to get hauled in front of them when he published the Mohammed cartoons. But he sure was right to point out the hideous nature of them when he was brought up on charges.
Forgive the ignorance of this little redneck–can you who are debating the efficacy of the HRC give examples and etc., because I am totally unfamiliar (thank God!)
thanks,
d
Michelle: Your mind was made up before you even knew the intracacies of the issue; way back 8 months ago… I recall your saying something to the effect of I don’t know what is going on but, I support the Canadian HRC’s.
So, I think you a poor person to try to persuade.
I will say however that your statement:
Ezra published those cartoons with the sole purpose and intent of getting dragged in front of a human rights commission so that he could have a platform from which to spearhead his real agenda.
just smacks of presupposed political alignment.
Do you actually believe that? Over 200 people were killed in the Muslim world due to trumped up riots over cartoons! A Danish embassy was burned and many stores were destroyed, largely fast food FRANCHISES owned by locals, all in the name of being insulted by some cartoons. Was that not news?
But, rather than think this was news, which of course it was, you choose to believe that the publisher of a news weekly had some other adgenda for publishing an extended article on the riots and including the actual reason for the riots; ten cartoons.
Every newspaper in the western world should have published the cartoons so their readers could understand what the rioting, death and loss of property was all about… Had they done that, we and the entire world would be better off today.
What about Guy Earl; the potty mouthed comic now dragged before this same quasi-judicial organ, at his own expense, for the crime of slinging potty mouthed retorts to a couple of drunk lesbian hecklers? That poor guy didn’t know what hit him!
Is he on the “right side of the debate” as far as your societal weights are concerned? Or, should he also spend tens of thousands of dollars defending himself for the right to be foul in an “edgy” comedy club? Did he respond to two lesbian hecklers because he also wanted noteriety through the Canadian HRC’s as you claim Ezra Levant did? Or, is he just some third rate comic that got caught in the system?
Who needs to be dragged before the kangaroo council for you to realize that this is an abridgement of your free speech?
And BTW, to my knowledge, no one has ever said that adjudication of descrimination in the arena of housing or hiring should be curtailed. What is at issue here is the wandering from that swim lane into monitoring public speech by something other than your court system.
Doorkeeper, the most egregious ruling from the HRCs that comes to mind is the one that found a clergyman guilty and forbade him from condemning homosexuality- in his church sermons. It would seem that freedom from offense trumps freedom of religion in the Great White North.
“I also said that I am not sure Ezra would have been any better off at the end of the day if a court action had been started against him. ”
Well Michelle, we could start off on the fact that he would have been able to recoup legal charges had he been brought before a Canadian court and found innocent or dismissed… As it now stands, the complaintant pays nothing in an HRC kangaroo court as your Canadian taxes pay for investigation and “trial” and the defenndant has no way to recoup any of his/her expenses in this quasi-judicial court.
We could then branch out into the rules of evidence available in the HRC’s kangaroo court and that of the Canadian judicial system.
Would you like to debate that as it pertains to thought/speech crimes?
Thanks, XBrad, I keep hearing of that one but have never found details (and am too busy/lazy to look)
Babs, are you Canadian?
d
Doorkeeper – You want to set your hair on fire? Go to the following youtube site and watch the 4 videos of his interrogation regarding the publishing of the cartoons…
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ezra+Levant&search_type=&aq=f
The first thing the very nice bureaucrat asked him was “What were you thinking when you published the cartoons?”
Someone once said that totalitarianism would not show up in jackboots in a free society but would show up as mild mannered bureaucrats…
I think this is a perfect example.
And no, I am not Canadian. I am a citizen of the United States of America.
Go Navy!
OK, Babs, followed your link and am not finding what you refer to. All I am seeing is him ranting on and on (btw, I think he’s largely right in what he’s saying) but I am not seeing any interrogation, or even any interviews….just him talking non-stop.
And I asked about Canada since you seem so passionately anti-Canada. sorry.
Go Navy, that’s sports?
thanks, d
XBrad, I agree that this complaint should not have been able to have been brought before the Commission. Which, BTW, is what I said … they have amended the legislation to make it too far reaching now. And the case of the clergyman, I agree. That’s disgusting and should never be allowed to happen. That one needs to be taken to court. Although before Babs jumps all over me about it, I will just mention that I believe there have been some pretty egregious court rulings resulting from cases brought forward by the ACLU in the US.
Hey, Babs, I wondered where you were hiding out. Although something tells me I am wasting my time trying to respond to this, here goes:
“Your mind was made up before you even knew the intracacies of the issue; way back 8 months ago… I recall your saying something to the effect of I don’t know what is going on but, I support the Canadian HRC’s.”
No, I believe I know the comment you were referring to and that’s not what I said. It was in connection with the Mark Steyn complaint and what I said was that I hadn’t read all of Steyn’s article, not that I didn’t know what was going on.
As for my comments on supporting the HRC, those comments would have been made in the context of Ezra and others (Ezra being the most notable at the time), arguing for their complete demolishment. In which case, yes, I stand behind the concept of HR Commissions. I believe they serve a useful and necessary function in our society. You don’t. Yeah, I know.
For clarity, note (not like it wouldn’t have been clear from reading all my previous comments on this topic over the past few months, including today’s) that I stand behind 1) the continued existence of HR commissions and 2) the fact that they are not kangaroo courts denying due process.
As far as Ezra (or anyone else for that matter) recouping their legal costs in court … not as much as you might like to think. Although he most likely would have been awarded costs, court-awarded costs come nowhere close to paying actual costs on a solicitor client basis. So, yeah, he would have been a bit better off financially had the matter proceeded in court (which BTW is the forum I agree with you that it should have proceeded in had it proceeded anywhere), but not all that much.
“Ezra published those cartoons with the sole purpose and intent of getting dragged in front of a human rights commission so that he could have a platform from which to spearhead his real agenda.
just smacks of presupposed political alignment.
Do you actually believe that? Over 200 people were killed in the Muslim world due to trumped up riots over cartoons! A Danish embassy was burned and many stores were destroyed, largely fast food FRANCHISES owned by locals, all in the name of being insulted by some cartoons. Was that not news?”
Well, let’s put it this way … if it was anyone other than Ezra Levant, it’s highly unlikely that that thought would have ever crossed my mind. But reading the constant mind-numbing drivel on his blog and his current response to having the complaint dismissed … yeah, you could say that the thought has made an appearance. The same thought which I initially stated could be “out in left field”. But I will tell you this, even giving the man the benefit of the doubt and assuming that wasn’t his purpose in actually publishing the cartoons, he looks to me to have had a pretty obvious and clear agenda once the complaints were brought. And that I stand behind that assertion 100%.
Oh yeah, your comment that no one has ever said that the adjudication of discrimination in the arena of housing or hiring should be curtailed, I don’t know whether people think that sort of discrimination should be curtailed or not (well, actually, based on some private conversations, I do know the opinions of some of Lex’s commenters on that subject), but I could as hell swear that I have heard that Human Rights Commissions need to be abolished outright. Not just that these kind of complaints shouldn’t go there. Heard it here, heard it both in Ezra’s writing and his commenters. But if I am wrong on that, then you and I and a few other people have been wasting our time and working our fingers for no reason here … because we agree on a large chunk of it. Wouldn’t that be a sin…
I am not anti Canada… I am anti pre crime/thought crime/speech crime.
Would you like this kind of legislation to come to the U.S.???
Think about it.
As far as your viewing the videos, maybe you don’t understand that these videos were taken uncut while Ezra Levant was made to answer the HRC inquisitor.
You claim he is just talking on and on… (Ok, he is quite wordy) but, maybe you should really listen to what he is saying.
As far as “Go Navy” is concerned, my son is in the navy, as a lot of readers here know. He is being deployed on 8/9 to defend our country.
Go Navy! And bring my son home safe and sound.
I don’t want to get into it with you Michelle.
How about I tell you that you are always right?
Do you feel better now?
How much have you dropped into Guy Earls legal fund???
Ah…you persist in believing I do not agree with Mr. Levant–I do, I think this was egregiously wrong of the HRC to consider. BUT, while I agree with what he is saying in the vids, I do believe they were cherry picked to present only his side (which I admit I would do, as well, and it’s my right!) but YOU said, “do you want to set your hair on fire?” (which I take to mean it would upset me greatly) and then:
“watch the 4 videos of his interrogation”
I saw no interrogation. No one else said a word. That’s why I asked, perhaps I had the wrong link?
Because then you said: The first thing the very nice bureaucrat asked him was “What were you thinking when you published the cartoons?”
And I couldn’t find that at all.
Now, as to the Navy comment…..good for your son. God bless him. I am grateful for his service.
But were I a person who found it easy to become offended, I could take your statement to be that only the Navy is important in the GWOT. (Got lots of Navy friends, and one dear WWII veteran Navy grandfather) Of course I don’t…
So, Go Army National Guard–my dh will return, hopefully this calendar year, from his third deployment.
I think we can all cheer them all! It’d be a better use of our time than this.
d
I can do you one better, Babs. How about if I tell you that you are always right? Quite frankly, it doesn’t make me feel better or worse. But if it works for you…
We already know we disagree on the subject and last time you told me that you wouldn’t debate human rights or health care with me again … something about my putting up baricades? All I do is my best to respond to you point by point but whatever …
And why exactly would I be dropping anything into Earl’s defence fund? Just out of curiousity, how much have you dropped? Personally, I tend to drop what little I have into organizations for persons with disabilities and legal advocacy for such individuals. But that’s just my cup of tea…
Now do you suppose we should drop it before Lex admonishes us to play nice?
Well, possibly I sent you the wrong link doorkeeper. I guess you will have to do some research to find what I was talking about.
I am done with this subject.
If you want further information you will have to research it yourself, time and energy being everyone’s constraint.
I am sorry that I have no further time to direct you to the correct link.
Go Navy, Army, Air force,Marines, Merchant Marines and Coast Guard!
Did I offend anyone?
I won’t argue with you anymore Michelle.
What I have or have not contributed to the comic up on HRC charges in Canada really makes no difference.
Just drop it Michelle.
Yep, I am sure you offended them wackos who believe Bush made up this war!
good night…….
d
Doorkeeper,
You can find lots of videos of Ezra’s “interrogation” on his own blog. But I think you will find they are likely pretty close if not the same to what you will find on youtube. I haven’t watched them for awhile but I know I found it almost impossible to hear what anyone else was saying on them.
Just google the words “Ezra Levant blog” and you will get there. He’s hard to miss.
Yes, ma’am!
So, Michelle, you basically agree with me that people shouldn’t be hauled before these kangaroo courts for thought crimes. And they are kangaroo courts. Truth is no defense, intent is not a defense, only the offense alleged by the complainant matters. The rules of evidence are so far skewed from the rest of Canada’s courts as to be unrecognizable.
Indeed, no one is saying that matters of discrimination in housing should not be addressed. But to call for the abolition of the HRCs is not to call for housing discrimination. Why can’t the regularly constituted Canadian courts address these matters? And indeed, when was the last time an HRC dealt with a housing discrimination matter? Mr. Steyn has informed us of one HRC jurisdiction that is focused almost solely on addressing the complaints of a former HRC worker. Who, it should be noted, has left inflammatory comments on blogs and then used those comments as evidence of the thought crimes of the blogs proprietors. I’m well aware that Canada has a different legal system than we here in the US, but still, that just doesn’t sound “cricket”.
You have already stipulated that not only should the Levant case not have been taken by the HRC, but that the HRC shouldn’t have been able to do so. But the fact remains that it can. Time to abolish them.
Yes Sir!
So, Michelle? Taken in context, I’m not such rectal orifice after all, am I?
Gone for ten days of salmon fishing in the morning, would love to chime in but, you know, duty calls.
– Max
XBrad
IMO HR Commissions have done a lot of good work over the years. Before the legislation was changed to purport to include these type of claims. In fact, they still do, it wasn’t that long ago that I was researching HR cases on employment discrimination. And I am personally aware of claims of discrimination on the basis of disability that would have nowhere else to go due to the costs involved in court action. Should only the wealthy have the right to be free of discrimination? So excuse me if I take a lot of what Ezra has to say with a pound of salt.
Sure, HR cases could be handled in the regular court system … except that as I’ve alluded how many ordinary people can afford to go to court? The system offers an alternative to people who might otherwise have none. I would say that it also serves to save the regular court system from a backload of cases, except that I think in many cases no action would be taken at all due to the cost. It also provides a built-in screening system (believe it or not) that is not available in traditional litigation. Many human rights complaints that go absoloutely nowhere because they are screened out that, if they were started in an ordinary court, would force the defendant to respond and either settle or take to trial.
That truth is no defence to these sort of claims in the HR context is ridiculous and part of the original problem. But that doesn’t make the Commissions “kangaroo courts” and as far as I am concerned that characterization is just another example of Ezra and others spouting off in support of their agenda. The courts require the principles of fundamental justice to be followed and will accept no less. The burden is on the Commission to prove it’s case to the Tribunal, as it must be.
It’s time to abolish the amendments that purport to give HR Commissions the jurisdiction to deal with such claims, not to abolish the Commissions themselves. And our legal systems really aren’t that much different except that each has gotten stretched in different directions. Ours, for example, with the creation of HR Commissions and yours … well, outrageous jury awards would be a one good example.
Max, not a rectal orifice at all, good sir. I trust the fishing was good?
Michelle,
This HRC. Is that the same commission you blogged about over in Lex’s auxilliary site?
b2
You know Michelle, you always put up a good fight with your selective facts.
No one has ever said that adjudication of housing or employment should be abolished.
As far as I can tell, the SOLE REASON FOR COMPLAINT is the “hate speech/hate crimes “that seem to come before the HRC’s more and more.
You seem very intent to argue your corner while, at the same time giving room to my point of view i.e, your posts have vascilitated from stern approval of the HRC’s to understanding that they have overstepped their bounds in their “hate speech” condemnations. I can’t help but think that in this forum you would find little sympathy for the latter.. Please see your post about 6 back… And yet, anyone you perceive to be on the side of Ezra Levant is an enemy.
I don’t know who this man really is as I also don’t know who Guy Earl is. What I do know is that getting dragged before a kangaroo cout, at tremendous expense is very, very troubling to free speech.
You might be a champion of those wishing equal rights in housing and employment. That is all well and good. Where you absolutely have to draw the line is the arena of free speech…
Your hatred of Ezra Levant is somewhat disturbing to me. Why do you hate him so?
So you also hate Mark Steyn?
Ok, got to give you credit Michelle when you say:
That truth is no defence to these sort of claims in the HR context is ridiculous and part of the original problem.
It’s time to abolish the amendments that purport to give HR Commissions the jurisdiction to deal with such claims,
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Sorry it has taken so long for us to come to agreement. If Canada would abolish their 13 (A) and (B) I think we would agree.
Babs – All good thoughts and wishes for your son. Thank you (and him)!
B2, I was talking about on TFD was the federal one, Ezra’s case was in front of the Alberta one. There is a federal commission and then each province also has their own.
Sorry, Babs, I didn’t realize you were continuing the conversation without me. Didn’t you tell me to give it up (shortly after you opened a conversation with me)? Anyway, the problem you have with me is not my selective facts, it’s your selective listening. You don’t hear what I say, you hear what you think I am going to say.
I said adjudication of claims of discrimination (for housing, employment, disability) need a forum like HRCs to be heard in because too many people cannot afford to take such claims to court. And as I said@20 above, if the only complaint is about these kind of claims (political speech/free speech issues), if the agenda is not the abolition of HRCs period, then yeah, we do agree. Perhaps you could point out in exactly which of my posts I vacillated on that point.
Since I percieve Ezra to have an agenda of not just removing these type of complaints from the jurisdiciton of HRCs but abolishing the Commissions completely, then I have a problem with the position of anyone who agrees with that position. I wouldn’t call them the enemy, though. Semantics, perhaps…
Ezra pi**es me off for his petty, arrogant style, for being so full of himself, for appearing to be the type of person who can only elevate himself by putting others down and for being, as I perceive it, very disingenuous. Based on his writing (and I have read quite a bit of his blog), I submit that he has an agenda. An agenda he is far from being completely upfront and honest about. It’s not all about protecting freedom of speech (which I could get behind) as he would like to have you believe, it’s about abolishing HR Commissions. Full stop. But since we can’t agree on that, why don’t you go ask him what he really wants to see happen?
Oh yeah, and he also annoys the heck out of me for being so full of crap with his kangaroo court comments. He wants people to believe what he wants them to believe. Therefore he appears to have no trouble distorting the facts. Including the facts as to how human rights hearings actually operate.
If he stuck to the actual issues, I would have no problem with him. I wanted the complaint against him to be dismissed, I would have been very upset it it hadn’t.
Of course, I don’t hate Mark Steyn. Why would you ask such a silly question? From what I’ve seen he seems like a very intelligent man who is rightfully upset about what he has been caught up in.
Glad we could finally agree. Although I think all we’ve really done is rehash what we talked about back in January on TFD. Of course then we decided to agree to disagree. So perhaps this is progress after all.