Those Moderate Muslims

159 Replies to “Those Moderate Muslims”

1. ‘Wouldn’t hurt for Ezra to remember that he won’t always be basking in the glow of these kleig lights–and, therefore, to choose his words carefully.
   I have no problem with his calling what the AHRC is doing to him an interrogation–it is!–or using the word thug. I would have been more comfortable, however, if he hadn’t called Shirlene McGovern a thug but had made the wider point that the process itself is thuggery.
   Mr. Levant sometimes talks out of both sides of his mouth, and in this instance–so important in setting a precedent in the fight for our democratic freedoms in Librano-locked Canada–a cool head prevailing and carefully chosen speech would greatly help the whole cause.
   ‘Just saying…

2. Whoops: I posted this earlier at the wrong thread.
   In support of tomax 7 (and noe batb), who have questioned Levant’s modus operandi, I’m repeating part of some of a previous post I made.
   Despite my FULL support for Levant’s—and our—cause and my belief that the HRC’s “smelly little [Liberal] orthodoxies” (Orwell) need to be strongly challenged, I believe it should be done without bombast, histrionics, or ad hominem attacks. E.g., By all means call the HRCs “thug organizations”, but avoid personally attacking the commissioner hearing the case by calling HER a “thug”. The same point is then made without Levant coming across as a bully. There IS a very important public relations side to this: the in-the-middle, uninformed—usually squeamish about confrontation—Canadian needs to get on side. IMO, it’s important not to carelessly squander the good will of the public by coming across as brutish.
   On the other hand, hitting the HRCs VERY hard with the unsavoury FACTS of the matter—by all means, use powerful words like “inquisition”—is an excellent strategy. But, remaining civil in demeanour should be a priority. It works for our side and is double jeopardy for the HRCs.
   Again, consider Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons”: Thomas More’s eloquent defence of himself, when he finally had no choice, in the face of a repressive and arbitrary state, was lethal in its logic, intelligence, vehemence, and clear moral imperative. However, he never stooped to banality or rudeness. That both magnified the dignity of the man and made his statement all the more powerful.

3. Re: Jema54
   “Jimbo – for your information that ‘scrap of paper’ you mention, you call it the Canadian Bill of Rights … is a blueprint of the ‘scrap of paper’ that Lenin wrote for the Russian people …”
   Ridiculous. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “proper name”) is hardly a “scrap of paper. It plays a major role in separating us from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, to name just two. You should read it sometime, and perhaps you’ll appreciate it. Perhaps.
   As for the blueprint thing … ???
   And regarding “Many Baby Boomers have gone from pampers to depends without a break for adult hood … Are you a Boomer (age 50 to 60) Jimbo?”
   Add another group to the slagfest.

4. Re: Lookout
   “If, Jimbo, you’re really sensitive to religious insensitivity, how about the U of Saskatchewan cartoon, of a couple of years ago, of Jesus fellating a man” … etc
   You appear to assume I wouldn’t find that, and the other examples you give, offensive. The U of S cartoon was disgusting, distasteful, and highly offensive, and I mighty add blindingly stupid. I would say sophomoric, but it doesn’t reach that height.
   and re: “Jimbo, I believe you dissemble: your squeamishness about Levant publishing the cartoons “offensive to Muslims” sounds pretty inauthentic to me. If you support freedom of expression, which you say you do, what’s the problem?”
   Good question, “Lookout”. Supporting freedom of “expression” means support even though I find it offensive. That’s the point.

5. uran, err ural.
   I can’t help but believe I have met the pseudo-realists … and you are one of them
   ..glad you are good judge of character. i wasn’t speaking for you either, don’t worry about that, you speak enough.

6. It occurs to me that Mr. Levant may be playing a bigger game than y’all are considering while going on and on ignoring de gustibus non est disputandum. Consider the following conjecture. Mr. Levant has set up a win-win situation here. If he is prosecuted, he is a martyr. And if not, now that the videos are out, he is a saint for re-affirming the importance of Freedom of Speech in Canada.
   Y’all are arguing about the way he plays chess, but the bigger issue may be the moves he has been making, not the way he makes them. Of course, there’s always the law of unintended consequences. Time will tell. We shall see.

7. Vitruvius
   I see your point. I don’t really mean to dump on Ezra. After all, he’s doing me a service, and I do appreciate it.
   I just can’t help myself sometimes. Soooo, respectfully …
   To extend the chess analogy – I feel given the circumstances here, how he plays the game is a part of the game. There are style points – given, and taken away. He’s no Daniel Webster (or John Roark). He’s trying to make the point, in a way, that the Commission is a bully (or “thug”), but I think he’s the one who comes across that way to the unbiased observer. I think it’s a mistake.
   But then it’s easier to sit back and pass judgement than to do what he’s doing. If you knew me, you’d know they’d probably have to bring in the Tasers if I was in his position.
   Ultimately, I do owe him some gratitude. I take my freedoms seriously. Fundamentally, the Government should serve the people, not the other way around.

8. Understood, Jimbo, yet there is a way in which I feel that Mr. Levent, in his own one man show way, is performing at the level the role of Howard Roark in his defense in The Fountainhead:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9udFmsNO0

9. I see the faggot who slandered Ezra has popped off.
   You know what, faggot? The government is not going to make Ezra’s case for him for free while you have to defend yourself at your own expense. Ezra will pay to bring you to justice. And if you can prove that you weren’t lying, then you will win, and Ezra will lose and pay you money. By contrast, there’s nothing Ezra can do to defend himself here. The Commission has apparently already decided to punish him; in any event they can punish him even if he conclusively disproves the case against him.
   Win or lose, no matter what, nobody will order you to apologize to him, or forbid you from ever commenting about him again. But the Commission can make those orders against Ezra. Even if there’s no case against him and he proves that.
   Ezra is standing up for your right to speak. It’s not his fault that you’ve abused that right to tell malicious lies about him, for the pleasure of harming him. You deserve what you’re getting, faggot, and it’s called “justice”. Ezra also deserves justice, but it’s being denied him. I know you’re just a stupid faggot, but the rest of us can see the difference.