More.
Update: It’s like an IQ test for the HRC-cheering section of the Canadian leftosphere, really. When even Glen Greenwald gets it, it speaks volumes about those who don’t;
Here are the noxious fruits of hate speech laws: a citizen being forced to appear before the Government in order to be interrogated by an agent of the State — a banal, clerical bureaucrat — about what opinions he expressed and why he expressed them, upon pain of being punished under the law. This is nothing short of stomach-turning…
Actually WLM Redux it should read
Islam martyrdom = I will sacrifice my children for what I believe in and they will be taking your children with them.
Go Ezra! We support you!
Calgary Clipper,
Thank you. This makes it so easy for us *lazies* to send in our corrective opinion.
**…for those who may not have a contacts list handy.
Hector Goudreau – Alberta Minister of Tourism,Parks, Recreation & Culture. Also Minister i/c of the AB Human Rights Commission
tprc.minister@gov.ab.ca
Alberta Human Rights & Citizenship Commission
humanrights@gov.ab.ca
Premier Stelmach
premier@gov.ab.ca
Ezra & Kate are going above and beyond. The least we can do is help them out by writing/e-mailing. Phoning is too easily ignored/dismissed.
They do pay attention to letters in AB, particularly if there are lots of them.**
Posted by: calgary clipper at 8:48 AM
===============
=TG
Yes, I think we should send letters to various people – PM, Premier, HRC, a few MPs etc. Careful and rational letters of deep concern about the abrogation of a fundamental right to an unaccountable and subjective process. Here’s the letter I sent to the pm, premier, HRC…
Dear Sirs:
As a taxpayer, I am asking that the federal and provincial governments examine the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the activities of the Human Rights Commissions (HRC) with a view to disbanding the HRC.
The HRC began, to my understanding, as a forum to review alleged cases of discrimination in the workplace and housing. I am assuming a paucity of such cases that has led to the self-generated new role for the HRC, which can only be defined as State Censorship.
Section 13.1 of the HRA can only be described as a degenerate section. Incredibly, it bases its grounds for prosecution on pure speculation rather than facticity. I quote it below:
1)” It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, 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. ”
Please note the basic axioms of analysis in this section:
a) The allegations referred to as ‘hate messages’ are ‘likely to expose’. This removes the focus from any requirement for empirical evidence that the message actually did have an observable result that some members of the population were moved to a feeling of being hated and viewed with contempt by virtue of that message. Instead, this section refers only to the supposition that, in the future, the message ‘might’ expose… Not did expose, but ‘might expose’.
Speculation has absolutely no validity in any legal procedure. Speculation is a subjective, irrational and non-factual process. To condemn a Canadian citizen on the basis of speculation about a future and purely hypothetical result is a violation of our rights.
b) Furthermore, basing a judgment on a future event, and attempting to directly link that future event (feeling of being hated or view with contempt) to one specific message betrays a profound ignorance of the cognitive process.
There is no way that we can directly connect a subjective and personal perception to one and only one cause. Such a direct and singular link can only be found in mechanical systems. Human cognition is not mechanical and instead operates as a complex network of a lifetime of embedded experiences and memories.
c)The emotions of ‘hatred or contempt’ are entirely subjective. What may be viewed as an act of hatred or contempt by one person may be dismissed by another. No legal process should be based on randomness, that is, on the subjective perceptions of any one person.
In addition, three other factors must be emphasized.
The first is that there is no inherent ‘right to be not offended’. The basic infrastructure of a democracy is its capacity to question, examine, explore, and debate its basic systems of belief and behaviour. This is the method – and it is the only method – by which a people can advance in their civilization. Certainly, those who hold one set of beliefs may be offended when an alternate set is offered; the only way to deal with this is the ancient rational method of dialectical debate and discussion. Such debate and discussion may offend, but our beliefs and behaviour cannot be removed from such ongoing rational examination. If we remove them, they rapidly become dogma. And we become trapped in that dogma.
Second, and vitally, this section of the HRC is in direct violation of the Charter of Rights, Section 2b, which guarantees us freedom of expression as a fundamental right. Not as a peripheral right but a fundamental right. I would like to question the governments, both federal and provincial, how they can permit a legal procedure to operate that directly contradicts a fundamental right.
Third, the unfairness of the financial aspect of the system is yet another violation of Charter rights, guaranteeing equality of treatment in the legal system. Under the HRA, the complainant bears no costs of the proceedings; the defendant, however, bears all the costs. This unequal financial burden sets up a situation where the defendant is, fiscally, immediately guilty. The complainant’s costs are born by the taxpayer; the defendant’s costs are born privately, which inserts a supposition of immediately being judged as guilty. This is a violation of our fundamental rights of innocence unless proven guilty.
The HRC has degenerated into what can only be called ‘kangaroo courts’ , operating against the basic principles of a free and open democracy, in violation of our rights, in violation of the necessary infrastructure of a rational and progressive people.
They should be disbanded immediately.
Exactly WLM Redux.
Arabic Islamic texts are decoded by Imams who are simply carrying out Muhammad’s agenda of world domination and subjugation.
Thus, in war, they must not allow criticism and exposure.
Mohammad declared questioning and criticism of his constructed and personally convenient religion a great sin, “worse than slaughter.”
Mohammad declared the world divided into dar el Islam and dar al Harb. He said, “War is deceipt.” To guard against criticism (apart from the proverbial death sentence) Mohammad provided a way for Islamofascists to prevent exposure of their sinister agenda called ‘taqiyya,’ – sanctified lying; and ‘kitman’ – deception by not telling the whole truth.
And they know that because the texts expose the ideology as the foundationally hate filled and violent war cult that it is – as knowledge becomes wide spread and people force governments to take action, their era will be over and their agenda destroyed.
The ideology as expressed in their trilogy and Mo’s life example is their achilles heel.
Emails fired off to AB head honchos with the head. . .
** Stop using the AB-HRC to keep us in the dark! **
Body @ Ja 13/2:01 am
** PS: Thousands of Albertans, may even be a majority on Canada*s leading SmallDeadAnimals.com. ALL who seem to be 100% offended by this bureaucratic AB-HRC attack on our freedom to information!
I thought I had cleared this all up a long time ago.
Findings: AB- HRC investigated the complaint and finds that some political cartoons were published to inform readers of world news.
No human rights or publishing laws were infringed upon, therefore these investigative proceedings are concluded. AB-HRC
= TG
The HRC, directly or indirectly, has been responsible for the RCMP being transformed from a highly respected police force into the RKKK. (Royal Kanuckistan Keystone Kops). A prime example of their forced policies of hiring policeman from all walks of life is a female officer in the Crowsnest Pass, Alberta. I bear no hostility towards dwarfs but they are not well suited to perform police work. This officer is about 4’something tall with the characteristic large gluteus maximus muscles that required exceptional tailoring skills to cover. The muzzle of her 9mm Glock almost drags on the ground.
It is very difficult not to laugh out loud.
As an American, I am sending emails to the New York Times and CNN calling their attention to the Steyn/Levant affairs and asking why these matters have received no coverage on their websites. Though I would like to include a link to the Levant tapes, I cannot seem to do anything other than start them. I apologize for my technical shortcomings, but can anyone post a link to the tapes that I can cut and paste into my emails?
I have to ask again. where are the trolls?
I see this all over the net and its going global.
but in all the comments…where are the trolls?
Is this as close as you are going to get to a barrel of a gun issue?
Never mind about the link to the tapes. I should have thought to just link to “http://ezralevant.com”. That’s even better.
I’ve felt for a long time that Canada was/is becoming a Banana Republic. What more proof do we need than this farcical circus being played out at the AHRC?
It’s clear that the AHRC’s Commissar, Shirlene McGovern, is in way over head. She can’t in any way keep up with Ezra Levant’s tsunami of arguments and ideas–so, I guess she’s going to have to use the tapes, herself. Ezra should copyright them and charge the AHRC for their use.
Thanks, RSP, for attempting to make sure that the U.S. MSM covers this kangaroo court on its Northern border. I don’t imagine that our fearless, champion of the underdog, CBC is reporting on this travesty of justice because the only underdog that matters is a left-liberal one.
I sincerely hope that Mr. Levant and the tapes he’s made get the widest possible viewing audience and that the Canadian HRCs are so deeply embarrassed by this clear miscarriage of justice that they’re forced to shut down.
Kanadian Kangaroo Kourts: something that none of us need.
Great letter, ET. You’re right: a good letter should be calm, well-reasoned. I’ve taken the liberty of copy/pasting to a couple of friends.
I’m wondering: vis a vis, laws with speculative elements: Drunk-driving. Blood alcohol limits. These laws criminalize behaviour which MAY ot MAY NOT result in any damage. I’m probably missing a key bit of logic here?
trolls? is it because when you shine a light on them they scurry to get back into the dark.
Hey! I have a couple more issues where I’d like to shine a light!
By the way, has anyone noticed that the Canadian MSM are utterly silent on this important case? It’s about freedom of expression, ie, freedom of speech, ie, freedom of the press. And, our Canadian Press are silent. Why? They should be hand in hand in hand on the ramparts supporting Ezra. Instead; they are silent. Why?
That’s a good question, me no dhimmi, but I’ll venture that an answer is that the blood alcohol level is a physical measurement, i.e., it’s objectively measureable. Let’s say that you have a blood level measurement of X. This measurement is an actual physical property of the blood.The machine that tests this physical property measures everyone the same way.
Another measureable physical property is the capacity-to-drive. There’s a normative physical requirement for reliable reflexes, cognitive processing, valid and clear perception, etc.
Now, you can actually measure a direct physical relationship between the actual physical property of the blood alcohol level and the physical effect of this blood alcohol level on normative physical reflexes, cognitive processing, valid and clear perception, etc.
So, you can directly physically connect the two, and reliably say that IF you have an alcohol blood level property of X, THEN, your physical perceptual and cognitive faculties are lowered by Y amount.
Someone’s subjective emotions are not physical, they are internal and specific to the person and not objectively measureable to a uniform criterion.
Get the difference? There’s nothing speculative about the drunk driving; it’s simply relating two physical entities: alcohol and its effect on the human mind and body.
here is a youtube, non cartoon.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nhbHVEGnYD8
So if these complaints are confirmed by the various HRCs, does this mean that we, as tax payers, can sue the various Mullahs and idiots on behalf of the moderate muslims for bringing contempt to their religion?
Just a thought. For all of the trolls that like to play the racist card, I find this an incredibly fair response.
New Video Link . Gawd but some of the things she says are ironic ” You are entitled to your opinion .”
Nazi Germany had a Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda – the Human Rights Commissions are nothing more than Nazi “wanna be’s” controlling our freedom of speech & expression.
Not only that – but she clearly asked Ezra Levant his intention when he published the cartoons. These little Nazi’s are attempting to take the next step into George Orwell’s 1984
Watch for McGovern to be replaced when the next “interview” takes place. She’s a lightweight and will be replaced by a “supervisor” because of the importance of this issue.
This is coming from an individual who worked for many years in the public service. Believe me, they
are intransigant when it comes to preserving their status as the arbitrers of correctness.
God Bless Ezra Levant!!!
ET: Yes, but of course people respond wildly differently to different “measureable” levels of alcohol; some people are truly inebriated at 08; some are not. Which is not at all to suggest I’m against this law notwithstanding its arbitrariness.
Churchill, as you know, drank all day every day while saving the Western World.
The truth is the cartoons are really just stupid cartoons, truly meaningless, and Muslims were offended by them enough to riot and kill? Nutjobs!
I’m offended that someone is stupid enough to be offended by someone offending a dead guy who doesn’t even know he should be offended, and in all reality would probably not even been offended.
If you want to get some info from the Access to Information you must pay, up front, for this. If they don’t really want you to have this info, the charge can be quite high.
So, let us get the law changed, as a first step. Anyone filing a complaint with any HRC in Canada must send a certified cheque in the amount of 5,000. to help defer costs. He/she must provide and pay for their own lawyers.
These suits are one reason the Court Challenge program was shut down.
Could we taxpayers file a class action suit against the HRC for using our money to punish innocent Canadians. I thought liberals were against torture, or is that only against torture of those trying to kill us.
Me no Dhimmi; you took your eye off the ball. 🙂
Driving is a privilege not a right; as you know, every aspect of driving is heavily regulated.
One’s license can be lifted (by a bureaucrat) for reasons as widely different as health, to driving offence records.
One of those areas of life where it’s best to toe the line.
I love this quote from Ezra:
“Again, I refer to Hannah Arendt’s phrase, “the banality of evil”. No six-foot brownshirt, no police cell at midnight. Just Shirlene McGovern, an amiable enough bureaucrat, casually asking me about my political thoughts, on behalf of the government of Alberta. And she’ll write up a report about it, and recommend that the government do this or that to me. Just going through checklists, you see.
If you don’t pay attention, you might not even realize that freedoms are being eroded. I had half-expected a combative, missionary-style interrogator. I found, instead, a limp clerk who was just punching the clock. She had done it dozens of times before, and will do it dozens of times again. In a way, that’s more terrifying.”
Shirlene McGovern is a perfect example of “the banality of evil”.
Can Ezra Levant please be our Prime Minister!
If you want to make a donation to Ezra Levant go to his site:
http://ezralevant.com/
and the ‘Donation’ button is at the right hand side of the page.
me no dhimmi – Churchill wasn’t driving.
And although people may react differently to alcohol (I’m dizzy after three sips and I mean that)..there is still a ‘normative average’ that shows how this chemical (alcohol) affects another set of chemicals (the human body/mind). So, it isn’t in the least arbitrary. It refers to a statistical data base. The variations to the average are just that – variations, and the focus is on the statistical average.
By the way, Joanne, it is of interest that the Islamic political cartoons, when published, had essentially no effect. No violence, nothing. It wasn’t until three months later, when a Danish imam started a campaign against the cartoons, and, importantly, ADDED three of his own – three cartoons that were not part of the original set, and were utter fakes – and went to the ME, campaigning against the West and rabble-rousing people who had never, ever, seen any of the cartoons.
Furthermore, the riots that took place were govt sanctioned, for in these Islamic countries, you don’t move into a public complaint without govt approval.
Oh – and we still have to realize that there is no proof of any ‘hatred’ or ‘contempt’ to Muslims by Ezra’s publication. That is not the issue, for free speech cannot be confined to speech which ‘offends no-one’.
DaniVan: It is you who have lost focus. Driving is a right, not a privilege. Heavily regulated to be sure, but that is regulation for the reasonable protection of all who share the right, is it not(think long about this)? We do not live in a feudal system. The state is not our master, it is our employee.
The Human Rights Complaints lady is plainly in over her head. She is more used to ‘interviewing’ regular joes, not folks like Ezra. The problem is, she is going to write whatever she decides too. She is going to ensure job security, so what she writes will be slanted the way her education has taught her, and the way she knows her superiors want it.
As a matter of fact, Shirlene looked and sounded like a very gentle person. Is that a requirement, a front, for such a position?
One would have to wonder how anyone with such a demeanor could not see through the sham of the Commission she works for.
That is a commission that interferes with our freedoms at the whim of any and all zealots. At this time in our history,far too many are coming from people with whom we have no substantial history or even way of life. They have no understanding of the meaning of freedoms, coming from places that don’t allow them.
They have quickly come to know how to try to control our freedom of speech. It doesn’t hurt to have the help of those who have managed to become settled here and even become tenured Professors in our Universities.
This is a dangerous and troubling issue. There has to be government intervention at some point, and soon.
Canadian tax dollars at work. Perfect example of bureaucratic empire building. Start with small department to ensure equal treatment regarding rent and hiring practices and build that department into another monster bureaucratic nightmare with ever expanding budgets and more staffing and bigger offices and thicker carpets. To justify their overpaid positions the busybody bureaucrats then set about creating make work projects. Now the sad thing is that this small minded bureaucrat Shirley believes she is doing good valuable work. That is the bureaucratic culture and mindset which leads to the God complex. Of note is the fact that Shirley has developed the “I” disease because she has been vested with the power and authority. I have to do this and I have do that before I make my decision she says. NO wonder Ezra treats her with contempt. He should spit in her face.
I’ve watched most of the Levant videos and am very pleased that he’s not taking this lying down. The HRCs are a complete travesty and deserve all the contempt for them we can muster.
However . . . I’d like to have seen Mr. Levant present his case in a more even handed way: IMO, staying low key and always polite, while delivering verbal grenades is, a lethal, more effective strategy. One doesn’t want to give the opposition and Canadian Pollyannas any ammunition: “But he seemed so angry and impolite!” (Of course, why wouldn’t he be?)
E.g., When little Ms McGovern, the HRC toady, expressed her earnest concern about a possible violent backlash against Muslims after 9/11, Levant rightly posited that the concern for violence was certainly real—but that the ACTUAL, extreme violence was caused by Muslims. He then mentioned that his synagogue had been firebombed. Then he said—correct, but not helpful to garner public support (it could well be used against him)—that, as a result of Muslim violence, hating Muslims makes sense. I don’t think that’s the issue here. Also, one should not concede any ground to these weasels and their friends on the left. (Mr. Levant’s swearing didn’t help either, IMO.)
I wish Levant had provided a LITANY of Muslim violence since 9/11—as easy as taking candy from a baby—and then pointed out that, concerning hatred, and causing offence and actual violence, including mass murder, to others, it seems that MUSLIMS are the problem, not Canadian publishers. (I’d have also liked to see more questions directed AT Ms McGovern. Put her in the hotseat and watch her squirm! E.g., “Given the facts of extreme Muslim violence in the West, directed at innocent civilians, don’t you think, Ms McGovern, that the HRCs’ concern about Muslims being the victims of violence in the West is somewhat misplaced?”)
That said, I ALTOGETHER support Mr. Levant and hope and pray for a big change in how Canada handles human rights issues. (Keep the government out of not only our bedrooms, but, for the most part, out of our lives!)
I believe that we need to protest vociferously—but within the bounds of propriety. In mid December, in regards to Mark Steyn—but I could easily say the same about the Levant case—I wrote the following to the federal HRC, with a copy to the PM:
“I am deeply offended by the actions of the instigators of this action: they and their families have been welcomed to this country and invited to share the freedoms my forebears fought for.
“Now, these people have the audacity to use their newfound privileges to attack the very foundations on which these privileges rest.
“That your commission, paid for by my tax dollars, would entertain allowing this travesty—to persecute a Canadian citizen for exercising his free speech rights—is abhorrent to me. (As are the arbitrary measures the Human Rights [sic] Commissions are allowed to employ.)
“The commission’s apparent willingness to persecute law abiding Canadian citizens, on the flimsiest, often hearsay, pretexts, is anathema to me and many others. The only good result from this—unless Mark Steyn’s rights are fully upheld (as they should be in a free and democratic country)—is that Canadians, who have been unaware of the lack of due process in the commissions’ kangaroo courts, will realize how dangerous the human rights (sic) industry is in this country.
“Punishing law abiding citizens outside due process of the law is draconian and should be outlawed in any democratic country. One can only hope that the publicity generated by the commission’s unwise agreement to hear this case will speed the end of all Human Rights (sic) Commissions, which are an insult to the integrity and freedoms of all Canadian citizens.”
One good thing HAS happened already: Canadians ARE much more aware of our arbitrary and undemocratic HRCs, which would have fit very well in Soviet Russia. A small number of Canadians, mainly observant Christians, has been waging this battle for decades. It’s nice to have many more Canadians finally on board.
AB government gets a human rights complaint.
Instructs AB-HRC to look into it.
AB-HRC finds no laws have been abused.
AB-HRC submits *no actions required* report.
AB government has satisfied the complaint.
One would expect logic and efficiency in Canada, yet one has to wonder.
Air India?
Karl Schreiber, a proven fraud, whom Canadian courts are spending a fortune on while keeping him from justice in Germany?
Only the courts in Canada, you say? Pity! = TG
Oh yeah, Picton;
What*s wrong with one murder charge, one verdict, one life sentence and an appeal only if someone else is proven guilty for all? = TG
Yeah, when she said, “You certainly have the right to your opinion,” I was yelling, “Then why is he sitting there?”
My guess at what she is scribbling:
I hate my job!
I hate my job!
I hate my job!
I better get a raise for this!
….
Lookout…polite and gentle has got us this far.I think Levant and Steyn are leading a change in course(with Coren’s help)
Although he is silent on this matter, I’m guessing PMSH is watching this closely.
I don’t know where YOU live Skip, but here in B.C. you don’t get to drive until the Government SAYS you can; ie a privilege. A privilege which they can and will withdraw WITHOUT any recourse to the courts.
Hell, the cops do it for 24 hr periods at THEIR whim! You want to try driving up here without a license? Be my guest.
Comparing being allowed to drive, to being punished for voicing an opinion, muddies the waters horribly.
I don’t honour my Legion buddies for their skill at letter writing to bureaucrats.
lookout – that was a great letter. I’m guessing that the HRC ‘chose’ to accept the case out of their own leftist cowardice. They are afraid to be seen, by Islamists, of ‘not being multicultural’, which in their terms translates to rejecting the right of anyone to critique Islam.
Lookout @6.40 PM.
Ezra has deliberatley chosen to be outspoken, confrontational and “undiplomatic” so there is no way the AHRC can equivocate.
With his approach, they can only either publicly and obviously back-down or find guilty.
The way the ARHC would *like* to handle this is to say “we find no fault”. This would get them off the hook and still maintain their claim to public thought-control. With Levant’s approach, they cannot do this as if they back down, they acknowledge their wrongness; they must convict to save their reputation.
bluetech, I hear you. But I don’t mean “gentle”: remember, I said “delivering verbal GRENADES”.
On occasion, I’m not particularly gentle, as SDA regulars will know. As a proud politically incorrect Canadian, who holds what are considered to be strong, out-of-date ethical and political views, I believe, in the enemy territory that is present day, official Canada, it’s a good idea to be very aware of the optics: “Be wily as a serpent”! It’s not a good idea, IMO, to look at all like the spoiled brats our opponents are. We can make our points very well, thank you, without histrionics.
ET, I appreciate your comment about my letter. (bluetech, I hope you don’t think I gave the HRC any quarter!)
In general, Ezra Levant presented his case with clarity, intelligence, and, above all, courage; he had some VERY fine moments and I’m altogether in his camp. I want him to be point blank about the central issue here—freedom of speech and association—but I want him to be strategic too. IMO, I believe that losing any of the moral high ground, which is his, in spades, is not good strategy.
Kate,
Thanks for introducing me to Glen Glow-worm. NOT. But, at least he understands the basics of a truly liberal society, rether than the “liberal” one of the left.
Wimpy Canadian, good point.
However, strongly challenging the HRC’s “smelly little orthodoxies” (Orwell) can be done without histrionics. That’s all I’m saying. In fact, hitting them very hard with the unsavoury FACTS of the matter—I have no problem with that all—while remaining civil in demeanour, is double jeopardy for them.
Think of 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, and clear moral imperative. However, he never stooped to banality or rudeness. That made his statement all the more powerful.
That’s all I’m saying.
I’ve noticed that the so-called national news aggregator, National News Watch has NOTHING on this story.
Some aggregator. I’ve written to them to ask them “what’s up?”
Ezra should begin selling “I SIMPLY WILL NOT COMPLY” bumper stickers.
Mark Steyn could be his first customer!
DaninVan at January 13, 2008 8:49 PM
As I started this “drunk driving” analogy, a clarification. I was really only wondering about the intellectual clarity in one aspect of ET’s excellent argument — that laws can’t deal with speculative matters, i.e., prohibiting speech which “may cause people to be exposed to contempt”. As you know the drivers are prohibted from driving drunk ‘cos they MAY cause injury.
It was the just the logic I was questioning.
For the record, I’ve never been cited for impaired driving and in fact I don’t drink.
And as ET (and myself elsewhere) pointed out, the key issue is that there is no right not to be offended anyway. And I go further than that: these commissions were initially constructed to deal with employment and housing issues with a racial aspect. I believe that in a truly free milieu I should be permitted to refuse to employ or to rent to whomever I wish and for whatever reason. But for starters I’ll be happy to get rid of “hate speech” laws which are a travesty.
…i’ll be the black sheep here.
I for one wasn’t too impressed with Ezra’s rant on YouTube.
“you may start your interrogation” was amateurish and stupid.
He may have had some good points, but after that remark and pointing at the lady and calling her a ‘thug’ wrote off any respect for the guy from me.
Why does it seem all the guys making the news, like Gary McHale and Ezra Levlant don’t seem to understand PR, Marketing, and proper rules of engagement when making their points?
They do more disservice to the cause then help it me thinks…
Hi Tomax, Vitruvius here. Your aesthetic judgement of Mr. Levant’s behaviour is not the point. The point is that it is not for the state to judge the aesthetics of Mr. Levant’s behaviour. Even if you think that Mr. Levant is being a scoundrel, don’t forget these words from 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.”
While I have not yet distilled my thoughts to the point that I feel I am ready to write cogent letters to the media and the putative officials involved in this matter, I have now managed to at least come up with a summary of the situation as I see it, and have published that to my mailing list. If you’re interested, it’s here:
sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2008/01/ezra-levant-fights-for-your-human.html
I noticed that National Newswatch had nothing on the Ezra tapes on Sunday night, only one day after the tapes became available. They usually keep news items up for a day or two.
If they did have the Levant tapes up on Saturday, where were they on Sunday? And did they run all of the tapes or just a couple?
‘Anyone know for sure?