Ezra Levant’s big beef and new book

Clearly you have not been keeping abreast of the issue – Levant has as much support from the ‘left’ as he does from the ‘right’ – for example gays realize that if Levant can be shut up by these administrative busy-bodies, then the gay movement (one among any group) could also face the same busy-bodies. Clearly you have not read the book.

You left out the “L” in dolts. :)

Kenney has been supportive but I don’t see him in the pics. The Lib Keith Martin has been the most supportive politician. He should have been one of the speakers, if he was not.

The speechys are indeed gettin’ played from all sides on this one.

Buy another copy of Shakedown, why don’t you? After, six figure legal bills from a single investigation…

Absolutely right. There is not a Con in this room that would even say the words "Human Rights Commissions" outside of this "desperate to hang with the right crowd" moment. Our federal Conservatives like to create various Commissions and Tribunals outfitted with a gaggle of their political allies, or opposition – a buy-off for minority support on one of their bills that end up so deeply watered-down as to be worse than anything the socialist crowd would even have the gall to sponsor. This way they can duck their heads and say "yeh, I don't like this either but the Commission did it". There is no such thing as "the Commission did it" because, bottom line, it's the "Government that did it".

PolicyGuru, there is no “right” to wear rouge, as a man. It is a privilege. The question is whether Mr. Levant’s privilege trumps our (inherent, inalienable) rights to freedom of observation. The HRT will decide.

Nice. Way to keep the board classy.

Are you still sore from those times he embarrassed you?

There are degrees of wretchedness, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is many orders of magnitude more wretched than a few silly cartoons.

its funny how the lefties see everything through a racial prism

I would argue that the document that played an important role in stirring up the virulent antisemitism that culminated in the Holocaust is worse than some cartoons that offended some “politically weak” Canadians. But then, I suppose you’d rebut me by calling my statement “subjective”.

Free speech is most effectively championed when advocated in defence of that which is most passionately, authoritatively and absolutely suppressed.

Well, no. There are lots of “free speechers” who are not absolutists and who agree that at least some hate speech should be illegal. By any reasonable (albeit subjective) criteria, the Danish cartoons should be considered permissible free speech, while virulent hate speech like the Protocols should be illegal when published outside of an academic context.

The politically weak? You mean the radical Islamists who threatened to behead anyone who insults their faith. And who blow themselves up killing scores of innocents (including those of their own faith).
If it were so easy to print the cartoons, then why did all of the bravehearts in the MSM fail to do so? And why is the Danish cartoonist still living under a fatwa?

And what would be the point of printing the Protocols? Oh, I see, because the Jews are an all-powerful cabal, right?

If Ezra Levant were running a magazine in 19th-century St. Petersburg, you could make that argument. But, to put it simply, the Danish cartoons and the resulting reaction were news. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was not. And the right to publish something does not translate to the obligation to publish everything.

The Western Standard was a news magazine. And whatever you think of Mr. Levant’s editorial line, I’m not sure how that’s even relevant to the actual free speech issue.

Rampant Islamophobia? Are you kidding me. We bend over backwards in the west to portray Islam as a religion of peace. You really are off your rocker.

“The Western Standard was almost entirely op-ed oriented, with very little actual news. It was an ideologically driven hobby-horse, frankly, for Albertan neo-liberalism.”

So what?

I’ll never understand why trash by David Irving and Ernst Zundel, designed for adults, is considered fatally dangerous .

Wow, I finally agree with you. Freedom of speech lets me know who the idiots are. But don’t try to convince me Ezra Levant is a lesser human being because he chose to exercise (and defend) his freedom as he saw fit, not as you saw fit.

Ezra gets "to claim balls", Sir Francis. Why? Because Ezra took on the entire power of the state while you, Sir Francis, were busy blogging. And he won, at least the first round and I predict the final one, too, by sheer power of personality, courage and the righteousness of his cause. In the meantime he risked complete failure and certain obsurity if he had not struck such a decisive chord with the public. He did – and he is a hero. Bitter and evident resentment of that fact by the cowardly and complacent isn't surprising.

Ezra gets "to claim balls", Sir Francis. Why? Because Ezra took on the entire power of the state while you, Sir Francis, were busy blogging. And he won, at least the first round and I predict the final one, too, by sheer power of personality, courage and the righteousness of his cause. In the meantime he risked complete failure and certain obsurity if he had not struck such a decisive chord with the public. He did – and he is a hero. Bitter and evident resentment of that fact by the cowardly and complacent isn't surprising.

To what extent are free speech objectives incompatible with libel laws? Even in a “free speech” society there still needs to be some mechanism to deter publication of slander and outright lies.