In Ottawa on Monday, I kept getting asked—including by three stray passersby on Wellington Street—what Beatles song Michael Ignatieff should sing. Oh, come on, you don’t really need a professional for this, do you? Help! Yesterday (All my troubles seemed so far away). The Fool On The Hill. Hello, Goodbye. Get Back (to Harvard and a little light BBC hosting) . . .
I wasn’t really in the mood to pile on Iggy, poor chap. I was in town to testify to the House of Commons Select Committee on Justice and Human Rights about the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission’s assault on individual liberty and freedom of expression. And, mainly because I’ve been yakking about this subject for a couple of years now and have pretty much exhausted my stock of free-speech quotations from Milton to Salman Rushdie, just for variety’s sake I decided to cite Michael Ignatieff to the committee. I was talking about the assertion by Chief Censor Jennifer Lynch that, Canada’s constitution notwithstanding, there is “no hierarchy of rights,” only a “matrix” in which “freedom of expression” has to be “balanced” by modish group rights and collective rights. And I responded with a blast of Professor Ignatieff:
“Collective rights without individual ones end up in tyranny. Moreover, rights inflation—the tendency to define anything desirable as a right—ends up eroding the legitimacy of a defensible core of rights . . . The right to freedom of speech is not, as the Marxist tradition maintained, a lapidary bourgeois luxury, but the precondition for having any other rights at all.”
Bingo! In my battles with the “human rights” enforcers, I am an Ignatieffite—okay, that’s a bit unwieldy, but I’m certainly an Iggybopper. As I told the Select Committee, I support the Ignatieff position—on freedom of speech, on individual vs. collective rights, and on the way “rights inflation” damages the core of real rights.
Until a recent mid-life career change, Ignatieff used to say stuff like that all the time. Now, not so much. At least not to the point of joining his fellow Liberal Keith Martin in calling for the repeal of Section 13, the appallingly drafted “hate speech” law even more appallingly interpreted by the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission. But throughout the ’80s and ’90s you could switch on the BBC almost any night of the week and find a dark-shirted tie-less Ignatieff deep in furrowed-brow conversation about freedom of speech with some novelist or philosopher. I well remember him discussing a play he found morally repellent, but declaring nevertheless: “Nothing should be beyond speaking about.”
One day, and perhaps sooner than he thinks, he’ll be back at an Ivy League college or a public broadcasting sinecure and free to start saying and writing stuff like that all over again. But for now he’s the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Not that I’ve got anything against the Liberals. In the spirit of my free speech comrade Ezra Levant, who’s developing a nice line in Mister Bipartisan shtick, I was pleasantly surprised by the opposition questions from the committee. The Liberal members retreated immediately to a discussion of the Criminal Code provisions. The Bloquistes, who seemed hitherto unaware of the issues, had some sharp procedural and constitutional questions. The Dipper, after listening to our revelations of Canada’s “human rights” enforcers joining Nazi organizations, attempting to hold secret trials and imposing lifetime speech bans, asked to be sent the underlying documentation and enquired if we could make ourselves available for further testimony. Not one member attempted to make a principled case for Section 13—or even a low, unprincipled, sneeringly political case. Whatever its formal fate, nobody is prepared to say a good word for this law in public.
Nonetheless, I would love to have heard somebody other than yours truly deliver the Ignatieff line: the right to freedom of speech is the precondition for having any other rights at all. That’s a classically small-l liberal position, so it would be nice to hear a big-L Liberal take it. My only contact with the Leader of the Opposition was a long ago dinner party, but I would bet deep down in the darkest recesses of his soul where the spinners and managers don’t penetrate, he feels exactly the same way on free speech and human rights that he always did.
He just can’t say it. Which is kind of a sad comment on Michael Ignatieff’s own freedom of speech, and the shrivelling of Canadian political discourse.
Pages: 1 2
Print
Comment
Funny that Steyn, that celebrated promoter of free speech, got some guy fired from the National Post for saying something he didn't like and refusing to apologize. Was that promoting free speech?
Glad to see someone’s not afraid to make vague allegations in an uncertain attempt to undermine the point being made.
"Glad to see someone's not afraid to make vague allegations in an uncertain attempt to undermine the point being made."
Yes, but enough about Mark Stain.
Good column and a continued well done to Mrs. Steyn and Levant but Stephen Harper doesn't score any points for leadership by hiding in the reeds on this one. It's on record how he feels about section 13. I would hope for something besides silence on this issue.
Back up your allegations, please or is this like a Limbaugh "quote"?
Only if you believe that Foreigner would not rather see Steyn officially muted. Given the disdain for Steyn's musings on free speech, as evident in his post, I think we can comfortably assume that Foreigner has no problem with restricting certain people's free speech rights.
In honour of Taliban Jack , some dust in the wind ….
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=...
Do you follow the news? Stephen Harper (Taliban Steve) now holds the same views as Taliban Jack on the Afgan war (Note: Mr. Harper doesn't really "holding views" but he's taken words almost from jack laytons mouth on the issue)
The Canadian Press
Date: Mon. Mar. 9 2009 7:35 PM ET
NDP Leader Jack Layton earned the nickname "Taliban Jack" by Tories and other critics for promoting the idea of a negotiated ceasefire involving the Afghan government, Pakistani combatants and the Taliban.
Harper said in October 2006 that NDP House Leader Libby Davies was asking "despicable questions" in the House of Commons for raising that possibility. And as recently as during last spring's Commons debate on the length of the Afghan mission, Tory MPs were still suggesting it was foolishness to talk to the Taliban. But reports emerged around the same time that Canadian troops were already engaging in discussions with local leaders connected with the Taliban on the ground in Afghanistan. The rhetoric has gradually cooled around such activities, and the Conservatives have supported the Karzai government's efforts to slowly build bridges.
Firefox will soon have an update with an "irony alert" add-on.
A very fascinating article. Haroon Siddiqui wants some form of gag order to prevent people like Steyn from identifying cold hearted fact about Islamic behavior and verses from the Koran-the same seedy stuff is found in the old testament, and if taken at face value is a tad eyebrow raising. For example the story of Lot and his daughters at face value speaks to incest. But the figures in the narrative are mere images to make the story stick. What the story means is that faced with extinction-remember Sodom and Gomorrah were reduced to ashes-people will do the most desperate things to survive.
As for Taliban Jack, one of these days, Mr. Twinkle Toes will be swaggering about Yong Street, dressed in a chiffon/peach pirate shirt, where he'll notice a deafening silence on behalf of the spectators. Instead of the cheering hoards of gay activists, he'll see all kinds of Islmaists dressed in their own form of business suits. And they won't be cheering.
Thank goodness- we have someone like Steyn– tell it like it is!!!! If Iggy were smart– he would put out a set of values– one cuold live by– but he has NONE! All he is concerned about is the making of his–kingdom!!! Will people be fooled??? As 4 the Muslims– we have already given too much freedom 2 them–it's time every religion–so called– obeyed the laws of the land. I feel they are coming here- to eventually take over-(perhaps not in our life time)- doing everything in their mosques-behind closed doors–it's time we examined this,…
As far as Layton goes– he is only killing his own goose!! When has he ever shown any morals –or integrety–politically or otherwise! so 2 all politicians– put your platforms–agendas–policies–& convictions out there-so we know where U stand– never mind looking 4 a platform that U don't believe in–nor will the people!!!
Heroic?? Just another jack-booted blowhard.
Thank you Mr. Steyn, Mr. Levant, and Macleans magazine for speaking on this issue. I couldn't agree with you more!
I read a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin and I think it applies to a number of issues. "Those that would sacrifice liberty for safety don't deserve liberty".
It would be refreshing to hear from a politician that doesn't sound like he's been scripted by polsters.
God, the gushy Stain sycophants.
I don't like speech bans either. Among all of the other problems they create, they make ordinary bigots look like free-speech martyrs. Such people are already thoroughly pumped up with self-pity as it is . . .
While we certainly appreciate support from all playgrounds, I think we see in some enough emotional baggage and ad hominem with words like "bigot" that it's not worth the effort to have you on board the Free Speech train.
Especially since the removal or banning or Steyn would bring no real tears to more than a few liberals who just LOVE to posit to the rest of us how they reluctantly must begrudge free speech to people who don't eat at Elaine's or read The New Yorker.
Gee…THANKS.
Further, I doubt it's real bigotry to raise more than a few eyebrows about the Steynian subject matter–the conversion of Europe's maternity wards into nurseries for the Sons of Allah (who're caucasion, even if olive-toned) and the social and cultural decay of Europe and Canada and other People's Worker Paradises that have all the time in the world to eat, drink, screw, and suck down wine on the beach, and have all manner of sumptious handouts and goodies from government, BUT don't think enough of their own civilization to either reproduce or defend it.
I don't think anybody who thinks that "ad hominum" is a noun should be on the free speech train.
Thanks for the hot tip, right off the Grammarian Express Train, Chico.
Though in the first place I might point out that the mere omission of the requisite follow-up of "attack" to "ad hominem" in order to satisfy the grammarian prudes who haunt us and make sure the phrase's adjective status is well intact for future generations—is all that much of a sin enough to be evicted from the train.
Secondly, I think your grammarian point might come off with more bang had you spelled the phrase correctly.
Unless, that is, you hail from a land where spelling is far more optional than "parts of speech."
In any case, speech is speech. Or so the left tells us when making everything from government-finanaced PISS_CHRIST art, or crayon posters with questionable sentence structure on more than one occasion, or burning flags and pissing on people.
http://www.zombietime.com
As against this backdrop from the alleged stalwarts of "free speech" meaning (to the left) that Grog can say bad things about Nog, or show pictures of gory decapitations of George Bush with not visits from secret service agents, I'd say mine and Steyn's take on things is said fairly well by comparison.
I'm on a Steyn diet (went from overdose to cold turkey) which made this column great to read. I just don't understand where Iggy's coming from. I recall being so energized by the prospect of a real liberal leading the Liberal party that I was 2/3'rd of the way to being an Iggybopper and even voting… Liberal.
But instead of ever outflanking Harper to the right – meaning on the side of liberalism in this case – Iggy has, with tragic panache, outflanked him on the field of petulant and petty politicking. The Liberal habit of fighting popularity contests pitting the cool "big Canada" people against the squares is creating a small-tent.
Let us not forget that it is a Liberal government that passed section 13 into law. So it would be rather awkward for the new Liberal leader to attack it and push for its suppression. We should blame Harper for reneging on his prior statements about this Section and maintaining it while he is in power.
I had hoped it would be less awkward for Iggy than Harper. Harper has to tip-toe around potential "hidden agenda" issues which is why he isn't being himself regarding section 13.
No leader of a national party in Canada will dare to take a position against Section 13 because Canadian Jewish Congress supports it. That's the "hidden agenda".
Falling on deaf ears/your own sword here.
What ARE Human Rights? I would suggest that it was stated most accurately in the American Declaration of Independence, where it was written, you have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness. More to the point, one does not have a RIGHT to happiness, for that implies it must be provided to you, and therefore someone somewhere is obligated by this right to your happiness. A RIGHT does not obligate another individual to you. A RIGHT does not enslave one portion of society to another. This would appear to fly in the face of the lofty goals written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where apparently you have the right to an education, a right to a standard of living, a right to be treated with dignity. Well, no. Certainly anyone with any compassion and empathy might agree with this to some degree, but if you make it someones right to have these things, you enslave others to provide it. Quite simply, you have the right to EARN these things. We seem to have lost any requirement for self responsibility. We seem to have lost any backbone. We rely on Human Rights Commissions to water down what human rights actually are so that these new-age rights do exactly the opposite of what we want them to do. They stifle and discourage freedom.
Regards
Dave
Ignatieff is now officially unelectable. God save the Liberal party of Canada.
Grieve–Iggy grieve!!! YOur arrogance is taking over–what-who– where & when–are U??? Have U nothing 2 say 2 the electorate–except what the other parties are not doing!!! Get off your high horse & tell us who U really are!! Wouldn't vote 4 a liberal–anyhow-have nothing 2 go on!!! so look up–4 a chamge–& open your eyes!!!
"I wonder if Steyn knows that Allah means God in Arabic. It doesn't specify which one!"
Yes it does. Try delivering that line on TV in Saudi Arabia, and see what happens to you.
"Al" is used often in Arabic, and is roughly equivalent to "The." It combines with "lah," and properly translates as "THE [one, indivisible, neither begot nor begetting] God."
Mind you, Jack Layton may well see the socialist state in those terms, and simply rely on the mutual incomprehension of his audience to sound good, while camouflaging the mortal insult.