Christopher Hitchens has quit the fags*.

*That’ll go down well across the Pond.

Hat tip: Norm and (belatedly) Will

See also new Slate column here [Will]

David Thompson has some thoughts about the Ezra Levant case [via Mick Hartley]:

[T]hose who hang their argument on whether or not they happen to like Levant, or on whatever they take his motives to be, are missing the fundamental point he’s raised, which exists whether or not he’s a scumbag or a saint. This isn’t about whether one feels Levant’s political views make him a bad person or a terrible dinner guest. This isn’t simply about personal animosity and the individuals in question. If Levant is subject to this bureaucratic harassment, then others may share his fate - people whose views and personality one may be less hostile towards. If I moved to Canada, I might conceivably find myself in a similar situation, given time. Would that be okay? Or would I warrant some exemption because I’m such a nice guy?

If Levant can’t publish those cartoons, or other things deemed heretical or “hateful” by Islamist ideologues, then freedom of conscience and freedom of expression are profoundly compromised. If Levant isn’t free to “insult” or “defame” Muhammad, or to disdain the religion he founded, then a precedent will have been set and all Canadians will have a new problem. And it’s unlikely that this problem will be confined to Canada. If Syed Soharwardy and the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada prevail, rational debate will most likely be inhibited when similar subjects arise, as they no doubt will. As Levant makes clear, “the process has become the punishment” and the potential risk of similar, costly, experiences will affect decisions as to what may or may not be published and what facts may or may not be stated. The threat of nuisance complaints, considerable expense and state interference will influence serious public debate in areas of religious sensitivity - or at least in areas of Islamic sensitivity, which, unfortunately, covers quite a lot.

For instance, one would have great difficulty explaining in detail and with rigour why it is one isn’t a Muslim, or why the Qur’an is not the “uncreated” word of some hypothetical deity, or why one finds Islam to be an absurd contrivance. That so many people calling themselves “progressive” should hesitate to extend this basic right to someone they happen not to like is, if not offensive, then hazardous, self-preoccupied and somewhat depressing.

…to criticise past US policies in the Middle East that have supported despotic regimes leading to the suppression of progressive democratic movements, and which have fanned the fires of grievance in the Middle East.

However, I also reserve the right to say that George Bush is an idiot when he seeks to reverse past US policy which I previously criticised when he says “You cannot build trust when you hold an election where opposition candidates find themselves harassed or in prison. You cannot expect people to believe in the promise of a better future when they are jailed for peacefully petitioning their government. And you cannot stand up a modern and confident nation when you do not allow people to voice their legitimate criticisms.”

I reserve the right to say that Vince Cable was quite correct to criticise Saudi Arabia over their human rights record, but I also reserve the right to suggest Bush is simplistic with his illusory dreams of spreading democracy in the Middle East.

I reserve the right to criticise Bush as a hypocrite because of his arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Yet, I also reserve the right to hail France’s more nuanced diplomacy and engagement with the Islamic world, which involves deals with Saudi Arabia.

I reserve the right to be correct at all times.