The real issue
by Scoop Shachtman, 15 January 2008
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the punishment” and the potential risk of similar, costly, experiences will affect decisions as to what may or may not be published and what facts may or may not be stated.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.
Tuesday 15 January 2008 at 5:01
A very good point, but it’s not the “real issue.” It’s one of many issues this whole thing raises. See my comment under the original post on this subject relating to the “left-wing” Radical Press case. Sten and one or two others excepted, I haven’t noticed hordes of conservative libertarians marshalling their absolutist positions on free speech to defend that wanker.
Tuesday 15 January 2008 at 8:29
The fact that this is not entirely obvious; is mind numbing, as well as worrying.
[Comment released from SPAM box]
Tuesday 15 January 2008 at 12:06
Maybe I’m not reading widely enough (but, you know, there are more things on heaven and earth than the blogosphere). So where are these hordes of “progressives” who refuse to support Levant? From what I can see, those who condemn him are a tiny minority. More common is the reaction which insists that Levant must win the battle with the Alberta authorities, but at the same time wish he would grow up and stop waving his dick around.
It’s not dissimilar to the case of Craig Murray vs Alisher Usmanov. Only Murray is a ‘loony lefty’ who has garnered support from across the political spectrum, even though many of his new friends ridicule his political views and penchant for conspiracy theories.
Tuesday 15 January 2008 at 17:52
I haven’t noticed hordes of conservative libertarians marshalling their absolutist positions on free speech to defend that wanker.
What has that got to do with your own principles?
Tuesday 15 January 2008 at 18:12
Frankly, I don’t care whether he is a wanker or not. His whole point is that he has a right to be a wanker. And do you know what? He has. And that is beside the point of whether he is a wanker or not.
And it is not about him at all, or indeed his dick (which presumably you need if you are going to be a wanker)
It doesn’t matter who states something that is true or not. What matters is whether it is true. And as Indaba says, this is simply obviously true. The wanker is right.
Tuesday 15 January 2008 at 19:31
Georges: The “wanker” in question here is not Ezra Levant. I was referring to the editor the Radical Press. The things he writes and posts about (the full text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) are not “true.” But yes, he has a right to be a wanker. Whether he has the right to defame an identifiable minority group and incite and enflame hostility and hatred against them, in Canadian law, is at this juncture an open question. All that, however, is beside the point.
What the point was (this is for Scoop), or at least what the point of Scoop’s post was (if I am to take the bold-faced sentence with the emphasis intended) is that “progressives” have been silent on matters such as the Levant case simply because they don’t like him.
I said this was a very good point (i.e. whether Levant is loathsome or not should have no bearing on his or anyone’s free speech rights), and pointed out that libertarian conservatives have been similarly silent on the Radical Press case.
You ask: “What has that got to do with your own principles?”
Absolutely nothing. It’s got to do with the point of the post, which was the left’s abdication of duty, if I can put it that way. My point was that if that is true (and I’m not sure it is), the “right” has similarly abdicated in the Radical Press case.
Is all.
Thursday 17 January 2008 at 21:15
Well the problem is that if you want to repair the problems with the HRC, and there certainly appear to be some as far as fairness, symmetry and due process goes, it ain’t gonna get tested with Hitchens, the editor of Free Inquiry or other perfect respondant to such charges. It’s going to be tested with this Levant guy. I don’t like him, don’t have to, don’t want to, but I’ll take him as the somewhat disingenous posterboy for free speech over say… Stormfront.