I just watched three video clips from the interrogation of Ezra Levant, who published the Danish cartoons which some Muslims found to be offensive. I thought, as did other web commentators, that Levant was brilliant in his opening statement. The core of his argument is that the the government has no right, legally or morally, to control the opinons that he says or publishes.
I post the question here to see if there is any reasonable counterargument. I’m having a tough time trying to come up with one.
All in all, the govt representative comes across as inconsequential and ineffectual. The type of person who gets selected to serve on kangaroo courts like the HRC are usually predictable, so the final report will probably be in favour of the plaintiff.
As outrageous as anything in this farce is the fact that the people who lodged the complaint will suffer no penalty of any kind no matter what the outcome.
That bureaucrat doesn’t strike me as ineffectual - she strikes me as being uninterested in his opinions or defense. It’s a casual disregard of anything but what she already believes.
If you read accounts of life under totalitarian societies, you run into these implacable gray functionaries all the time. This is what a kangaroo court actually looks like. They pay lip service to allowing the accused ‘their say’, but essentially just zone out until the person has stopped speaking, then continue on their pre-determined trajectory as if a word had never been spoken. They offer no reaction whatsoever, lest it encourage the defendant or inflame the situation. It’s these types that wear out the public. Eventually people learn that attempting to make your own case is like arguing with a mountain - you can be as clever as you like, as right as you can possibly be, and it will make no difference whatsoever.
I loved the part where she responded to one of his comments by saying, “You have a right to your own opinion” - a common phrase in a liberal democracy, but the whole inquisition is actually about the fact that he doesn’t have a right to his own opinion. He is only allowed to have an opinion and go unmolested by the state if it meets some arbitrary standards the state cooked up.
What would have been wonderful is if, after she said “You have a right to your own opinion” he would have said, “I do? Oh, fantastic. Well, have a nice day” - and left.
One is reminded of Kennedy examining Bork. No matter what Bork said, Kennedy went on to the next question in the script as if he had heard the answer he wanted.
Kennedy: “Don’t you feel that your decision in Joe v. Blow shows a deep disdain for women’s rights?”
Bork: “The case of Joe v. Blow was about whether the state could use the electrician’s code to determine if the number of outlets in unisex bathrooms could be no more than 1.5 the number in regular bathrooms. My finding was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harvey v. United Chicken Pluckers of America, which found that… (twenty minutes of case law)”
Kennedy: “Since your ruling in that case showed so deep a hatred for women, I turn now to your findings in Dinglehoffer v. The Naughty Spanky Boys Bookshop. There you ruled in favor of a proven gay basher, saying that there was no right to be free of violence for gay people.”
Bork: (sigh) “That case was about a guy who complained that the gay porn he bought did not have enough depictions of sado-masochism, and so he wanted his money back. My findings were that he knew ahead of time that there were only a limited number of spankings in the movie he bought, and he had no right to a refund. It was upheld by the supreme court of the state.”
Kennedy: “My concern is that you show no respect at all for the rights of the weak. I must therefore reluctantly conclude that I (turns page) two pair of pants, five shirts, no starch in the collar…”
His assistant whispers urgently in his ear: “Senator, that’s my laundry list. It must have gotten into the notes by mistake.”
Kennedy: “I relinquish the rest of my time to the chair.”
I’m glad this guy stood up for himself here. Does he actually face punishment here - does the commission have any punitive authority? And is it common for these proceedings to be taped?
I’m also confused. Is this a criminal investigation? Is he or could he be charged with anything? Are these sorts of complaints common? I know almost nothing about Canadian law.
The Human Rights Commission has issued financial penalties (I think one person was levied a fine of $4900 in another case). I have no idea what happens if you don’t pay them. Anything from having a collection agency destroy your credit rating if the fine is levied as a ‘fee’, to actual charges for not paying a fine if it’s levied as a fine, I suppose.
Of course, the way these commissions typically work is that the process itself is the punishment. They force you to incur legal costs, they drag your name through the mud, you wind up in the papers as someone being grilled by the government for ‘hate crimes’, etc. It can ruin your reputation, cause you to lose your job, have your neighbors shun you, etc.
In fact, probably the only real defense you have is to do what Levant is doing - shine a light on the process. Even if you go in and ‘win’ your case, all that anyone remembers is that you were hauled up against a human rights commission. So, the best defense is to videotape the process and publish it on the web, expose the clowns for what they are, and get the public on your side. Then you’ve got a chance of being a hero instead of a person who people whisper rumors about behind your back.
Oh don’t be so dramatic. There’s no country in the world that has absolute freedom of speech, even the United States.
Who, I would note, also have hate crimes laws, and have the farcical “Free speech zones” that crop up whenever there’s a government official that decides that he or she doesn’t want protesters to actually be heard.
By any reasonable standard, Canada is one of the freest countries in the world in terms of speech.
Yeah, I agree that the charges against Levant sound a little silly, and in this case probably shouldn’t have been allowed to proceed in the first place, but it’s plainly obvious that he’s milking the free publicity for all its worth himself.
Probably not, but my sense is law is pretty clear in the U.S. that you can’t be punished or sanctioned by the government for publishing the sort of cartoons that Levant published. They would appear to be classic offensive but protected speech.
Apparently the Canadian courts take a different view.
The standard I would propose is pretty simple: Can you publish stuff that’s politically offensive?
Well, he did a good job on that front. Setting aside the whole 1984-ish aspect of the situation, it was highly entertaining watching Levant absolutely hand that woman her ass. It was one of the most compelling defenses/refutations I have ever seen.
No, I’m saying that Canada isn’t perfect on that front, but there’s no reason to start implying that Canada is some sort of black hole of speech. The direct comparison to the United States’ 1st Amendment was offered, so the analog was already on the table. Sam’s comparing us to a standard that doesn’t exist.
