Martyrdom For Fun And Profit
Faster than a dog licking up another dog’s vomit or a vulture swooping down for roadkill, Ezra Levant, Canada’s self-proclaimed professional victim, is racing to scoop up the 2008 “URQ Martyr of the Year” Golden Crown of Thorns Award from last month’s odds-on favourite, Mark Steyn.
My money’s on Ezra. I stand in honest awe of his ability to brand himself as a Free Speech Hero while raking in big bucks and accolades from the suckers credulous enough to buy his latest pitch.
A bit of history, once again (stop me if you’ve heard this before):
Several months after a series of not very witty editorial cartoons spark a furor in Europe and the Middle East, Ezra announced with great fanfare that he was going to publish them in defense of our precious Freedom of Speech.
Now, bear in mind, no-one was actually threatening Ezra’s freedom of speech at any point. But this “heroic gesture” guaranteed headlines and sales for a mediocre magazine on its last legs (it has, of course, subsequently folded). It was a good marketing ploy, eagerly swallowed by the leading URQ blogs, who urged their readers to buy multiple copies to “show we weren’t afraid”, to berate news vendors that didn’t carry Ezra’s rage, and particularly to boycott Muslim newstands that didn’t stock the issue.
It was such an embarrassingly transparent piece of opportunism that even Stephen Harper felt compelled to express “regret” that Ezra saw fit to exploit racial hatred for a buck.
The Shaidles and McMillians were practically panting in anticipation of firebombs and riots. But of course, nothing happened. The Canadian Muslim community behaved like…Canadians. They shook their head, wished the buffoon hadn’t done it, and forgot it.
Now, I’ve never read the sales figures for the “Free Speech Martyr” edition of the Western Standard. But months later, after the rag had crashed and burned, Ezra’s tearful farewell included the following astonishing admission:
“I hope that the fact that we neither suffered physical nor financial harm for doing so serves as encouragement to other media in the future to resist radical Muslim calls for censorship.”
Got it? Despite all the chest thumping, protestations of impending martyrdom, and declarations of victimhood, Ezra made money off his little ploy.
Then (enter Villain, Stage Left) a “radical imam” (Ezra’s characterization) filed a “frivolous, vexatious, infantile” complaint (Ezra’s characterization) with the Human Rights Commission. And faster than a panhandler darting for a falling quarter, Ezra begged his fans and admirers to send him yet MORE money, because he “might” incur expenses as a result of a calculated business decision to offend thousands of people by playing free speech martyr.
I asked a couple of questions about that little pitch at the time on a couple of blogs, including here. Specifically, I wanted to know:
- Incremental Sales Revenues for Ezra’s “Look At Me! I Hate Mohammed” edition
- Whether profits had been set aside as a hedge against possible legal costs
- Whether funds received from his gullible URQ blog-dupes were going to be tracked and accounted for separately; and,
- Whether these funds would be returned to the donors if the costs of any subesequent legal costs did NOT exceed profits on the “I Hate Mohammed” edition.
And you know, the strangest thing…there was no response.
And now, as the hearings begin, with the predictability of Swiss clockwork, the moronosphere is lurching into gear. The Scented One, whose hysterical ravings increasingly evoke the language of the less literate Communist cadres during the cultural revolution, writes:
The Leftist state apparatus (in the form of a so-called “human rights” commission) in Canada has finally picked the wrong man upon whose rights to stomp with its filthy, blood-caked jackboots. Ezra Levant isn’t submitting. He’s ferociously fighting for his -and all Canadians’- rights and liberties. He’s fighting for freedom of expression, for freedom of the press and more, for all of us. He stands resolutely against the forces of Left-wing oppression and tyranny.
Five Feet of Cancerous Gall Bladder manages to weave together several skeins of current URQ hysteria. Ezra is not only a free speech martyr, but is being prosecuted…because he’s Jewish! Oh, my! And so is Mark Steyn…who isn’t Jewish, but she thinks some people think he might Jewish, so that’s why they’re being victimized. Oh, and her, too.
Oh, and both the K’s (we really DO need one more) have gone the heroic route of publishing, yet again, those not very good cartoons that Ezra made so much money on, with suitably faux-bravado, self-aggrandizing captions. (Shaidle’s is “Come and Get Me, You Fairies”, once again raising interesting questions about the possibility of an individual’s ability to be both pre-pubescent and menopausal at the same time.)
To be honest, as someone with a professional interest in communications, I quite enjoy Ezra’s performance. He’s made a bunch of money on fake outrage, and cheerfully admitted it - while somehow convincing his fans that they should keep sending him more. You gotta love it.
But I do admit a bit of puzzlement vis-a-vis the Jankes, Shaidles and McMillans who perpetuate this myth. Are they really too stupid to recognize that they’re being duped? Are they getting a cut of this? Or is it just blog-fodder to them - more cheap, synthetic rage for the hate-machine?
UPDATE:
I swear to God, sometimes I think Dr. Dawg and I must have been separated at birth.
Levant is the Canadian rights P.T. Barnum.
The only thing that keeps the Levants, Coulters and Marsdens of the world in business is that the left falls for their schtyk hook line and sinker and work themselves up into a frenzy every time they open their mouths.
Ignore them and they will go away.
That being said, he shouldn’t be in front of any Human Rights Commitee for what he published.
“He shouldn’t be in front of any Human Rights Commitee for what he published.”
I find myself in a funny position on that one. I think that groups who feel themselves to be under attack or victims of racist hatemongering, should have access to some venue of appeal. But he had every right to publish what he did, and I hope the complaint is dismissed. I despise his act on many levels - the exploitation of hatred for bucks, the sleazy combination of canny marketing and smug, shrill proclamations of self martyrdom outlined above - but the bottom line is he should be free to publish any crap he wants.
As I commented to Arwen a while back, I got investigated by the Human Rights Commission for not hiring an Iranian journalism professor to act as an Arctic Broadcasting Trainer, a job for which he was demonstrably unqualified. The investigation agreed, and his complaint was tossed out. It was a pain in the ass, but I ended up actually feeling good about it: he had a channel to pursue what he may have sincerely felt was a legitimate grievance, and the process actually worked and came to the right conclusion.
This is a good rant Balb.
Free speech is an important aspect of democracy, or it should be. Ezra’s stunt is pure foolishness at least in the manner he has positioned it. I agree that it was motivated more by profit and probably rascism than championing free speech.
What he did was not illegal and, IMHO, that is where it should stop. I don’t agree with the need for HRC’s when we have laws on the book that deal with hate.
HRCs are quasi-judicial tribunals–without these bodies doing the grunt-work, our court system would be clogged to the point of no return. The purpose of HRCs is to find solutions–including mediation and so on. I have concerns about an institutional approach to discrimination, but in the absence of anything better at the moment, I’m glad we have ‘em.
What Dawg said.
The interface between law and social reality is a floating, permeable, and socially defined border. HRCs are an excellent way to mediate that boundary in the no-man’s land of shifting social norms and needs.
Got it? Despite all the chest thumping, protestations of impending martyrdom, and declarations of victimhood, Ezra made money off his little ploy.
This is an interesting conclusion. Ezra has secured third-party legal council in this case, the costs of which you have no information on.
To that point, I find it interesting that you seem to believe that Mr. Levants entire motive in all this is simply profit.
For somebody who revels in how intelligent you are, it’s curious that behind all your eloquent writing, the best commentary you can provide is an ad hominem attack on Mr. Levant, specifically an attack on his motives, for which you have no substantive proof.
Your motive is to detract from the substance of the debate, and to concentrate on bringing attention to Ezra Levant’s motives, which by all accounts, you’ve constructed.
On an aside: I’ve always found it interesting, reading your commentary over the years, that you seem to have a piece of relevant life experience for virtually every topic that comes up. From running your own business, to working for various governments, the UN, and now… being the receiving end of a complaint before the Human Rights Tribunal.
Since all the Human Rights Commission’s publish the results of all adjudications in the jurisprudence section of it’s website, it would be interesting for once, if you backed up your claim by providing us a link to the relevant case for which you were a respondant.
I’m sure everyone would find it enlightening, because I must say, your apparent, infinitely-sized curriculum vitae strains credibility.
Hi, Mike. Long time no hear! Time appears to have improved your spelling, but not your propensity for imitating bad editorialists. Still, nice to have you back.
So leaving aside all the portentuous huffing and puffing, let me address the substance of your note.
Thank you. It really is a gift. I can’t take credit for it, I was born brilliant, and the years have only added luster to my intellect.
”
No, really, Mike, you’re much too kind.
Well, given that it’s pretty much impossible to “prove” what anyone’s motives actually are under any given circumstances, Mike, one is obliged to speculate on the basis of observable fact and actual outcomes. Tell me, which of the following points do you disagree with?
1) Ezra Levant was a businessman, entrepreneur and publisher. His product was the Western Standard whatever. The primary purpose of a business is to make a profit. With me so far?
2) Controversy generates sales. Still there?
3) Ezra’s extremely well publicized decision to run a series of old cartoons generated a wave of support among right wing bloggers, many of whom urged their readership to buy multiple copies and harass newstands not carrying the Western Standard. (If you doubt that, I suggest you revisit Steve Janke or Kate McMillans’s archives).
4) As noted above, Ezra himself declared that he had “suffered nither physical nor financial harm” through his action.
5) However, he launched an appeal for funding, picked up and endorsed by McMillan, Janke, Shaidle, and the usual suspects, “in case” a Human Rights charge cost him money. Again, my son, that’s all out there.
So you see, Mike, I’m a bit of a loss to know what you think constitutes “substantive proof”.
No, my motive is to mock a self-aggrandizing pseudo-martyr, and hopefully to lift the scales from the eyes of some of his less deluded followers. Not you, of course. But some of the borderline cases.
Yes, it has been an interesting life. That’s one of the few good things about getting old..you discover to your surprise that you’ve actually done quite a bit of interesting stuff.
Of course, if you’re suggesting that I’m lying, about this or anything I’ve talked about doing, then let me know what specific assertion from my past you doubt, and I’ll provide some satisfactory evidence through a third party blogger you trust…possibly someone like James Bow or Andrew Anderson, who’ve met me and know me a bit. This is on the condition that you agree to apologize for your rude insinuation both here and on your own blog when you are proven wrong. (Don’t you think your suggestion is bit misplaced, given that you’ve just finished berating me for an “unsubstantiated”, “ad-hominem” attack?) And you ARE wrong, by the way - I don’t lie.
Given that I publish under a pseudonym here, no, I don’t think I will do that.
Well, perhaps some day you’ll get a life too. Good luck with that.
Are they really too stupid to recognize that they’re being duped? Are they getting a cut of this? Or is it just blog-fodder to them - more cheap, synthetic rage for the hate-machine?
(d) All of the above.
1) Ezra Levant was a businessman, entrepreneur and publisher. His product was the Western Standard whatever. The primary purpose of a business is to make a profit. With me so far?
So because he is a businessman, entrepreneur and publisher, his actions are all governed by a profit motive. This is of course known, in formal argumentation, as an association fallacy.
2) Controversy generates sales. Still there?
This is begging the question. Also improper in formal argumentation.
3) Ezra’s extremely well publicized decision to run a series of old cartoons generated a wave of support among right wing bloggers, many of whom urged their readership to buy multiple copies and harass newstands not carrying the Western Standard. (If you doubt that, I suggest you revisit Steve Janke or Kate McMillans’s archives).
… and this is a straw man argument, as well as an association fallacy. You’re using the actions of third-parties to infer the motives of Ezra Levant (that’s a straw man), and you are equating his motives with theirs, because you believe they share the same politics (that’s the association fallacy).
4) As noted above, Ezra himself declared that he had “suffered nither physical nor financial harm” through his action.
Why is this material? Is it your implication that he must have “sacrified” in some way for his motives to have been genuine in nature?
5) However, he launched an appeal for funding, picked up and endorsed by McMillan, Janke, Shaidle, and the usual suspects, “in case” a Human Rights charge cost him money. Again, my son, that’s all out there.
Perhaps it was his intention to raise the ire of certain people, and to land his butt before the Human Rights Commission. But the existence of such ulterior motive (if one even exists) does not imply the profit motive that you have arrived at. Hence, your entire argument does not escape the easy characterization by any neutral observer, of being a completely unsubstantiated ad hominem attack.
Your initial article, and your subsequent defense for it, speaks more to your motive than to Ezra Levant’s. I would suspect that your motive is egocentric in nature, and as such I find very little redeeming in what you’ve written here.
Given that I publish under a pseudonym here, no, I don’t think I will do that.
And that is of course, a major aspect of credibility in my book. Posting under a pseudonym is often motivated by a desire to conceal ones identity for purpose of avoiding scrutiny among ones peers.
I work for one of the largest American software companies in a senior role, and I make no attempt to conceal my identity for the purpose of protecting my reputation.
I will not reveal who my employer is, because as a public company, they have explicitly asked me not to, but my fellow employees are not hidden from my public political views.
I challenge you to post with your real name, and reveal evidence of your experience in the first-person, not through a third-party source.
This blog needs more Voltaire and less Fry/Thobani.
I think the short and sweet on Ezra is:
Should he be coming under scrutiny from the AHRC for publishing the mundane Mohammed cartoons?
No.
Is the theatrics involved in Ezra’s defense more worthy of one facing the gas chamber than one facing a single bureaucrat from the AHRC in a small room with poor lighting?
Yes.
I’d break your first question up into three bits, Raphael.
a) Should Canadians have access to a government or quasi judicial body to assist in or mediate charges relating to Human Rights?
Yes.
b) Was there enough evidence to warrant an initial, exploratory interview with Ezra?
Debatable.
c) Do I think the case warrants proceeding to a tribunal?
No.
And for your second question - I agree wholeheartedly.
>I got investigated by the Human Rights Commission for not hiring an Iranian journalism professor to act as an Arctic Broadcasting Trainer
Which is what the HRCs were established to do - mediate employment and rental disputes in which discrimination was alleged. Since the bureaucrats have shown themselves incapable of restraining themselves from abusing and overreaching their purpose, the HRCs should be disbanded.
>The purpose of HRCs is to find solutions–including mediation and so on.
Which would be perfectly acceptable if respondents were free of any encumbrance to choose between:
1) Yes, I will engage the HRC mediation process despite the fact it will potentially cost me money and the complainant nothing.
2) No thank you; go pound sand. If the complainant wishes he may pay to use the civil court system and take his chances; I believe my case is strong enough I’m willing to pay to fight it there.
I suggest you review Dr. Dawg’s excellent and amusing essay on the non-martyrdom of Ezra. Here’s the link.
I understand that any mechanism limiting the expression of hatred is an annoyance and inconvenience, especially to folks who profit from it. But I personally don’t have a problem with it.
No, in strict logical terms, it would be a “non-sequitur”. However, we’re discussing motive, not an equation. Since motive cannot be established syllogistically, it can only be deduced through observation of behaviours and outcomes. Businessmen ARE motivated by profit. They have other motives (as a businessman, I know that). But the sine qua non of business is profit. No profit - no business.
With your permission, I’ll just skip over the Philosophy 101 games and cut to anything substantial. Don’t be offended, but it’s been a long time since I thought that was fun.
Umm…my post is about the distinction between Ezra’s posturing as martyr and the actual harm he suffered. The relevance of this point may become clearer to you upon deep reflection.
Then a bunch of yadda yadda, then…
My preference for using a pseudonym is frankly none of your business. You’ve accused me of lying. I’ve indicated I take exception to that, and have undertaken to verify any assertion I’ve made about my biography that you question through a mutually acceptable third party. I don’t really care much about your opinion, so that’s where I think I’ll leave it. If you seriously doubted some aspect of my bio, you have an opportunity to confirm it. I suspect you prefer to score a cheap rhetorical point, and I don’t much care.
Ezra Levant was a businessman, entrepreneur and publisher. His product was the Western Standard whatever. The primary purpose of a business is to make a profit. With me so far?
Actually this is an ad hominem attack. Circumstantial.
Heh. Jill, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
I’m not attacking Ezra for shrewdly exploiting hatred to make money. I’m laughing at the people who think he’s a martyr for doing so.
We need to push this Levant/Steyn issue on the Liberal agenda. The far-right have become extreme hate-mongerers towards that community.
Not only is it a prudent political decision, but it’s the right thing to do.
Stop neo-fascism in Canada!