Not only is it a prudent political decision, but it’s the right thing to do.

Stop neo-fascism in Canada!

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.

Actually this is an ad hominem attack. Circumstantial.

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.”

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.

‘This is begging the question. Also improper in formal argumentation.

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.

4) As noted above, Ezra himself declared that he had “suffered nither physical nor financial harm” through his action.

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…

“Posting under a pseudonym is often motivated by a desire to conceal ones identity for purpose of avoiding scrutiny among ones peers.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(d) All of the above.

So leaving aside all the portentuous huffing and puffing, let me address the substance of your note.

“For somebody who revels in how intelligent you are,…”

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.

”

…eloquent writing…”

No, really, Mike, you’re much too kind.

“…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.”

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”.

“Your motive is to detract from the substance of the debateted.”

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.

“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.”

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.

“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.”

Given that I publish under a pseudonym here, no, I don’t think I will do that.

“I’m sure everyone would find it enlightening, because I must say, your apparent, infinitely-sized curriculum vitae strains credibility.”

Well, perhaps some day you’ll get a life too. Good luck with that.

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.

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.