Ezra Levant is a pompous ass, and I personally believe that he is a bigot given to cheap ploys for personal financial gain, but there is a point in his rhetoric that I agree with - even if he’s made it like a circus clown.
The point is that Canadians, and people who live here, have no legal right to not be offended…. sorry folks that’s the way it is.
I happen to personally believe that Ezra Levant is a bigot who had the specific goal of personal financial gain in mind via the cheap ploy of publishing the Mohammad cartoons, as well as the specific intent of, at the very least, inciting negative feelings against Muslims, if not more.
But that is a personal belief, and unless I can prove that statement beyond a shadow of a doubt, in a fair and open court of law (which I cannot), or unless Levant states in a loud and clear voice, in a public place, in front of credible witnesses, that his intent was, at the very least, to incite negative feelings against Muslims (if not more), then that’s where it ends.
My belief does not make it so anywhere but in my mind.
We have no legal right not to be offended by what someone has said, written, or published, unless it is clear cut, beyond a shadow of doubt, provable in a fair and open court of law, intent to incite hate - in this case all we can do is speculate, and the last thing this country needs is some government body sitting in judgment of what someone has said, written, or published, based on what the members of that government body believes may have been the intent of the person who spoke, wrote, or published those words, because someone was offended by them.
I have been, and continue to be, personally offended by a great many things. The rantings of Fred Phelps and any number of other fundamentalist religious extremists of all stripes offend me. I am offended every time I watch Question Period in the House, and just about every time one of the leaders of one of the Canadian political parties opens up their rhetoric spewing gob-holes and tells us another lie couched in political double-speak. I am offended that the society I was born of places more importance on the value of cheap trendy cloths, and a cheaper caffè latte with trendy little chocolate sprinkles, so that they can have a swimming pool in the back yard, a white picket fence, and two cars in the driveway with a garage to park both of them in when it rains, more than they value the simple human dignity of those who have been exploited in their making. I find it offensive that people like shlemazl and the Canadian Sentinel, and a host of others, attempt to squelch legitimate discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues by labeling those criticizing Israeli policy and actions as Jew haters and terrorist lovers, and I am offended by government leaders who attempt to squelch legitimate discussion of national military involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, or questioning or decrying policies of torture and abuse, by labeling people as traitors, and terrorist lovers, for questioning their governments decisions.
I have no legal right not to be offended by any of these people, in many cases (except for our politicians and their conduct and lies) I’ll defend their right to offend me, and whether they like it or not, I have every right in the world to offend them.
So, to those who were offended by Ezra’s cheap and, in my personal opinion, bigoted theatrics….. sorry, this is [for the time being anyway] a semi-free society in which you have no right not to be offended unless you can prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, in a fair and open court, that Levants’ intent was to incite hatred towards Muslims.
As much as Ezra Levant and and his tactics personally offend me, I believe that if he is found guilty of inciting hate by publishing the Mohammad cartoons on anything less than beyond any shadow of doubt it will be a sad day for us all.
I also feel that there is no right to not be offended.
I find the notion of persecuting people for their opinions is odious. But I also wonder about the process.
Shouldn’t this “trial” be judged by a jury of his peers?
Shouldn’t Ezra have the right to face his accusers?
What about the rules of evidence? Should the judge administering the case be the one to pass sentence? Yes, it’s done in regular trials, but a hate-crime is a pretty serious allegation (and fairly subjective at that).