The Right Not To Be Offended?
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).
Well, at least you’re intellectually honest enough to admit you have no real proof that he is a bigot, unlike Mr. Mike at Rational Reasons, who I’ve been taking to task for pretending he does.
As it stands right now, Mr. Mike is libeling Mr. Levant by inventing hypocrisies from Levant’s past. I have been able to successfully de-construct every piece of proof that has been given, and he doesn’t relent.
I respect your position to hold the opinion you do. I disagree with it, but at least you are not resorting to outright libel and slander of Mr. Levant in doing so, as others in the left-o-sphere are doing. For that, I tip my hat.
Thanks for reminding me why I hang out here.
For what it’s worth, I thought the original article in the WS was pretty benign and one of the better written articles I’d seen in the magazine in a while - it was about the right to publish them and free speech rather than any kind of incitement.
Since the issue wasn’t sold on any newstands - including the independents I tried in Edmonton (can’t speak for the rest of the country), he probably lost $ on that particular issue but likely recouped his losses, at least for a while, after that. So if it WAS intended for personal gain, I’d say it backfired or at least was not a spectacular success.
That being said, he DOES(did) have the right to publish them, and the complainants do NOT have the right to not be offended, and I hope that the appropriate action (nothing) is taken by the HRC.
“Shouldn’t this “trial” be judged by a jury of his peers? Shouldn’t Ezra have the right to face his accusers?”
He’s not on trial. Let’s be clear about what’s happening. He’s being interviewed to see if there’s a basis for further action, based on a complaint lodged against him by a Canadian. I strongly doubt that there will be any further action.
As has been noted in Dr. Dawg’s excellent article, he didn’t even have to meet the investigator. He did it, and brought his video camera along, because he anticipated, correctly, that his theatrics would get him a couple of days of blog attention. And of course, he was right.
“He probably lost $ on that particular issue but likely recouped his losses, at least for a while, after that.”
As noted in the previous post on Ezra’s mock martyrdom, Ezra himself announced that the publication of the dreaded cartoons had no negative affect on his revenues. I’m fairly sure that if he had lost money, we’d have drowned in crocodile tears flowing from the MacMillans, Shaidles and Jankes.
A note that’s often overlooked in this discussion: newstand sales for most publications are essentially revenue neutral , and basically pay the cost of production and distribution. The real revenue comes from advertising, which is priced according to “cost per thousand”, or the unit price to reach a thousand “eyeballs”. That’s why advertisers and magazines LOVE controversy - good or bad, it drives the readership WAY up.
Having said all that:
a) Of course he had the right to publish the cartoons. That right has never been questioned, as far as I know.
b) Those who feel offended have a right to pursue a complaint through the Human Rights Commission. I don’t think the complaint is justified, and I don’t think it will proceed to tribunal. But I’m glad the instrument exists.
Ezra’s decision to publish the cartoons was a business decision, and, if he’s telling the truth about “not suffering financial hardship” as a result of it, a shrewd decision. He has gained another week in the limelight as a self-proclaimed free speech martyr, and I’m not sure how he’s going to capitalize on that (an Ezra edition four DVD set, with commentary, of his hilarious grandstanding in front of an embarassed civil servant? A biopic (gee, too bad John Belushi is dead)?
I can’t wait.
My thoughts exactly, even if Mike Brock believes I’m libeling someone by stating my opinion.
About 7/8 way down the post I finally figured out what the hell you were trying to say. You have every right to be offended, you have every right to be offensive, and others have that right as well. Is that about it? It was the “not to be offended” that threw me. Unless you mean that if someone is trying to be offensive, you have the right not to be offended. Damn.
b) Those who feel offended have a right to pursue a complaint through the Human Rights Commission. I don’t think the complaint is justified, and I don’t think it will proceed to tribunal. But I’m glad the instrument exists.
For the record, do you believe Canadians should continue to have the right stated above, given your previous observation that;
The point is that Canadians, and people who live here, have no legal right to not be offended
So why are you glad the instrument exists? This is a contradiction in your position which needs to be fixed.
That second line should not be in italics. Ooops.
Sean, you’re quoting two different people.
Damn, so I am.
I was reading the full post and didn’t look to the right for the author. I just assumed from balbulican’s reply that he was the author.
But do you (balbulican) believe Canadians should have the right to not be offended?
I don’t think that’s the issue, Sean.
Actually, Sean, I re-read what I had said earlier, and I realize that I did not make myself clear. Sorry for the apparent flippancy of response 17: let me try again.
I said “b) Those who feel offended have a right to pursue a complaint through the Human Rights Commission.” That’s not what I was trying to say.
What I meant was: those who feel that a publication exposes a group to hatred or violence should have recourse under Canadian law. If a publication called explicitly for the mass murder of people of Irish ancestry, blacks, Jews, or Christians, I would want those folks to have an option to initiate government action.
In my opinion, the Western Standard’s business decision to publish the Mohammad cartoon did not expose Muslims to that risk. But that’s my opinion. The recourse should still exist. Please remember, again, that what’s going on here is not a tribunal or trial.
Hope that’s clearer.
I agree. Thanks for clearing things up.
I agree completely with this.
Mike Brock, however, has been threatening Mike of Rational Reasons with the notion of a Levant lawsuit. Seems ironic, in the current context.
Levant’s character is, of course, a separate issue. But it’s not off-limits to discuss it, given that Levant himself has been prancing and dancing in front of us. He recently sent a threatening letter to a newspaper called Fast Forward, which removed its post as a result. The post, however, bless Google, is still cached:
http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/city/lowering-standard/
I have no difficulty, furthermore, in noting that Levant, besides being an arrant hypocrite in matters of free speech, is also a bigot. He wrote a vile piece about a bus driver involved in an accident, whom he took to be Muslim–the Sun pulled it, but you can still find it on Google. He also launched a vile character assassination of Liberal MP Omar Alghabra in 2005, complete with sleazy references to his ethnic origins.
Brock (and Levant) appear to have no problem using the official court system to silence opponents. But when the HRC does it, that’s different. I don’t see how.
I should say, in the last paragraph, “no problem with.” I don’t want to give the impression that Mr. Brock has actually misused the court system in this way.
On double-checking, I see I got something wrong. The piece is still up–and Levant is suing the publisher for $100,000.
Same point stands.
Dr. D: “On double-checking, I see I got something wrong. The piece is still up–and Levant is suing the publisher for $100,000″
WTF? I just read the whole thing - what’s to sue over?
[...] THOSE IMAGINARY RIGHTS: “The Right Not To Be Offended?” …. [...]
We just got linked to a site called “Free Mark Stein”, which must be run by a long time fan of Stageleft’s, since they’re “borrowed” two of our graphics, without credit. I should be flattered, I suppose.
Once again, Dr. Dawg says everything that needs to be said on the subject.
heh, maybe we need to do with them what I did to the leechers who thought it would be a good idea to hot link the “Kelso Burn” image I once used — now all their sites have this.
I think this be the bit he’s bothered about from fast forward:
http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/viewpoint/goodbye-western-standard/
Was in the same issue as the bit linked to by dawg. What a buzz kill eh? Gotcher pic on the front cover of a weekly with a feature article aboutcha inside. Go and scoop up bundle of em to send gram and gramps only to find another bit inside calling ya a jerk.