Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Web-exclusive comment

What a strange place Canada is

EZRA LEVANT

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 8:29 AM EST 21/01/08

The very process of defending against a human rights complaint is a form of punishment, says the former publisher of the Western Standard magazine ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jo Geoghegan from Canada writes: This interrogation is an outrage. We have freedom of speech in this country. We can publish cartoons about anybodywe like. The citzens of this country need apoligise to no one for their thoughts.
    We had better stop this nonsense . NOW!
  2. Angelo Zenga from Mississauga, Canada writes: We have here radical muslims persecuting a Canadian with the help of the government.
  3. Terry Quinn from A proud free Canada, Canada writes: I think Ezra is dead on but probably the wrong guy to be attacking this situation because of his ultra right wing philosophy.

    We live in a secular society and if some religious nutbag doesn't like it he can go to live in a country run by religious zealots.
  4. kembees montreal from Montreal, Canada writes: Well I think we can comfortably say that we are heading to Hell in a hand basket. What is that saying about living in a glass house. For God sake we all go through life and in some measure are either offensive or offended by actions or words. We have evey right to state that we are offended. But the right to express ideas and opinions freely must at all costs be defended and protected. Clearly Mr. Levant is looking to stir the pot whether or not he admits it. But just like the radio or TV, if you don't like whats on, change the channel..
  5. Milburn McLean from Toronto, Canada writes: It would appear RM from Canada read something different from what I read. As much as I don't have much time for Levant his publishing the cartoons was not in any way anti Muslim. Any educated person would see that.
  6. John Bennett from Canada, Canada writes: I am appalled by the actions of our government and equally appalled by the likes of RM who assume that any information that does not support their perspective is either wrong or hate literature. Not only is it OK to criticize and mock our institutions (governments, religions, businesses, etc) but it is an essential part of a working democracy.

    Bring on the cartoons and fire all the bureaucrats!
  7. R M from Canada writes: Ok, Professor Milburn, do you really think he would have published those cartoons if there had not already been a reaction to them by Muslims? No, he would have seen them for the bad taste and bad art that they were. Contrary to Levant's own protestation, intention does matter. Levant’s intention was not to advance artistic expression or free thought, it was to pour fuel on the fire of what was a clearly upset community, for no other reason than to provoke a further reaction by Muslim and non-Muslim communities. I don't for a second defend the Muslim reaction to the cartoons or do I think this will get very far with the Commission (all it has done is investigate, which it is required to do (not “interrogate”)), but let us not raise Levant on our shoulders as some tireless crusader for free speech.
  8. Mitch Ansen from Canada writes: I wonder if Mr. Levant would publish those Iranian holocaust denial cartoons in the name of Freedom of Expression.
  9. M Lafrance from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'R M from Canada writes: Ok, Professor Milburn, do you really think he would have published those cartoons if there had not already been a reaction to them by Muslims?'

    The story was the reaction by Muslims to those cartoons and the cartoons were published in Levant because they were at the heart of the story. His opinion, and I agree on this, was that it was important for people to see exactly what it was that had sparked these massive protests, riots and waves of violence around the world as no other North American newspaper would. Had there been no reaction to them then there would have been no story and no need to publish them.
  10. Nancy Wilcox from Canada writes: As an ordinary citizen, I have to be careful of how I have felt over issues regarding Moslems. Careful to whom you are speaking to. I have found that governments, even in a muncipal government will have people who seem to think or it is their job to monitor people's thoughts. What really puzzles me, does not the Alberta Human Rights Commission have better things to do with their time such as looking at special education issues, native issues and other issues that affect a greater majoity of people in their everyday lives. The cartoon did not change my opinion for the good or the bad. I do not change my opinion on the basis of a cartoon. If I did and others, a lot of politicains would be in trouble who are always in the cartoons often being shown in situations that are embarassing. Would not a politician have the same right to go to Human Rights and file a complaint? Would I have the same opportunity, when one said nasty things about me in a public forum? Either way, one would wonder if the Human Rights Commission should be investigated and not the journalist.
  11. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: What is free speech? Can anyone say or print anything they want about a particular subject? Is any one religion better or worse than another? Is any one race better or worse than another? In my mind, I think not and I am afraid that if open dialogue is not the path that is taken, will we see unnecessary strive. I look at the individual, not the race or the religion, as I know that there can be good and bad in all, and it is the bad in all, those who are the extreme that cause most of the strive we see in the world.
  12. Michael Cowtan from Canada writes: I support Mr Levant's campaign against the AHRC, and his right to publish whatever he wants.

    It should be noted however that Mr Levant is trying to paint a picture of Mr Soharwardy. In his blog Mr Levant says that Mr Soharwardy is a Saudi trained radical, and he repeats the word radical above. What is he trying to do by using those words I wonder?

    In fact Mr Soharwardy runs a web site called Muslims against Terrorism, and if you were to read an interview with him at:

    http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/15questions.htm

    You would conclude that Mr Soharwardy is indeed radical, in that he fervently prays for peace and justice and is a strong believer in the probability of Jews and Palestinians living peaceably together in two sovereign states.
  13. Rachelle W from Kirkland, WA, United States writes: On the matter of free speech, one should draw the line somewhere...

    http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2243865,00.html
  14. CHP My vote from Beamsville, Canada writes: R M from Canada writes: Ok, Professor Milburn, do you really think he would have published those cartoons if there had not already been a reaction to them by Muslims? No, he would have seen them for the bad taste and bad art that they were. Contrary to Levant's own protestation, intention does matter.

    RM, the reason they were printed was because of the outrage. How do you inform your readers if you don't bring evidence? Intention matters, you're right. But if that intention isn't obvious from the article (it was, an illustration of the 'fuel' for the fires), then it really doesn't matter.

    You should pickup the latest edition of Macleans magazine. Flip to the back and read Mark Steyn's article about this. Why can't you see that it's dangerous for this Officer to ask Ezra what his thoughts are?? Orwellian indeed! These HRCs have crossed the line.
  15. CHP My vote from Beamsville, Canada writes: Rachelle W from Kirkland, WA, United States writes: On the matter of free speech, one should draw the line somewhere...

    But where Rachelle? If I am allowed free speech, I'll no doubt offend someone somewhere. I read the article you posted, and this jumped out at me:

    ''It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend,...'

    The Christians have been offended for many many years. Piss Christ, Chocolate Jesus, God's name being taken in vain (OH my God!') on TV, radio, movies daily.... the list can go on! So, why suddenly the 180 degree turn on freedom of speech? Because a group that uses violence is suddenly upset??
  16. Esker Doon from Montreal, Canada writes: C'mon I can't believe that we don't have the right to free speech in Canada, especially through our media.

    p.s. We can't comment on the blackout in Gaza story. I wonder why.
  17. Bob M from Canada writes: No images of Mohammed allowed. Why? He's a human, just like us. You can't really have a rule that some humans can't be pictured, not in a free, secular society. For religious rules? I don't think so. Then the Pope or whoever could demand equal treatment. If you can't ban images of God, how can you ban images of a human being? Political satire? Ban that? I don't think so.
  18. Allan McElroy from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Levant is not my favourite writer, for the same reasons expressed in earlier posts. However he is right on the money this time. He did not write the cartoons, he wrote an article about the story and published the cartoons as part of the story. As it was a worldwide news story at the time it would seem the normal thing to do, just as showing offensive photos of bloody dead people is often used to support a story of terrorist bombings or war incidents. The reason that most (read; all other) newspapers in Canada and indeed North America refused to publish them was not because they weren't newsworthy. They would all have published them for their news value had they not feared for their lives. The news story WAS that people were being killed for publishing them! All Levant did was refuse to be intimidated, and for that I take off my hat.
    Voltaire's most famous quote reads 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. This is one of the most important principles upon which our society is based. There is no right to never be offended in our constitution, so why do we have a government body that exists to uphold that right?
  19. rob page from Vernon, Canada writes: Mr. Levant has demonstrated many times over the years that he is a holder of extremist views. His increasingly well documented fight with the Human Rights council no doubt is being pursued partly for ideological reasons. Now that his magazine has failed and the U.S. neo-cons are in retreat, going public with this fight might be a last gasp at relevance. None of this changes the fact that, in this case, he's right. Regardless of the reasons that he printed the cartoons in his magazine, his right to do so is a free speech issue. The fact that so few publications chose to print the cartoons after the original controversy arose is very troubling to me. Hurting someone's feelings is an unjustifiable reason to give up our right to free speech.
  20. Durward Saar from Canada writes: Bloody ridiculas what is happening to Ezra and others, without freedom of speach democracy could never have happened and cannot exist.
    Perhaps that's why the socialists and radicle muslims in sociaty work so hard to suppress it.
  21. Action Jackson from Canada writes: While I disagree with Levant on many issues, he's right in this case. Most of the criticisms of him in this thread are ad hominem (dismissing his statements based on who made them, rather than based on a critique of the statements themselves).

    If he's guilty of hate speech, then his accusers should lobby the federal gov't to charge him with breaking that part of the Criminal Code that defines and bans hate speech. That way, he'd at least be able to defend himself in a real court with a real judge. One of the best parts of his argument is that this Human Rights quasi-legal process IS the punishment, so that merely to be accused (without any prosecutor determining that charges should be brought) is already to be penalized.

    Much of his presentation to the gov't official is available on YouTube. Highly recommended.
  22. hack jingle from Canada writes: RM:

    So you think it is a crime to publish cartoons in Canada. You disgrace the memory of those who fought for free speech in this country. No wonder Canadians are such a small people these days. Just look around.
  23. Jeff S from Canada writes: if the case against Ezra goes through then I hope that every practicing Christian in the country starts lodging complaints against every magazine published, every TV show broadcast and every Art Gallery's depiction. The HRC's though no that Christians are NOW a more civilized people and certainly wouldn't go crazy and riot and burn mosque's and kill people like we see every time the Religion of the Perpetually Offended get on with overseas.

    Sniff. Don't hurt our feelings or we'll riot and burn the place down. lol. I believe there may be a mental disorder associated with this sort of behavior.
  24. hack jingle from Canada writes: My country has been stolen from me. Canada is a much smaller country and people than it used to be. Shame on all of us. We gave up without a fight. All bow to the Liberals and their Great and Good Government. Winston was right.
  25. Don Wells from Calgary, Canada writes: Where is the burden of proof on the complainant? There is none --so anybody can claim anything with no substantive proof of anything, except maybe 'hurt feelings' 'feeling threatened'--so subjective as to be irrelevant. This even being being heard is unconscionable. Time to get rid of these kangaroo courts!
  26. billy bob from Timmins, Canada writes: So where is our vaunted charter of rights in this matter? Aren't there any charter rights involved here and where are the people who created the hrc.It looks as if the stupid have been leveraged by the smart again.Does the Alberta govt sanction this sort of behavior by one of it's paid bureaucrats,I guess it must because it is allowing this to happen
  27. Edwin Green from ns, Canada writes: it is time the muslum moved into the twenith centery do you see christions protesting over what people say over religon thay stoped that some time ago it time to move with the times his is not the dark ages
  28. John Hynde from Montreal, Canada writes: Sure, freedom of speech except when it comes to Israel, isn't it Mr. Levant?!
  29. Fred Bilton from Canada writes: Allan McElroy had it right in his comment. We can have a society in which this discussion and the original article are possible, or we can fold up our 'free and democratic' tent and see where bullying, conspiracy, fear, informers, and the view that 'the end justifies the means' at the base of our interactions get us.
  30. John G from Ottawa, Canada writes: A belated congratulations to the G&M for finally waking up and breaking the media embargo on this very important story. Never thought I would read about this story here. In recent years this paper has become little more than a propaganda outfit for the Liberal Party. This story is an example of the 'little more'. More like this please!!!
  31. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Those cartoons were the only newsworthy thing printed in the Western Standard in it's existence. Good to see that poorly written crap couldn't sustain itself with it's 'readership.'

    Levant knows he can say what he wants without retort from the Human Rights Commission, as they (obviously) do not publicly comment on investigations.

    Don't let Canada's strange screen door bump yourass on the way out, Ezra...
  32. Tony Bernardo from Canada writes: I deeply sympathize with Mr. Levant. As a firearms owner, I have spent the last 12 years dealing with the vilification, slander and outright lies churned out by an ideologically driven media and politically correct government. Bless you Ezra, for standing up for the rights of Canadians, even when they're too stupid and complacent to know their illusory 'rights' are meaningless to the politically correct.
  33. Hi, I'm Mike .... from Canmore from Canada writes: 'Ezra Levant, an Alberta lawyer and author, was publisher of the now-defunct Western Standard magazine from 2004 to 2007.'

    I guess the magazine buying public has passed on the rant contained in this former publication. Opinions are like back sides, everyone has one.
  34. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: Globe and Mail: thank you for publishing Mr. Levant's article. This story has been lighting up the blogosphere for several weeks now, and other than the Washington Times and National Post, you are the only major print new outlet to address it. I am hopeful that you will follow Mr. Levant's and MacLeans' 'cases' at these disgusting Human Rights bodies, and keep the pressure up. I am very disturbed by the fact that many major media outlets have not covered these important stories. If we don't have freedom of speech, we don't have anything. They may not realize it yet, but this isn't just Ezra Levant's battle. It's their battle, too.
  35. R M from Canada writes: Tone it down a little, Hack. At no point did I say that it was a crime to publish cartoons. Read my posts: I actually said I didn't think the complaint will get very far, nor I do think it should get very far. But in any event it is an administrative tribunal, not a criminal court, so even if it does get anywhere, there will be no criminal consequences. My point is that people with hateful messages give free speech a bad name by portraying themselves as heros of free speech when they are just small-minded bigots grabbing the limelight. If anyone dishonours the memory of those who died for freedom, it is Levant and his message of hate. Because those who fought the Nazis not only fought for freedom, they fought against intolerance (eg,. of the Jews). levant stands for intolerance no matter how much he cloaks his message in free speech language.
  36. blow joe from québec city, writes: Well said. For those who ignored it Zundel was a candidate to the Liberal leadership convention in 1968. He lost against Trudeau who later on will create this monster of multiculturalism.
  37. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: This article questioning whether intent is a factor in determining the innocence or guilty of any party in any action which is purported to be a crime is itself antidemocratic. It heaps opprobrium on a public servant who is doing her job. This is an important job in that the intent is to prevent anybody, Mr Levant or others from spreading hatred. I have seen Nazi movies which attempted to equate Jewish citizens of the Reich with rats. Can you iomagine the producers objecting to being asked 'What was the intent of this movie'.
    Would Mr Levant spring to his defence and say. 'How dare you question his private thoughts? Those Nazi thoughts, Mr Levant, led to the destruction of millions of Jewish men, women and children.
  38. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: To the few posters on this page who are more critical of Ezra Levant and his political views than of the disgusting Human Rights commissions, please remember, first they came for Ezra, then they came for MacLeans...and when they came for YOU, there was nobody left to speak out. If this is allowed to carry on, then one day radical Islamofascists will start bringing people into HRC's because they wrote 'offensive' pro-feminist, pro-homosexual or pro-choice articles. Believe it!
  39. I. Con O'Clast from Canada writes: 'If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error'.....JS Mill

    'nough said!
  40. western thought from Canada writes: Jeff S. I don't believe Christians have the right to complain to HRCs because the latter doesn't consider them an identifiable minority.
  41. Jim McColl from Parry Sound, Canada writes: Have you read Orwell's Animal Farm??

    Have you read Orwell's 1984??

    We're there in 2008! Read Steyn's America Alone!!

    Canadian's complacency and Liberal mindlessness will be the end of the freedoms that our Fathers and Grandfathers died for.

    I commend anyone who has the gonads to stands up against tyranny.
  42. Robert Bott from Calgary, Canada writes: For a change, I agree with most of the comments and even Mr. Levant (which may be a first).

    By the way, the quotation 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' is not actually Voltaire but a 1906 summary of Voltaire's views (by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in 'The Friends of Voltaire').

    Another apt quote involves sticks and stones.
  43. John Martin from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Better light a candle...' :
    I think the question is whether the government should interrogate a citizen in a free society about his or her thoughts. The movies you speak of are disgusting, but that doesn't mean the producers should be subject to the power of the state. If people are offended they have a right to be offended, they have a right to speak out against it, to boycott, etc. The producers of material that is offensive will, and should, suffer social and possibly economic consequences for their actions. What I don't understand is the necessity of the state to become involved.
  44. Michael Tripper from Canada writes: A sick and twisted world indeed.

    though I disagree with much of Mr. Levants politidcs this attack on him and Macleans cannot go unchallenge - it is an affront to free thought, free expression and freedom from religfion.

    we in the west should be stalwarts and forthright defending these values not holding kangaroo courts such as this.

    as he rightly notes, these hate laws are the abomination that must be put to rest or some other adult who has o control over their own emotions will seek once again to use the state to protect his feelings and thoughts from criticism and being hurt.

    outrageous and ridiculous.

    Canada is a nightmare nation unworthy of existence anymore.
  45. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: The object of publishing those pictures was to further stir up negative feelings against Moslems. What were Mr Levant's thoughts?Silly question really. His thoughts were perfectly obvious as was his intent. I wonder whether anybody who republished those pictures
    was sorry they did not originate them. I am not a Moslem and believe that all faiths (bar Atheism) have irrational elements to which their adherents have a sensitivity. It is so easy to pick on these 'irrational elements' in order attack a faith of which oneself is not a member. It is also a great way to attract attention to one's neglected self. Right Mr Levant?
  46. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: I am actually glad the HRC's have gone after Ezra Levant. Unlike the under-the-radar bloggers and other poor souls they usually bleed to death financially, far away from the gaze of the mainstream media, this guy has balls AND money. He's gonna rake them over the coals through the media over the next few years, and they deserve it. Hopefully, the Liberal latte establishment will wake up to the fact that HRC's have outlived their value and are now far more dangerous than good. It is time to shut them down, or at least scale back their powers considerably.
  47. blow joe from québec city, writes: Le Journal de Montréal this morning said that the SCHL will spend 100,000 dollars to see how they could apply Sharia in the buying of a house for a muslim family

    http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2008/01/20080121-062102.html
  48. Richard Bray from Ottawa, writes: Do you think you have done your duty by giving Levant some little scraps of online space? This story is hugely significant and, like the Maclean's human rights case, has attracted almost no attention in the mainstream media. Don't worry. You did not commit the crime of publishing the Mohammed cartoons, so the censors aren't coming for you. They don't have to.
  49. harry schmidt from Shanghai, China, Canada writes: Well, Mr. Levant got what others of his ilk had asked for some years ago. The hate law. Mainly because of the crackpots like Zundel & co., they forced the gvt. of the day to introduce and enacted it.
    Where were the voices of reason that now cry freedom then? Gvts. never act, only react; or when powerful lobbyist, and were they ever, come whining.
    Religion is the opium of the masses, a famous quote goes. Well, there are now masses active worldwide, that take human lives daily; innocent lives.
    Those killers or some call them 'believers,' must be on good high, and eager to meet those dozen virgins in heaven.
  50. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: John Martin from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Better light a candle...' :
    I think the question is whether the government should interrogate a citizen in a free society about his or her thoughts.
    ****************************************************
    John Martin, recently a man killed and injured many people in a Canadian city when the car he was driving left the road and ploughed its way through a line of people waiting for a bus. Was it intent? Was it an accident?
    The thoughts of the driver are very important. This is just one example of the right of the government or its agents, when it believes a crime has been committted, to question the intent (or thoughts if you prefer) of a citizen. To attack the right of society to ALWAYS AND FOR EVER question a citizen's intent is simplistic.
    Levant knows this & is is being duplicitous. People who support him just haven't thought the matter through.
    CYMRO
  51. Shane Mason from Canada writes: Allan McElroy: There is no right not to be offended in the Charter, but that's not what the HRC's mandate is supposed to be anyway (even if that's how they are operating). If the HRC is functioning properly, they are there to ensure the right of people not to be targeted by hate-mongers and hate crimes. Hate speech is a crime, as it should be. It is inciting to violence, and even if there is no 'hit' contract, if someone is hurt as a result of another person's hate filled rants, the person inciting hatred is ultimately responsible. They performed an action that could reasonably result in another person being hurt, and someone did get hurt, so they are to blame and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the lawful mob.
  52. Robert M from Calgary, Canada writes: Ezra, so what it is next for you, soccer referee??
  53. CHP My vote from Beamsville, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: The object of publishing those pictures was to further stir up negative feelings against Moslems. What were Mr Levant's thoughts?Silly question really. His thoughts were perfectly obvious as was his intent.

    I beg to differ. Let's take the pile-up on the 400 yesterday as an example. I heard it on the radio on the way in this morning, and wondered how bad it really was. SO, I fired up the computer, and checked the major news sites for evidence. When I saw the pictures, I thought to myself, 'Wow, that must have been quite a snow-squall.'

    So, was it bad taste for National Post to put up a picture of busted up cars? No, it was relevant to the story. Was it bad taste for Western Standard to show us the cartoons? No, it was relevant to the story. If anything, I would guess Levant's intent was to sell more magazines, I highly doubt he wanted to offend. Either way, it was RELEVANT to the story to publish the pics. THat's a fact.
  54. I. M. Al Wayswright from Canada writes: Congratulation to Ezra Levant and the G&M for this courageous article. Finally someone is telling it as it is.
  55. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: John Martin from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Better light a candle...' :
    I think the question is whether the government should interrogate a citizen in a free society about his or her thoughts. The producers of material that is offensive will, and should, suffer social and possibly economic consequences for their actions. What I don't understand is the necessity of the state to become involved.
    ****************************************************
    Is it not the duty of society to protect a citizen from the actions of another citizen? To piously hope that a perpetrator will 'suffer social and possibly economic consequences' for his action is not enough and that explains 'the necessity of the state to become involved'
    CYMRO
  56. j boland from United States writes: There is an element of insanity to the actions of the 'Human Rights Commissions' and all the fascists minds that support such blatant denial of this most basic of rights, the right to express oneself without fear of governmental oppression. This 'mission' they are on is tied hand and hand with and evolved from the pc world view of the extremist side of multiculturalism (i.e., not simply that all cultures are of interest and are worthy of intellectual study, but instead that all--particularly the non democratic, totalitarian ones that brutalize their own and others--are of equal value with all others and that no one has any right to even question that moral equivalence of societal values), and of the postmodern deconstructionists who say that all truth is subjective, and thus merely in the realm of opinion and feelings. Ideas happen to matter, and understanding this insanity is the first step in exposing it. The fact is that the underlying ideas and premises of some societies (take Saudi Arabia, or Iran, for example) or even world views (take the mainsteam --yet extremist-- muslims who demand that all the world adhere to their own view of the moral value of mohhomed and of allah, on pain of death for failing to do so one should note) are simply not compatible with those of free societies. Glad to see that the Globe lifted its earlier stance that 'comments are closed.'
  57. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree with others here that Ezra's has some points worth defending, but the problem is, in his case, it has nothing to do with principles, but rather an extremist political agenda. Firstly, it is very true that anti-hate laws are a double edged sword. They almost never have their intended effect, which is to punish those who promote hatred against people based on race/sexual orientation/etc. I think it is far better to expose bigotry in the open. At least you know where people actually stand, instead of there being hidden code words which have in effect the same thing. A good example are the many right wing US 'commentators' like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, William Bennett etc. They are out and out bigots, as has been documented dozens of times, but they use all sorts of code words to avoid procecution. However, there is a line to be drawn between speech and action. Oliver Holmes, the US supreme court judge said, 'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.' That's where we need to clear. It is one thing for someone to be a bigot, it is quite another when a bigot organizes people to carry out violence. Zundel was known to participate in the organization of the Western Guard and the Heritage Front. These organizations are not 'harmless neo-Nazi cranks' but in fact are responsible for carrying out violent racial attacks. So while Levant's little stunt with his rag should not have landed him in front of the human rights tribunal, he is himself not harmless. There is little doubt that he is interested in painting all Muslim as dangerous. This is bad for all kinds of reasons. The ideas of democracy will win over all sorts of religious obscurantism. The power of the Anglican Church in the English speaking countries and the Catholic Church in the romance language countries has diminished considerable in a matter of a single generation. Why? Because, people who receive a liberal education prefer rational thought to relgious extrememism.
  58. bruce reid from Chippawa, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle : 'This is just one example of the right of the government or its agents, when it believes a crime has been committted, to question the intent (or thoughts if you prefer) of a citizen.'

    Are you truly blind to the fact that you are advocating Thought Police?

    In any case, if 'agents of the government' believe that a crime has been committed, then why have they not arrested Levant? So called wrong opinions are not illegal. Hurting somebody's feelings are not illegal.
  59. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: R M from Canada writes: Ok, Professor Milburn, do you really think he would have published those cartoons if there had not already been a reaction to them by Muslims? No, he would have seen them for the bad taste and bad art that they were. Contrary to Levant's own protestation, intention does matter. Levant’s intention was not to advance artistic expression or free thought, it was to pour fuel on the fire of what was a clearly upset community, for no other reason than to provoke a further reaction by Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

    ===================

    A couple of things --

    First, your comment doesn't explain why Levant's intentions matter. Even if he was intending to deliberately rub salt in the offence some felt, so what?

    Second, not that it matters, but I actually think his intent was to resist the media self-censorship that was developing around the cartoons.
  60. J Lufty from Canada writes: Terry Quinn from A proud free Canada says 'I think Ezra is dead on but probably the wrong guy to be attacking this situation because of his ultra right wing philosophy.'

    That stupid comment says more about where Terry Quinn is on the political spectrum than it does about Ezra. The Liberal Fascism comes through loud and clear in Terry's comment....as though only people of hTerry's ilk have rights in this country.

    Hopefully this case as well as the Mark Steyn case will cause huge changes in our 'Human Rights' Commissions....if we are lucky, perhaps even the abolishing of this Stalinist hold over.

    Oh and to creep, j wilson from vancouver....The Western Standard was not taxpayer-ubsidized like most of the crap magazines in this country (that you obviously have read to you by one of your mommies).
  61. CHP My vote from Beamsville, Canada writes: Paul F. THis has nothing to do with the hate laws. He's not criminally charge with anything, but may be fined thousands of dollars by the HRC.

    Did you know that the HRC has a 100% 'conviction' rate? Read the latest Maclean's article by Mark Steyn. Eye-opener!
  62. hack jingle from Canada writes: If you think Jim McColl is kidding, take a look at the insanity that is happening in Great Britain. The latest is the left-wing government in the UK has banned the use of Islamist/Islamic terrorism, which now must be called anti-Islamist/Islamic activities. Orwell's newspeak in its glory, that only the Left can produce. If we are not vigilant here concerning our traditional right to free speech and freedom of the press, we shall find ourselves on the same road as the UK.
  63. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: This article questioning whether intent is a factor in determining the innocence or guilty of any party in any action which is purported to be a crime is itself antidemocratic. It heaps opprobrium on a public servant who is doing her job. This is an important job in that the intent is to prevent anybody, Mr Levant or others from spreading hatred. ...

    ===================

    A factual correction -- Mr. Levant is not charged with a hate crime, or any crime. He is the subject of a provincial human rights commission case, and the issue is not whether he commited a crime, but whether he violated anyone's human rights.
  64. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I'm sure he feels better about it when someone is accused of doing something anti-semetic.
  65. Always Right from Calgary, Canada writes: RM...'If anyone dishonours the memory of those who died for freedom, it is Levant and his message of hate.'

    What is Levants message of hate? I have been following this story since it began and have yet to see any 'message of hate' from Levant. Republishing cartoons is not a message of hate, so what is?
  66. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: CHP My vote from Beamsville, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: The object of publishing those pictures was to further stir up negative feelings against Moslems. So, was it bad taste for National Post to put up a picture of busted up cars? No, it was relevant to the story. Was it bad taste for Western Standard to show us the cartoons? No, it was relevant to the story. If anything, I would guess Levant's intent was to sell more magazines, I highly doubt he wanted to offend. Either way, it was RELEVANT to the story to publish the pics. THat's a fact. ******************************************************* A picture of busted up cars is relevant but not hurtful to an individual.There are from time to time stories of prominent people having intecourse outside of marriage. Should these stories be illustrated by vidoes because THEY would be relevant to the story. Of course not. Imagine that you are a politician caught in the act. Would you like the appropriate video on Utube? Relevance is not sufficient you would argue. The criterion must be of course is the video or picture or cartoon harmful? Can you NOT seE the difference, CHP My vote from Beamsville?
  67. David Calver from Canada writes: As Mr Levant pointed out, he can hardly complain if the hard line Muslim clerics use exactly the same racial hated arguements as most Zionists, who, if I remember correctly were equally outraged by cartoons of the Israeli PM biting the heads off babies in a British newspaper. Certainly the Christian fundermentalists poster boy, Dubya, has attracted more than his fair share of Jesus jokes.

    Drawing the line between poor taste and racism is a waste of time and can be safely left to public opinion. The religious among us are going to be offended anyway and in some ways we are doing them a favour by heaping ridicule on them and giving them that wonderful feeling of being persecuted for their faith.
  68. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: The globe and mail finally acknowledges this story, but only as 'web exclusive' content. Everyone in the blogosphere already knows about it, but they still want to downplay it in the print edition.
  69. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Esker Doon from Montreal, Canada writes: C'mon I can't believe that we don't have the right to free speech in Canada, especially through our media.

    p.s. We can't comment on the blackout in Gaza story. I wonder why....

    Free speech does have its limits. We might offend Ezra.
  70. an astute commenter from Canada writes: Defund all 'human rights commissions' NOW!
  71. M Lafrance from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Is it not the duty of society to protect a citizen from the actions of another citizen?'

    Protect from physical harm, yes, but not from hurt feelings. Freedom of speech means the right to be as offensive as you like. The line is crossed when you advocate illegal action, utter threats or present fabrication as fact. Anything less is oppresive.
  72. Paul Sweeney from Canada writes: The truth cannot be hate speech.

    I thought those cartoons were funny and, to be frank - represented the facts.

    The first think I did when i heard about the fanatics having a spaz was use the internet to take a look a look at the cartoons.

    My muslim roomate at the time thought the cartoons pretty funny and spot on too - he hates those wackjobs just as much as any of us.
  73. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: While I don't agree with everything that Mr. Levant says, I would defend his right to say it.

    That is the key issue at stake here. I disagreed (and still do) with his decision to publish the Danish cartoons in question. I felt that it was not necessary to the article, and displayed an insensitivity to the sensitivities of the conservative elements of a major world religion. That being said, I would never support legal action against him, as it was his right to do what he did.

    That sentiment, carried to its logical conclusion, means that I do not support charges being laid against people like Ahenakew ( a local native leader currently being recharged for spewing filth commending the Nazi's on their attempted genocide). I abhor the comments and beliefs that Ahenakew stated, but legal charges are the wrong way to go about discouraging that kind of behaviour. By all means, strip him of his Order of Canada membership. Publically humiliate him by publishing his own words, or ignore his ignoble blather completely.

    Making certain opinions illegal is a dangerous path, and one that I firmly believe we should not take. The hassle of dealing with bigots is a small price to pay for not having these Salem-style witch hunts, where the tables of justice and law are over-turned and guilt is presumed unless innocence can be overwhelmingly proven.
  74. J Lufty from Canada writes: John Hynde from Montreal says 'Sure, freedom of speech except when it comes to Israel, isn't it Mr. Levant?!'

    Rather than make some idiotic statement, why don't you prove your libelous comment you ignoramus?
  75. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: This article questioning whether intent is a factor in determining the innocence or guilty of any party in any action which is purported to be a crime is itself antidemocratic. A factual correction -- Mr. Levant is not charged with a hate crime, or any crime. He is the subject of a provincial human rights commission case, and the issue is not whether he commited a crime, but whether he violated anyone's human rights.
    *****************************************************You are correct and I was aware of that fact. But the question is should one's intent NEVER be questioned. So whether it was a crime or a violation of human rightsyour distinction is a distiction without a difference. But thanks for the correction. In law criminal or civil intent is always a factor.
  76. dave ross from Canada writes: Wasabi Jones - you can't blame 'Liberal lattes' for the Alberta Human Rights Commission since Liberals have not been in power there for 80 years.

    Ezra's petulant and immature attitude show through very clearly in this article. I would suggest that if he wants a primer on a real 'interrogation' he might volunteer to reside at Guantanamo for a few years.
  77. Pat Gesner from Canada writes: Edwin Green from ns Some “Muslims” do try. Check out this site http://www.averroes-foundation.org/ The stuff he wants to have Mohammad mistaken about, leaves nothing but some platitudes (some like Muslims are Brothers are failures-just look at Iraq or any Muslim state to see how 'brotherly' muslims are-Mara for example was promptly tortured) and praying 5 times a day to be a Muslim. (Mohammad was supposed to have talked Allah out of 100 prays a day!). Faithfreedom site is mainly run by those brought up Muslim who basically feel if Muslims discard what is against human rights, and 7th centaury barbarism (like slavery, stoning and cutting off of hands,etc,) there is nothing left to Islam. Read those sites and read the Muslim holy books, ( the site Blogging the Quran names a Saudi Arabia Iman who“recently” claimed it is Islamic to believe the world is flat- no wonder Ezra has little respect for Saudi affiliations!) and find that obeying Canada's laws means a Muslim is not much of a Muslim. It may well be impossible for Muslims to truely follow Canadian laws. Mohammad Parvez was in Canada for over 20 years, yet he had no problems with strangling his daughter- the way millions of Muslims believe Honour Killings are very Islamic. AND what was Aqsa killed for - not covering up in school! Well if that is the reason why girls playing sports have to be covered up - because their relatives would Kill them otherwise, NO one should back down from accepting Muslims claims covering up is Islamic and required, because the next thing you know other barbaric practices like beating and raping wives and children being the property of the father (fathers family) will be religious rights that supersede Canadian laws about assault and custody going to the most fit parent or guardian. Aqsa’s death should now BE a symbol of Muslim disrespect for Canada's laws about religious freedom just like Muslim objections to Ezra’s publishing Mohammad cartoons.
  78. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Human rights interfere with Conservatives' desire to exploit resources at great social and environmental cost. Witness S. Harper's support of Barrick Gold, which is causing social and environmental havoc in Africa. Witness S. Harper's goal of free trade with Colombia, which has a terrible human rights record. But he will go after China, only because it is a competitor.

    I think that Mr. Levant's intention was to inflame Muslim sentiment. We see nothing in the mainstream media that is sacrilegious towards the Christian religion. Nothing. Why should the mainstream media (and here I regretfully include Mr. Levant's now defunct paper) produce material that is sacrilegious towards Islam?

    Conservatives don't like human rights because human rights are about fairness. They don't help the rich.

    Conservatives have a knack for creating monsters out of much-needed social insitutions.
  79. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Did Ezra think that David Ahenakew should have been charged under the hate speech laws for talking about Hitler 'frying six million of those guys'?
    He wrote a column in the Calgary Sun explaining that Ahenakew should have been debated and treated like a bigot, but here is no need for laws to be used against him. He is no threat to anyone except his own reputation.
  80. Carl C. from Montreal, Canada writes: The human rights commission is equivalent to the Inquisition. Looking at the history of the rulings of these commissions, I know they do not care for free speech or real equality whatsoever. In most cases, if not all cases, the plaintiff will always win, unless he is a White Male, in which case the complaint shall be rejected. I am just waiting for someone to invalidate these commissions through the Supreme Corty, as they are TOTALLY against the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.
  81. Paul Sweeney from Canada writes: Maybe the globe should have published the cartoons today?

    http://religiousfreaks.com/muhammed-caricatures/all-comments/
  82. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:

    So just what are the limits of free speech, if any?

    May I falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre or not?

    Or should I be prevented from making such expressions when they may be directed to or likely will incite imminent lawless action?
  83. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: ... But the question is should one's intent NEVER be questioned. So whether it was a crime or a violation of human rightsyour distinction is a distiction without a difference. But thanks for the correction. In law criminal or civil intent is always a factor.

    ===================

    You are operating under a bit of a misconception. Intent is really only relevant in criminal law. In most civil law and quasi-judicial type cases (e.g. food safety or human rights commissions) intent is not relevant. A plaintiff in a civil case doesn't need to worry whether the driver who caused an accident intended to harm them. A regulator does not need to know your intent to pull your restaurant license if your kitchen is dirty. Similarly, the HRC does not need to know intent to decide whether someone's rights were violated.
  84. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: I think the whole issue of the Shiria law is a red herring. First of all, the fact of the matter is that until recently, there were religious adjudicators allowed in civil law matters where people wanted a religious figure to play the role of arbitrator, usually in cases like divorce. Muslims were simply asking for the same thing, so that imans could do the same things that rabbis and priests could do for years. I think the Ontario Liberals did the right thing to get rid of these religious courts all together. They were a bad precident. However, to condemn only Muslims for advocating their version of religious law, when we have all sorts of Christians and Jews doing the same thing just smacks of double standard. The problem with any religion is that you will find extremists. You had Christian activists who assissinated doctors who performed abortions in the US and firebombed abortion clinics. You have Jewish fundamentalists who claim that 'god' granted them the right to occupy 'all' of Israel, in which they include the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some Jewish rabbis want to restore something called the Sanhedrin, something like a 'Jewish Supreme Court,' that will impose Jewish religious laws on all citizens of Israel. Does that typify people who are either Christian or Jewish? Not even close. Insofar as people respect the laws and democratic rights in our country they can advocate that everyone wear silly hats for all I care. I think the power of democratic ideas can easily overcome the threat of religious obscurantism. I think we need on the one hand to be vigilant about the defence of democratic rights, but also recognize that we have a largely secular society people people have for the most part, rejected the sectarianism of the past and understand that a tolerance of differences is a much healther way to live.
  85. The Prytanis from Ottawa, Canada writes: Watch this... Hitchens at Hart House in Toronto arguing in favour of UNLIMITED free speech. There's a few nice points on what the greatest threat to freedom of expression are.

    Love to hear your comments on it, so watch it at lunch...

    http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603

    or if not working...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUphTYPMB4o
    then
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jnD4Mc3VUw

    Enjoy
  86. Gail Thomas from Canada writes: I'm sure I'll offend some on this post, but this is not about human rights based on being denied a job/home based on race, religion or otherwise. It's liberal facism at it's best. We will tell you what to think, say, do, how to live, how to eat, what to be involved in, how to raise and educate your children. Liberals are not more tolerant. They want to change everything to suit themselves.
  87. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: ... Why should the mainstream media (and here I regretfully include Mr. Levant's now defunct paper) produce material that is sacrilegious towards Islam?

    ======================

    Anyone should have a right to publish 'sacrilege' because the concept of sacrilege has no place and no meaning in our civic governance. Being a religious concept, 'sacrilege' is incapable of being rationally operationalized in our political/legal system.
  88. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: 'I think that Mr. Levant's intention was to inflame Muslim sentiment. We see nothing in the mainstream media that is sacrilegious towards the Christian religion. Nothing. Why should the mainstream media (and here I regretfully include Mr. Levant's now defunct paper) produce material that is sacrilegious towards Islam?'

    The Golden Compass - a Christian version of the Satanic Verses. I mean, seriously - I live in a country where a crucifix in a jar of piss wins an award from the National endownment for the arts, and no one takes to the streets. The problem is not with Mr. Levant.
  89. Another Canadian from calgary from calgary,ab, Canada writes: We have the right to free speech; we do not have the right to pollute the media with bigotry and hatred. I suspect many of you have never read the Western Standard Magazine, I suggest you go and read some of the back issues. As a Westerner I and ashamed that this rag purported to represented the views of Westerners
  90. Paul F. from AB, Canada writes: Ezra's 110% correct. The Alberta Human Rights Commission has run amok and needs to be reeled in at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Stelmach, there's something you can ACT on.

    Did they ever think that perhaps some of us don't want to live under Sharia law? Don't get me wrong, I think it would work for me, but my wife, daughter, gay neighbour, and Jewish friend might not agree. I don't see a lot of 'equality and respect' in countries practicing Sharia law or Islam, and I should have the right to state the obvious inspite of the pc police.

    Why doesn't the AHRC spend my tax dollars on diversifying the religion in Saudi Arabia - surely there are brutal persecutions (aka Human Rights abuses) going on in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Algeria, and Egypt, etc. that my tax dollars should be spent on correcting.
  91. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: bruce reid from Chippawa, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle : 'This is just one example of the right of the government or its agents, when it believes a crime has been committted, to question the intent (or thoughts if you prefer) of a citizen.' Are. You truly blind to the fact that you are advocating Thought Police? ****************************************************** Bruce, if we give the agents of the government the right to question intent, we had better make sure that it is not illegal to question the actions of government but perfectly legal to question the intent of anybody, a government agent or a private citizen, when accused or charged with any kind of malfeasance. M Lafrance from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Is it not the duty of society to protect a citizen from the actions of another citizen?' Protect from physical harm, yes, but not from hurt feelings. Freedom of speech means the right to be as offensive as you like. The line is crossed when you advocate illegal action, utter threats or present fabrication as fact. Anything less is oppressive. ******************************************************* So, M Lafrance from Ottawa, you obviously believe that hate propaganda such as caused the terrible consequences in Ruanda or in Europe under the Nazis or in the American South that resulted in many hundreds of lynchings should be allowed just so long as the people who propagate hate do not actually kill or injure anybody although it may be perfectly legal to encourage others by word or picture to do so.
  92. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: bruce reid from Chippawa, Canada writes: Better to light a small candle : 'This is just one example of the right of the government or its agents, when it believes a crime has been committted, to question the intent (or thoughts if you prefer) of a citizen.' Are. You truly blind to the fact that you are advocating Thought Police? ****************************************************** Bruce, if we give the agents of the government the right to question intent, we had better make sure that it is not illegal to question the actions of government but perfectly legal to question the intent of anybody, a government agent or a private citizen, when accused or charged with any kind of malfeasance. M Lafrance from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Is it not the duty of society to protect a citizen from the actions of another citizen?' Protect from physical harm, yes, but not from hurt feelings. Freedom of speech means the right to be as offensive as you like. The line is crossed when you advocate illegal action, utter threats or present fabrication as fact. Anything less is oppressive. ******************************************************* So, M Lafrance from Ottawa, you obviously believe that hate propaganda such as caused the terrible consequences in Ruanda or in Europe under the Nazis or in the American South that resulted in many hundreds of lynchings should be allowed just so long as the people who propagate hate do not actually kill or injure anybody although it may be perfectly legal to encourage others by word or picture to do so.
  93. Fred Bilton from Canada writes: 'Ideologies are ways of organizing large swaths of life and experience under a set of shared but unexamined assumptions. This makes an ideology particularly hard to see, at least while it's still exerting it's hold on your culture. A reigning ideology is a little like the weather - all pervasive and virtually impossible to escape. Still, we can try.'

    Maybe I'm a bit naive, but somewhere I got the idea that the law is to be used as a shield and not as a sword.
  94. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Human rights interfere with Conservatives' desire to exploit resources at great social and environmental cost. Witness S. Harper's support of Barrick Gold, which is causing social and environmental havoc in Africa. Witness S. Harper's goal of free trade with Colombia, which has a terrible human rights record. But he will go after China, only because it is a competitor.-------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    China is a competitor? No, it's a customer. Don't you remember all the agst from the media over trade relations with China when Harper stood up for the Canadian jailed in China?

    You say we see nothing in the msm sacriligious to Christians. Last week there was an article about a statue of Jesus with an erection. Ever heard of the Piss Christ or the Dung Madonna? The MSM is full of garbage trashing Christians.

    You say Conservatives don't like human rights because human rights are about fairness. They don't help the rich.
    Ever heard of Cuba, Che Gueverra and Trudeau?

    You also say Conservatives have a knack for creating monsters out of much-needed social insitutions.
    Uhhhh, isn't that exactly what we are talking about here only it's the left that has turned these HRCs into abominations of justice?

    0 for 4.
  95. H R Kloppenburg from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada writes:
    Albertans who have been too busy enjoying their oil prosperity should have been looking east to Saskatchewan for insights about human rights. Under then Attorney General Roy Romanow Saskatchewan got a Human Rights Commission (HRC) in the early 1970s. We had Human Rights officers then. Ezra Levant's experience is a replay of what we had here 30 years ago and continue to have.

    Along came a Devine PC government in the 1990's which was afraid to shut down the HRC. It replaced the Chair, and choked its revenue supply. The HRC and its oppressive ideology endured until Roy Romanow became premier in the 1990's and regained the vigour of the 1990's.

    And now we have in this province a Saskatchewan Party government whose ideology ought not to be supportive of the HRC. However, I would lay good money on this: Premier Brad Wall is so afraid of the Human Rights crowdl that he won't touch it, and the institution will survive to do its work in future.

    The HRC ideology and its supporters will endure I fear. And the Ezra Levants of Alberta will not bring about change. It is straight thinking business types who have to put governments to the wall on the issues generated by Human Rights ideology in operation.

    We in Canada came to have human rights without the help of HRC's. We don't need the HRC to assure our human rights in future.

    HRK
  96. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: NR Connor and Mark H: I have to agree with your posts. Still, I think that self-c