I’m the last guy in the world that wants to give Ezra Levant the attention that he seeks. That said, I’ll not deny that some of the points that he’s made during his recent appearances before an Alberta Human Rights Commission Officer have been excellent, but the fact remains, in my opinion anyway, that Ezra Levant is still riding the same train that he boarded two years ago when he, while still the publisher of the Western Standard, decided to run the controversial Mohammed cartoons.
At the time I accused Levant of running the cartoons for a very specific reason – not one steeped in ensuring press freedoms but rather one steeped in getting himself, and his publication, as much press as was possible. Given the magazine’s extremely low profile, the publishing of the cartoons was a masterful promotional decision. It thrust Levant and the magazine into the national spotlight and, for a time, produced the results that, I believe, Levant was after.
With regards to press freedoms, should the media have published the cartoons? I agree with Levant that, given the stipulations of The Charter, the press ultimately should be the ones to make that decision. Most Canadian publications chose not to run the cartoons, primarily because of the tensions caused by their initial publication overseas, perhaps to ensure the stability of ratings and subscriptions, or to avoid dealing with the numerous complaints that were sure to arise. In the world of corporate media, those are aspects that are rarely overlooked. Levant, who has written for Sun Media, who did not publish the cartoons, knows that all too well I would imagine. Of course, Levant did use the Calgary Sun as a soapbox to rail against their decision, not to mention promote the fact that his own publication had published the cartoons.
One thing that I found interesting was that in his ‘closing statement’ to the Commission Officer, Levant does not employ the term ‘Church and State’, though he does reference various religions throughout the statement to provide transparency. Instead, he blatantly, and repeatedly, uses the term ‘Mosque and State’, an inclusion that devalues the intelligence of some of his arguments. Sure, the complaint against him was brought by Muslims, but when speaking in a grander sense about universal freedoms one would think such immature jabs would be something deemed counter productive with regards to the appearance of intellectual fortitude.
Were this a matter of cartoons being penned and published by a Danish newspaper about Israelis, some of which stereotyped them as murderers without making any distinction between radical Israeli groups and Israelis in general, I’m sure Levant’s views would have been much different, not to mention the reaction of those that populate the Western Standard’s entirely mind numbing blog. Of course, that wasn’t the case; they were cartoons depicting Muslims in a stereotypical light first published in a European nation replete with immigration tensions – not to mention in a world in which Muslims are largely stereotyped in general, and there is evidence of that in stockpiles since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Ezra Levant claims that he hopes that the Commission decides against him, and that the entire affair escalates so that he might be afforded the opportunity to have this affair seen for what he believes it is – an attack on press liberties. Of course, along the way, Levant will also receive a considerable amount of face time, an aspect in all of this that should certainly not be overlooked.
Obviously, I am never going to disagree that the imposition of restrictions on freedom of speech or the press is anything but troublesome, with a few exceptions of course, those being when privately funded media outlets are used for propaganda purposes by foreign interests. I personally believe that this matter is, in its entirety, ridiculous, and that by becoming a matter before the Commission has only demonstrated the inability of those involved to act in a decent and understanding fashion. Frankly, the entire thing reeks of opportunism and close mindedness on both sides.
Report
“Were this a matter of cartoons being penned and published by a Danish newspaper about Israelis, some of which stereotyped them as murderers without making any distinction between radical Israeli groups and Israelis in general, I’m sure Levant’s views would have been much different, not to mention the reaction of those that populate the Western Standard’s entirely mind numbing blog.”
!
that’s the same thing i said when this first happened…
it’s not about ‘freedom of speech’ or censorship at all. there are countless examples that illustrate the hypocrisies of such arguments…
Report
Speculating that Ezra Levants motives for publishing the cartoons was self serving doesn’t ring true for me. When I first heard that people were being threatened and then killed over hand draw caricatures of someone long dead, I was horrified and intrigued. I wanted to see those cartoons. I wanted to understand how they could elicit a reaction so violent, so consuming, so final.
Here I confess that I purchased a subscription to the Western Standard solely so I could see what the mainstream media told me I wasn’t permitted to see.
Wow, what a disappointment.
I’ve seen a lot of art I consider offensive, the Danish cartoons of Mohammed didn’t even rate top 10.
Now I’m hooked on this issue.
Nothing anyone could ever write about me, my family, you, my religion, my government or my life would prompt me to take a life, or even threaten to take a life.
Eventually, the written word (or picture) has to stand on it’s own merits, it’s opinion expressed for all the world to see, measure, and judge.
The ink that flows from pen to paper exposes the author forever. History will have the last word.
Public debate is healthy debate, and resolution will be rendered after wide public discussion of this issue. Proper democracy demands that secrets and censorship have no place when lives are threatened.
Ezra, Matt, stand up and tell us what you think, how you feel. Together, we’ll decide who’s right.
Report
“Obviously, I am never going to disagree that the imposition of restrictions on freedom of speech or the press is anything but troublesome, with a few exceptions of course, those being when privately funded media outlets are used for propaganda purposes by foreign interests.”
I totally agree with you… the National Post should have to answer to these charges. :)
Report
Say what you will, you always have to employ a disclaimer - ‘but don’t take away his freedom of speech’
(Unless you think the National Post is responsible for suicide bombings in Kabul, Baghdad, Islamabad…)
So what if he is being opportunistic - he is a writer for a living - he writes for opportuinity.
When these inane cartoons were first published - barely any mainstream newspaper or media would publish them. What does that say about the society of fear in which we find ourselves?
Report
I just want to clarify my last comment - I think it is okay to be deliberately provacative at times - it is not just a matter of freedom of speech.
Report
Here’s the problem I have with all of this. If those cartoons were about Jesus or Israel, people may have been offended or upset, but they would have never threated violence the way that so many Muslims did after the cartoons in question were published. Using violence to respond to being offended is wrong.
Islamic people burn effegies of American and British leaders all the time. Many western media outlets have published cartoons that mock god or Jesus. In fact, some of the best Far Side cartoons were about God. I don’t recall seeing any Catholics riot over that. Protest and complain, perhaps, but not threaten or use violence.
Levant is indeed a shit disturber, but I would rather live next door to a right wing opportunistic journalist than a militant Islamic follower that threatens to kill me everytime I insult him.
Report
“Most Canadian publications chose not to run the cartoons, “…
primarily because they didn’t want their offices attacked. It’s an issue of fear. Now they fear being dragged in front of the HRC, and all the expenses that entails.
Kudos to Levant for fighting this.
Report
So is the best way to categorize that by stereotyping 2 billion people? And make no mistake, other religions have indeed protested, and factions within them used violence as means of protest over things that they have deemed offensive.
Such views are extremely xenophobic.
Report
It’s sad how easily cowed our mainstream media is when it comes to anything that sheds any type of negative light on islam. Frankly, I don’t care whether or not 2 billion people were offended by a bunch of stupid cartoons. I’m offended by the nonsense I see in this country on a daily basis. It goes part and parcel with living in a free and open society. What I do care about it is when we capitulate to their unreasonable demands based solely on the threat of violence and disorder they promise by way of vengeance. This only makes me want to cause even greater offense. To rile them further and hopefully coax out the insanity that drives them, and bring the real hatred into the clear light of day so that it can be identified as a malignancy to even the most left-wing liberal apologist.
Kudos to Ezra for forcing a confrontation on this issue. It’s about bloody time someone stood up and exposed the hypocrisy of our government when it comes to dealing with islam, and the preferential double standard that applies to them.
There’s nothing that breeds greater hatred, contempt and intolerance of islam than islam itself. And they even manage to do it without cartoons.
Report
I have a hard time empathizing any people** who demand death as retribution for a perceived insult; be it in the form of a cartoon, a work of “literature” or the naming of a freaking teddy bear.
Sticks and stones I say.
**When I say people, I do mean just those particular people who trade death for insults.
Report
First things first: I personally think Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are both douchebags of incredible scope.
(Steyn, you may not be aware, is facing the same kind of case, for the same kind of reasons. This is obviously upsetting, because it prevents him from his first true love, which appears to be fellating Conrad Black. I digress…)
Having said that, these commissions are utterly invalid in a free society. Muslims do not have the right to not be offended. Period. Neither do any other religious groups. Liberty and free speech trump hurt feelings.
And, like Matthew has pointed out, these actions are totally counterproductive. Steyn and Levant are both strutting around, legends in their own minds. And, in this case, I actually agree with them both. Yuck. I feel like I need a shower.
Report
hainesy - If those cartoons were about Jesus or Israel, people may have been offended or upset, but they would have never threated violence - You have extremist settlers in Israel who threaten violence if you try to give the Palestinians their land back. Crazy christians who threaten civil war if gays are allowed to marry …. but I guess if we ONLY make this about an offensive cartoon then maybe, but I bet you put a cartoon of a priest sodomizing a young boy or one of Jesus in an orgy with the “queer eye for straight guy” dudes and I bet your claim wouldn’t hold much water.
“the way that so many Muslims did after the cartoons in question were published. Using violence to respond to being offended is wrong.” - so many, eh? I would bet you don’t have many/any muslim friends, if you do then were they out in the streets rioting and murdering people?
Of course there are extremist fanatics that would use this to attack those opposed to their theocratic fantasies, but you seem to think they (muslims) are violent, and we (judeo/christian) are not. Your post just seemed a little ann coulter-ish to me.
silver - “Having said that, these commissions are utterly invalid in a free society. Muslims do not have the right to not be offended. Period. Neither do any other religious groups. Liberty and free speech trump hurt feelings” - I completely agree, no one is forced to watch, read or listen to anything they don’t want to. Given that, we should call out these shit-disturbing-for-profit assholes when we see them
Report
There’s a difference between freedom of speech, and being offensive. The cartoons he published were offensive. But that being said, the man does make some good points, I agree.
Report
Quoting tiffanychantelle:
No, there isn’t. Offensive speech is a subset of free speech.
I guarantee you I can find lots of people who think that a line from “Rico” is offensive. Does that mean that we should censor Mr. Good because some people find the word “fuck” offensive?
Fuck no.
Report
It seems mandatory to state from the get go that I also believe the Ezra Levant is a douche bag…however.
This issue is partly about free speech and partly about the incompatibility of 7th century cultural norms in a 21st century world. If Islam and the West are to co-exist then Islam must come to realize that people are going to say and do things that are going to offend you and you just have to deal with it.
Not every Muslim was protesting in the streets or hurling bombs, but many were doing this, mostly at the behest of Imans. The whole event was orchestrated by Imans from Denmark (living there as refugees mind you) who traveled to Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan and stirred up the passions of the faithful.
Muslims seems to have no problem with free speech when it involves advocating violence and praising the ‘The Magnificent 19′ in London, or when passing out copies of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.
Just like the Christian fascists in the West who wish to impose a theocracy complete with executions for adulterers these Islamists are attempting to destroy the free societies that we as liberals cherish. This is not a race issue, Muslims are not a race of people anymore than Catholics are a race of people. As an aside it is interesting that no one protests when Shia Muslims blow up a Sunni Mosque, in comparison the publication of some cartoons in a Danish newspaper that no one reads illustrates the sheer lunacy of this episode.
It is a failing of liberalism to critique those who may have no interest in the goals of a free society. Once again Popper said it best. “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” Karl Popper
Read the wikipedia entry on this event for more details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
Thanks for letting me rant.
Report
Quoting hainesy:
Hmm.. Well I can see your point and I dont see it, all at the same time. I think what is most prevelant to me is this: When Sinead O’Conner tore the picture of the Pope in half.. a hail storm of shit fell on her. She was boo’d off of stages, as a perfomer I can never imagine the humilation that must have felt like, her records were thrown into streets and then steam rolled.. she had death threats against.. And this is all from Christian people. Now, I don’t agree with her actions or thoughts, but I do respect her right to have/do them. And no, people didnt take to the streets and kill because she did do it.. but you are forgetting the Northen Ireland conflict where they are killing each other off left and right over religion. But thats another topic all together.
Now a majority of Muslims didn’t find the cartoon of Mohammed, myself being one of them, offensive but some did. In the Islamic religion there are no pictures of Mohammed.. the reason being is that a main pillar of our faith is that we have no idols.. we worship none other then Allah. And Allah means God.. for those that dont know. So I can see why they are/were offended. Now in NO way do I condone violence as a form of *getting your point* acros.. Violence is a action of fear, always. But to a group of people who fear everyday of their lives, and yes they do.. I cant name one person I know in my homeland of Iran or in Afghanistan who do not live in fear.. all they know is violence.. its sad, but true and not at all a excuse.. but its their reality.. and faith is all they have, twisted or not, its what they have that can never be taken.. and most people will defend that do the death.
So if I meandered a bit, but i’m a little tattered brained right now.
Report
Quoting Yossarian:
I assume that you are referring to Israel in your snide reference to the National Post? Thank God for Israel otherwise you lefty GTA poseurs wouldn’t have an outlet for your latent anti-Semitism.
The imposition of restrictions on freedom of speech is more than just ‘troublesome’, it’s an unconstitutional transgression of our inalienable rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Charter. I’d go so far as to say that the HRC’s are really just pandering to political correctness that decades of Liberal government have tried to shove down our throats.
To those of you here who find Steyn and Levant unpalatable, it’s immaterial, but to be fair, I feel the same way about Naomi Klein (now there is a shameless self-promoter - wonder what she does with the profits from her books?) and Linda McQuaig (who doesn’t receive book royalties because no literate person would read her trash). At least Steyn and Levant have a sense of humour which is more than I can say for the boiler-suit wearing crowd you seem to be cheering for. It’s no accident that they (Klein and her Klones) will never be called upon to defend our right to a free press and free speech - they’re too busy cuddling up to the Islamofacists and pathological anti-American crowd to notice.
I love your music Matt, but some of your fans…ugh.
Report
While I very much favour free speech, I do believe people abuse their right to free speech by using it as a shield whenever they spew something hateful or intentionally hurtful.
No, information should not be censured. But what did publishing the cartoons accomplish?
As an aside, libelous statements can be classified as free speech (technically)… Does this afford people the right to outright lie in a way that will damage another person emotionally, not to mention their reputation?
As for words like “fuck”, I couldn’t give a shit if people cursed. Just try not to do it around my grandmother:)
Report
Mr. Good writes, “Were this a matter of cartoons being penned and published by a Danish newspaper about Israelis, some of which stereotyped them as murderers without making any distinction between radical Israeli groups and Israelis in general, I’m sure Levant’s views would have been much different”
Of course. First of all, there wouldn’t be massive riots and protests in such a case. In fact, anti-semitic cartoons are published constantly in Arab media, stereotyping Jews as murderers, Nazis, the devil, and what have you. Despite this, when was the last time you heard of extensive embassy-torching as an act of “protest” by the Jewish population?
Few, if any, are truly “offended” by these kinds of cartoons, and Mr. Levant certainly would not be.
I’m sure that if any cartoons did cause such a large uproar, he would publish them.
Report
The infinite touchiness of Muslims about their “rights” in the west derives from their determination to bend the host society to their own retrograde and intolerant value system. Funny how the myriad of ethnic minorities that emigrated to Canada over the years seem to have less a victim complex than our Muslim friends. Of course, Islam has never existed as a minority culture and that’s gotta suck when you’re shambling around Windsor or Calgary or Montreal in the dead of winter with your Mom in her Abaya and you in a cheap Hezbollah logo’d t-shirt.
I guess I’m just another Islamophobe i.e. someone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work.
Report
Quoting shiftyrichard:
See, there’s the problem, RIchard. Everything depends on one’s own sense of propriety. You don’t give a fuck if people swear. Well, what if I do? What if it goes against my own deeply held moral and religious beliefs?
Then you, sir, should be silenced. I says so.
Silver (and, unfortunately - unfortunately because I otherwise despise that man - , Levant have it right. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend.
Otherwise anyone could choose to be offended by pretty much anything. Isn’t that right, Richard?
Report
My eyeballs bleed whenever I see Ezra on unctuous Don Newman’s CBC show, but I agree with this:
“For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values,” - Ezra Levant, interrogated for publishing cartoons of Muhammad in Canada.
Report
This “freedom” concept is overblown. If you have me arrested for assault, you’re violating my “freedom” to stomp the dog shit out of you, though I would hate to stand in the way of your “freedom” to pick up the telephone and dial 9-1-1. Can we finally get it in our heads that we cannot have this “total freedom” we so desire? We’ll forever be trampling one another’s toes.
In the case of Mr. Levant, “freedom of speech” is not the motive for his behaviour, but rather acts as cover for his motive. Such is the case with, say, a neo-Nazi who screams “White Power!”, then claims he did so as a matter of “freedom of speech”. I can’t imagine someone saying something simply because s/he is free to say it: otherwise, these depictions of the Prophet Muhammad would be irrelevant to Mr. Levant.
As for the “Islamophobe i.e. someone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work”, ask the people overseas how they feel about their neighbourhoods being reduced to ruin by foreign invaders.
Report
What I found most bizarre about the Mohammed cartoon fiasco was that all of the freedom of speech and freedom of the press advocates chose not to focus on the real issue: courtesy.
For all the talk of we as a free people choosing not to be censored by fear and violence, not a mention was made of the vast majority that are nonviolent Muslims, who were simply offended by seeing the prophet Mohammed depicted in the first place, as goes against their beliefs. Was the image so detrimental to our understanding of the world that we had to - against all odds, it seemed - shine it like a beacon from every post in the press, making refusal to do so tantamount to surrender?
Just because someone is offended by something doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to offend them. But it doesn’t mean you have to either, or that you should, especially for something so meaningless as a broad stereotype. For me, it merely highlighted the hysterics of “provocative” morons who try to be offensive for offense’s sake, probably because they don’t have the brains or the sensibility to do much else.
Report
I believe that if you pay close attention to what was said in the interrogation, you’ll see that Levant’s justification of publishing the cartoons on the basis of free speech is meant only for the HRC. He was simply stating that they have no right to to even ask him what his motivations were, so as far as they should be concerned, it’s an issue of free speech and nothing more.
Levant has gone on record a number of other times prior to this HRC crap and basically stated that the cartoons were newsworthy and he had a duty to publish them. World wide riots having been attributed to them is reason enough for Canadians being given the option to inform themselves about them.
Some would argue (including 98% of the anemic print media in this country) that it’s better to keep your readers safely ignorant and docile than to risk offending a group of people who threaten you. I say, screw you, I’ll decide for myself. Just give me the opportunity.
It’s damn lucky we have blogs now.
Report
“Some would argue (including 98% of the anemic print media in this country) that it’s better to keep your readers safely ignorant and docile than to risk offending a group of people who threaten you. I say, screw you, I’ll decide for myself. Just give me the opportunity.”
i suggest you read: “Our Unfree Press: 100 Years of Radical Media Criticism”
Report
MichaelR - I assume that you are referring to Israel in your snide reference to the National Post? Thank God for Israel otherwise you lefty GTA poseurs wouldn’t have an outlet for your latent anti-Semitism.
You leap from, snide reference to the National Post = criticizing Israel, straight to criticizing Israel = anti-Semitism. I love the last leap , especially in a post about free speech. I mean your tone ensures no one will take you serious since you seem to have a warped and overtly bigoted world view, IMO
Report
Tony1031 - “For me, it merely highlighted the hysterics of “provocative” morons who try to be offensive for offense’s sake, probably because they don’t have the brains or the sensibility to do much else”.
Well said my good man
Report
Quoting Boreal:
A tad touchy, wouldn’t you say?
A minor clarification: the last part was a lame literary joke, not a serious point of view. As for your final point, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, there seems to be a serious lack of common sense these days (for offenders and those easily offended). I am by no means suggesting a muzzle… just a little more tact.
Thanks for taking my post out of context, though. Anybody can win an argument when they skew the opposing message.
Report
“they’re too busy cuddling up to the Islamofacists and pathological anti-American crowd to notice.” —MichaelR
Ha,ha,ha,ha. I was looking for the brain dead quote of the day, and thank you for providing it. Being against American foreign policy does not mean your anti-American, but for some people thats hard to see.
And in such a narrow framework, i can almost see how you think that talking instead of bombing is cuddling up to Islamofascists. Except that Islamofascism is actually an oversimplification of the root causes of terrorism. Its popular with the main stream media, or those looking to find a catch phrase, or the terminaly brain dead. What it is is propaganda. Plain and simple. Instead of spouting banalities, perhaps refrain from simply attacking what you don’t seem to understand and do some reading on the matter.
Report
Hey Matt, thanks for some commentary on this issue. I agree w/ your point that Ezra Levant did this purely out of opportunism. We have to disregard that issue. We also have to disregard the fact we’re talking about Muslims. That also clouds the issue. We can already see that the comments have jumped right to “Israelis are nazis” and “All Arabs are terrorists” level of debate.
What concerned me is that mainstream media denied people the chance to decide for themselves whether or not the cartoons were offensive. Someone already mentioned Sinead O’Connor’s Pope incident. The difference w/ Ms. O’Connor is that her video was on national television for days afterwards. We all had a chance to form an opinion. I also remember the images of angry Ontarians burning the Quebec flag on television in the 1990s. The media showed that image repeatedly, which clearly offended many Quebecois.
After the cartoon incident, I remember searching the web for a while looking for these cartoons. I figured that something causing this much of a ruckus must be worth a look. It took a while to find them at first, but w/ some digging, I found them. Without the Internet, I would never have seen the images, because our media willfully withdrew the images. The Western Standard saw an opportunity to fill a void in our print media, and printed the images.
Ezra Levant made an editorial decision. He is now being made to answer to a Government agency. You have boil the issue down, and ignore all the baggage that is introduced to the debate when you bring in Islam. We also need to ignore any douchebaggery Ezra Levant brings to the table. We need to ask ourselves whether our society is so fragile that we need to censor some fairly mild offensive cartoons.
Anyways, love the blog, and your Fredericton show at the Playhouse last year was probably the best concert I’ve seen in a very long time. Come back soon.
Report
Richard,
Touchy is as touchy does.
I most certainly didn’t take your comment out of context, and entirely recognize that tongue was firmly stuck up the cheek as regards your grandma. But there are those who take that particular view (like our respective grandmas) so I suppose my last comment was directed more towards them.
At your expense, no doubt.
As for tact, well… there just ain’t no accounting for good upbringing, is there?
NBRob: you sum up everything up quite nicely.