Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[jefferiah]

Did you not see what happened in Denmark? Do I really need to explain why it's stupid?

Unless you think riots and death threats are worth it to "see what the commotion was all about"...

Well, the cartoons were published here and there was no violence.

But even if there was. Free speech is an important thing. Reporting the news is important. I for one think it is completely silly to give in to ridiculous demands on our freedom of speech because some people could turn violent. By that logic, violence will rule. Those who wish to get anything will just threaten society with a little violence, and for fear of having to handle that, society will just give in. If you keep using this method, the lives you secure (if any) won't be worth living.

No way. In the west we are still allowed to print the news (those cartoons were a big news story). And we will. We won't be intimidated. At some point, we will be faced with the reality that we will have to straighten out our thin little spines and make a stand. Because if we don't, freedom after freedom will erode.

Edited January 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[gc1765]

Free speech is an important thing. Reporting the news is important.

...

In the west we are still allowed to print the news. And we will.

If that was the purpose of publishing the cartoons, then I might agree with you. However, I kinda get the impression that the whole reason he published them was to create controversy, which IMO is stupid.

I don't go around calling everyone I see a moron just because I can, and just because I have the right to free speech...if I did, I'd probably get a punch in the face sooner or later...

[jefferiah]

If that was the purpose of publishing the cartoons, then I might agree with you. However, I kinda get the impression that the whole reason he published them was to create controversy,

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. You don't know and neither do I. Whatever the reason, I think they ought to have been published for that express purpose I mentioned. And I would publish them for that reason. So for whatever reason he did it, I am glad that he did.

[gc1765]

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. You don't know and neither do I.

No, I don't know for sure...but if it was for the sole purpose of giving the news, rather than being offensive, then why didn't he say so instead of saying this:

"Mr. Levant, who occasionally writes for the National Post, said he was asked about his rationale for publishing the cartoons.

"I don't need to be reasons-able. I have maximum rights of free speech," he said later.

"I have the right to publish this for the most offensive reason, for the most unreasonable reasons."

Sounds like he would have published them even if it was irrelevant to the news story.

[jefferiah]

"Mr. Levant, who occasionally writes for the National Post, said he was asked about his rationale for publishing the cartoons.

"I don't need to be reasons-able. I have maximum rights of free speech," he said later.

"I have the right to publish this for the most offensive reason, for the most unreasonable reasons."

Now once again, I do not know what Levant's reasons were, but had I published them for the newsworthy reason, I wish that I would respond so well as he did right there.

When asked my reasons for publishing them, I would hope I would say....."Why should it matter my reason? My reasons are my reasons." In a nation with free speech I should not have to answer to anyone about my reasons for using it.

Edited January 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[gc1765]

When asked my reasons for publishing them, I would hope I would say....."Why should it matter my reason? My reasons are my reasons." In a nation with free speech I should not have to answer to anyone about my reasons for using it.

And it's statements like that which makes me think this is all about "I did it because I can...", rather than any other purpose.

Again, I could go around calling people morons "because I can"...but I wouldn't say that it would be wise to do so.

[jefferiah]

And it's statements like that which makes me think this is all about "I did it because I can...", rather than any other purpose.

Again, I could go around calling people morons "because I can"...but I wouldn't say that it would be wise to do so.

So what. As I said, had I printed them for my own reason---the newsworthy one, I would respond in this way. Because it should not matter to me what you think. It is my right. I won't indulge your questions. I don't have to answer to you. If I am secure in the belief that this is my right, I think to myself "Why the hell should I be expected to answer to you? If I want to do this cuz I think it will impress some wierd girl, that is my business." If he has a right to say it, his reasons are irrelevant, and why should he have to defend himself over something like this.

If you look at his answer, he does not say "I did this because I can". He says I have the right to do it even for the most offensive reasons. But he doesn't say that that was his reason. He is basically saying that the reasons don't and should not matter. He answered very intelligently by not actually giving an answer. Whether he knew what he was doing or not, he responded in the wisest manner. To answer any other way he would be conceding that he does in fact have to answer to other people for his free speech.

Edited January 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[gc1765]

So what. As I said, had I printed them for my own reason---the newsworthy one, I would respond in this way. Because it should not matter to me what you think. It is my right. I won't indulge your questions. I don't have to answer to you. If I am secure in the belief that this is my right, I think to myself "Why the hell should I be expected to answer to you? If I want to do this cuz I think it will impress some wierd girl, that is my business." If he has a right to say it, his reasons are irrelevant, and why should he have to defend himself over something like this.

Like I said, I don't claim to know why he published them. But the comments he made about why he published them give me the impression that it was not because it was newsworthy.

He is basically saying that the reasons don't and should not matter. He answered very intelligently.

The reasons don't matter in the sense that he has the right to do so...just as I have the right to call people morons.

But if he is giving the impression that he did it "because he can", and if you agree that doing something just because you can is stupid, then he is making himself look like an idiot.

[jefferiah]

But if he is giving the impression that he did it "because he can",

Perhaps "you" get that impression. But he is not giving it. He is not giving anything. He does not say whether his reasons are good or bad. He simply says that he is within his rights even if it were for the worst reasons. But he does not say he is doing it for the worst reasons. So he is not giving that impression at all. He is saying since I have the right to do it regardless of the reason, why should I answer. He is certainly not defending his reasons. But he is also not saying he did it for a bad reason. His refusal to defend his motives is the wisest thing. Because, he should not have to.

If you wish to look at it this way.....he says in effect (to use your words): "If I did this simply because I can, that is still my right."

But that is not the same as saying "I did this because I can". It is like he is saying "What's it to you? I don't have to answer to you or defend myself to you." In this manner he keeps himself in the upperhand.

Edited January 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[gc1765]

Perhaps "you" get that impression. But he is not giving it. He is not giving anything. He says that he has a right to do it for the most ridiculous reasons. But he does not say he is doing it for the most ridiculous reasons. So he is not giving that impression at all. He is saying since I have the right to do it regardless of the reason, why should I answer. He is certainly not defending his reasons. But he is also not saying he did it for the ridiculous reasons. His refusal to defend them is the wisest thing. Because, he should not have to.

Ok, let me put it this way...

Paul Martin did not disclose who donated to his 1990 leadership bid. Nor did he have to. He had every right to refuse to disclose his donours. But does that not make him look bad? Or would you simply say that he does not have to.

Or when a cop asks you a question, you don't have to answer it or co-operate. But do you think someone who says "I won't answer your question because I don't have to" is going to be viewed with more suspicion by the cops?

[jefferiah]

Ok, let me put it this way...

Paul Martin did not disclose who donated to his 1990 leadership bid. Nor did he have to. He had every right to refuse to disclose his donours. But does that not make him look bad? Or would you simply say that he does not have to.

Or when a cop asks you a question, you don't have to answer it or co-operate. But do you think someone who says "I won't answer your question because I don't have to" is going to be viewed with more suspicion by the cops?

Ah but that is a bad comparison. Your situation involves what could be vital evidence. In this case, the reasons are irrelevant, because you do not need a reason for free speech. And because he believes that, he is not going to indulge you with one. It's irrelevant. I don't view him with more suspicion because of that answer. I think it is a perfectly natural way to answer the question. This is how I would hope to answer in the same situation, even if I printed the cartoons with the purest of reasons, so it certainly does not raise my suspicion level. But it also does nothing to say his reasons were good. It's brilliant.

When it comes to something like free speech, which to me is such a natural ideal, I think it's actually the normal way to react to such a question. Because you would think---what the hell is this.....I don't have to give answers for something which is not wrong....If I wanna paint a mural of Mohammed with horns on his head thats my bloody business. You would be pissed off at the question. If he answered in any other way, I might be more suspicious of him.

Edited January 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[gc1765]

Ah but that is a bad comparison. Your situation involves what could be vital evidence. In this case, the reasons are irrelevant, because you do not need a reason for free speech. And because he believes that, he is not going to indulge you with one. It's irrelevant. I don't view him with more suspicion because of that answer. I think it is a perfectly natural way to answer the question. This is how I would hope to answer in the same situation, even if I printed the cartoons with the purest of reasons, so it certainly does not raise my suspicion level. But it also does nothing to say his reasons were good. It's brilliant.

When it comes to something like free speech, which to me is such a natural ideal, I think it's actually the normal way to react to such a question. Because you would think---what the hell is this.....I don't have to give answers for something which is not wrong....If I wanna paint a mural of Mohammed with horns on his head thats my bloody business. You would be pissed off at the question. If he answered in any other way, I might be more suspicious of him.

Well, then I could just as easily say that Paul Martin does not need to give answers for something which is not wrong.

But the point is, usually when someone has nothing to hide, they answer the question. Not answering the question usually makes people assume the worst.

[Argus]

And it's statements like that which makes me think this is all about "I did it because I can...", rather than any other purpose.

Again, I could go around calling people morons "because I can"...but I wouldn't say that it would be wise to do so.

The point is you don't want the police coming for you if you do.

[jefferiah]

But the point is, usually when someone has nothing to hide, they answer the question. Not answering the question usually makes people assume the worst.

Not in this case.

Because there is nothing to be suspicious of.

[gc1765]

The point is you don't want the police coming for you if you do.

And I doubt Levant wants to look like an idiot.

[rbacon]

No it is fundamental free speech.

[Topaz]

And I doubt Levant wants to look like an idiot.

Too late, I think most Canadians that listened to him on TV think just that. Another person looking for attention his 15 minutes for fame, pushing the limits to see how far he can go. Which I wish he would.....go!!

[Keepitsimple]

What burns me is that the Complainants legal fees are being paid by the taxpayers while Ezra Levant has to pay his lawyers out of his own pocket. My understanding is that any "Human Rights" complaint that is seen to have merit qualifies for taxpayer-funded legal representation. So until these unelected and it appears, unqualified Tribunals have a clearer mandate, we will undoubtedly be seeing more of the same.

[capricorn]

Warren Kinsella wrote an open letter to the Liberal Party of Canada about Liberal Keith Martin's attempt to "gut" human rights legislation.

"Some of us were pretty surprised by Keith Martin's move, he being a Liberal Member of Parliament and all. It didn't seem to be particularly consistent with past Liberal "values" or positions. So, what say you, Messrs. Dion, Ignatieff, Rae et al.? Do you agree with this bald-faced move to gut human rights legislation, by one of your supposed human rights experts? Not surprisingly, the Nazis do. (Strong Warning: racist and anti-Semitic content therein.) They think it's just swell."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-of-canada.aspx

So far, I haven't seen any reaction to Keith Martin's initiative from the leading members of the Liberal Party. It does make you wonder whether Liberals talk to each other before acting on such important files.

Edited February 1, 2008 by capricorn

[Moxie]

The point is you don't want the police coming for you if you do.

They aren't worried because it's Christians and suspected ( Warman using his thought police powers and his internet trolling to entrap people using his HRC spidey powers) White Supremacist getting their asses hauled before the HRC not Liberals. Their time will come and I'm going to enjoy their hypocrisy, their hatred hurled verbally towards Christians has been recorded and noted.

As Cap posted Mr. Kisella is a wee bit upset, of course he doesn't advocate free speech unless it's the Liberal Voice Speaking.

Here's Steyn's response to the Private Members Bill: http://steynian.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/red-alert-go-do/

Snippet: Private Members Bill to Gut S.13 of the CHRA. Ezra Levant weighs in.

M-446 — January 30, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.

I find it rather amusing that several members of this forum have posted pure hatred towards Christians yet these same fools and village idiots advocate not "Insulting Islam" give me a break. I'm not bowing to Sharia Law, if I want to paint a pic of Mofo on the backside of my dog I shall. Down with section 13, a tool used by cry babies such as Gay Rights Advocates to silence the word of God. An attempt by Radical/Political Islamist to turn this country into some pityful excuse like England and Eurabia where we cower before Islamic Laws and allow Sharia Law. I find it ironic that a Classical Liberal had the moral courage to do what the current Conservative Party didn't have the guts to do.

The HRC needs to go back to it's original mandate, adjudicating petty spats between bickering cry babies.

[rbacon]

HRC should be shutdown, they are contrary to fundamental justice. The complaintant sucks off the teat of taxpayer to bare his cost, no matter how frivalous. And the accused must defend himself out of his own pocket.

[FTA Lawyer]

And I would argue that this is more legal arrogance. I would argue that people's right to freedom of speech is inherent, and that our ancestors fought for it and died for it. It's something we already have. All the Constitution does, or is supposed to do, in that respect, is tell the government "keep your greasy hands off this". It is not, therefore, the system which protects our rights but the system which is the only real danger to them.

A Human Rts. Tribunal is a governmental agency...to the extent that Ezra feels it is infringing on his Charter Right to freedom of expression, he can argue that and prevent it from taking any steps against him for publishing the cartoons...that's not legal arrogance, that's me saying that he can rely on the "system" to protect his situation.

The problem is that the mandate of these agencies are so broad, and the powers of idiots to interpret their roles even more broad, that almost nothing falls outside its sway. Another example of poorly written legislation, I assume, put together by idiots who, yes, happen to be lawyers. As for Levant, if you lawyers (and I count among you the politicians) would narrow the focus and clean up the language of the legislation you write then it wouldn't involve people like Levant - who regardless of your and others contempt for him (apparently because you don't like his politics) is a person of considerable accomplishment. Moreso than anyone on this site, I imagine.

The baseless generalized slights against lawyers will get you nowhere in this thread...Levant is one too! I can tell you that the vast majority of lawyers have never come close to being in any way involved in writing legislation.

It's YOUR system. You're a card carrying member of it. Of course you work within it. At no cost and considerable profit, I might add. Those of us who are not initiates of the system and don't want to be dragged before it and spend tens of thousands of dollars on your arcane, inefficient, crap shoot of a system over vexatious complaints clearly have less respect for it than you.

Well, under that logic, it's Ezra's system too...being that he is a "card carrying member" and all. And...next time you have cause to rely on it, strangely you'll be happy that the "system" is there and not just chaos.

By the way, "society" and "legal system" are terms that inherently involve some aspect of collective rights / norms / rules. That is, to be a member of the society and its systems, sometimes you have to accept that the procedures and outcomes of those systems are not the ones that would best suit your personal situation.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

...

And on and on and on. Yes, in order to preclude very, very few instances of injustice (how many times do police beat up people unjustly at a traffic stop, or banks give away your private information) we have this huge mass of bureaucracy and oversight.

And you know what? People still occasionally get fired for forming unions, or for being black, and people still get beat up by cops. What a surprise.

The whole point of creating quasi-judicial tribunals is to remove such issues from the normal courts. Without the human rts. tribunal in this case, Ezra would simply be defending against a potentially frivolous Superior Court Statement of Claim...it wouldn't change much at all really.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

This is a long and interesting thread. Some points get missed.

Reading though Argus' good comments, I noticed this:Let's use your Internet example as a comparison. If all the benefits of the Internet come at the cost of the unfortunate and occasional misrepresentation, then I think no one would argue that on balance, the Internet is a good thing.

Compare the Internet with these Human Rights Commissions. How much good do they achieve compared to the harm?

Well, for the person who is directly defamed on the web, they might see the balance differently...but I'm glad to see that someone is at least considering my point.

As to your question in response, what is the disproposrtionate harm here? I am failing to see how a person who profited off of the publication of cartoons...that he absolutely knew to be controversial (i.e. the decision to publish or not) having to shell out a few bucks responding to the complaints that any intelligent person could have foreseen is such an atrocious affront to democracy?!?

As I said before, take away the tribunal and this would simply be a fight in the traditional superior court setting. The fight would still be there. Does that mean we should eliminate superior courts?

I really hope that Ezra is successful in defending his right to publish the cartoons...I have always said I think he was right to do it. I just have difficulty understanding 1) Why he is surprised at the predicament he is in regarding the decision to publish; 2) Why he is choosing to ridicule the complainant's levels of literacy and penmanship; and 3) Why he thinks that the best way to be treated fairly in the process is to mock it to its very core?

Some here say it's because he is a crusader...well no doubt that's true...I guess I continue to exercise my freedom of expression in suggesting that he could be conducting himself in a far more honourable fashion.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

Uh huhhh. The entire point of this discussion is whether or not it is reasonable to put someone through legal proceedings because of this complaint. Without any idea of the merits of the complaint you really can't make any decision in that regard. I have seen the cartoons. Having seen them, I believe this complaint has absolutely no merit. None of the cartoons are anywhere near as derogatory as the three anti-semitic cartoons printed in those Quebec newspapers someone posted. Not even in the same league. And as offensive as those were, I don't desire their authors be punished because of them. No one who believes in freedom of speech would.

But here's the thing, and there's really no way to get around it...unless we are to simply rely on the opinion of Argus as opposed to the contrary opinion of some other citizen, then we have to have guidelines, and appoint someone to administer them.

If we don't want our judges, who decide things like murder cases and child protection issues and estate succession matters to be tied up with "hurt feelings" in the realm of human rights complaints, then we create a quasi-judicial tribunal and appoint them (at far less pay than judges) to take on the task.

See, I'm okay with that...rather than have to be governed by the laws according to Argus.

Now, some will argue that the human rts tribunals are without a restrictive and clear mandate, or just plain suck at thier jobs, but they were put into authoritiy by the politicians that we elected and so works democracy. If things are as bad as some here say, then oft the chime has been seen on this board that the voters will hold those responsible accountable when the time comes.

Or in other words, lobby your politicians rather than complaining here.

FTA