OMG - Most powerful free speech statement ever (political)

[Roxanne Appleby]

I Ezra Levant. He is a Canadian publisher who published the Danish cartoons and was dragged in front of a "civil rights commission" kangaroo court in Alberta, Canada. The proceedings are on YouTube, and Levant's statements are simply breathtaking in their breadth, depth and clarity. I can't recommend this more strongly.

I suppose if you only have time for one clip look at the 6:31 "Opening Statement." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8&feature=related

But the "what was your intent?" is just as powerful in a slightly more visceral way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g .

"I don't answer to the state" also makes me gape in admiration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4&feature=related

 

[DesertPirate]

I Ezra Levant. He is a Canadian publisher who published the Danish cartoons and was dragged in front of a "civil rights commission" kangaroo court in Alberta, Canada. The proceedings are on YouTube, and Levant's statements are simply breathtaking in their breadth, depth and clarity. I can't recommend this more strongly.

I suppose if you only have time for one clip look at the 6:31 "Opening Statement." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8&feature=related

But the "what was your intent?" is just as powerful in a slightly more visceral way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g .

"I don't answer to the state" also makes me gape in admiration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4&feature=related

Outstanding!
Thanks for these links I hadn't heard about this case

 

[Liar]

Good stuff.

And no matter the issue, it's always a special kind of delight to watch the performance of someone who is in equal parts naturally eloquent, extremely well prepared, and totally pissed off.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Roxanne, thanks for the links, Evra is more than eloquent.

To summarize the point, surely in jurisdictions - Canada,USA, etc - that claim to be secular (and I disagree with that) there is a natural revulsion at any state or federal attempt to inhibit free comment or lampooning of religions.

No attempt is made, thankfully, to stop the Christian religion being held up to ridicule. Why should any other theist creed escape.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There are eight clips. I'm gradually working through them, and each is as good as the last.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=EzraILevant

 

[neonlyte]

Thanks, Roxanne.

Love the 'body speak' of the interrogator!

 

[cantdog]

Fabulous. I am sharing the links with my circle. Gold, Rox. I salute you.

 

[Oblimo]

I just wish the expression he is so eloquently defending had some eloquence itself. I know that all non-actionable speech must be protected equally for free speech to work, but still.

 

[cantdog]

I dunno

I got heartily sick of hearing that Shari'ah-minded muslims were upset by a particular cartoon, and then not being able to see what the fuck the cartoon was. How are we going to form an opinion as to whether they were righteously pissed or just had their heads up their asses?

When Falwell fulminated against Teletubbies or the Lion King or Timon and Pumbaa, at least we had a chance to see the works in question, and judge for ourselves what kind of nutball he is.

 

[cantdog]

But then, I have not been particularly well able to respect blind dumb unexamined faith. I think it may have outlived its welcome on the planet, really, and the churches and mosques and so on have my leave to go piss up a rope, when they start in censoring.

Censoring is a slimeball activity suited only to the religious, since they are the only people who never seem to notice how deeply slimy they have become. What on earth is there to 'respect' in a censor?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I got heartily sick of hearing that Shari'ah-minded muslims were upset by a particular cartoon, and then not being able to see what the fuck the cartoon was . . .

Yeah, curiousity is human, but as you know, it doesn't matter what the fuck the cartoon is - it's a fucking cartoon!

But then, I have not been particularly well able to respect blind dumb unexamined faith. I think it may have outlived its welcome on the planet, really, and the churches and mosques and so on have my leave to go piss up a rope, when they start in censoring.

Censoring is a slimeball activity suited only to the religious, since they are the only people who never seem to notice how deeply slimy they have become. What on earth is there to 'respect' in a censor?

Here here!

Here are the cartoons, btw: http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

 

[cantdog]

Thank you very much a second time, rox. You're a gem.

Like Columbia is to the Ocean, that is, you would be to Lit.

 

[DesertPirate]

Roxanne, thanks for the links, Evra is more than eloquent.

To summarize the point, surely in jurisdictions - Canada,USA, etc - that claim to be secular (and I disagree with that) there is a natural revulsion at any state or federal attempt to inhibit free comment or lampooning of religions.

No attempt is made, thankfully, to stop the Christian religion being held up to ridicule. Why should any other theist creed escape.

In the US these days you can only slam the Christian religion, say anything about any other one and it can cost a career.

To be Politicaly correct is to be ethicaly bankrupt

 

[cantdog]

Well, I say, let's hit 'em all. What have they done for us, lately?

Nothing fucking good or useful, for sure. Elevated misogyny to a religious duty. Claimed that the Ten Commandments are the source of all law, which is patent hooey, and then attempted to place the notion in legislation! Showed up on the couthouse steps, wailing and praying loudly, when that poor woman was being taken off the vent. Attempting to kill by slow degrees hundred of thousands of Africans. Poisoning our children with this Abstinence Education and Intelligent Design and all that Utter Shit. Religion! Tell them to shut the fuck up and leave us alone.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Well, I say, let's hit 'em all. What have they done for us, lately?

Nothing fucking good or useful, for sure. Elevated misogyny to a religious duty. Claimed that the Ten Commandments are the source of all law, which is patent hooey, and then attempted to place the notion in legislation! Showed up on the couthouse steps, wailing and praying loudly, when that poor woman was being taken off the vent. Attempting to kill by slow degrees hundred of thousands of Africans. Poisoning our children with this Abstinence Education and Intelligent Design and all that Utter Shit. Religion! Tell them to shut the fuck up and leave us alone.

Don't hold back now, Cant - tell us what you really think!

(Oh Stelll-la? Cant's singing our song!)

 

[3113]

Poor Christians

In the US these days you can only slam the Christian religion, say anything about any other one and it can cost a career.

To be Politicaly correct is to be ethicaly bankrupt

Oh, Plee-ze! Not the old "Politically Correct" straw man slam! I am SO sick and tired of that old thing. Every right-wing/Christian uses it. "We hate those evil PC folk who try to censor us! But DO ignore that WE are doing our damnest to censor anyone who offends US!"

It wasn't the PC folk who got their panties in a bunch when Janet Jackson flashed her nipple. And it certainly wasn't THEM who led to Sally Fields condemnation of the Iraq war being censored either.

In the last six years I've seen, in the U.S. FAR and away more censorship of anyone who came even close to seeming unpatriotic, and I've seen far more Christians slam people and try to censor them for saying "Happy Holidays" than I ever saw PC folk trying to censor images of Mohammed (television stations and newspapers chickening out in fear of being bombed excepted).

After six years of U.S. Christians censoring out all but the Noah's arc story for how the Grand Canyon was created, censoring out evolution as a "theory" from science classes, scaring every tv station into putting on "touched by an angel" shows and making sure that any character on television that gets pregnant doesn't even say the word "abortion"--after six years of right-wing news stations censoring out the truth about anything that doesn't favor their side, I really don't think that you can argue that it's the "pc" folk who are "censoring" anyone in the U.S. Trying to be on the "right-wing/Christian side" and play the "Oh, poor me! Everyone can say mean things about me and thanks to those evil PC folk I can't say anything mean about them!" is disingenuous at best. The facts, from the Dixie Chicks getting no airplay when they criticized Bush to Christians demanding stores greet customers with "Merry Christmas" or else says otherwise.

 

[cloudy]

Oh, Plee-ze! Not the old "Politically Correct" straw man slam! I am SO sick and tired of that old thing. Every right-wing/Christian uses it. "We hate those evil PC folk who try to censor us! But DO ignore that WE are doing our damnest to censor anyone who offends US!"

It wasn't the PC folk who got their panties in a bunch when Janet Jackson flashed her nipple. And it certainly wasn't THEM who led to Sally Fields condemnation of the Iraq war being censored either.

In the last six years I've seen, in the U.S. FAR and away more censorship of anyone who came even close to seeming unpatriotic, and I've seen far more Christians slam people and try to censor them for saying "Happy Holidays" than I ever saw PC folk trying to censor images of Mohammed (television stations and newspapers chickening out in fear of being bombed excepted).

After six years of U.S. Christians censoring out all but the Noah's arc story for how the Grand Canyon was created, censoring out evolution as a "theory" from science classes, scaring every tv station into putting on "touched by an angel" shows and making sure that any character on television that gets pregnant doesn't even say the word "abortion"--after six years of right-wing news stations censoring out the truth about anything that doesn't favor their side, I really don't think that you can argue that it's the "pc" folk who are "censoring" anyone in the U.S. Trying to be on the "right-wing/Christian side" and play the "Oh, poor me! Everyone can say mean things about me and thanks to those evil PC folk I can't say anything mean about them!" is disingenuous at best. The facts, from the Dixie Chicks getting no airplay when they criticized Bush to Christians demanding stores greet customers with "Merry Christmas" or else says otherwise.

Rock on!

 

[Oblimo]

Yeah, curiousity is human, but as you know, it doesn't matter what the fuck the cartoon is - it's a fucking cartoon!

Yes, it's almost as if the Twelvers were mad about something else entirely, wasn't it?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oh, Plee-ze! Not the old "Politically Correct" straw man slam! I am SO sick and tired of that old thing. Every right-wing/Christian uses it. "We hate those evil PC folk who try to censor us! But DO ignore that WE are doing our damnest to censor anyone who offends US!"

It wasn't the PC folk who got their panties in a bunch when Janet Jackson flashed her nipple. And it certainly wasn't THEM who led to Sally Fields condemnation of the Iraq war being censored either.

In the last six years I've seen, in the U.S. FAR and away more censorship of anyone who came even close to seeming unpatriotic, and I've seen far more Christians slam people and try to censor them for saying "Happy Holidays" than I ever saw PC folk trying to censor images of Mohammed (television stations and newspapers chickening out in fear of being bombed excepted).

After six years of U.S. Christians censoring out all but the Noah's arc story for how the Grand Canyon was created, censoring out evolution as a "theory" from science classes, scaring every tv station into putting on "touched by an angel" shows and making sure that any character on television that gets pregnant doesn't even say the word "abortion"--after six years of right-wing news stations censoring out the truth about anything that doesn't favor their side, I really don't think that you can argue that it's the "pc" folk who are "censoring" anyone in the U.S. Trying to be on the "right-wing/Christian side" and play the "Oh, poor me! Everyone can say mean things about me and thanks to those evil PC folk I can't say anything mean about them!" is disingenuous at best. The facts, from the Dixie Chicks getting no airplay when they criticized Bush to Christians demanding stores greet customers with "Merry Christmas" or else says otherwise.

There's some truth in what you say, but when talking about censorship it's important to distinguish between govenment and non-government actions. Your examples include both, and mix them indiscriminately. For example, commercial radio stations responded to the Dixie Chicks' country audience's anger at their taking an overtly political stand they found objectionable by not playing their records. That was a voluntary market decision, and they had every right to do it. The same applies to several of your points. The government fining a network for showing Janet Jackson's titty was government action. It was not, however, political censorship, and in my book that lessens its import. To me the creationist nonsense is mostly an argument against having government-run schools, but I won't argue that at the very least it's absurd, and it is an action of government.

Some of what you describe may be the outcome of a more subtle kind of implicit censorship, and for that reason I'm sympathetic to your complaint. However, can you cite a single example of overt, explicit government censorship in the direction you suggest? Especially political censorship? (I can, but it's in a different realm, and one that strikes more at the heart of free speech - McCain-Feingold's prohibitions on interest group ads attacking incumbent legislators in the weeks before an election.)

 

[Pure]

rox,

[and note to 'desert pirate', apparently amicus re incarnated.]

can you cite a single example of overt, explicit government censorship in the direction you suggest?

the Grand Canyon example has already been given.

there are numerous examples around sex education and birth control, e.g. suppression, from family planning and STD related material of the simple fact that condoms, properly used, can be pretty reliable. there is suppression of abortion related info.

doctors and scientist has cited numerous examples of interference or government ordered 'watering down' of basic facts, e.g. around sex and disease.

there are examples in American funding of AIDS measures in Africa, suppression of condom info, as well as funding.

UN discusssion of women and children's rights are now sidetracked by US and Muslim groups.

Deset PirateIn the US these days you can only slam the Christian religion, say anything about any other one and it can cost a career.

P: Is this from Limbaugh or Falwell? Far from Xians being 'slammed', they have imposed total uniformity on the Presidential candidates: Romney had to affirm Jesus as his savior, or be under suspicion.

There are hardly any non xians in the US congress. To state 'secular' or 'atheist' is the kiss of death in almost all areas of the US, in a person running for important federal or state office.

 

[colddiesel]

Would that we had a single political leader or aspirant to leadership of even remotely the quality of Ezra Levant.

 

[cantdog]

Perhaps some of them are, colddiesel. They have simply become trained not to speak unequivocally. To hedge, that is. The law enforces that, or medicine, or any science. He is being extremely definite, and the cooler heads are careful to limit that.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

However, can you cite a single example of overt, explicit government censorship in the direction you suggest?

The former head of the Women's Health Division of the FDA resigned in protest over the Bush administration's censoring and distortion of health studies on the safety of a morning after contraceptive.

I believe the head of NASA recently went public to protest the way administration lackies blue-penciled NASA climate reports that supported global warming.

Over all, in journals such as Science, the record of the Bush administration in censoring, distorting, and witholding scientific findings that don't suit its political agenda is without precedent in the history of the US science.

Take your pick on google. Here's one: http://http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/report-alleges.html

 

[Pure]

demurrer

the only thing wrong here is the selection of cause. islam and "islamofascism" are the popular bugbears, objects of very common expressions of scorn, to which the cartoonists catered.

those of us with concerns for civil rights and 'free speech' generally pick some cause or person with an UNpopular view-- e.g. the Jehovah's Witnesses, or those advocating [non violently] communism. these are the tests of freedom.

the present alleged test is a bit like saying that--hypothetically-- an extreme case, in the US, of German bashing during WWII, is the test of US freedom. let's say someone who says, or draws pictures showing, "all germans are pigs."

i'm not sure about other 'free speech' cases about which rox and others have exercized themselves and posted, but this particular one does NOT for me, give much indication of general devotion to the cause NOR courage in supporting an unpopular exercize of free speech. no Voltaire awards today.

were she or others to have picked a muslim person in the US--for example, who lost his job at a university--who spoke non violently against the US, and called for peaceful resistance to US policy, i'd be far more impressed.

this is a little reminiscent of some current self labeled 'freedom of religion' persons whose chosen cause is a teacher discplined for putting a picture of Jesus on his desk at school. again, the choice of cause raises concerns about the person's true devotion to the freedom.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

the only thing wrong here is the selection of cause. islam and "islamofascism" are the popular bugbears, objects of very common expressions of scorn, to which the cartoonists catered.

those of us with concerns for civil rights and 'free speech' generally pick some cause or person with an UNpopular view-- e.g. the Jehovah's Witnesses, or those advocating [non violently] communism. these are the tests of freedom.

the present alleged test is a bit like saying that--hypothetically-- an extreme case, in the US, of German bashing during WWII, is the test of US freedom. let's say someone who says, or draws pictures showing, "all germans are pigs."

i'm not sure about other 'free speech' cases about which rox and others have exercized themselves and posted, but this particular one does NOT for me, give much indication of general devotion to the cause NOR courage in supporting an unpopular exercize of free speech. no Voltaire awards today.

were she or others to have picked a muslim person in the US--for example, who lost his job at a university--who spoke non violently against the US, and called for peaceful resistance to US policy, i'd be far more impressed.

this is a little reminiscent of some current self labeled 'freedom of religion' persons whose chosen cause is a teacher discplined for putting a picture of Jesus on his desk at school. again, the choice of cause raises concerns about the person's true devotion to the freedom.

You have missed the point that makes this case salient: It's a completely unambiguous instance of government censorship of political speech.