OMG - Most powerful free speech statement ever (political)

[Roxanne Appleby]

Howdy, GBers. Dropping by because I'm so excited about this and want everyone in the world to see it.
Ciao, R.A.

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

 

[Trace_Element]

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

She said gape

 

[breakwall]

An article in Salon.com by Glenn Greenwald.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html

The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws

It's a fine balance between Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

It also states:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So the grey area is somewhere in between the two.

 

[irish_male]

Its good, but your thread title is one of the most over exagerated in history methinks.

 

[busybody..]

An article in Salon.com by Glenn Greenwald.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html

The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws

It's a fine balance between Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

It also states:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So the grey area is somewhere in between the two.

what gray area?

 

[Sean]

Top 9 Little Known Facts About Ezra Levant

160_ezra_levant_060214.jpg9. Global warming began when Ezra Levant willed the temperature in Canada up a few degrees–you know, just to take the chill out of the air.

8. 95% of all monsters surveyed reported that they are either “absolutely terrified” or “hysterically afraid” of Ezra Levant. Levant already ate the remaining 5%.

7. Ezra Levant once looked Helen Thomas directly in the face and lived to tell about it.

6. (tie) Ezra Levant can grow a thicker mustache than both Tom Selleck and Rosie O’Donnell.

6. (tie) Ezra Levant is actually registered twice as a lethal weapon: once for himself and once for his aura.

5. Ezra Levant eats live cougars sprinkled with Jack Bauer, washes it down with a sandpaper and Chuck Liddell milkshake, and then wipes himself with Chuck Norris.

4. Ezra Levant got the gang from Scooby Doo to stop meddling. Singlehandedly.

3. Ezra Levant forced the band “Better Than Ezra” to change their name to “Alberta Human Rights Commission”: because no one is better than Ezra.

2. New studies show that Muslim suicide bombers aren’t sacrificing themselves for Allah, they’re just trying to escape the wrath of Ezra Levant.

1. If you ever find yourself being persecuted for your views by one of those politically correct government types, simply say “Ezra Levant” three times really fast. He will appear out of thin air and reduce the offender to a whimpering kitten in no time flat with his irresistible onslaught of crane-style verbal kung fu.

 

[Sean]

An article in Salon.com by Glenn Greenwald.

<snip>

I read the Salon article. You might like this:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/01/noxious-fruits-ezra-levant-vs-sunera.html

 

[breakwall]

3. Ezra Levant forced the band “Better Than Ezra” to change their name to “Alberta Human Rights Commission”: because no one is better than Ezra

.

This is gold.

 

[Sean]

.

This is gold.

It's from here: http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/2008/01/14/top-9-little-known-facts-about-ezra-levant/
Proof that conservatives can, occasionally, be funny.

 

[breakwall]

I read the Salon article. You might like this:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/01/noxious-fruits-ezra-levant-vs-sunera.html

I like the idea that the administration of the law is tempered by good sense.
But I still question if the law is too stringent. I think protecting people from hate crimes is essential. And I think the distribution of hate propaganda is distasteful, as are all forms of racism, but I also stand by the simple principle that it's not the governments job to keep you from getting your feelings hurt.

If I don't like you, I should be able to say I don't like you. Just like you should be able to tell me to shut the fuck up.

 

[Sean]

I like the idea that the administration of the law is tempered by good sense.
But I still question if the law is too stringent. I think protecting people from hate crimes is essential. And I think the distribution of hate propaganda is distasteful, as are all forms of racism, but I also stand by the simple principle that it's not the governments job to keep you from getting your feelings hurt.

If I don't like you, I should be able to say I don't like you. Just like you should be able to tell me to shut the fuck up.

I do agree with that, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Incitement to violence is that line for me, and then I think the law getting involved is perfectly justified. Of course, what actually constitutes incitement is another whole can of legal worms.

 

[breakwall]

I do agree with that, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Incitement to violence is that line for me, and then I think the law getting involved is perfectly justified. Of course, what actually constitutes incitement is another whole can of legal worms.

I think incitement to violence is a line regardless of motive.

But getting the law involved in public forums of unpopular opinion is really a strong statement that says "the people are too stupid to think for themselves". I can't believe that. I think that if you take away the faith in people's ability to process information by filtering and censoring that information, it's a slippery slope.

 

[Sean]

I think incitement to violence is a line regardless of motive.

But getting the law involved in public forums of unpopular opinion is really a strong statement that says "the people are too stupid to think for themselves". I can't believe that. I think that if you take away the faith in people's ability to process information by filtering and censoring that information, it's a slippery slope.

And yet the information is filtered and censored every day by the corporate media, both print and TV. At least our governments have some measure of accountability.

 

[breakwall]

And yet the information is filtered and censored every day by the corporate media, both print and TV. At least our governments have some measure of accountability.

Information will always be filtered by those who report it. Every single entity from the reporter in the field, to the news editor, to the anchor person reading in front of the camera is going to be subject to bias and opinion.

Information is always distorted. The best you can do is get your news from several adequately reliable sources and apply your own lens of critical viewpoint.

 

[busybody..]

I do agree with that, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Incitement to violence is that line for me, and then I think the law getting involved is perfectly justified. Of course, what actually constitutes incitement is another whole can of legal worms.

publishing cartoons is

INCITEMENT?

 

[busybody..]

Make NO mistake

this is a part of the WAR AGAINST US

The legal arm of the Islamicist attack on western principles


A disturbing article about the tactic that some Islamic groups have been using to shop around for a legal forum to sue writers who dare to write of any link between Islam and terrorism. In countries lacking the United States' revernce for freedom of speech and press, authors are finding themselves being charged in courts with racism because of what they have written about the struggle against Islamicist terrorism.


The Islamist movement has two wings -- one violent and one lawful -- which operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published, the lawful arm is maneuvering within Western legal systems.

Islamists with financial means have launched a legal jihad, manipulating democratic court systems to suppress freedom of expression, abolish public discourse critical of Islam, and establish principles of Sharia law. The practice, called "lawfare," is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning and undertaken as a means to intimidate and bankrupt defendants.

Forum shopping, whereby plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of "libel tourism" that has resulted in foreign judgments against European and now American authors mandating the destruction of American-authored literary material.


As the article points out, whether they win or not against such suits, the end result is the chilling effect on publishers reluctant to risk an expensive lawsuit.

THESE SUITS REPRESENT a direct and real threat to our constitutional rights and national security. Even if the lawsuits don't succeed, the continued use of lawfare tactics by Islamist organizations has the potential to create a detrimental chilling effect on public discourse and information concerning the war on terror.

Already, publishers have canceled books on the subject of counterterrorism and no doubt other journalists and authors have self-censored due to the looming threat of suit. For its part, CAIR announced an ambitious fundraising goal of $1 million, partly to "defend against defamatory attacks on Muslims and Islam." One of CAIR's staffers, Rabiah Ahmed, bragged that lawsuits are increasingly an "instrument" for it to use.

U.S. courts have not yet grasped the importance of rebuffing international attempts to restrain the free speech rights of American citizens.

This is troubling. The United States was founded on the premise of freedom of worship, but also on the principle of the freedom to criticize religion. Islamists should not be allowed to stifle constitutionally protected speech, nor should they be allowed to subject innocent citizens who talk to other citizens about issues of national security to frivolous and costly lawsuits.


Read the whole thing. As she writes, Mark Steyn isn't the only writer finding himself caught up in this bizarro world. And she's exactly right that this is yet another tactic in the entire stuggle.

 

[breakwall]

publishing cartoons is

INCITEMENT?

I don't think Sean was accusing Ezra of that. We were just talking in generalizations.

 

[busybody..]

publishing cartoons is

INCITEMENT?

who decides?

 

[busybody..]

I don't think Sean was accusing Ezra of that. We were just talking in generalizations.

me too

what GRAY area?

 

[busybody..]

I don't think Sean was accusing Ezra of that. We were just talking in generalizations.

what about Mark Steyn?

 

[Sean]

publishing cartoons is

INCITEMENT?

I never said it was, dumbass.

 

[busybody..]

I never said it was, dumbass.

wiggle room wiggle room

 

[breakwall]

me too

what GRAY area?

In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms our freedom of speech concerning our opinions and the publication of those ideas in the media are protected.

However, the rights of people are protected from discrimination.

So, where does a negative opinion about people stop being freedom of speech and start becoming discriminatory?

 

[busybody..]

who was being discriminated against?

HOW?

Show me the manifestation of that!

 

[breakwall]

who was being discriminated against?

HOW?

Show me the manifestation of that!

In Canada? Every damn insult is a federal case.

We used to be polite. Now we're pansies.