Change of Address

A note to all my fine readers: Posts here will discontinue as of now, and resume at my new internet location at: MikeBrockOnline.com

Blogger's limitations have been bugging me of late, and I think it's time to move up in the blogging world.

Keep Marching for Freedom

I continue to be amazed with the extent to which this issue flew below the radar screen for many Canadians, but I am equally amazed at the power of that blogs have had in this debate.

While Warren posts thinly-veiled threats in the form of anonymous emails, it's increasingly clear, that for the defenders of section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, the enemies are at the gate.

It's taken some time, but the coalition against this unenlightened legal passage, has expanded from a ragtag band of right-leaning bloggers, to the echelons of the left-leaning establishment One must assume that Richard Warman himself, is worrying about how many more visits to the trough he can sneak in, before a drain hole is bored through the bottom.

This fight cannot end now. We have the initiative. We must continue to remind our governments that we don't find the status quo acceptable, and we demand action taken on this issue.

Still, much to my dismay, Stephen Harper treats this as an off-topic issue, presumably because he fears how Liberals will spin it. But Harper has a Liberal MP on side, among others who are too afraid to speak out.

Save Afghanistan, if you want to throw the Liberal Party into even more chaos, then what better time to move on this issue. Tell Canadians you're going to stand up for our Charter Rights. Own this issue. Canadians get it, despite what daily spindoctorings at warrenkinsella.com tell you.

The wind is at your back Stephen. It's time.

Poison Pill Coming!

Weakness

I've always liked Kate McMillan. Which is a statement, sure to cast me as a bigot, racist or whatever attribution suits Kinsella or Murphy's fancy. Her blog is a mainstay, powerhouse of the Canadian blogosphere, a fact that clearly bestows much frustration upon the not-so-right-of-center bloggers out there.

The irony of Kate McMillan’s impregnable stature, and her detractor’s failure to disarm her with constant character assassination is that, like Jean Chretien, she amusingly fails to acknowledge the existence of her critics, except to toy with them. And like with Chretien, it drives her opponents batty. But the irony of course, is that her most vocal opponent is Chretienite, Warren Kinsella.

Warren has dedicated much of his blogging time to going after Kate, and others, like Jay Currie, whom he baselessly labels a bigot and has threatened to sue for calling him a “liar”. He’s threatened to sue me too, by the way.

It seems though that Warren’s pet project of falsely exposing bigots in our midst has only served to lower his stature even further.

Given that Warren seems reasonably intelligent, one is forced to question the character of such a man, who so liberally lifts quotes out of context to fit his premise that McMillan and Shaidle are racist bigots. And he just doesn’t take them out of context, he provides proof for his assertions in the form of unsourced sentence fragments. By unsourced I mean, he doesn’t bother providing links, so that his readers can judge for themselves, the nature in which certain phrases were used.

I have never seen Kate say anything to suggest that she is bigoted. Although I do admit she is crass, and her tongue-and-cheek ways of expressing herself are not for everyone. By the way, I’m not criticizing her; I’ve done worse.

Even when Warren was threatening to sue me for calling him a Nazi, he was certainly going out of his way to avoid the fact that the title of the post was Reductio ad Nazium, and that the post clearly expressed it’s satirical nature in no uncertain terms.

The tail never stops wagging the dog with Warren.

There are moments where Warren goes out of his spin-doctor mode and provides a cogent analysis, such as his panel appearances on Your Opinion Counts on CFRB 1010 AM in Toronto, or some of his earlier National Post columns. But for the most part, he’s still holding up that children’s stuffed animal, in every rhetorical sense.

The difference today, is nobody is buying it anymore. He’s firing blanks. Without a provincial election, and without the federal Liberal’s interested in him, his penchant for political maneuvering has been relegated to obsessing over Kathy Shaidle and Kate McMillan. I don’t know about you, but given the political history here, I’d say that’s a victory for the aforementioned.

Election Posturing.

Let's break it down. The Conservatives need an election now, in spite of the polls. As the global economy softens, so too will their electoral prospects. Voters blame incumbent government's for the global economy. It doesn't make any sense, but it's true.

I imagine that Stephane Dion's apparent backing away from election talk has everything to do with this. The Liberal strategists know what I know: the worse the global economy gets, the more and more Canadians will be looking for a quick fix to it. The quick fix will be: The Liberal Party of Canada. They'll use the election to remind Canadians of the good economic times under the Liberal's in the nineties and promise to deliver Canada back to prosperity. Canadians will buy it.

So I imagine that the Conservatives are mulling over a poison pill right now, that will force Dion to pull the plug.

The key is to make it as non-obvious as possible, and not damage the government going into an election.

I'm putting a 50% chance on the CPC being successful in engineering it's own defeat, and a 75% chance of a Liberal victory in the next election (whenever it will be) if they fail.

Back in Canada

As what I am sure will be much to the chagrin of some, I have returned to Canada from my business trip. Regular blogging resumes tomorrow.

More Intellectual Honesty from Jason Cherniak

February 06, 2008

Politics is not a game

February 07, 2008

Afghanistan is OUR issue. Look at every serious poll that's ever been done on the current mission and you will see that it is not popular. Why in the world would we not want to go on that?

Indeed. Calling for an election every time the polls seem opportune is not a game. No, of course not. Who would ever suggest such a thing?

Slow Blogging: Litigation and Work

Sorry for the slow posting.

This week has required a heavy amount of attention (like 18 hour workdays) due to a deadline at work. Also, I am the target of litigation right now for reasons that I won't yet get into at this early stage. All I will say, is the claims are without merit.

I am also traveling on business next week, so posting will be slower next week as well. I expect posting to return a regular level after that.

Post Retracted

I am retracting my previous post, in response to a desperate request from a friend appealing for my calm over the issue.

I will say that this is my decision, and I'm not doing this at the behest of the Conservative Party. In fact, they have nothing to do with it.

I had a bad day, and the post was excessively negative. However, my criticism that I don't agree with "corporate welfare" still stands. More on that later.

Update: Anger and Outrage.

Update 2: Robert McLelland wannabe Ti-Guy weighs in with the most nonsensical response I've ever read:

Now he's trying to characterise the reaction to this as somehow a challenge to his property rights.

Honestly, it's the conservative analysis (if we can even call it that) that gets up my nose far more often than whatever issue it is they're moaning about.

...actually, it's not even that. It's the equivalent, yet again, of calling everyone else Taliban-huggers. Disagree with them, and you're in bed with the terrorists.

I know, I don't have words either.

Update 3: Bloggergate grows, while a spineless anonymous commenter schools me on "blogging etiquette":

Some people in the blogosphere actually value the commonly respected etiquette, which does not include deleting posts. Us real bloggers stand by our words.

By doing what you have done, you have disrespected other decent bloggers on both the left and the right.

Now, you don't even have the courage to fess up to it.

Shame!

You have no idea how amusing this is to me, right now. I mean, are you people for real?

Video

Warren Makes An Honest Argument

It seems that this skirmish today with Warren has had at least one positive effect, it has lead him to make an honest argument about this issue on his website.

Mike had two other criticisms, expressed rather hysterically, but which deserve a response, nonetheless. He seemingly felt that I - along with certain bloggers, and certain mainstream media reporters at Canadian Press and the CBC - had (a) suggested that Keith Martin was a Nazi and (b) we had been wrong to link to a neo-Nazi web site, or mention it, when pointing out how Keith Martin was drawing unwelcome support for his private member's bill.

No, Warren. I suggest you tried to imply that he was sympathetic. Now, since your response here is presented in an honest light, I will respond to it in an honest light.

The last point first, because it's fair criticism. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that I have written two books about anti-Semitism and bigotry - one focussing on the Far Left (Unholy Alliances, 1992), the other focussing on the Far Right (Web of Hate, 1994, 1996 and 2001) - and I did not hesitate, in either case, to alert my readers to instances where expressing bona fide points of view (on immigration, on anti-taxation movements, on gay rights, on the Holocaust, on free speech, on what have you) inadvertently gave encouragement to the forces of organized racism. That neo-Nazis will disproportionately benefit from the elimination of reasonable limitations on expression is, I acknowledge, no basis for clamping down on all expression. But the haters will benefit - and that, I submit, is a consequence that always needs to be considered. It is therefore fair and appropriate to draw people's attention to the fact that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are deliriously happy about Keith Martin's proposal, to me. "Rubbing people's noses in the reality of hate," I wrote in Web of Hate, is sometimes necessary. I know lots of good people get upset by that - but that ostrich-like tendency is the problem, here: too many folks in the blogosphere are forming opinions on hate propaganda, on violent pornography and other hateful expression, in the abstract.

Warren, you need to really expand on your points here. If you're going to say that neo-Nazis will disproportionately beneft from the repeal of section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, then you need to establish exactly how and why.

To be honest, it seems that you are simply appealing to emotion in your argument. I do however think the basis of your argument is valid to the debate: which outcome will cause more harm? It is an interesting question, and I think it is the fundamental question which is at the center of this debate.

I contend the opposite, that not repealing section 13(1) will cause more harm. My reasoning is that, while I generally agree with you, that not having it will allow hate groups more freedom as it were, it will also have the wider benefit of avoiding potential abuse by the state.

Now, on the surface, that argument may seem weak. But I think it goes far beyond that high-level description.

The state potential for abuse is not necessarily in H.R.A. 13(1) itself, but in the fact that such provision is legally tenable in general. For example: the interpretation of reasonable limitations on fundamental rights is judged culturally, in this way, not objectively.

I would argue that there is a political element to fundamentalist Islam that must be challenged. Yet, this legal precedent, has been invoked in such a way that it calls into question, whether or not you can challenge it, based on the identity politics surrounding it.

A man is cooling his heels in a jail cell in Belarus for republishing the Danish Muhammad Cartoons.

You'll excuse me if I consider the potential risk of the state having the power to do such a thing, to be larger than the potential risk of allowing neo-Nazis to have a website that ten people read. Because, absolute rights, protect us from Nazis too, Warren.

Which sort of leads me to Mike Brock's first criticism, which is spurious. If the Canadian Press, or me, had evidence that a Member of Parliament was a National Socialist, you can rest assured that we would not hesitate to publicize that revelation. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that Keith Martin is a Nazi. Instead, I am simply saying that Keith Martin and many others seem to be recklessly indifferent to the harm that will be caused by finally doing what the neo-Nazis have agitated for, for decades. And Keith Martin and his conservative acolytes need to think about why that is so, and the consequences for all of us, and the flourishing, vibrant multicultural society that we have all built in this place

As I said above, it's not that you've called him a Nazi, but it's that you and others have left the impression that he is a Nazi sympathizer, even if you didn't come out and expressly say it. I contend that this is an Reductio ad Nazium argument, that simply says: "If the Nazi's like it, it must be wrong!".

This contrarianism is foolish, and it distracts from the honest debate that we should be having.

Warren, you believe that the potential for harm is the inverse of what I think it is. Fine, make that argument. But stop pointing to what neo-Nazis have to say on the subject. I think in doing so, you give them too much credit for being able to form valid opinions. And the way you've gone about it, has simply painted Mr. Martin in the wrong light.

So I contend that your response to me is a step in the right direction and it would be nice to see more of that.

I Was Not, Will Not Be Bullied

I would like to note that my clarification to Mr. Kinsella mentioned here at his blog, while true, was not offered as appeasement to Mr. Kinsella.

In fact, I felt that clarification was necessary in order to properly convey the meaning of the piece.

I acted too quickly, without first considering the implications of doing so. I believe the piece speaks for itself, and that it is not defamatory or libelous in nature, and I therefore retract the clarification from this post. I do not grant Mr. Kinsella the satisfaction that a threat of legal action gets him what he wants. I clarified for my own reasons, not for his. Since he wishes to paint the matter that way, joking about frisking me for vacation money, I retract to deny him that victory over me.

This whole point of this matter is that we need honest debate. My post was meant to exemplify the fact that there is none of that.

Reductio ad Nazium

Since honest debate seems to have recently gone on vacation in the middle of this debate, I figure, what's the point to even trying to be honest with these people?

The very inkling of a suggestion that Keith Martin is a Nazi sympathizer, is quite frankly, insulting and unbecoming of the person making the suggestion. Warren Kinsella is off his rocker, trying to paint everyone who supports Martin's motion to delete section 13(1) from the Human Rights Act, as being in tacit support with white supremacists.

Luckily for Warren, the media has decided to see it the same way as well. Too bad for us, and for honest debate, though. So if we're going to play the spin game, let's play it both ways shall we? As such, tongue firmly in cheek, I contend that Warren Kinsella is a closet Nazi.

I wonder if his primary motivation for attacking Ezra Levant, is because he is an anti-semite?

Also, in the National Post Blog, on February 1st, he posted An open letter to the Liberal Party of Canada. In it, he links to a white supremacist website.

Considering that Warren Kinsella asserts that giving Nazis a voice in society will allow them to promulgate their views and therefore should be illegal, why is it that Warren links to such a website from one of Canada's largest publications? Could it be, that Warren wants to direct traffic to an organization that he is secretly a part of? Must be!

And what of Warren Kinsella's book, Web of Hate, where he shows outward disdain for such groups?

Well, my theory is simple. Just like closet homosexual men, who often present a faux heterosexual front to re-asset their masculinity, perhaps Warren Kinsella's apparent outward anti-racism is a front for his true National Socialist ways.

It just makes too much sense, when logic isn't involved!

Occam's Questions, My Answers

Occam's Carbuncle proposed a set of questions, designed to break this debate down to it's fundamental question, instead of the high temperature mud slinging which is currently dominating the debate. Having read the questions, judging them to be extremely reasonable and well thought out, I feel compelled to answer them here in broad view. I invite my opponents in this debate to do the same.

...

Does this country have any basic values?

Yes.

If so, what are they?

I believe that Section 2 of the Charter sums it up nicely.

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.

At what cost should they be protected?

By any means, or cost necessary. Many people have paid for these rights in blood. There may come a time, that we're forced to do so again.

Can speech cause harm?

Yes.

Is such harm inextricably dependent on the bad act that it purportedly prompts or is it independent?

Not necessarily. I believe restricting, in law, the right of someone to instruct the commission of a crime, is a reasonable limitation. This also extends, reasonably, to direct threats against the safety of another person.

Are the laws prohibiting certain violent acts an adequate buffer between the verbalization of hate and the commission of violence against the hated?

They are as adequate as I believe they can be. I do not deny that there is a potential for discriminatory speech to contribute to a causal chain, that could culminate in a violent act.

However, if you wanted to apply the reasoning, that the potential of a freedom to contribute to causalities that culminate in violance, is alone, enough to justify the curtailment therein, then you can equally say that:

1. Restricting freedom of movement is justified, as agents may exploit unregulated movement to execute violent action.
2. Restricting privacy is justified, as the cover of privacy can be used to avoid state detection of plans to commit violence (Oh, wait... that's happening)
3. Restricting the construction, procurement or dissemination of dual-purpose instruments that can be used to facilitate a violent act. (Oh, wait... that's happening too)
etc.

If not, why not?

I answered yes to the last question.

There are common law limits to free speech, generally predicated on the honesty or intent of such speech. Why are some limits on free speech acceptable, but not others?

I believe that speech that is used to cause damage to a persons reputation, to the extent that it harms their livelihood is a reasonable limit, provided that the speech in question is untruthful.

This is acceptable, because it's quantifiable damage. The fact that regulation of speech at all is generally undesirable is mitigated by the fact that truth is a defense in these cases.

Hurt feelings and the potential for speech to lead to violent action is not quantifiable in any objective way. This is what makes these limits unacceptable.

Is it simply a question of degree?

No, it's a matter of quantifiable harm, or the lack thereof. See above.

Or is it a question of who is setting the limits?

Yes, that too. I don't believe that limitations on freedom of expression should be in the realm of the political. I hold these rights unalienable, and therefore do not recognize the authority of the government, or by extension, the body politic to abridge them.

Are all external coercive limits to free speech inherently dangerous because there is no way to guarantee the morality and disinterest of those applying the law?

This is one of the fundamental principals upon which the liberal interpretation of these rights rests, yes.

Who had the more reasonable approach to suppression of views deemed harmful to society - McCarthy, Woodrow Wilson or Goebbels?

I'm not a fan of any of those choices, quite frankly.

Do I have to sit between you kids?!

Apparently.

...

In closing, I would like to once again respond to the vapid filth promulgated by some Liberal's who suggest that my position, or in the case of those with whom I agree, our position that limitations on speech that fit into the domain of protecting hurt feelings or are intentioned to curb the potential for violence is tantamount to supporting Nazis.

I don't support freedom of speech to protect hatred, or to harbor racists behind an ideological shield.

I support freedom of speech, because I am better than Nazis. I support free speech, because I am better than the hateful people who would not support it, given the chance.

To that end, I'm against Canadian security certificates, and unwarranted government surveillance. I am against the Patriot Act in the United Sates. Why? Because our society is better than that.

What's the point of fighting your enemy, if you have to become your enemy in doing so?

Hope, Thy Name is Keith Martin

That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act

I don't have much time for a long post today, but I definitely want to add my voice to the growing number of voices praising Keith Martin—Liberal MP from Victoria—for bringing forward the private members motion to reform the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Keith has done some genuine humanitarian work with Doctors Without Borders, and as Ezra Levant points out, has been very consistent on his human rights stances throughout his career. He seems like a very decent guy, and when it comes to issues as important as this, partisan politics end. I encourage all people to e-mail Mr. Martin with words of encouragement, as Jay Currie has done.

I will be watching carefully, as to who votes for and against this in the House of Commons (if it reaches a vote) and I promise not to be partisan at all in my scorn and praise. Today's beer gets raised to Keith, though.

H/T: Jay Currie, Ezra Levant, Blazing Cat Fur, Small Dead Animals, The Canadian Sentinel, Joanne's Journey, Ubi re vera, SoCon Or Bust, Big Blue Wave, Atlas Shrugs, Just Right, Covenant Zone, Time Immortal, Five Feet of Fury, Dr Roy's Thoughts, Dispatches from the Socialist Gulag, The Canadian Republic.

P.S. Does anyone else notice what side of the political spectrum the praise for Keith is coming from? I've been piling through Technorati and Google Blog Search been trying to find non-conservative blogs to Hat-Tip here, and I'm coming up short. So if any readers know of any Liberal or left-leaning blogs praising Keith Martin, ping me in the comments and I'll amend the list.

Update 2: The right-leaning applause intensifies, the left-leaning indifference hangs ominously. Keith Martin should really consider the company he keeps.

Update 3: BigCityLib blog shows it's true colors, accuses Keith Martin of "defending Nazi rights".



Wow. Just Wow. Hey Keith... with friends like these...

Update 4: I've sent e-mails to Keith Martin, The Liberal Party President, Jason Cherniak, and other interested parties, in regards to M. J. Murphy likening Keith Martin to a Nazi sympathizer. I would hope that in the name of decency, the LPC denounces this guy.

Update 5: Warren Kinsella and Jason Cherniak (see below) agrees with M. J. Murphy.

From Jason Cherniak:

With respect, I don't think that's what MJM's doing. He says that Martin is a opposing a law which is meant to catch neo-Nazis, which he is. Unless MJM''s edited the comment since you read it, I see an argument that uses people like Zundel as an example, but does not go further than that.

Update 6: M. J. Murphy calls Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn both "Nazi-lites" in this blog's very comment section.

Levant and Steyn got pegged because they were spouting Nazi-lite, NAzi-ish stuff, and lets face it the commission will almost certainly decide that, though hate mongers, as journalists they have special protection and therefore haven't really met the standard to warrent further investigation.

So basically, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are lite-Nazi's, who really should be found guilty, but in the interests of special protection for Journalists we must unfortunately, let them off the hook.

Who's the fascist here?

Reuters Good Grammar Yes, CBC Good Balance No

That aside, CTV News is also reporting on Harper's ultimatum here.

The ever-balanced CBC has no mention of Harper's comments on Afghanistan as of the time of this posting. In fact, this is the top story:

What bias?

Update: The following media outlets of reported on Harper's press conference as of 6:51PM EST: Reuters, CTV, Bloomberg, The Associated Press, CanWest, Fox News, The Toronto Star (Buried Story, Of Course), The Canadian Press, The National Post.

The following major outlets have still not reported on the press conference: CBC, and the Globe and Mail.

The War on Speech Hate: Continuing Coverage ...

More on one of the bravest men, Warren Kinsella has ever known.

Michael Coren Show Today

I have been invited, along with Kathy Shaidle by Michael Coren to be a panelist on the Michael Coren Show tonight at 8:00pm EST. If you get CTS in your area, you can check for your local cable listings here.

We are discussing the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, and the cases against Maclean's and Ezra Levant.

So You Think You're Honest

People of the leftist persuasion are crying foul over my outward lack of honesty in the Great Canadian Free Speech Debate. Some even try to flatter me with my supposed great potential for honest discourse. Thanks for the encouragement, but no thanks.

You see, I don't feel there is anything particularly dishonest about my message or the way I present it. Some are offended, to my great amusement, that I so dishonestly took Warren Kinsella's "free speecher" phrase, compounded it, and ran with it. Of course, my article was not about the word freespeecher itself, as funny as I think it is, but it was laden with very serious and very direct arguments.

When a group like the intellectually condescending gang of Stageleft comes to me and appeals for honesty in my debate, it makes you consider for a moment, the merit of their request. You owe the idea at least a few seconds of consideration.

How am I being dishonest? Well, apparently I paint the left as one, big, cohesive group. Secondly, they complain that I didn't source the fact that the word freespeecher is in common usage among the left, and that my exaggeration does discredit to the debate.

Sort of like, how most of the things that have been said about Ezra Levant's alleged hypocrisy haven't been sourced? Or how the the ones that have, are grossly misrepresented and use the world's most horrendously spurious logic? Anything like that?

People have pointed to Mr. Levant's 1989 letter to the editor, of his University newspaper, where he complained that cartoons printed were offensive and anti-semitic. The leftosphere was of course, all over this, pointing to the incident as a gaping hole in the former magazine publisher's credibility. But you'll excuse me if I consider somebody voicing their offense to be a little different from prosecuting it.

The people pointing this out, leave out the fact that Mr. Levant also invited an anti-semitic lawyer to a debate at the very same university.

Speaking out against those who offend you, is not the same as advocating for censorship. How somebody is able to make that logical connection is seriously beyond me. I think Heather Mallik is an idiot, but I don't call for her to be silenced by the state. I've sent letters to the Globe and Mail before, in response to her filth, but I didn't CC the CHRC on the matter.

His detractors also point to libel and slander cases that Ezra has launched over the years, as evidence he is for censorship. The left's defense of this, equally spurious logic? Libel and slander suits can have the same effect as a government regulating speech, therefore it's the same thing.

You know what else can have the same effect? Being blown up on your morning commute, or having your airplane hijacked and flown into an office tower. What's the latest word from the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93?

Okay, I'll be more reasonable with you: how about the ever-present fear of violent retribution for offending Muslims? The original authors of Danish cartoons are forced to fear for their lives. People in other European countries have been thrown in jail for republishing them. How's that for "libel chill"?

Do I even have to mention Theo Van Gough? Or the threats against Irshad Manjii's life?

Moreover, trying to say that someone who launches libel actions, is no different from a government regulating speech, speaks not to hypocricy. It proves you don't even know the meaning of the word.

If somebody brings a false libel or slander claim against you, and they lose, then you get reimbursed by the person who brought the complaint. You also have other legal avenues available to you, such as counterclaims for intentional interference, etc. What exactly is the recourse if you are falsely accused at a Human Rights Tribunal?

Left-wingers keep reminding me that the HRT is more like a civil court than a criminal court. Sure it's more like a civil court, except without novel things like burden of proof, due process, or the right to be compensated in the event of a frivilous claim.

The core element of this entire debate, is whether or not the HRC's should even have the power to hear complaints on matters such as that of Ezra Levant or Maclean's. This is a debate which the left does not want to have. In fact, they defend the Human Right's Commissions. They say, if Ezra is not found to have broken the "human rights code", then everything worked out fine. The system works great, they say. Except of course, he has no legal recourse to be compensated for his troubles from the agency that prosecuted the claim, or from Mr. Soharwardy himself.

The people blasting me over my apparent dishonesty, have no intention of being honest themselves. Their intention from day one of this debacle, was to deny Ezra Levant the point he wanted to make. Rather, they wanted everyone to focus on what a lousy person, they claim he is.

Scrutiny of the Human Rights Commissions? Nope.

Scrutiny of Ezra Levant? Yep.

Honest debate? Hardly.

Freespeecher: The New Leftist Pejorative.

I can relate to Warren Kinsella's passion to squash bigotry wherever it hides. But that's about it. Relating to, does not necessarily drive me to the same conclusions that Kinsella and Richard Warman have arrived at: that hate must be prosecuted, it must be criminalized, it must be hunted down.

Warren Kinsella would lead you to believe that the movement of libertarians out there, moving in to attack Human Right's Commissions, and criticize Richard Warman, are motivated to do so because they are informed by racism; that we have a stake in protecting our right to be racist and hateful.

Nothing could be further from the truth. What Kinsella either does not understand, does not want to, or simply prefers to misrepresent, is that people like myself believe that hate is best confronted in a free and open society. Let the decency of Canadians judge the bigots and racists in the "social society", as Ezra Levant put it.

In fact, it is the sincere belief of libertarians that "speech codes" and state interference in our fundamental right to expression will ultimately lead to undesirable and dangerous consequences.

There is no shortage of examples in history about the dangers of regulating the fundamental right to express yourself. From Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt, to Vladimir Putin's assault on independent media, the danger in regulating speech exists principally in the premise that society can regulate it.

For us "freespeechers", we are viewed as placing our right of expression above the virtue of civil society. The real question to ask your self is: when did civility become a virtue? When did being polite and falling into the status quo become something to aspire to. These are all old British loyalist concepts that should be happily forgotten.

The only reason why people were convinced that civility was a virtue, was not to offend the royalty's grasp on power. Of course, we convince ourselves that being civil is for our own collective good.

Maria Shriver said that "polite women never make history". It's an enlightened statement, but it should be expanded more broadly: polite people never make history. Offending the status quo is an essential condition for moving society forward, and providing for a healthy democracy.

The problem with Western society today, is we've allowed statist ideas convince us that democracy itself is the means by which we are afforded freedom. It's a flawed assumption, shared by the Bush Administration and his banal apologists. There is no democracy without free speech. The virtue of being free to speak, and express yourself, is the catalyst for democratic revolution. Not the other way around.

It's the ultimate flaw in socialism. When the well-being of the collective is valued over the individual, the very value of the individual is decreased implicitly. The body politic justifies extermination of problematic or dangerous expression of ideas on the grounds that doing so serves "the common good". This fundamentally destroys the cultural virtue of free speech, and undermines the value of democracy itself. Democracy is not a means by which to provide for free speech. Free speech is a means by which to provide for democracy.

Kinsella and Warman cannot understand this nuance. But neither can most of the rest of society.

People can flagellate about Ezra Levant's ego and his "grand standing" for the camera. But they do so, at great disservice to the point he has made, no matter why he chooses to make it. The very fact that there are those out to tear him down, and discredit him at every turn, while saying they support his cause are really trying to play two-sides of the same coin.

Given how little media attention this whole issue has received, I would wager, that if Ezra did not offend the sensibilities of the left by grandstanding, we would not even be having this discussion. So one might argue, that his "over-reaction" was fundamentally necessary to start this debate. Because sometimes, being rude is the only way you get people's attention.