The Shotgun Blog
« So what does that say about Seattle? | Main | WSTV: Mark Steyn on Martin's bill »
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Omar Soliman, Canada's next Prime Minister?
Warren Kinsella hopes Omar Soliman will be Prime Minister some day. Soliman certainly has an impressive resume, but his recent attack on what he calls the “right to offend” movement is badly flawed.
Consider, for example, Soliman’s initial salvo against folks like Ezra Levant and yours truly.
“…For Ezra Levant and his dim-witted ‘right to offend’ movement, there is apparently nothing but agreement for Canada's alleged “stranglehold of oppressive, politically correct thinking and strong-arms. Canadians should get used to this kind of inflammatory rhetoric—in the name of free speech, it’s probably here to stay.”
According to Soliman, we are “dim-witted” users of “inflammatory rhetoric.” Well, I guess if we really are dim-witted, there’s no reason to pay attention to anything we say. Especially given the incendiary language to which we right-wing troglodytes are so prone. Soliman further informs us that the libertarian view of free speech” is “distinctly American.” Certainly, no one familiar with political rhetoric in Canada would think that Soliman’s style of argument here – let us call it Argumentum Ad Americanus – is lacking a distinctly Canadian je ne sais quoi.
As no less an authority on all-things-Canadian than Maude Barlow wrote in 2006, “A vote for Stephen Harper is a vote for American style health care.” During the election that year, the Liberal Party of Canada launched ads attacking Harper for “being very popular with right wingers in the U.S.” (Even Frank McKenna, our ambassador to the United States at the time, criticized the very party that had appointed him for those ads.)
And who can forget Canadian Human Rights Commission official and agent provocateur Dean Steacy, who told us he doesn’t give freedom of speech any value because it’s just an American concept? Argumentum Ad Americanus is all-too-common in Canadian discourse.
Besides the fact that they sound too American, Omar Soliman thinks free speech arguments aren’t worthy of attention because they get a lot of support from Nazis.
“Unfortunately, people today are seldom riled to a defense of free speech on the basis of one or another philosophical tenets. Nope, today’s defenders of free speech are more often driven by a passionate hatred for the objects of their disapproval.”
See, the people supporting Keith Noble’s right to be sympathetic to the Ku Klux Klan and Keith Martin’s private members bill are, in fact, sympathetic to the KKK themselves. Moreover, that sympathy – which the "free speechers" hide so cleverly – is enough to undercut all of the actual arguments they make in favour of upholding a sacred liberty.
I don’t know about Omar Soliman, but I try to avoid committing the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. I also try to avoid accusing my intellectual opponents of crypto-racism.
But, in any event, suppose it were discovered that John Stuart Mill expressed sympathy for the KKK, as ludicrous as that sounds. Would that be sufficient reason to dismiss all the great stuff he says in On Liberty? Or can we separate the validity of a person’s argument from his personal bigotries?
However, according to Soliman,
“…you can’t be a social conservative and a libertarian at the same time. You can’t be the apostle of liberty on one hand and a fierce critic of it on another. You can’t call the complainant an ‘anti-semitic imam,’ and then turn around and support the right of anti-semites to spew their hatred. It’s flawed logic.”
But the only one whose logic is flawed is Omar Soliman. Of course you can detest what someone says yet still uphold his right to say it. Confer no less an authority than Voltaire who once wrote in a letter: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." That’s what free speech is all about! There’s nothing inconsistent about me using my right to speak freely to criticize what you said when you exercised that same right. Only if I call on the state to stop you from speaking can I be accused of vacating my role as “an apostle of liberty.”
(As for the lumbering equivocation on the moral/legal distinction captured in his first sentence, I refer you here for a bit of an education on the possibility of being a libertarian social conservative. You might think something is immoral, but whether or not it should be illegal is a different question).
Soliman dismisses us as “dim-witted,” but, for my part, I really, really, really don’t want the government stopping radical Imams from making anti-Semitic remarks. No, really. Because, Omar, the more they talk, the more they’ll expose themselves to the contempt and ridicule of other, sane Canadians. And that’s fine by us: some people deserve to be ridiculed for what they say.
The rest of Soliman’s piece is devoted to calling Ezra Levant a “wacko.” Apparently, in May 2004 Ezra accused Maclean's of being “pro-radical Islam and hostile to the war on terrorism.” You know, we can argue about the merit of Ezra’s accusation, but I don’t see anything in that quote that indicates Ezra was demanding the government crack down on Maclean's for being hostile to the war on terrorism.
But it doesn’t really matter. Ezra Levant has the right (for now) to criticize Maclean's, on the one hand, and, on the other, defend its right to publish an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book. Where’s the inconsistency?
Near the end of the piece, Soliman lets us know that,
There are no threats to free speech; no imminent collapse of our values or our civilization either. Just a bunch of hardcore ideologues who see a kind of twisted honour in defending the provocations of anti-semites, neo-nazi’s, and Islamophobes.
I’m sure John Stuart Mill was a “hardcore ideologue”, whatever that means. And, again, Soliman misrepresents his opposition. None of us are defending what the Zundels of the world are saying – not the content of their speech – but we are defending their right to undertake the act of speaking itself. As I wrote in a recent op-ed published in an American newspaper (I know, I know: shock and horror!):
"At stake in Canada is a principle recognized in all liberal democracies for hundreds of years: the principle that all speech, even hateful speech, is sacred, and not to be limited merely to prevent offense to others… Speech is sacred. This principle stands between civilization and barbarism, between the good of the American Republic and the evil of Nazi Germany."
But go ahead, Omar. Accuse me of being a pro-American crypto-Nazi.
Posted by Terrence Watson on February 9, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/25970588
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Omar Soliman, Canada's next Prime Minister?:
Comments
To all:
Sorry the post was initially messed up. I'm not sure what happened with the html, but that'll teach me not to write my post in Word and then copy-paste it into Typepad!
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 9-Feb-08 2:29:00 PM
Umm - except the principle that speech is sacred doesn't go back "hundreds of years".
While the utility of free speech has been kicked around for some time its sacredness, or rather quasi-sacredness, has only formed part of American law since around the 1920's. Even later here in Canada (1960 at the earliest)
I say quasi-sacred because even the US Supreme Court upheld an Illinois hate speech statute identical to s. 13 of our Human Rights Act in the 50's.
Posted by: Nbob | 9-Feb-08 2:39:42 PM
The case is Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) 343 U.S. 250
The law it upheld:
"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to manufacture, sell, or offer for sale, advertise or publish, .......
...... which said publication or exhibition exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach of the peace or riots. . . ."
And yes - there is a line of cases that narrows the ruling ( like Collins v. Smith of which you speak) but they did not occur until the mid 60's onward. While they limit the applicability of Beauharnais (e.g. the need to find clear and present danger/ the need to show the speaker knowingly was telling a lie, etc) what the court said about group libel in Beauharnais has never been specifically overruled.
Posted by: Nbob | 9-Feb-08 3:23:51 PM
umm - you were speaking about it - where'd your comment go Terrance?
Posted by: Nbob | 9-Feb-08 3:25:14 PM
OH MY GOD
Go ahead and check his facebook. Quite the sleeper cell. I'd have my family out of this country in a heartbeat if that thing was elected to anything higher than Missisuaga city council.
Posted by: dp | 9-Feb-08 3:37:06 PM
Nbob,
My first comment was not well formed. I wanted to look up the case you were referring to before commenting. Sorry. No dishonesty was intended.
I think there are two lines of criticism here:
First, as far as the Illinois statute goes, at the very least the complaint had to go to a court, and not a quasi-judicial human rights tribunal. In addition, the later limitations you cite are kind of important, wouldn't you say?
No one had to show genuine "clear and present danger" for an HRC to silence Stephen Boissoin, for example.
But your broader point does stand: the meaning and limits of the principle of free speech have been contested throughout the "hundreds of years" I somewhat hyperbolically refer to in my op-ed.
However, I would argue that beneath those disputes -- latent, if you'd like -- is a recognition that speech is a special kind of activity. When I wrote "speech is sacred," I was thinking all the way back to Socrates, to the idea that speech and dialogue are inseparable from our capacity for rationality.
We're still working out the implications of that idea, I'd argue. For example, does it require a more expansive guarantee of free speech like the one contained in the California state constitution, and contested in Pruneyard?
But, I'd say the sacredness of speech is always lurking in the background to these disputes. The idea is still developing, and we're still learning all of its implications.
Maybe the sacredness of speech is compatible with restrictions on hate speech, but I'd need to see an argument before believing that.
And, in any event, I'm not sure how relevant the "hundreds of years" comment is to the main thrust of my post.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 9-Feb-08 3:52:47 PM
Nbob,
I'm going to be gone for a bit and may not be able to respond to your comments right away. My philo-spider-sense tells me there is a good discussion lurking here and I'd like to continue it. Believe me, I was tempted to _not_ quote the "hundreds of years" part of that op-ed.
I'm kind of embarrassed I didn't know about the Illinois case offhand. If I'm ever coerced into teaching philosophy of law again, I may have to see what the students think of that one. From my very superficial reading, it looks like the Court's decision upholding the law was based on the fact that it was framed as a prohibition on libel (albeit, group libel.)
Of course, the First Amendment doesn't protect libel, so the law was upheld. Also, the Court ruled that the truth or falsity of the libelous speech was irrelevant.
Do you _really_ think Section 13 is essentially a prohibition of group libel? And, even if it is, don't you think it should be narrowed in the ways Beauharnais was subsequently narrowed?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 9-Feb-08 4:17:35 PM
Nbob needs an older set of books:
"except that the principle of speech is sacred doesn't go back 'a couple hundred of years'" - Nbob.
"Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen - France 1789
2) The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man.
These rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistence to oppression.
10) No one should be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not derange the public order established by law.
11) The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man;
every citizen then can freely speak, write, and print, subject to the responsibility for the abuse of this freedom in cases determined by law."
Oh wait, I found the Liberal Party bible on censorship.
"As a matter of basic principle, democracy recognizes NO TABOO ISSUE, there is no subject that cannot be questioned or challenged, not even the validity of democracy itself.
The mentally healthy individual has few or, ideally, no taboo issues because he is able to face reality. Psychologically, the existence of taboo issues in the individual or in a group, party, or nation is due to a sense of security or guilt of both.
Under condidtions of stress and strain, the individual as well as the group may take refuge in the temporary shelter of the taboo and postpone facing reality, even if it in impossible to shut it out forever. Since totalitarian regimes operate in a permanent state of high tension and crisis (like say the Liberal Party du Canada and its sickening endless Canadian unity? - rockyt), the taboo is part and parcel of their normal environment....."
'Thus it can be seen that fascist totalitarianism,.....is totalitarian in its objective: to control all phases of human life, political or not, from the cradle to the grave." -
- TODAY'S ISMS
Clearly the Liberal dominated human rights commssions were set up by the Liberals to reject opinions and beliefs that were not approved by the leader. and officially approve only the opinions they liked.
Not a lesson in democracy.
In the same vein, Dictator Mussolini's picture was in every classroom in Italy with the caption 'Mussolini is always right".
The federal Liberals are such a bunch of incompetent anti-democratic doughheads philosphically, that all they really deserve is ridicule and scorn.
And it doesn't say much for the big ciddy Toronto that it is the base of their support.
Posted by: rockyt | 9-Feb-08 4:46:36 PM
Wasn't thinking there was anything dishonest about the post gone missing - just thought it was weird, maybe I had imagined it.
I as well have some errands to run - but yes this could be fun. You seem to half know what you're talking about and I half know what I'm talking about - add the two together in a little too and fro and maybe something resembling a full understanding might obtain : )
Posted by: Nbob | 9-Feb-08 5:01:48 PM
Actually it was Lyin' Brian that set up the first censorship board, I mean CHRC, but the Liberals knew a good political thing when they saw it and knew how to abuse it.
Mulroney, Trudeau, Liberal , Conservative, blah blah, central Canada has stereotyped themselves as all being the same, no matter what party they come from.
The problem with this country is that the entire upper end of the justice system has come out a narrow little strip of land along the Ottawa River Valley for too long, and therefore, has a really screwed up sense of democracy and the priorities of the rest of the country.
We want real justice, with real results and sentences.
And they want to continue to play around with their failed basement-conjured, experimental 'Just Society' on us.
Posted by: rockyt | 9-Feb-08 5:04:54 PM
>"Umm - except the principle that speech is sacred doesn't go back "hundreds of years".
Nbob
Then, Nbob, you go on to quote out of legal text.
If you think principles don't exist until they are enshrined in law you are wrong and the French Revolution and American Revolution never happened.
Posted by: Speller | 9-Feb-08 5:13:16 PM
Speller -
I've consumed too many silly pops watching the Flames getting revenge and kicking some Oiler butt - so holding a coherent thought for more than a sentence or two is a challenge at this point ...but
I didn't say principles of free speech don't go back 100s of years - it's the length of their "sacredness" I dispute.
I suggest the best way to determine the sacredness of a principle is to examine the degree to which it is enshrined in and protected by law.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is a fine bit of principle but if it approached anything resembling "sacred" how do you explain "The Terror" that was brought on by the very same people who elevated those principles into a constitution ?
Posted by: Nbob | 9-Feb-08 8:45:27 PM
The comments made by Nbob display a total ignorance of Canadian history and traditions. Perhaps he is simply a victim of the distorted and mythical liberal version of Canada.
We do not owe our traditional freedom of speech to the Americans nor is it solely an American concept. It came from British tradition like our English Common Law and parliamentary democracy. In fact I recall when our Canadian passports also included that we were British subjects. The liberals did everything in their power to destroy and deny our roots and traditions from replacing our flag with the meaningless symbol of to-day to the ridiculous charter (actually much more American than anything).
The lie that the concept of freedom of speech, expression and the press is American is unacceptable.
Posted by: Alain | 9-Feb-08 11:14:14 PM
The right NOT to be offended is enshrined in Sharia law. Could it be that our HRCs, at least insofar as Section 13 of the CHRC legislation holds, are in fact upholding Sharia?
Posted by: Don McCarten | 10-Feb-08 9:58:12 AM
At what point does immigration become invasion?
Muslims can no more exist under our customs and laws than Europians could flourish in the environment of the "Native Americans". They must change our system, and they are quickly learning how to go about it.
The Europian invasion took 2 centuries of hard work to accomplish, but like everything else, invasions have gone high tech. This one will succeed or fail in the next 20 years.
The best we can hope for is some sort of partition. Europe is on it's way to this, as are some Southeast Asian countries. The Balkans, Eastern Europe, South Asia all have some forms of partition. Lets hope we get the good stuff on our side of the wall. The Muslims will definitely get the golden triangle, and we'll have the oilfields. Military bases will be important, so the Conservatives first move should be to shift more assets to the west.
Australia will be bombarded with Canadian "refugees". All the poisonous snakes and crocodiles won't seem so bad compared to the chaos in this country.
Posted by: dp | 10-Feb-08 10:35:11 AM
rockyt sez:
The problem with this country is that the entire upper end of the justice system has come out a narrow little strip of land along the Ottawa River Valley.
This appears to be a very profound statement.
I say that because, being familiar with the Ottawa Valley, I can attest to the fact that there are more inbreds living there that perhaps in all of Tennessee and Arkansas.
Posted by: atric | 10-Feb-08 10:50:28 AM
What I see happening is that our parliamentary democracy was purposely redesigned by PET and continues to move from majority rule to the tyranny of minorities. This is why governments refuse to allow a referendum on major issues such as capital punishment, abortion, immigration, multiculturalism, etc. The same thing has been going on in Europe with the EU where the majority of people in the member countries are denied a voice. The EU was crafted and is being imposed by a minority of "elitists", who believe they are better qualified to decide than the average citizen. In Canada this approach gave us our constitution, the charter along with the HR act and all that it entails.
Unless we manage to take back the voice and authority of the majority we are doomed to the various social engineers.
Posted by: Alain | 10-Feb-08 12:15:25 PM
Alain has got it exactly right, I could'nt agree more. The velvet jackboot of Trudeauvia where some are more equal than others, and they will decide what's good for us all, is as ugly as the people who imposed this divide and conquer tribalism.
Posted by: Sean | 10-Feb-08 5:27:37 PM
haha crytpo-nazi... brings to mind the Buckley - Vidal exchange.
"Listen you queer, if you don't stop calling me a crypto-nazi, I'll sock you in the face and you'll stay plastered."
Posted by: Zak | 20-Feb-08 6:10:18 AM
Post a comment