The Shotgun Blog
« McCain takes on farm subsidies | Main | Obama: I Wasn't Proud to be An American... »
Monday, February 18, 2008
WS Radio: Ezra Levant interview
Here is the interview we just conducted two hours ago with Ezra Levant. Take a listen (if the little widget doesn't work for you, here is the direct link):
Amongst many other things, Ezra explains that Shirlene McGovern, the state "interrogator" appearing opposite Ezra in the viral YouTube videos, has resigned from having anything to do with Ezra Levant's complaint before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. According to Ezra, the negative attention she received for playing a role in squelching speech and expression in Canada was too much for her. Listen to the interview to hear more.
Posted by Western Standard on February 18, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55058648d8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WS Radio: Ezra Levant interview:
Comments
I'm glad to see the word getting out.
Its time to take back our liberties.
No government has the right to engineer society.
No individual has the right not to be offended.
No court has the right to hide its decisions and processes.
Posted by: JC | 2008-02-18 6:24:34 PM
Same old shtick from Ezra again. Every time he hits his one-liners about the way Shirlene McGovern was dressed for their meeting or the poor handwriting of Soharwardy's complaint he only confirms what he has already said: He does not care if he convinces anyone that he is right. Because such a childish and smarmy manner is not likely to endear him even to people who might agree that hate speech laws are unjust.
But worse than that is that Ezra repeatedly offers what Harry Frankfurt has taught us to call by it's technical name: Bullshit. Does he believe his own bullshit? I don't know. But he keeps it coming. The most significant piece of bullshit is his claim that the Canadian Human Rights commission has a 100% "conviction" rate. (Let's set aside the bullshit that "conviction" is the wrong word and get right to the heart of the matter.) If you think that this means that every complaint ends up in a decision in favour of the complaint, you are wrong. In the last seven years the Canadian Human Rights commission has received 51 complaints about hate speech. They found 24 of them to not have any merit and did not pursue them. That's about half rejected right off the bat. Of the 27 they went on to investigate, 9 more were eventually dropped because they found insufficient evidence to support a complaint. So far then, two thirds of cases do not result in a negative outcome for the subject of the complaint.
But of the 18 remaining cases, some are still being investigated, so they could yet be dropped. Only 8 have gone to a final judgement, and all 8 of those have gone in favour of the complaint. So there is a sense in which there is a 100% "conviction" rate, but it is still true that the VAST majority of complaints are halted before then. It is like a prosecutor having a very high conviction rate because he does not pursue cases that are losers, only the real violations of law. So every time Ezra tries to imply (or directly say, even) that a complaint leads to a "conviction", it's bullshit.
Ezra also likes to twist facts about his interview, too. On the show he claimed that he was asked about his political intent in publishing the cartoons. He probably believes that he was asked that, but if he went back to listen to his own recording of the event he would see that the word "political" was never used. He was NOT asked his "political" intentions, just his intent.
But, I hear his followers cry, asking about his intent, political or otherwise is to charge him with a thought crime! Sacre bleu! This is also bullshit. A person's intent is often a relevant factor in most legal cases. If I yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and there is no fire, have I committed a crime? Well, if I did so because I *thought* there was a fire and did so with the *intention* of warning people, then it isn't a crime. But if I did so because I *thought* there was no fire but I *intended* to cause general mayhem for my own amusement, then I have. Our THOUGHTS are crucial to determining our MOTIVES which in turn are crucial to determining the legality of our ACTIONS. The difference between self-defense and murder can be the difference in what the person who kills was thinking. The difference between theft and a simple misunderstanding can be based on whether I THOUGHT you agreed to give me something of yours or knew you had not. Ezra was not "charged" with a thought "crime". It was a speech "crime". And while I agree that hate speech should not be actionable, I also find his need to turn this case into something else both absurd and harmful to the cause.
There are so many other similar inanities that he puts forward I could go on and on (like his shtick on "pre-crime" - he does seem to like to see himself as a science fiction hero, be he Winston Smith or John Anderton), but why bother? Ezra is right that hate speech should neither be illegal nor considered a violation of human rights and wrong about just about everything else. His playing the fool for public attention would just be sad were it not for the fact that it is more likely to damage the cause of eliminating hate speech laws than help it. It's a good thing for him that he does not care if he convinces anyone that he is right. Because other than the choir, no one is likely to be impressed with his preaching.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-18 7:11:00 PM
Still speculating about Ezra's motives?
It's becoming an obsession with you and boring for us.
Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-02-18 8:46:21 PM
Right Boca: Somehow FC managed to stretch a few sentences into a novel. The fine art of blather. I don't think I could ever be considered an Ezra follower, but when he takes on goons, I have to support him. I don't care about his motives. I care about mine.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-18 9:34:02 PM
Veteran - some refer to that as intellectual masturbation.
Yes, this is another good sign, but the main focus must be the complete elimination of all HRCs and the HR Act.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-18 9:43:30 PM
Well done Ezra.
The fascinating part is the interest shown by the American media as compared to our own Canadian MSM.
This story would never have legs in Canada, but for the internet.
The woman caller with a question for Ezra reminded me of Kate from SDA, particularly since the name Kinsella came about in her remarks.
Nah, couldn't have been.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2008-02-18 9:56:54 PM
While I don't share your opposition to hate speech laws, I appreciate that you make a decent case against them and one based on accurate information. Unlike, say, Ezra, who seems unable to open his yap without spewing bullshit. Or his braying supporters, who embrace Ronald Reagan's malapropism -- "Facts are stupid things" -- as an article of faith.
Pearls before swine, I say. And stubbornly dim swine at that.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-19 12:16:55 AM
Alain...I could not agree more. The entire group of human rights commissions are so broken they cannot be fixed.
All I can add is "Go Ezra Go"...if anyone remembers the movie that line came from.
Posted by: The LS from SK | 2008-02-19 12:23:44 AM
Fact Check, of the 8 complaints that were found for the complainants, what were the remedies? Fines? Apologies? I’m curious.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-02-19 12:51:04 AM
For those who find long, thoughtful posts too difficult to understand, here is a shorter version:
- Ezra claims there is a 100% "conviction" rate for hate speech human rights complaints. That's not true. The real rate is 20-30%.
- He claims McGovern asked about his political intent. That's not true.
- He claims asking about his intent makes the charge a thought crime. That's not true.
- He claims the charges are for a "pre-crime". That's not true.
Hate speech restrictions should be eliminated, but Ezra says too many false things to be likely to convince anyone of that.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-19 12:58:56 AM
Matthew: "What were the remedies? Fines? Apologies?"
First, the CHR Commission does not list requiring appologies as one of its possible remedies. This might be required by some provincial HR commissions, but not the federal one. Second, I cannot tell you what the remedy in all cases was, but the most recent one might be interesting enough.
On Jan. 9 2008 John Beck of "BC White Pride" was found responsibe for posting hate messages online. He was ordered to "cease and desist the discriminatory practice" and fined $6,000 (the max. possible is $10,000). But interestigly, even thought he lost, he was *awarded* $768.00 in "witness fees" - itemized as follows:
- A daily witness fee of $20.00 x 8 days = $160.00
- 120 km (round-trip distance from home to hearing) x 47.5 cents x 8 days of hearing = $456.00;
- $4.00 parking x 8 days of hearing = $32.00;
- $15.00/day x 8 days of hearing = $120.00.
So he was compensated *somewhat* for his involvement in the process even though he lost in the end. looks like Ezra's claim that he is on his own for costs of defending himself is not *entirely* true. Add that to the list....
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-19 1:17:04 AM
One more thing: It seems the "100% conviction" rate is not true for Alberta complaints either. The last decision the Alberta HR Commission made before the Boissoin case was in 2003. Quintin Johnson complained that HMV was exposing white people and Christians to hatred by carrying one CD that included a song called "Kill the Christian" and another with a song called "Kill all the White People". The complaint was dismissed even thought the panel found that "the content and tone of the material in question are discriminatory, and could expose a class of persons to hatred because of race and religious beliefs if promoted." But they also said that "for a person to be exposed to the hate material relevant to this hearing, that person would have to search and find the offending compact disc from among a myriad of others, and then request an agent for the respondent to break the container seal and play the lyrics in a special listening booth where only that person would hear the offending material." So the case against HMV was dismissed.
That means the "conviction" rate in Alberta appears to be only 50% in the last 5 years - 1 out of 2 cases.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-19 1:50:20 AM
Well Fact Check...if some of the information coming out of a CHRC case in Ontario is true - it should not be too hard to get a conviction if evidence is planted by agent provocateurs under various Emails and IDs and then used against the website owner?
Only a police investigation and public inquiry will establish the facts as to who and how many were actually involved if any.
If true - not cricket old boy!
Posted by: The LS from SK | 2008-02-19 3:04:57 AM
Hey Factcheck, since you seem to be right on top of this Liberal BS, could you please tell me how much 'traffic' was visiting the hate website ran by a guy named Santos(?) out of Two Hills Ab?
He was sentenced to over 2 yrs for his 'hate' crime, but he did not kill anybody.
Posted by: rockyt | 2008-02-19 8:07:49 AM
...as much as I think the AHRC is a kangaroo court, I have to side on Fact Check on Ezra's presentation skill set.
Then again, maybe he's exactly the type of person needed to expose this gong show to the world.
But, as the old saying goes - two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-02-19 6:12:59 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.