Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics - Canada Blogs

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

TomFoolery — 01/ 18/ 08 1:13 am

Author: TomFoolery

Posted: 01/ 18/ 08 1:13 am

"groups" as defined by our laws, are purely a semantical and conceptual theory, and need not exist in reality.

People who primarily view themselves as individuals don't get caught up in the 'group rights' thing.

The difficulty lies in that by giving rights on the basis of "group characteristics" the Law gives an impetus to people to start exercising power in that vein - and in fact strengthens the self-concept of group identity - rather than weakening it.

This inevitability undermines the very principles of classical liberalism and the legal origins of the notion of "equality".
.

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

BlawBlaw — 01/ 18/ 08 1:08 am

Author: BlawBlaw

Posted: 01/ 18/ 08 1:08 am

Paul McKeever wrote:

BlawBlaw wrote:

I would think it is a question of degree rather than a strict dichotomy between actions and words.

Not of "degree", per se, but of context.

In law school, everything was "contextualized" so that leftists could make up rules as they went along. Leftist and activists judges contextualize everything so they can get the result they want without explaining the logical process involved.

I am not accusing you of being a leftist, but I am hesitant to agree with you given my own experience and knowledge on the matter.

Words occupy a spectrum from innocuous information to an outright command. An army officer's order to shoot someone is effectively an action. The classic - shouting "fire" in a theatre - is effectively an action because the outcome is rather certain.

Quote:

Consent implies that one is agreeing to something that is not a lie . . . However, consent does not imply that one has all of the facts necessary to make a smart decision: one is responsible for doing ones own homework. . .

That is "contextual" as it depends on the circumstances. However, those circumstances can be defined. There are many circumstances where you cannot reasonbly expect another person to research the matter, especially on their own. In many cases, there is no public knowledge and the purchaser has to rely on the vendor for the information. That is why we have laws covering a prospectus, a new condo development, and franchises (good old Arthur Wishart) that are suprisingly similar (or maybe not).

Quote:

What about lies that cause people to withhold consent? What if no one wanted [Joe Bloggs] as their lawyer because they were told he is a pedophile? Shouldn't there be regulation of the person conveying those lies?

Yes. Such lies are a form of fraud. That is why we rightly have defamation laws. (That said, for your example to be understood, it is not necessary for you to use my name in it. I would appreciate it if you changed the name in your post. "Bloggs" - believe it or not - is a name traditionally used for such examples in law schools).

I like the personal touch; it makes an argument strike home. However, point taken, and I editted my original post.

Quote:

If Bloggs says "The members of group Y rob banks", I would argue that Bloggs defamed every individual in the group Y. If, on the other hand, Bloggs says "Some members of group Y rob banks", he has defamed nobody, though clearly he is attempting to smear group Y.

That is the problem. "Some members" may be a statistical fact; heck, "most members" may be a statistical fact. The person may or may not be attempting to smear anyone. Human right laws are framed and have been interpreted as motivation and intent neutral: it doesn't matter what you were trying to do, if it causes "discrimination" (ie likely to expose a minority to contempt - lets be real, hate is such a high standard that it never happens) then motive and intent are irrelevant. That's the law for civil legislation rather than criminal. The abomination is that human rights laws are framed as being civil in nature.

I am thinking that Ezra would have a good shot at a Constitutional challenge if the HRC punish him, but I am no constitutional lawyer.

Quote:

Finally, if Bloggs says "X, who is a member of group Y, robs banks", Bloggs has defamed X, but not Y, though clearly he has attempted to smear group Y. Smearing is a vicious act, but it is not illegal. Thus the newspaper industry.

Apparently, groups need protection, ergo the human rights industry.

Why should a vicious act not be illegal?

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

SaskBigPicture — 01/ 17/ 08 10:01 pm

Author: SaskBigPicture

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 10:01 pm

Paul McKeever wrote:

Some folks are apparently unhappy that I have criticized the logic and effectiveness of Ezra's argument for freedom of speech.

The general thrust of some responses has been: "The fact is that he's exposing the Human Rights Commission, and defending himself from a bully when others would not do so. That makes him a hero. Who cares about egghead analyses of the foundations of freedom?! Shut up!!".

A vaild point, Paul. We should all care about the foundations of freedom. We must always remember those foundations.

When the statists offer their seemingly "reasonable" arguments as to why we need Human Rights Commissions and multiculturalism and agricultural supply management and all sorts of welfare state intrusion, they are selling their ideological agenda to this country a bit at a time. Seeming reasonableness, mixed with a generous helping of guilt and naked emotionalism, has been the key to the adoption of the welfare state in Canada. Every erosion of our individual rights has been accomplished in this way.

Defending freedom on the basis of tradition will appeal to conservatives, but it's really preaching to the choir when you get right down to it. We really don't need to sell freedom to conservatives. It is the average citizen to whom we need to sell freedom, the average citizen who either pays no attention to politics or who even espouses leftist beliefs. The average citizen will not accept that freedom is good because it is based in tradition, that it should be valued because it is old. The average citizen has been willing to accept every Trudeaupian principle, in spite of the fact that these evil principles were contradictory to many "traditional values." Or perhaps, because they were contrary to tradition.

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

Jason Kauppinen — 01/ 17/ 08 2:18 pm

Author: Jason Kauppinen

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 2:18 pm

carfix2000ca wrote:

Advocating moral relativism as the answer. It won't work. Never did, never will

It's also not what the Freedom Party stands for. You need to check your facts.

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

Knox — 01/ 17/ 08 2:11 pm

Author: Knox

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 2:11 pm

The story is posted on the Western Standard
http://westernstandard.ca/website/index.php

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

Maikeru — 01/ 17/ 08 10:40 am

Author: Maikeru

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 10:40 am

Paul McKeever wrote:

The general thrust of some responses has been: "The fact is that he's exposing the Human Rights Commission, and defending himself from a bully when others would not do so. That makes him a hero. Who cares about egghead analyses of the foundations of freedom?! Shut up!!".

That's not the rational rationale offered up by those supportive of Ezra Levant in his appearance before the HRC.
He's a hero for not buckling to the truly irrational demand that the so-called 'Muslim cartoons' not be printed in a free world press which will otherwise print a good cartoon of anyone - living or dead.
Folks can intellectualize freedom all they want, but Ezra proved it.

Or not - only time and the HRC know for sure how free is Ezra, and by extension...

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

Paul McKeever — 01/ 17/ 08 9:57 am

Author: Paul McKeever

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 9:57 am

Some folks are apparently unhappy that I have criticized the logic and effectiveness of Ezra's argument for freedom of speech.

The general thrust of some responses has been: "The fact is that he's exposing the Human Rights Commission, and defending himself from a bully when others would not do so. That makes him a hero. Who cares about egghead analyses of the foundations of freedom?! Shut up!!".

And that is precisely my point. If you want freedom, the one thing you simply cannot shut up about is: a rational defence for freedom. The freedom to live a rational life cannot be achieved by whipping up a crowd into an anti-intellectual, anti-state passion. Such behaviour can only achieve the opposite: the glorification, and justification, of the anti-intellectual and the anti-rational.

None of this is an attack on Ezra. It is an attack on his arguments for freedom. If those arguments are not identified as flawed and ineffective for the purpose of achieving freedom, we will continue to rely upon them to the demise of freedom.

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

Paul McKeever — 01/ 17/ 08 9:26 am

Author: Paul McKeever

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 9:26 am

BlawBlaw wrote:

I would think it is a question of degree rather than a strict dichotomy between actions and words.

Not of "degree", per se, but of context.

Quote:

When you say consensual I assume that you mean informed consent. So there has to be laws regulating words that are incorrect, misleading or even absent? Lies that induce someone's consent should be regulated?

Consent implies that one is agreeing to something that is not a lie and not tantamount to a lie (e.g., a half-truth, such as Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman"). However, consent does not imply that one has all of the facts necessary to make a smart decision: one is responsible for doing ones own homework. For example, if X does no research and erroneously guesses that a 1982 nickel is worth $11 then, if X accepts an offer from Y to sell X a 1982 nickel for $10, X nonetheless consented to purchase the nickel. That fact that X failed to diligently research the value of 1982 nickels was not due to any dishonesty on Y's part. Rather, it was due to X not doing his homework. Such a trade is perfectly above-board.

Quote:

And then what about lies told about groups such that others will not consent to anything with the entire group?

That is an interesting example, and one I've addressed in correspondence to Michael Coren in the past. My view is this. If Bloggs says "The members of group Y rob banks", I would argue that Bloggs defamed every individual in the group Y. If, on the other hand, Bloggs says "Some members of group Y rob banks", he has defamed nobody, though clearly he is attempting to smear group Y. Finally, if Bloggs says "X, who is a member of group Y, robs banks", Bloggs has defamed X, but not Y, though clearly he has attempted to smear group Y. Smearing is a vicious act, but it is not illegal. Thus the newspaper industry.

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

Maikeru — 01/ 17/ 08 4:36 am

Author: Maikeru

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 4:36 am

shiva wrote:

Personally, I will not quibble about the details when I see that an issue I've been seething about for years is finally making the headlines and being brought to average people in a way they can understand and in a way that will make them want to join the fight instead of being oblivious.

Hear hear...

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

BlawBlaw — 01/ 17/ 08 4:20 am

Author: BlawBlaw

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 4:20 am

shiva wrote:

You know Paul, you're a really smart guy. Of that, there can be no doubt.

Let me tell you what Ezra has done for the common person: He has brought attention to an important subject that has not been on their radar at all. He has done it with 90 parts passion, and 10 parts of the other stuff that people don't really give a tinker's about. Personally, I will not quibble about the details when I see that an issue I've been seething about for years is finally making the headlines and being brought to average people in a way they can understand and in a way that will make them want to join the fight instead of being oblivious.

This is fascinating. There is that saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Then what is happening here? Paul, Ezra and I disagree on a lot of issues and yet we still self-identify as conservatives.

However, we - and any FD member - are not what you would describe as a "common person". I will have to get my ear to the ground but I don't think that Johnny Lunchbox is aware of the evil incarnate known as CHRC,

We actually care. For all the individualist crap that is spouted, we want something better for everyone.

Most people can't wrap their heads around that.

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

shiva — 01/ 17/ 08 1:54 am

Author: shiva

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 1:54 am

You know Paul, you're a really smart guy. Of that, there can be no doubt.

Let me tell you what Ezra has done for the common person: He has brought attention to an important subject that has not been on their radar at all. He has done it with 90 parts passion, and 10 parts of the other stuff that people don't really give a tinker's about. Personally, I will not quibble about the details when I see that an issue I've been seething about for years is finally making the headlines and being brought to average people in a way they can understand and in a way that will make them want to join the fight instead of being oblivious.

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

SaskBigPicture — 01/ 17/ 08 12:25 am

Author: SaskBigPicture

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 12:25 am

carfix2000ca wrote:

The freedom party will never elect anyone.

Why don't you rename the party and call it "The Morally Relative Party"
Or the "No Conscience Party"

This country already has the Liberals, NDP and "Conservatives." That's three nihilistic and morally relative parties already.

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

Charles J. White — 01/ 17/ 08 12:08 am

Author: Charles J. White

Posted: 01/ 17/ 08 12:08 am

Paul McKeever wrote:

On another site, Mark Hubbard wrote:

Finally, Ezra Levant's defense of free speech in the YouTube clip Sandi put up was inspirational: you'd have to go a long way to find a better advocate of free speech for your speaking engagement, who also has public exposure. So, what is your gripe with him?

I like Ezra. I think he had fun with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. I think he enhanced his notoriety with that stunt. Good for him (and I mean that). However, I don't think he has contributed, at all, to the prospects for a freer Alberta or Canada.

A condemnation of the Alberta Human Rights Commission should not treat as essential its procedures: that Canada's human rights tribunals have more inclusive policies in respect of evidence is not the essential problem with them; nor is the essential issue something relating to who one can have as legal counsel etc. Procedure is not the issue. Substantive law is the issue. If a person can be charged and convicted for believing and saying that everything is physical and nothing is supernatural (or the corollary: that it is irrational to defend or obey the alleged whims of an alleged god), then the right to a choice of lawyers, or to protections against hearsay, or to other procedural matters is hardly the point: the problem is that a law makes the expression of such a belief illegal, and that peoples' belief in the supernatural has resulted in such laws being made.

Ezra beefs that the Complainant is Islamic, and that the Complainant is a "fascist", etc. But, like an Islamic person, every religious person (Christian, Jewish, etc) believes that obedience to the will of their god is the highest virtue, that belief in their god's alleged commandments (as set out in holy books) constitutes knowledge, that there exists a supernatural realm, etc. Ezra blames the Imam for outrage over insults concerning Mohammed (insults that, according to the imam, are not permitted by the laws of Allah), but Ezra - taking care to say that he is Jewish (impliedly in a religious sense) - takes no exception to the idea that it is right to obey allegedly divine commandments. Where does a nod to the idea that obedience is a virtue leave Ezra if the Imam's god allegedly commanded that no person allow the ridicule of Mohammed, and that man must create governments having and using the power to punish those who ridicule Mohammed?

The case against those who are putting Ezra through the ringer is rightly founded on the facts of reality, upon rationality, and upon rational self-interest. Those who - like Ezra - implicitly take the position that obedience to allegedly divine authority is a virtue can therefrom make no logical argument that it is wrong for men to govern in accordance with the commandments of Islam's god.

Unlike many who think they are advancing the cause, he gave voice through a national magazine even if it was for a short time to people like Pierre Lemieux, Terence Corcoran and a whole host of other people who favor limited government so he has advanced the right ideas. As per normal, unless someone publicly admits they love Ayn Rand they are not part of the team in your view...

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

BlawBlaw — 01/ 16/ 08 11:50 pm

Author: BlawBlaw

Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 11:50 pm

What about criminal laws regarding words alone (let's set aside other representations for the moment)? I would think it is a question of degree rather than a strict dichotomy between actions and words.

When you say consensual I assume that you mean informed consent. So there has to be laws regulating words that are incorrect, misleading or even absent? Lies that induce someone's consent should be regulated?

What about lies that cause people to withhold consent? What if no one wanted Joe Bloggs as their lawyer because they were told he is a pedophile? Shouldn't there be regulation of the person conveying those lies?

And then what about lies told about groups such that others will not consent to anything with the entire group?

Re: Re: Ezra Levant - If you want freedom, advocate reason.

Paul McKeever — 01/ 16/ 08 11:03 pm

Author: Paul McKeever

Posted: 01/ 16/ 08 11:03 pm

BlawBlaw wrote:

Does the Freedom Party have a position on "hate speech" and its regulation?

Freedom Party opposes Canada's hate literature laws. Here's why.

Reason is man's only means of obtaining knowledge. Accordingly, rationality is required for human survival and happiness. For that reason, it is right to use force to ensure that ensure that every individual is free to make and act upon rational decisions. The duty of exercising such force on our behalf falls to the government.

Rationality cannot be produced by force. In contrast, irrational conduct that interferes with rational conduct can be prevented, punished, and discouraged with force.

One can make and act upon rational decisions only if one cannot legally be deprived of ones own life, liberty or property without ones consent. Therefore, to ensure freedom of rational thought and action - i.e., of thought and action upon which life and happiness depend - government, properly constituted, uses force to require that all relations among individuals are consensual (whether or not they are rational).

Relating this to freedom of speech: when a speaker's words are not calculated to deprive another person of his life, liberty or property without his consent, it is not proper for the government to respond to the speaker's expression of those words. If the government does respond by taking the speaker's life, liberty or property without his consent, the government is doing that which it is supposed to be preventing.

So it is in Ezra Levant's case, in my view.

Mocking religious beliefs - or stating that some of a religion's beliefs threaten to subject people to non-consensual deprivations of their lives, liberty or property - is no doubt offensive to those who hold said beliefs. Such statements may very well cause great numbers of people to fear, condemn or hate the religion, or those who advocate or promote such beliefs. However, none of these consequences (offence, fear, condemnation, hatred) constitute a non-consensual deprivation of life, liberty or property. Accordingly, the government has no legitimate role in outlawing such statements.

Some beliefs are false and evil. Some are contrary to individual freedom, contrary to individuals pursuing their own happiness, contrary to reason, or contrary to the facts of reality. When it is illegal verbally to condemn false and evil beliefs, reality, reason, happiness, freedom and capitalism are themselves condemned.

That some people hold such false or evil beliefs as religious beliefs does not rationally imply that such beliefs, or such believers, should be protected from criticism or emotional discomfort. In my view, those who believe that the earth is flat should not be surprised at the laughter and ridicule they receive from others, and the fact that one holds such beliefs as a matter of religious faith, or drunken stupor, or brain damage, or cultural norm, does not change the fact that said laughter and ridicule does not comprise non-consensual deprivation of anyone's life, liberty or property. Those who believe that non-believers, or adulterous women, or homosexuals etc. should, as such, be murdered must not only be ridiculed, but verbally condemned in the most vocal and appropriately blunt manner (along with the source of their belief, whether religious or non-religious). Such verbal condemnation, similarly, does not comprise non-consensual deprivation of anyone's life, liberty or property. The government ought not to intervene.

Ezra should not be involved in this legal proceeding for the following reason: the law in question should not exist. It is anti-rationality, hence anti-happiness and anti-survival. It is a law founded on, and serving, the hatred of what makes man man: reason.