Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Alberta "Human Rights" Commission has dismissed the charges against Ezra Levant over his publishing of the infamous Danish Muhammed cartoons in a now-defunct magazine he owned. Levant's scathing response to the dismissal is almost entirely on the money, in my view. That the absurd charges were dismissed does not mean that the Canadian hate speech system works; the fact that such charges can be brought in the first place, costing the man an ungodly amount of money to defend himself, means the system is inherently unjust and should be done away with. There is no "human right" not to be offended by someone else's views, period. Long excerpt below the fold.
The two complaints cost Alberta taxpayers in excess of $500,000 and, according to access to information documents, involved no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats. What a scam - on the part of the complainants, who were able to wage "lawfare" against an infidel without paying a cent; and on the part of the HRC, as a make-work project.Fire. Them. All...
Is this a victory? I suppose, in a narrow technical sense, it is. I'm off the hook now for both of the HRC complaints. That's two legal battles done - though I'm still up to my eyeballs fighting defamation suits and other legal actions that the human rights industry piled on top of these complaints.
But I've read the dismissal letter three times now, and each time it makes me more angry. Because I haven't been given my freedom of the press. I've simply had the government censor approve what I said. That's a completely different thing.
Pardeep Gundara - a second-rate bureaucrat, a nobody - had to give me his approval for me to be allowed to go back to my business. For 900 days I was in the dock, waiting for this literary giant to pronounce his judgment on me. And I found favour in his eyes - but barely.
Sorry. I don't give a damn what Gundara or the HRC says. Getting his approval is not a success. I won't legitimize his arrogant "authority" by saying "thank you, master". I'll say: "who the hell are you? Besides a busy-body bureaucrat?"
Look at his rationale for acquitting me: because the Western Standard met Gundara's home-made tests of reasonableness. We published the cartoons in "context"; we published letters that "criticized" them; and my favourite, the cartoons weren't "simply stuck in the middle" of the magazine. Gundara must have thought for ten whole minutes to come up with that list of journalistic do's and don't's. And - phew! - he likes me. He really likes me!
Sorry again, I don't give a damn if he likes me. In fact, it rather creeps me out that a whole squad of teat-sucking bureaucrats spent 900 days inspecting me and the Western Standard. I positively want to offend them. In fact, that's pretty much the only test of my freedom: can I do exactly what Gundara says I shouldn't? I'm not interested in publishing recipes or sports scores. I'm interested in bothering the hell out of government.
And so he should be. And please don't respond by telling me that Levant is a conservative/fascist/whatever and therefore....well, therefore something. Absolutely irrelevant. Free speech does not just apply to those you agree with.
Politics
Comments
Cue the indignant Canadians claiming that their "hate speech" laws are morally equivalent to America's slander laws.
Posted by: Wes | August 13, 2008 9:32 AM
Amen.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 13, 2008 10:03 AM
I remember when this first started and Ed said "the saddest part of all this is that it makes loonies like Levant defenders of free speech whereas he should be nothing more than a guy who's ideas are freely expressed and laughed at, not censored."
Its odd that the censors never seem to grasp that the very speech they censor becomes empowered by the ban.
Posted by: random guy | August 13, 2008 10:24 AM
The trouble with being a pro-free-speecher up here is that the people getting prosecuted by the HRCs are such a bunch attention-whoring wankers. One gets tired of holding one's nose while standing on principle.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 13, 2008 10:33 AM
Wes, I'm a Canadian but why should I defend this crap? The HRC is a bureaucracy in search of a cause, seeking out insult and violations in order to justify their squalid existence. Levant is only one of many people who have been the victims of this so-called "human rights" commission which, like Europe, has been increasingly used to bludgeon outspoken critics into submission. Can the lot of them.
There were some op eds in the different papers that argued the judgement was a political move to deflect growing anger and they may be onto something. I would like to see this group of self-important censors be put in their place but given the cost and risk involved, its hard to imagine anyone volunteering to do that in court. May have to rely on politicians and they don't seem like the type.
Posted by: Adrian | August 13, 2008 10:38 AM
"I positively want to offend them."
I have the exact same urge. Even though my opinions would probably be largely "censor approved", it's not about the right to say things you like, it's about the right to say things you wouldn't like, hell, that no one would like.
Oh, Canada.... (/said with a disappointed tone)
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 13, 2008 10:43 AM
Weren't the original cartoons different to the ones that were "republished" for the outrage, where ones had been added to the original collection in order to drum up more "i'm affended" posturing?
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 13, 2008 10:45 AM
...it's not about the right to say things you like, it's about the right to say things you wouldn't like, hell, that no one would like.
YES
*claps*
Posted by: Josh | August 13, 2008 10:46 AM
I wonder what would have happened if PZ Myers had desecrated a cracker in Canada.
Posted by: Taz | August 13, 2008 11:02 AM
As a Canadian magazine editor, I feel that I'm in a unique position to comment on this. Too bad I'm too angry to say anything erudite. I'll just go with...UP YOURS, HRC!
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 13, 2008 12:01 PM
Strangely one of the big problems in de-fanging and eventually disbarring the HRC is that too many Canadians don't understand their own laws, in particular they don't understand where their laws differ from those of the USA. It's partly due to the 'peering over the border' phenomenon which is reinforced by film and tv. If I hadn't had a very good history/civics teacher in highschool it's likely I'd make many of the same mistakes about what 'pop culture stereotypes' are applicable in Canada.
If we could inform the population that this kind of censorship of views is taking place then I think we could overturn the laws, or put in more protections against SLAPP type actions.
Posted by: kate | August 13, 2008 12:22 PM
Are you trying to tell us these laws have a purpose other than SLAPP-type actions?
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 13, 2008 2:20 PM
Awesome, blistering quote. Thanks, Ed.
Posted by: Tom | August 13, 2008 4:08 PM
As an Alberta taxpayer, I'm going to chime in and say that this is an utter abuse of the legal system, and just what I'd expect in a province where the government has no fear, and the status quo is god. This makes me sick.
Posted by: Ryan | August 13, 2008 4:18 PM
I was referring to certain people who have appeared on this blog and defended Canada's anti-free speech laws by falsely comparing them to America's laws against slander and libel.
Posted by: Wes | August 13, 2008 4:55 PM
That sounds like our dodgy incitement to religious hatred law we have in the UK. English PEN lobbied against it for ages and were basically told that they had nothing to worry about, that "legitimate criticism" (whatever they feel that is) was exempt from the law and that the attorney general would vet each case so that it wouldn't get through.
In effect: "la-de-da, don't worry lads, the attorney general will save you, what are you whining about?"
It was damn cavalier of them the way they messed with freedom of speech and used a wide sweeping law to plug a tiny judicial hole (muslims targeted by racist groups like the BNP but not provided protection because the hate speech was directed at them as a religious group). Frankly, we just needed to expand our race hate laws and include the use of religion as a pretext to attacking a person or group of people based on their race. This was just Labour's pet project designed to gain Muslim votes in struggling constituencies at the last election.
Posted by: Rob | August 13, 2008 7:27 PM
When this first came up, I felt the need to drop a note to Ezra Levant. Here's what I wrote:
Yeah, the guy's a jerk who likes shooting his mouth off. That's irrelevant. Loud-mouthed jerks have rights, and they're the same rights that I have. I applaud their defence of those rights.
Posted by: Pseudonym | August 13, 2008 8:40 PM
Does anyone have verification the Levant money claims?
Does anyone know how much he is seeking in his libel law suits against his former employee and the Muslim leader who dropped his HRC complaint?
Does anyone have the figures on the number of Alberta HRC complaints based on what they were set up for: landlord/tenent/employer/employee etc?
Does anyone have the figures on how many HRC requests for hearings are turned down?
Posted by: Bene D | August 14, 2008 4:42 AM
"Cue the indignant Canadians claiming that their "hate speech" laws are morally equivalent to America's slander laws."
That's all you hear? You've got to be kidding me. I've been informed by a (generally reasonable) Canadian that the 'offense' laws are the equivalent of America's violent threat(!) laws.
Posted by: Thomas M. | August 14, 2008 12:20 PM
I'm sure there's a justification for HRCs but I can't think of one.
Ezra Levant is a pretty poor excuse for a human. He has little to say that's not offensive, narrow-minded, bigotted or otherwise undesirable.
The price of having principles is defending his right to all these things over the people you agree with.
The principle is simple: a freedom applies to all or it will ultimately apply to none.
Posted by: Eternal Gaijin | August 14, 2008 8:07 PM