Levant's third point, that the CJC bolstered the CNP in order to emphasize the need for legislation against hate speech, is provocative. Certainly CJC had been advocating for restrictions on hate speech for some time. Yet this was not a unanimous view. The main committee dealing with anti-Semitism in Canada was the Joint Community Relations Committee (JCRC). It was 'joint' because it had representatives from CJC and B'nai Brith Canada, the two largest Jewish organizations with representatives from many synagogues, fraternal groups and community centres, representing a wide array of ideological positions in the Canadian Jewish community. When the decision was made to press for the anti-hate legislation, the chair of the JCRC, Sydney Midanik, a longtime civil liberties advocate, resigned. Alan Borovoy, the most effective advocate of civil liberties in Canada for the last half century, joined the JCRC in the 1950s and was, and continues to be, both active in the CJC and an opponent of such legislation.
I can't find the appropriate link, but I am pretty sure Borovay's position now is that he supported hate-speech legislation then, but has come to see the error of his ways. Which the above statement would seem to dispute. Perhaps being in proximity to The Ez inevitably drives a man to bullshit.
14 comments:
Another exercise in finding more ways to avoid calling Ezra Levant a liar. "Evocative." "Preposterous." "There is no evidence..."
I care less about Levant's tenuous relationship to the truth now and more about his ability to bring us all back a few decades and restart the whole debate. All because he has this uncanny ability to lie with impunity.
This is insane. His rag went under a few years ago. He should get over it and move on. Maybe take up a trade, or something.
Sorry, not "Evocative." "Provocative."
Borovoy supported human rights legislation dealing with discrimination. He never supported hate crimes legislation.
Great article BTW, Im sure Levant will find a way to ether claim victory or dispute even Professor Bialystok
BCL - I think the post is a good one, and certainly raises the standard of debate. To that extent, I say, "well done", particularly compared to the typical attacks on Ezra which are little more than stylized name-calling.
Curious, however, if we look at Bialystok's comments from a slightly different perspective.
Bialystok speaks of a time where he acknoweldges that that the CNP was a relatively weak and benign influence in fact - but which, in the context of the time, was nonetheless a potential threat when considered in light of growing Nazi involvement in Germany and the U.S., bolstering the need for a response.
What would Bialystok suggest is the relative threat today - of Islamic extremists? In the context of what happened on 9/11, and more recently, plans to bomb sinagogues in New York. In the context of growing Muslim extremism in the world - and a growing acceptance and support for traditionally extremist groups such as Hezbollah, with mainstream Canadians now referring to Israel as an "Apartheid" government - in our own country? In such a context, is there a need for free debate regarding Muslim extremism -including, for example, calls for the death of a cartoonist for an editorial characature of Muhammad.
I'm curious what Bialystok would say about the need for people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn to raise the question of the threat of Muslim extremism without being bullied by calling the debate a matter of "hate speech"?
Or - from another perspecgive, Mr. Bialystock, if the Nazi's had made formal complaints over efforts to criticize them in the 1960's, suggesting that the CJC was engaging in promoting "hatred", and even if you were ulimately vindicated, you had to spend $100,000.00 to defend yourself - would you be so ambivalent about the issue of Canada's "hate speech" legislation?
Though - that being said - as a non-Jewish person, I wonder out loud if Ezra's concern over the CJC is, perhaps, somewhat over-stated.
*sigh*
LOL.. the "bloody-minded Albertan" wears on TG :)
It's just so incoherent and unfocused. You can't possibly think that last comment was sensible, can you?
You're conflating a number of issues here; perceived or real threats that are separated in time and space, threats that require a number of different responses, discussions of historical evidence versus speculation about past, present and future reality and a request for information from someone who is not even participating in this discussion (unless Mr. Bialystok is lurking).
All you wanted to do was draw some sort of parallel between the Nazis of the 60's and today's Muslims and to throw in some lament about free speech. As I've said before: "IF ONLY some people's freedom of speech were being restricted..."
You know, you should be clear about your motivations first and declare them, rather than confuse a discussion this way.
My thoughts on this are simple; Ezra Levant is a liar and this is yet another example of him being "corrected." If you want to dispute that, go ahead, but you'll have to do some research. It's not something that can be challenged by reason alone.
I thought Mr. Bialystok's article was quite illuminating. Without resorting to the usual back and forth he very succinctly explained why Mr. Levant is wrong.
This should end it for any reasonable person.
Yes TG - I know, I'm just too dim for words. You have an incredible knack for critiquing a post without actually saying anything.
The use of Bialystock was not to argue with him - but to pose the question, rhetorically.
If there was a need to stand up to what he acknoweldges as a benign influence in Canada by the CNP.. one assumes a much greater need to allow for open and direct questioning of those who brought us 9/11.
I mean, if we want to ask why there is a discussion regarding Levant and Bialystock at all - it's that Ezra (for good or ill) has been incensed with the willingness of the CJC to support hate speech restrictions in the Human Rights legislation.
So - just because some are all hung up on the semantics of whether or not everyone in the CJC has always supported such legislation is actually pretty marginally relevant. The real question, and the point of Levant's criticism in the first place - is the disconnect between the need to criticize and support restrictions on what Nazi's have to say, but, at the same time, the willingess to censor what people like Levant and Steyn are saying about groups that are, in this time - posing a demonstrated threat to the welfare of all citizens.
It's not an idle debate - as much as we wish it were.
If there was a need to stand up to what he acknoweldges as a benign influence in Canada by the CNP.
That seems to be only something that has become known with the fullness of time. Not back then.
one assumes a much greater need to allow for open and direct questioning of those who brought us 9/11.
Who, aside from Al Qaeda, do you mean by "those who brought us 9/11?"
The real question, and the point of Levant's criticism in the first place - is the disconnect between the need to criticize and support restrictions on what Nazi's have to say, but, at the same time, the willingess to censor what people like Levant and Steyn are saying about groups that are, in this time - posing a demonstrated threat to the welfare of all citizensCan you re-phrase that or break it up a bit? I don't know what it means, exactly.
Christ, I wish Blogger would fix the tagging already.
"The real question, and the point of Levant's criticism in the first place - is the disconnect between the need to criticize and support restrictions on what Nazi's have to say, but, at the same time, the willingess to censor what people like Levant and Steyn are saying about groups that are, in this time - posing a demonstrated threat to the welfare of all citizens."
Roblaw, you have missed the point, either on purpose or otherwise. CJC has never supported the use of Section 13 against Levant despite Levant's continual fulmination. It has also as I recall called for a revamping of Section 13 with proper protections in place to ensure no such further abuse. I am not sure in this light that I understand your problem.
Gus - I don't have any particular problem with the CJC. As I've said, I agree that Ezra Levant is over-stating his position regarding CJC.
My point - and I'll simplify for TG - is the Bialystok article is a useful discussion as to why we NEED stronger protection of free speech.
Whether we're talking about Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other extremist religious groups, we have to be open to criticize them without fear of government reprisal just because they seek to hide behind "religion" as a reason for their actions.
That's my point TG.
As I've said before, we need to be able to criticize the Catholic Church when they've mistreated aboriginal people and children generally, and we need to be able to criticize facets of extremist Muslim factions as well. Questionable acts don't become less questionable because they are taking place under the thin veneer of "religious" belief.
Whether we're talking about Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other extremist religious groups, we have to be open to criticize them without fear of government reprisal just because they seek to hide behind "religion" as a reason for their actions.
That's my point TGThat's not what I asked you. I asked you to clarify that mess you wrote in a previous comment.
I'm not an idiot, Rob. I understand very well the importance of protecting freedom of expression in order to promote candid discussions of very serious things. But that doesn't require hate speech and vilifying entire groups of people who are not directly involved in whatever threat is perceived or observed. In fact, what that risks doing is alienating moderates who have very important information to share and who can influence whatever social networks they are part of. At worst, it risks radicalising people into becoming a greater threat than what was originally perceived.
As I've said before, we need to be able to criticize the Catholic Church when they've mistreated aboriginal people and children generally...
Does that require assuming all Catholics are anti-aboriginal child rapists? Is that a useful contribution to the discourse? Please address this point.
and we need to be able to criticize facets of extremist Muslim factions as well. Questionable acts don't become less questionable because they are taking place under the thin veneer of "religious" belief.
Who's stopping you? And what acts are your referring to? And to they occur in Canada, or elsewhere?
Post a Comment