What's All This I Hear About Freedom of Speech?
Jacob Sullum | February 13, 2008, 11:53am
As a couple of commenters have noted in response to my column today, the National Post reports that Muslim activist Syed Soharwardy plans to drop his "human rights" complaint against Ezra Levant over the latter's decision, as publisher of the Western Standard, to reprint the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. This is how Soharwardy explained his decision:
Over the two years that we have gone through the process, I understand that most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech, that that principle is sacred and holy in our society. I believe Canadian society is mature enough not to absorb the messages that the cartoons sent. Only a very small fraction of Canadian media decided to publish those cartoons.
By his account, then, Soharwardy had not heard of this whole freedom-of-speech thing until after he filed his complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, and it took him two years to fully absorb how important it is to Canadians. During that time, he also took the measure of Canadians and judged them "mature enough" to look at cartoons depicting Muhammad without going on an anti-Muslim rampage. I think it may take a few more years for Soharwardy to get the concept at stake in his tiff with Levant.
Levant, for his part, says he plans to sue Soharwardy for wasting his time and money. I understand the sentiment, but I'm not sure it's a smart P.R. move.
The Western Standard comments on Soharwardy's announcement here.
Elemenope | February 13, 2008, 1:30pm | #
Given the chance, don't think for a moment a bearded ferret like Soharwardy wouldn't use those means if they were available.
Everyone would. We
know we would, because we have, so the moral equivalence buys you nothing. My point is that dissenting groups utilizing the structures of Western society
de facto legitimizes them in a way nothing else would.
He must be completely tone-deaf to not realize he comes off as a condescending prick.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, he comes off as a foreigner (which he is) analyzing a situation from, essentially, the outside. (So, RC, it's not an implication; it's pretty explicit. He's a Pakistani in a Strange Land.) If not literally, then certainly culturally. From that context, it sounds like rather a different sort of appraisal. (It's not something I'd expect he would say about, for instance, the US. We're kind of pricks, and our cultural image of Muhammad probably does have a bomb somewhere in the turban.)
Look. Islam wants to play in the West like all the other children, and so they have to learn the rules of the game (like, free speech=good, death warrant fatwa=bad). When their first instinct is to "sue your ass" you've already won in every way that matters.
Are you in the habit of bringing complaints contrary to principles that you, yourself, accept as sacred and holy?
Me, no. I don't consider much to be holy...certainly not "principles", as fatigued by human error as they tend to be. But if you're saying that such an act would be hypocritical, I'd advise you flush Kant from your headgear. Sometimes, personal imperatives collide; if you consider Islam to be holy and sacred, AND you consider Freedom of Speech to be holy and sacred, it does no good to just sit down and do nothing if one is (in your judgment) imperiled. We choose from among competing values all the time; choosing one over another in any given case does not automatically a hypocrite make.
Though you are probably right and it is mealy-mouthed bullshit. However, even bullshit is substantive when it is uttered by people in positions or authority and/or influence. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" was bullshit too, and yet I can't help thinking it helped a bit.
p.s. R C Dean, always meant to ask you, is that your real name, or an "Enemy of the State" reference? Or both?
Dan | February 13, 2008, 4:52pm | #
This is what happened:
1. This guy tried to use the government as a weapon to intimidate and shut down free speech.
2. The person he attacked turned out to be extremely capable of defending himself, both in front of a tribunal and in the court of public opinion.
3. Thus, the tables were turned on him, and he began to feel the heat, so he bailed and tried to declare a truce.
4. The victim, having none of that, is now going to make sure that all involved understand that there are consequences to flinging wild accusations and to creating unnacountable kangaroo courts with which to punish people who don't think the 'right' things.
I hope Levant goes after him for court costs AND punitive damages. And I hope he sues the government as well. These tribunals rely on the meekness of their victims to stay under the radar. The people who fling the accusations rely on the tribunals to do their dirty work for them. The only way to stop this garbage for every person hauled up in front of one of these kangaroo courts to make life extremely painful for everyone involved, to the full extent of the law.
Levant is out $100,000, plus his time, plus he had to have his name dragged through the mud and have vile accusations and smears aimed at him. For most people, just being hauled up in front of a human rights tribunal is damaging enough - you can lose your job, your friends, your standing in the community. Even if you did nothing wrong. It's not just about the money.
Go, Ezra, go. Make 'em all squirm.
