Skip to main content.

Sunday

Mr Levant publishes a conservative newspaper in Alberta, Canada. Some time ago, he reprinted the famous Dutch Mohammad cartoons, and is now being investigated by the Canadian "Human Rights Commission".


I was happy to answer for the conduct of our magazine to anyone who asked -- reporters, readers, the public in general. I probably get asked about the decision once a week, and it's been two years now. But I won't explain myself to the government.




He has several more of these on his site at ezralevant.com.

He is the polar opposite of that piece of shit, Dale Franks, who recently bragged about his experience on a jury that unanimously stole ten years of a man's life because he wanted to sell marijuana.

Dale, a self-described Libertarian blogging under the banner of "Free Markets - Free People", finally got a chance to put his Libertarian principles to real meaningful action with real consequences, and at no cost or risk to himself. Being the Good German that he is, he chose to uphold "public policy" on grounds that jury nullification - the concept of judging the law as well as the facts, a concept that he claims to agree with "in principle" - should not be used to contest laws that he disagrees with.

There's a certain line of thought among Libertarians that it seems can only be explained by having placed the highest priority not on actually changing bad laws, but in having a say in what laws stand and fall. These Libertarians appear to believe that since they will make better choices about the law, that they should have the power to change them. Of course, this is no different than simply seeking power.

But Franks' decision was not even that abstract. No, he chose to actually be party to the enforcement of a law that he thinks is wrong. He acted - not failed to act, not failed to speak out - but actively participated in destroying a large portion of an innocent man's life. And for what? So he could be part of the system, so he would be listened to? He can't be listened to by the system if he works to divest the system of it's power, now, can he? No, it looks like he wants the capacity for, in theory, divesting the system of power while holding on to that power as the source of his capacity.

We see here polar opposite responses to being confronted by the cold, hard reality of what one's principles mean. Levant should get some kind of Howard Roark award, which I guess would leave Franks with a shiny new "Toohey" that he can display on his mantlepiece.

NOTE: I realize looking back over this that I appear to have committed an injustice - it looks like I used Levant as nothing more than a foil to lead into a discussion of Franks, who gets the most space here. The reality is that Levant is so clear and rational that there's little I can add to what he says for himself, and he deserves to be heard in his own words, while Franks is much more expert at obfuscating and rationalizing, and so requires more parsing. The real story here is Levant's heroic stand, and Franks is, to the extent the little worm has any importance whatsoever, here for contrast, having done the opposite of what anyone even remotely eligible for the title of "hero" would do.

Comments

<a href="http://muslimsagainstsharia...">Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission</a>

Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let's consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This "investigation" will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals' claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and radicalize moderate Muslims. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!

Posted by Muslims Against Sharia at Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:02 PM

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it