Big Media to the Rescue

Since last week's explosion of editorials regarding the OHRC, the bloggers and mag writers have been jumping all over the free speech debate.

The place to go for the latest stuff is Mark Steyn's website, as he provides a link to every new editorial on the matter. Many of them are pro-speech and anti-star chamber, but for good reason: most people in the papers say they're against the gagging of free speech, and even a couple of lefty bloggers have started to change their tune.

For the record, I think a great debt is owed to Levant and Steyn on this account, because they kept the debate going in the blogosphere for months before the media finally woke up to it.

Recently, Steyn linked to a George Jonas piece, in which Jonas asks why some stories draw attention, while other stories don't.

I dig Jonas. He's cool, and I like his stuff. I thought Vengeance was a great read, but Munich was crap. Anyway, Jonas says something in his column that I have been seeing a lot lately: the utter bewilderment as to why the human rights issue is suddenly worthy of an op-ed. Champagne corks are popping all around, as the editors and columnists pat themselves on the back for presenting themselves as champions of free speech. Yet, to their curiosity, they wonder what took them so long.

The Star, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Sun, The Hamilton Spectator, The Calgary Herald, so forth and so on. They've all gotten into the act. And nobody knows why.

I do.

I said it a couple of weeks ago, and I'll say it again: self-preservation. It is no coincidence that the heavy hitters in the newspaper biz didn't get into the free speech debate until the OHRC wrote a press release that contained the word media.

The gagging of free speech: not just for bloggers anymore.

After this press release, the papers started hitting the issue fast and furious. They were now all for the rights of free expression and free speech.

Hog wash. I find it very amusing that free speech defenders are linking to these editorials like mad. The editorials contain next to nothing about the on-going debate regarding free speech. The papers let Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn twist, and only entered the fray when the magical word "media" appeared. These editorials are chock full of the letters "OHRC," but not very many "CHRC."

There is not a doubt in my mind that if the OHRC's decision had only used Mark Steyn's name, and not Maclean's, then the Calgary Herald et al wouldn't even have noticed.

Bloggers and free speech defenders better watch it. I've said that framing the debate as freedom of the press is the winning strategy, as long as bloggers insert themselves into the idea of "press."

If not, here's what's going to happen: The OHRC will capitulate to the papers, and back off quickly. That will shut the mouths of the editorialists, who will go back to their day jobs. It will also put the internet and the bloggers right back where they were: a separate entity, and a separate issue. Isolated. This will let the CHRC (remember them?) continue to frame the internet as a place where hate mongers hang out and a place that needs supervision.

In a funny way, the lambasting of the OHRC is the best news the CHRC has had in ages. It let them off the ropes, just when free speech advocates were gaining steam. Vitally, it changed the topic from "private citizen rights" to "media rights."

It could swing back just as quickly.

A Modest Response

I received an interesting letter vis-a-vis my take on the CHRC. It reads thus:

The Levant case has nothing to do with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Is it asking too much that you guys do your basic homework?

Never mind. Even Steyn thinks that Section 13 of the CHRA applied to the Levant case. -- Dr. Dawg

My response is as follows:

Dear Dr. Dawg,

re: "Canadian Human Rights Commission"

You're absolutely right. I have fallen into the trap of lumping them together over the past couple of months. To be honest, I can't keep track of who is complaining to whom, and who is hearing which case against which person. It changes from week to week and province to province.

Let's be more specific: the group hearing the Steyn deal is the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The British Columbia Human Rights Commission dropped the proceeding (at least, last I heard). The group that questioned Ezra Levant on You Tube is the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

This is painful stuff for the writer and the reader. Example: "The CHRC could have gone on sailing into the next century, punishing Canadians for speaking their minds, except for three things:

"Steyn [Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ontario Human Rights Commission, not the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and no longer the BC Human Rights Commission], Levant [only the Alberta Human Rights Commission, but not the other ones], Maclean's [lumped in with Steyn and, I think, no longer under the BC Human Rights Commission (if they ever were) but I could be wrong]."

All that for the names of two people and one magazine?

To satisfy everyone, I think we should use Canadian human rights commission(s), (note the parentheses and small caps). "Canadian" in this case doesn't imply the actual Canadian Human Rights Commission, only that the commission(s) are geographically located in Canada. This will make it much simpler for everyone, rather than having to scroll the Rolodex to see which principal's office a person has been called to.

Will Make Movie For Food

I was goofing off on Facebook when I should have been doing some editing, and I ran across a new Facebook "group."

Groups are what happens on Facebook when a few people get their pants in twist about something, and before you know it some guy from New Zealand is one of 25, 987 people "Pledging to Stop Violence Against Rabbits in Manitoba," or whatever.

Anyway, the latest buzz in the Canadian film scene is Bill C-10. It's full of taxation mumbo jumbo, and somewhere in there is a provision stating that the government won't give tax credits to films and TV shows that it finds offensive, or not in the public interest.

Horrors! Every actor, writer, director and other frequent Starbucks regular instantly went nuclear. As usual, they went ballistic over the whole free speech deal, and are crying about censorship from Big Brother.

Yeah, right. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, writers both, were up on charges in front of Canadian Human Rights commissions for expressing their views. Where were the film grads then?

As if Canada were in the business of closing the mouths of whacked-out filmmakers. Every night on Canadian TV I see a new acid trip come over the airwaves. Poorly written, poorly shot, and delivered with a healthy dose of sanctimony: "We don't shoot our stuff like Americans. That would be so...American." In other words, Canadian filmmakers airing stuff in Canada make it look like crap on purpose. Who needs production value when you have a maple leaf on your backpack?

For the record, if the government were to end tax credits for garbage films, it is not censorship. Censorship is when the government sends a squad of thugs to your house and throws you in jail for making a film. When a government merely cuts the money supply on people that want to play Spielberg all day while showing Ed Wood ticket sales, it's called good business.

Earlier this year, I had my eye on a couple of grants and thought about applying for them. I wanted to make an independent film and thought that my corporate video background would give me a leg up: completed projects, money made, happy customers, so forth. I had the script set, actors ready, my own equipment. Just a little extra dough for some locations and better lighting gear would give me a green light.

Not a chance. The government has been "censoring" mainstream storytellers for decades. When I talked to the guy in Ottawa about my project, he told me my project "was not very viable," whatever that means. If I had a First Nations angle, or a multicultural story, or something "that is not mainstream, but can only be told through government assistance," then I'd be all right. "Genre films," were out. Also, a film school background would help, especially if the film was "experimental" in nature.

In other words, make something no one wants to see, and that doesn't have a hope in hell of making money.

So it was no go. Did I cry and moan and create a group on Facebook? Nah. I put the phone down and said to myself, "All right. Another four months and I'll be able to finance the lights on my own, then try and draw an investor, and make the damn movie. Maybe next year, if I have to."

Today's storytellers in Canada make me ill. I don't want to talk to a filmmaker that can't make his film without begging from the Feds. You want to make a movie? Then make the damn movie. You spend all your life whining and protesting to the government about every little gripe, and then get surprised when they ask you to put up the goods?

I also don't want to hear from anybody about "experimental filmmakers" needing assistance. No. They do not. They need to get a job, and get a life. Earn some money. Buy a camera, rent some gear, get costumes at Zellers, find some investors, go to Home Hardware and make your own dolly gear. Filmmaking equipment is so relatively cheap and good now, that there is no excuse for not doing it on your own when you have to. Twenty years ago, producing your own film would have been a hell of a task. Now, teenagers are doing it.

Need assistance? Hear you go: a dolly can be made with 1-inch plywood. Make it a 40" x 30" piece (sorry, don't know the metric on that). Take eight rollerblade wheels and bolt them into pairs. Place the four pairs on each corner of the birch board (birch is best). Bolt a stool to the board, and leave space for your tripod. Bolt a handle to the board, so a buddy can push it. Next, lay down two long stretches of 3/4" PVC pipe. Place your new dolly on the PVC pipe. Push.

That dolly just cost you $95.

What's the matter, chumps? Afraid you can't put up? Make your little movie so we all can see it, rather than have the taxpayers blow three hundred grand on a piece of junk that I won't see unless I stay up until 3am watching the Bravo network.

Last week I heard a morning DJ fawning over "I Met the Walrus," a short film about some Canadian guy who met John Lennon back in the day.

The short was up for an Oscar. A six-minute animated flick about a singer who died over thirty years ago.

This is the best Canada can show at the Academy Awards? I wonder why.

The Individuals vs. You, Me, and Steyn

Mark Steyn is getting a lot of support from various factions regarding the CHRC, but he's also taking some shots from the left.

I still can't figure out the "liberals" in Canada. They're for every right under the sun: gay rights, women's rights, environmental rights, freedom of speech*, freedom of expression*, so forth.

But notice the asterisks. According to liberals in Canada, freedom of speech is only protected as long as you're saying something they agree with. Expression? Well, they haven't a clue.

Want proof? Here's a piece from Jason Cherniak. Reading his stuff is an interesting study in the Canadian Left's intellect.

"As a matter of principle, I support this law. Hate messages should not be protected expression. Indeed, they are an attempt to silence the free expression of others by removing their individuality. At its heart, I believe that freedom of expression, and the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is about protecting the individual. People who attempt to use their individual rights to remove the individual rights of others should not be surprised when they end up on the wrong side of the law."

Got that? Me neither. Cherniak thinks that an individual's right is sacrosanct, and should be protected from other "individuals" trying to remove their right. Okay. Then why is he saying that neo-Nazis should be silenced? If they, as individuals, are speaking their minds, then their speech should be protected from individuals that want to shut them up. Cherniak runs around in circles and never gets anywhere. The man actually disagrees with himself while agreeing with himself. Tough to do, but he manages.

I sent him a comment asking if he was kidding, but it was probably a waste of time: lefties don't kid, and their sense of humor and irony is completely non-existent. Here's another bit from Cherniak:

"For example, we all have freedom of opinion, assembly and expression. Perhaps somebody has the opinion that everybody with red hair should be tied up. Perhaps that person might gather together a mob of people with the same opinion. Perhaps those people will express themselves by tying up a person with red hair and leaving him in the middle of the Trans-Canada Highway. Obviously, such a chain of events should be illegal. However, it can be described as a group of people holding an opinion, assembling and then expressing themselves."

Er, no. Tying someone up and leaving them in the middle of the highway cannot be argued as "freedom of expression." I doubt that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn would say that kidnapping and assault are protected freedoms. Nobody would. Cherniak's observations are so completely void of logic that they're laughable.

Then there's this knee-slapper: "I do not know enough about the specific accusations against Mr. Levant, Mr. Steyn and Macleans to give an opinion in their individual cases. However, I do know enough about the law to understand that their cases will be tried according to constitutional and legal principles."

What a buffoon. If you don't know enough about the accusations against Steyn and Levant, then what the hell are you doing writing an opinion about it? And while we're at it, since when are their cases going to be "tried"? This isn't a criminal court proceeding, and they aren't being tried for anything. Maybe Cherniak just made a slip of the tongue. I'm sure he'd love to see Steyn tried, drawn, and quartered. But not this time, pal.

If this is Cherniak's evidence for how much he knows about the law, I can only hope that no one will ever need his legal advice.

In the end, Cherniak's arguments all amount to the same old leftist anthem: "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Ezra Levant in the Star Chamber

Ezra Levant has released some You Tube videos of his time in the Star Chamber. It gives us a chance to see exactly what goes on during these "investigations" conducted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

A small room, a can of soda (presumably given free of charge), and a bureaucrat asking his political reasons for exercising free speech. Disgusting. But Levant sticks it to them. In one of his video clips he states, "I do not seek to convince you, because to do so would mean that I grant you some moral authority." Perfect.

Here's a look at what happened when the bureaucrat asked him what his intent was for publishing something in his magazine. Try to remember that this is a tape made in Canada, 2008, and not East Germany, 1979.



I found the woman's opening question very interesting. "I always ask people..." That should frighten you to the bone. She "always" asks "people." So how many people have been placed in that little room to answer for their views on politics, religion, free speech, so forth?

This next video clip is a beauty. After dragging Levant down to answer for the audacity of printing cartoons in a magazine, the woman closes the meeting with, "You're entitled to your opinions." Say what?



It's very doubtful you'll see these clips on the CBC. The Canadian media would never allow this to go to air in full. I just searched CBC news' website. Nothing there. I punched in Ezra Levant's name. The last news piece they ran on him was in June, 2007. So no, don't depend on the biggest Canadian news outlet to report on this inside scoop.

Catch the rest of the videos here. Levant will be uploading more later in the week.

The Slow Death of Freedom in Canada

Well, it looks like I screwed up the other day by saying that Mark Steyn was going to be tossed in front of "the three - yes, three - human rights commissions in Canada." What I should have said was, "Three of Canada's innumerable human rights commissions."

I'm a Canadian citizen, and I don't even know how many human rights commissions there are in the country. Steyn and Maclean's are apparently being star chambered by BC, Ontario, and the Feds. Now it's Ezra Levant's turn.

Ezra Levant
Levant is the former publisher of the out-of-print Western Standard. In February, 2006, the Standard re-printed the Danish Mohammed cartoons that sent Muslims into a tizzy. The Standard was attempting to show that free speech trumped everything else. For papers and magazines around the world to not re-print the newsmaking images would only show that violence and death threats could control the media.

Unfortunately, Levant was wrong. Not for re-printing the images, but in thinking that freedom of speech mattered a whit in Canada. Because two days ago, Levant found himself in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Calgary Herald (which didn't re-print the cartoons even though they're the crux of the complain against Levant; must have been an oversight) reports that Syed Soharwardy, the President of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed the complaint.

Alberta has a human rights commission? News to me. I didn't even know Ontario had one until Steyn got himself in trouble with the Canadian Islamic Congress. And lucky for him that he did. The Congress sounds like a bunch of nice guys compared to the "Supreme Council."

The Herald reports, "Levant, the magazine's former publisher, will be on the hot seat [Thursday] in Calgary during a commission investigation - a process he calls an "interrogation" - in which he'll be questioned extensively about the publication of the cartoons."

What Levant did is not a crime. Yet. But he still must hire a lawyer and go before these Orwellian magistrates and defend himself. You might be interested to know that Soharwardy does not have to appear during Levant's "questioning," and so Levant is not entitled to face his accuser.

Now, if you've read this far, think about what I've just told you. A magazine publisher is being accused of printing cartoons. He has to take a day away from his family. He has to shell out for a lawyer. He must appear before a commission that will question him "extensively" about the cartoons' publication. And that sound you hear from the Globe and Mail, the CBC, CTV, and the Toronto Star is...crickets.

The journalists in Canada are a joke. They're the first ones to scream about the (now shown to be fictitious) freedom of the press, yet when one of their own is tossed before a Kangaroo Court, you hear nary a whisper.

I'd love to see the Q&A between Levant and the Alberta Human Rights Commission:

HRC: Why did you print the cartoons?

Levant: Because every news outlet in the world was reporting riots. We thought readers should see what caused it all, and no one else in Canada was printing them.

HRC: But if no one else was printing them, why did you think you could?

Levant: Because they're cartoons.

HRC: No, they're offensive.

Levant: But they're cartoons.

HRC: No, Daffy Duck is a cartoon. You could have printed the Daffy Duck ones.

Levant: But Daffy didn't start any riots.

HRC: Exactly.

Levant: What?

Canada is playing a very dangerous game with this human rights business. We have now exposed ourselves for what we are: a de facto totalitarian state.

When a writer (Steyn) can be brought before a commission for what he writes, and when a publisher (Levant) can be brought before another commission for printing cartoons, you realize that the American framers were on to something: to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you need to write it down in plain, simple language. Canada's convoluted "constitution" is worth about as much as toilet paper when it comes to the freedoms that most Canadians think they have.

Here's what Jefferson and the boys put their names to:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech. Comma. Freedom of the press. And that's that. No need for long preamble or clarification. Print the thing, and let debate and discourse sort it out.

Notice that the framers put this amendment as numero uno. In Canada, these freedoms come dead last.

Levant Photo: National Post