Squaring the Culture

Ezra Levant, attorney living in Alberta, CA and former publisher of the now-defunct Western Standard magazine, sounded forth yesterday concerning his interrogation by the Human Rights Officer of the state of Alberta for publishing cartoons offensive to Muslims. It behooves every defender of free speech rights to pay attention to what’s happening to Levant, and to Mark Steyn.

Levant was sued by Syed Sohanwardy, a Saudi lecturer on sharia law, for publishing the cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper about 2 years ago. Likewise, Mohamed Almasry sued MacLean’s magazine for publishing a portion of Mark Steyn’s book America Alone. Muslims are using the legal apparatus of the Canadian government to silence opponents, using the complaint that they find certain speech “offensive.”

Levant speaking:

I told [the Human Rights Officer] that the complaint process itself was a punishment. Even if I was eventually acquitted, I would still lose — hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills. That’s not an accident, that’s one of the tools of these commissions. Every journalist in the country has been taught a lesson: Censor yourself now, or be put through a costly wringer. I said all this and then Officer McGovern replied, “You’re entitled to your opinions, that’s for sure.”

But that’s not for sure, is it? We’re only entitled to our opinions now if they don’t offend some very easily offended people.

Apparently the laws were put in place to prevent neo-Nazi cranks from publishing anti-Semitic literature. Today, the laws are preventing non-Muslims from publishing anti-Muslim sentiment of any kind. This is why we must defend the free speech rights of everyone, even people with whom we strongly disagree. Even racists. Even gender supremacists. Even fundamentalist Christians. Even satanists. Everyone.

I’m reminded of an interview I watched with Susan Estrich, who claimed that she could prove beyond doubt that prayers at football games violated the US Constitution. When it came time to explain, though, she didn’t talk about the Constitution at all; she talked about offending people who didn’t believe like we did.

“Offending?” I thought. What’s “offense” got to do with the Constitution? But this is the line of thinking with which illiberal Liberals (ilLiberals?) justify squelching community displays of religious respect.

The US Constitution does not base any right or restriction on “offense.” Quite the contrary: the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly pretty much guarantee that citizens will be able to offend the government whenever they please. The Constitution doesn’t address offending anyone else, because it only limits the government; but it certainly limits the government from stopping one group from taking positions that are offensive to another.

If there’s a Constitutional imperative having to do with offense, it’s the duty of every citizen to put up with what they consider offensive speech. You say you think conservative Christians using biblical reasoning while holding office violates the Establishment clause? I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more strongly — but as offensive as I find that, I can’t stop you from arguing that. As a civil libertarian, I have an affirmative duty to allow you to offend me in this manner. And you, likewise, have an affirmative duty to allow me to express my contrary opinion, regardless of how irrational, illogical, ill-informed, ill-supported, anti-scientific, or just outright irritating you find my opinion. That’s how the robust exchange of ideas works.

That’s what’s under attack in Canada today, and it’s coming here next. The Muslims are the ones abusing the new rules, but they’re not the problem, they’re just taking advantage of a change in the laws. The change in the laws came about because of the insane notion that the government has the slightest right to stop citizens from saying things that offend other citizens.