Ezra Levant Makes Sense
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
You bet!!
You speak the truth!!!
Because you use reason, rational thought and commonsense.
And there in a nut shell, you have the fringe.
It isn't amongst the fringe.
I disagree, often the fringe go to far. Civil protests, speaking the truth, using reason and rational thought to convey the views of injustice, is not the way of the fringe.
It seems we have different definitions of the frindge. According to your definition, I agree with you.
I was defining the frindge quite simply as small minority groups, not necessarily violent protest groups. Sometimes members of fringe groups (according to my definition, or perhaps just small minority groups in simpler terminology) do come up with good ideas at times and do often come about as a reaction to perceived injustices among the majority.
I was defining the frindge quite simply as small minority groups, not necessarily violent protest groups. Sometimes members of fringe groups (according to my definition, or perhaps just small minority groups in simpler terminology) do come up with good ideas at times and do often come about as a reaction to perceived injustices among the majority.
Just to clarify, I don't agree with Levant having published the Muhammad cartoons. I think that was distasteful and highly offensive to Muslims. However, that says nothing for the rest of a book of which I know little.
Sigh
New research shows the average male's brain stem is not fully developed until the mid to late twenties..........
As I said, I'm not surprized you were always a Liberal..............:roll: Every word you say confirms it.
And no, I have not renounced Marxism, I am a mole in the Conservative Party, waiting till their next convention, when I intend to leap to my feet and extoll the proletariat to rise up! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Seriously, I've never "repudiated" anything, I just grew out of it. As has Mr. Levant, I imagine. Most thinkers travel the political spectrum throughtout their development........
So I guess PEN, Equale, The Canadian Civil Liberties Association etc are now all right wing extremists, eh?
Hmmm....
The point is not whether you agree they should have been published.......I can think of a lot of crap that should not have been written.....the question is: Do you think he should be prosecuted for publishing them?????
This is an example of what I mean when I say people now judge ideas by their source rather than the ideas themselves. Let's take the following quotes of SJP's for granted:
Levant is a right wing extremist by any measure. He supports Quebec separation and Alberta separation from Canada. He is (or at least was) a strong, committed member of the Alliance Party.
Even if he should be a right wing extremist, what does that have to do with his idea about HRCs as presented in his book? Even if he should want Alberta and Quebec to separate from Canada, he could have just as easily been a supporter of HRCs in the new countries. Hitler once said that Germany ought to care for it children. So does that make caring for our youth a Nazi idea? Hitler was a teetotaller. So does that mean that to choose not to drink makes one a Nazi? He was supposedly a vegetarian too. So is vegetarianism a Nazi idea? He's the one to develop the first modern highway infrastructure in the world. So is driving on the highway or supporting more highways a Nazi idea? I'm a teetotaller and vegetarian myself by the way, so I guess that would make me a Nazi according to your logic of judging an idea by its source. And now onto another quote:
To me, anything Levant says is suspect. The source taints the message. I don’t know much about HRC; at least at some level they seem to perform a useful function. But those who criticize HRC may have some substance in their argument, I don’t know.
I don't know much about either Levant or his book or his ideas. But I'm shocked to read that you flat out say that yoususpect his ideas from the word go because of who he is. The source taints the message, you say. It's pretty straightforward to me. A wise man can say an idiocy on occasion, just as the fool can come up with a wise idea at times. We should never reject an idea based on its source. I don't foresee reading that book anytime soon owing to my own already large list of books yet to read. But I can at least admit that I am ignorant of the content of the book and leave it at that rather than spweing forth prejudices about that which I know little. Levant could be the world's worst idiot, and yet his ideas would still deserve to stand or fall on their own merit, not on who he is, if we beleive in justice of course. And on to the next:
However, I do know that when they have a spokesperson like Ezra Levant making the case against HRC, they will not be taken seriously. Levant has a big credibility problem. If they can get a reputable journalist look into HRC and come up with a similar report, that will be taken seriously.
Have you read the book? It does happen that a person's ideas can evolve over time, or that a person who might not always be the most lucid of speakers can express himself well in writing. Have you read any of his works? I dont know much about him but can at least just admit to it. And on to the next:
But with Ezra Levant, it is one more case of a right wing journalist writing a right wing book. Yawn.
What does right-wing mean? It can mean many things to many people. Can you even define your terms?How do you know that for the sake of this book that he didn't include some left-wing perpectives too. From what I have read about him, I doubt it. But again, I haven't read his book and so 'doubt it' is the best I can come up with, and even then with the claim that it's based on the little I know of him. You haven't read the book eitehr and are already telling us of its content. Are you psychic?
Your prejudice shines thorugh.
If he was a member of a Muslim community, I'd say he should get a warning that if he doesn't apologise, that his membership will be revoked;-)
But as for prosecution, ridiculous. Like I said, that decision was in very, very bad taste, even if only as a means to express his freedom of expression. If that was all he wanted to do, he could just have written an article defending his right to publish such without actually publishing it. Very bad taste indeed, but certainly not something to be prosecuted over. To prosecute him over this would be as ridiculous as applauding his action would be ignorant.
By the way, I'd find it equally distasteful to publish cartoons of Jesus, or the Buddha, etc.
Religion can be a very sensitive topic for some. This is not to say that we cannot critique religions, but we can certainly do so in a more respectful manner.
People should not be prosecuted for general disrespect, though it does reflect on their character, granted.
Religion can be a very sensitive topic for some. This is not to say that we cannot critique religions, but we can certainly do so in a more respectful manner.
People should not be prosecuted for general disrespect, though it does reflect on their character, granted.
Machjo, I supported Levant's right to publish Mohammed cartoons. As to Hitler (or even Mao), there may be some worthwhile ideas expressed in Mein Kempf, I don’t know. The point is, why would I bother reading Mein Kempf, knowing Hitler’s reputation?
I never said that an extremist may not have worthwhile ideas, it is quite possible. However, I have better things to do than to read the works of extremists, whether of right or left variety.
I don’t have time to go through Mein Kempf, look at each and every idea, to see if I can find a kernel of truth in it. Same thing with Levant. There isn’t enough time in a lifetime to read each and every idea put forward by very left and right wing nut, to see if there may be a kernel of truth in it.
So as far as I am concerned, nothing that Hitler says gets a hearing from me. As far as Mother Teresa goes, everything that she says gets a serious hearing from me. That doesn’t mean that I agree with her about everything, I disagree with her on abortion. But anything she says, I will consider seriously, to agree or disagree as the case may be.
As for Hitler, I really don’t care much what he says. No doubt he may have proposed some worthwhile ideas. But the main thrust of his thesis is so vile as to negate everything he says. Same thing applies to Ezra Levant to some extent, though of course I am not comparing him to Hitler.
I never said that an extremist may not have worthwhile ideas, it is quite possible. However, I have better things to do than to read the works of extremists, whether of right or left variety.
I don’t have time to go through Mein Kempf, look at each and every idea, to see if I can find a kernel of truth in it. Same thing with Levant. There isn’t enough time in a lifetime to read each and every idea put forward by very left and right wing nut, to see if there may be a kernel of truth in it.
So as far as I am concerned, nothing that Hitler says gets a hearing from me. As far as Mother Teresa goes, everything that she says gets a serious hearing from me. That doesn’t mean that I agree with her about everything, I disagree with her on abortion. But anything she says, I will consider seriously, to agree or disagree as the case may be.
As for Hitler, I really don’t care much what he says. No doubt he may have proposed some worthwhile ideas. But the main thrust of his thesis is so vile as to negate everything he says. Same thing applies to Ezra Levant to some extent, though of course I am not comparing him to Hitler.
Indeed, whether in journalism or in science, reputation is everything. That is why nobody has taken Ezra Levant seriously, he has a big reputation problem.
Same thing happened to Velikovsky. Once his reputation as a nut was established, scientific disciplines pretty much ignored him. He did come up with useful idea once in a while, but it made no difference. He was a pariah as far as scientific world was concerned.
It is very easy to spoil the reputation, very difficult to build it back up again. Levant suffers from the same problem.
Same thing happened to Velikovsky. Once his reputation as a nut was established, scientific disciplines pretty much ignored him. He did come up with useful idea once in a while, but it made no difference. He was a pariah as far as scientific world was concerned.
It is very easy to spoil the reputation, very difficult to build it back up again. Levant suffers from the same problem.
I don't know enough about Levant to label him a rightwing nut, so I'll take your word on that. I also agree that we can't read every book in the world, and so tend to specialize. In my case, that usually involves books about world religions, education, languages, linguistics, and social issues revolving around them. In each our cases, owing to time limitations, we'll tend to specialize and that's natural. That's the main reason I'm not likely toe get around to reading that book.
And what you're saying above is a little more reasonable than what you've said previously. At least you're acknowledging that you don't know the content of the book and that there might be some worthwhile content in it.
I can agree with what you're saying here overall. But there is a difference between choosing not to read it owing to priorities, and outright criticizing it for falling outside your priorities.
And what you're saying above is a little more reasonable than what you've said previously. At least you're acknowledging that you don't know the content of the book and that there might be some worthwhile content in it.
That is what I have said all along, Machjo. I never disputed his contention that HRC needs to be reformed. I have been saying all along that I don’t know enough about HRC to make that judgment, but I certainly wouldn’t accept Levant’s word for it (because of his reputation).
That is what I have said all along, Machjo. I never disputed his contention that HRC needs to be reformed. I have been saying all along that I don’t know enough about HRC to make that judgment, but I certainly wouldn’t accept Levant’s word for it (because of his reputation).
Just to get back to Main Kampf. Though I've come across passages from it before, I haven't read the entire book. My high school history teacher, a Jew at that, had a copy of Mein Kampf in his desk drawer in the classroom. His argument was that to understand why Hitler acted as he did, one needed to understand his thoughts. and to do that, we needed to understand his words.
Now to go within my domain. If we should look at world religions, that can include the sacred texts of various world religions, books by the Dalai Lama, and even the words of the Ayyatollah Khomeini, inasmuch as he was responsible for the persecution of many It doesn't change the fact that his ideas have influenced many of his followers whether we like it or not.
In the field of language, I've read some works from Francois Grin (a report he'd written at the request of the French government in 2005), Robert Phillipson (Linguistic Imperialism, 1999), and others, all mostly leanig towards promoting more equality between language communties and the preservation of threatened languages.
However, I've also read publications from the British Council, which tend to be more imperialistic in their outlook overall. And I wouldn't mind reading Lament for a Notion: the Life and Death of Canada's Bilingual Dream by Scott Reid, MP.
I don't care that he has libertarian leanings or that he's a member of the Conservative Party. He's relatively influential and has written a book within my domain. It doesn't matter that it is left wing, right wing, or even frindge. If you want to better understand the issues that interest you, you should read different perspectives on those issues.
Now to go within my domain. If we should look at world religions, that can include the sacred texts of various world religions, books by the Dalai Lama, and even the words of the Ayyatollah Khomeini, inasmuch as he was responsible for the persecution of many It doesn't change the fact that his ideas have influenced many of his followers whether we like it or not.
In the field of language, I've read some works from Francois Grin (a report he'd written at the request of the French government in 2005), Robert Phillipson (Linguistic Imperialism, 1999), and others, all mostly leanig towards promoting more equality between language communties and the preservation of threatened languages.
However, I've also read publications from the British Council, which tend to be more imperialistic in their outlook overall. And I wouldn't mind reading Lament for a Notion: the Life and Death of Canada's Bilingual Dream by Scott Reid, MP.
I don't care that he has libertarian leanings or that he's a member of the Conservative Party. He's relatively influential and has written a book within my domain. It doesn't matter that it is left wing, right wing, or even frindge. If you want to better understand the issues that interest you, you should read different perspectives on those issues.
So let's say you were reading a book written by a liberal, and he ends up quoting Levant on a point he makes about HRCs. What would you do? Skip the quote? Insist on disagreeing with it no matter what it says? Or judge it on its own merits?
You said before that:
To me, anything Levant says is suspect. The source taints the message. I don’t know much about HRC; at least at some level they seem to perform a useful function. But those who criticize HRC may have some substance in their argument, I don’t know.
From that you do admit that you don't know about HRCs. But you start it off with an indication that if you shoulr read a comment from Levant on it, you would read it with bias from the start. So you are changing yor position now that you're saying that you would in fact take his words on their own merit, rather than treating them as suspect from the start.
Machjo, again, I did not criticize what Levant is saying. I am criticizing Levant himself. He has a reputation as an extremist. I have no opinion one way or the other on what he has said about HRC. My point is that what he says is suspect because of his reputation, and I cannot be bothered to read his book and decide if what he is saying makes sense (again, because of his reputation).
But have you wondered why nobody took the story seriously? Even the Conservatives who normally would be expected to take it seriously, are quiet on the subject. If CBC had done such a story, you can be sure that we all will be talking about it (and something may very well be done).
But since Ezra Levant wrote it, it is only of interest to his followers, to nobody else. That is because of his reputation.
I don't know Levant very well and will likely not read his book in the foreseeable future. My only issue is your criticism of the person thus promoting a bias among those of us who might in fact have an interest in HRCs. If they do have such an interest, that book might be worth reading. Heck, if Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto is worthy reading for teachers of 20th centurey history, then certainly Levant's book is worthy reading for anyone interested in the HRC's. They're not within my range of subjects, but if they were, then it woud certainly be a worthy book.
However, I've also read publications from the British Council, which tend to be more imperialistic in their outlook overall. And I wouldn't mind reading Lament for a Notion: the Life and Death of Canada's Bilingual Dream by Scott Reid, MP.
Machjo, it is one thing to read a book by a Liberal or a Conservative, both are within the mainstream of Canadian political spectrum. Thus, if you read book by Scott Reid, or by Joe Clark, I can understand that. Unfortunately, Ezra Levant is not only a Conservative, he is a right wing extremist. Anybody who wants to privatize Canada Pension, wants to privatize the health care is a right wing extremist in my opinion.
So if I read something by Scott Reid or by Joe Clark, I will give that serious consideration. Somebody like Ezra Levant, I simply ignore.
Machjo, it is one thing to read a book by a Liberal or a Conservative, both are within the mainstream of Canadian political spectrum. Thus, if you read book by Scott Reid, or by Joe Clark, I can understand that. Unfortunately, Ezra Levant is not only a Conservative, he is a right wing extremist. Anybody who wants to privatize Canada Pension, wants to privatize the health care is a right wing extremist in my opinion.
So if I read something by Scott Reid or by Joe Clark, I will give that serious consideration. Somebody like Ezra Levant, I simply ignore.