Reasons to be cheerful Part I FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE AGE OF JIHAD

THE COUNTER JIHAD MAFIA from right to left Andrew Bostom, Cliff May FDD, Robert Spencer, Brian of London (Shire Network)

The first panel is speaking ..... Stanley Kurz is telling us things are better than they seem in Canada because perhaps the liberals are waking up to whats happening.....all it took for Canada to wake up was to have one liberal PM Keith Martin to stand up for Levant and the floodgates opened.

The restriction on free speech is no longer a slippery slope now we are  "careening down"

We all hang together or we we all hang separately.

The time is now to reform our nation's libel laws. Perhaps we ought to meet in London next year to see how far Rachel's law has fared in the UK.

Kimball, Kurz, Goldstein Levant

Rachel Ehrenfeld is speaking (RACHEL'S LAW!

Apparently, Bin Mafouz, the Saudi Billionaire that is suing Ehrenfeld and attempting to bankrupt Ehrenfeld has sued for libel 41 times prior to Ehrenfeld. Uh..... I see a pattern. But clearly the aim is clear .... to intimidate, destroy financially ruin anyone who speaks out against Islam.

Brooke Goldstein, Director of the Legal Project, MEQMEF - Pipes legal project to corral armies of lawyers (pro bono)  to fight the the litigation jihad. Very strong speaker. Warns the litigation jihad is gaining momentum with deleterious effect.

Ezra is da money. First he says it has been Americans that have come to his aid, in support, in increasing public aswareness, on the blogs - he called Americans the "grown ups of the world."

Levant is incredulous that a "fatwah" (the plaintiff cited Koranic verse in making his case) is prosecuted by the secular state.

He said the human rights commission are power without law. You can't win so they only way to fight back  is to take it to the court of public opinion.

The intention of all this  litigation jihad lawfare is not win, it is to demoralize, destroy .....but it is the process that's the punishment. One case is going on 25 years. Levant's legal expenses outside of the Western Standard are over $100,000.

He talks of meritocracy, rule of law, western values vs. "Saudi values". We have to vigorously pit our values against theirs

"a taboo is being broken".

I am vlogging the second panel on the supressing the discussion of Islam with Cliff May moderating, Robert Spencer (whose remarksd I am uploading), Claudia Rosett, Frank Gaffney, Steve Emerson and Ibn Warraq.

The theme of Spencer's remarks is islamophobia is really islamorealism.

The Godfather

Ezra and me

Spencer, Rosett, Gaffney, Emerson, Warraq

Comments

[allat]

YEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

So let's party! The Spirits have to rise:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mp8UNej4Mg

I can just see Pamela Geller dancing with Robert Spencer. ;)

Isn't that Pamela Geller- with the long reddish hair, in the beige cap and white jeans at 5:00 mins.?

I seriously think, after the serious business, you guys, should get together afterwards to celebrate. Small victories wins large victories.

You know the reason for the Struggle and Resistance to Islam is for the very reason to be able to have music and dancing!

So, let's act it - Let's dance in defiance, and celebration.

[Josef K]

a) I wonder what priority mail Mark Steyn has.... hmm... probably that he needs to prepare the invasion of Canada.

b) Great to see you, Pamela, ham it up with one of my heroes Ezra Levant. Here's the latest about him - he's getting sued along with 4 other bloggers by the provaceteur (sp?) of the Canadian Human Rights Council, Richard Warman. Next paycheck @ the end of the month, I'll give him $50.

[Jane]

I sincerely admire and respect the majority of the individuals who attended this conference. They have worked hard and have put their lives at risk to speak out against the dangers of Islam. They are the elite of the anti-Jihad movement.

However, when I read that Stanley Kurz said things are better than they seem in Canada because of the attention being paid to this matter by the Liberals - my first reaction was - that's an "I'm all right Jack" attitude and does not reflect the reality on the ground in the lives of ordinary citizens. People who do not have the fame of Steyn or the money of MacLeans can do little when their voices are crushed.

I hope that unlike the Corporate or Government elites that the anti-Jihad elites stay connected to the people.

With regard to Mr. Levant. It's likely true that Canadians have not been quick to support him. It's not because we don't value freedom of speech, it's because many of us are offended by how he approaches the matter. Many of us find him obnoxious. Furthermore, Canadians are busy paying a fortune in Canada to support the myriad of social services that are firmly entrenched in this country. Therefore there isn't as much disposable income to contribute to his latest cause.

I admire the American people and their Constitution. There is a lot to respect in the U.S. However, there is equally a lot to respect about Canada if people would take the time to look closely enough.

When Mr. Levant felt it was necessary to denigrate his own people my reaction was that he's a traitor. With attitudes like that - people who have the money - are unlikely to to give Levant much financial support. Generally Canadians view such comments with great disdain.

I have no problem with Mr. Levant criticising our systems. It's how he goes about it. He has been blessed with many opportunities in this country. Such statements make me wonder whether or not the gifts are appreciated. If Mr. Levant holds Canada with such disdain there is a solution - leave.

I wasn't able to listen to all of the videos because it was difficult to hear with all of the chatter in the background. (not your fault Pam - just the way things went at the conference.) I would like to know if any decisions are ever made at these conferences to plan steps that need to be taken. Or do they just consist of exchanging personal views on the matter?

I think that it's premature to start celebrating. We are not out of the woods yet.

[Josef K]

Jane, great comment but I wonder what statements make you think Ezra is treasonous. Sure, he badmouths your country a bit but he's not exactly calling for joining the Union.

Unless you heard something different... I'm a huge Ezra follower and would love to hear what Ezra said - good & bad.

[Jane]

Joseph K: I did not mean the word traitor in the traditional/legal sense. I meant it from the standpoint that Ezra doesn't seem to show much loyalty to Canada. He runs off at the mouth and will say anything - he's a showman.

I honestly don't mind anyone being critical of Canada. I think it's important to examine our systems closely so that they can be improved upon. Just as the American readers at this site don't mind critical comments about the U.S. - which also should be examined closely. It's how Ezra does it that is offensive to many.

Ezra comes across as crass in his approach. Frequently the comments are in bad taste. While that may make him "sensational" and good for a laugh, his approach puts people off. When he makes put downs about Canada, people are not drawn to either him or his cause. Consequently, the important message that he is trying to convey gets lost because of his cheap shots. If he wants people to listen to him, and give their support - financial and otherwise, then he needs to make some changes in his routine. Canadians will listen much more intently if there are some manners behind the approach. Otherwise they will shut down and move away from the individual making the statements. What does it accomplish for him to act this way? Nothing - except he pushes people away from him rather than gaining their support.

If I was having a conversation with an American about legislative problems, and out of the blue the individual bad-mouthed the U.S. I would find such a comment in poor taste. I would not feel that such a statement was relevant to the converstion. Instead, I would view it as an effort on the part of the indivudual to ingratiate themselves to me. Then I would begin to question the motives, and would likely shut down. Nothing would be gained. People who don't respect themselves or their country are generally not respected by others. Look at how the majority of us feel towards the far left who continually bad mouth the U.S. We don't respect them and we view many of them as traitors to their countries - not in the legal sense - but in terms of loyalty.

Now lets take Ezra's video of the Human Rights hearing. On the surface one could think - gee that's just great how he handled that interview. He took charge and didn't take any shit from the woman interviewing. He boldly stood up for his rights with great courage. In the opinion of others, another way of viewing that video is that he deliberately manipulated the situation, played to the camera, and didn't really conduct himself appropriately as a lawyer or a citizen. For others it was felt that the video was a cheap vaudeville show - and in poor taste. Don't misunderstand me - I think the Human Rights Commission needed to be shown for what it was. However, it seemed that a civil servant who was just doing her job was being dominated and yes trashed by an experienced lawyer. Did she have representation with her? She was caught between a rock and a hard place. She knew she was on camera, and no doubt she was fearful of speaking back in case she lost her job, and she wasn't the one responsible for the various items being reviewed - someone further up the chain of command makes those decisions. So even though he was bold in his responses, I'm not quite sure that his handling of the situation was appropriate. It seemed one-sided to some viewers. But, that didn't matter to Ezra - he took charge - pulled out all the stops and ran the interview. For many, the important message about free speech was lost in his approach. Many felt that he played to the camera instead of acting like a mature and responsible lawyer. Therefore many are questioning whether Ezra is about free speech or is more about the show. Sometimes they have a difficult time telling what the reality is. So once again, the message is lost.

In my opinion, freedom of speech in Canada is too important an issue to be lost in the wilderness, because Ezra Levant chooses such an off the wall approach to conveying his messages. People need to hear everything they can about this vital topic and not be put off because Ezra can't stop himself from running off at the mouth.

[Josef K]

Posted by: Jane | Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 01:12 AM

Great and thoughtful comment. One of the best I've ever read here - or any other blog.

I do think Ezra should be more optimistic about Canada or alternatively voice that optimism, having read what you wrote. I also realize for a multitude of reasons that if he (as in his tactics, style and persona) become the issue - he's almost certainly lost.

One thing though - I defend Ezra running hard and engaging the enemy most vigorously during his hearing. Ezra had to put up a fight not just for the folks watching, but also for his own rights. Good for him - the Alberta HRC should have let each side lawyer up, but didn't. Frankly, they should get on with it or surrender already.

[Jane]

Joseph: Thank you for your very nice comments. I greatly appreciate your remarks.

I do agree with you that it was important to take on the HRC, and yes both sides should have had representation. I think it's time for the HRC to surrender, or at the very least go back to its roots and do what it was established to do. It is way off track with the majority of the issues that it is covering.

With regard to Ezra being more optimistic about Canada I agree with you. I guess I'm getting old. I am tired of everything being up for grabs. Nothing is sacred anymore. There are so many voices out there ready and willing to tear down Canada, the U.S. and the entire west. I know that our countries are by no means perfect and there is always room for improvement. But what is continually overlooked is that they afforded people opportunities that they would have never had elsewhere. Our countries offered freedom and hope. Consequently, it offends me when citizens are quick to condemn and make broad statements about their country. It's easy to make an off the cuff derogatory remark about one's country - and why not - everyone else is doing it. I think those in the public eye have a greater responsibility to act with decorum.

I believe that a major contributor to the problems we are experiencing today, be they with Islam or the left, is that we have lost our sense of national pride. If we had held onto our strong sense of country we would not have allowed either group to erode our systems as much as they have. The situation in the west is critical, and we are at risk of losing everything. In order to survive, we need to have strong national identities so that people are motivated to protect our precious way of life. Thoughtless and derogatory comments against one's country don't help in this regard - instead they inadvertently aid and abet the very people who are trying to tear us apart.