After the martyrdom

comes the ecstatic, slavering adoration!!!

If Ezra Levant's mewling little treatise in yesterday's NatPo wasn't bad enough, check out the ensuing comments as the Better-Than-Ezra Fan Club furiously hammers those nails into the cross:

Ezra's a hero!
A modern-day hero!

Ezra's a freedom fighter!

With bravery beyond any award!

Ezra's the Champ!


(Well, I loooooose it! I snap!)

Give Ezra $12 million!


Erect a statue of Ezra! (Good grief. A statue!?)


They finally got so excited they started drooling over each other...

Absolutely! A statue in the town square for "Raze"! And $12,000,000! (No maybe just $11,000,000, since the courage "Raze" had to summon to make that post doesn't quite measure up to the bravery of taking on doughy civil servants.)

Inexorably, a tiny voice of sanity breaks up the furious little circle jerk:

That was the final comment when I last looked; by now "Rob34" has been set upon and driven from the combox by the torch-and-pitchfork-wielding denizens of Ezraville.

Is it any wonder Ezra wants to keep milking this thing?

"WHAT-A-LOAD" UPDATE: There's much whining and whimpering about the $100,000 that Ezra's supposedly out due to his HRC travails. But with the $132,063 the Western Standard got from the Publications Assistance Program (yeah, that's taxpayers' money) the year this little fooferaw started (plus another $63,366 the year before), by my math he's still ahead... and that doesn't include the unknown amount he's hauled in with the good old Paypal button. (h/t Ti-Guy in the comments)

Chill

It was uncharacteristically quiet in Left Blogistan today, with surprisingly little schadenfreude cake being served up over the libel suit(s) launched yesterday against some of our favourite Wingnuttians. My immediate reaction to the news yesterday was "Oh shit!?" and a quick hand stifling laughter. But after a few minutes the gravity of the situation, and its far-reaching implications, started sinking in. That feeling didn't improve as I read the Statement of Claim.

It's sometimes easy to forget that the laws of meat space also apply to The Internets. Although it might get a little crazier here on the Toobz, the rules of engagement are generally the same -- you can't say that someone did some nasty lowdown thing that they didn't do. Posting to a blog is like publishing a column in a newspaper -- if an editor writes a column that makes wild and unfounded accusations about someone, he can expect the law's great shit-hammer to come down on his head in due course.

There's nothing weird about Warman's lawsuit except the fact that the defendants didn't see it coming. (NOTE: According to the SoC, the defendants were advised this was coming a couple of months back, so they weren't completely gobsmacked.) Most of them have been poking at this litigious hornet's nest for months, so no surprise that it didn't end well for them, and for most of them, no sympathy from me. However, when I read the Statement of Claim I found the suit against SDA disturbing. Kate McMillan is being sued for things she didn't say or post herself: a post by a guest poster and remarks made by commenters.

Once again, I surprise myself: I really hope Kate wins this fight, so much so that I might even throw a few bucks into her defense fund (EDIT: Nah, I don't think so.*) It's bad enough that libel suits are flying around at all, but worse still for someone to be sued for things she didn't even say. Forget for a moment about the negative side of SDA (is there another?) and even whether there was tacit approval of the libelous statements on Kate's part -- she didn't make them herself, and that is all that matters. If she loses, it won't be good for anyone.

UPDATE: Okay, thanks to the education provided by my hard-working commenters, I'm becoming less convinced about what I blurted out in the last paragraph above. (I haven't lapsed into total ambivalence yet, though.)

*However, another issue that came up (thanks, BCL) is that Mark Francis of Section 15 is still fighting his libel suit, which also came about because of a link, and it's the precedent-setter, not SDA's case. I have to admit I was only vaguely aware of Mark's suit, and for some reason thought that it was finished, but it's not. If anyone is so inclined, that's where I'd "throw a few bucks".

Those bastards

The librul lieberal librano media is at it again, or should I say "not" at it again, ignoring The Biggest Story of The Year. Those leftist moonbat dhimmi terrorist-appeasing freedom-hating pricks!

Not satisfied with the disproportionate amount of attention given to his AHRC tantrum by the boogiesphere, Ezra Levant fumes: "Why isn't this story being covered by the mainstream media??" Well, who could have seen that coming? (Hint: anyone with even a passing familiarity with the behaviour of the increasingly-common conservative sub-species Drama Regina.)

Next up: "Why hasn't Hollywood made this story into a blockbuster Golden Globe/Peoples' Choice/Oscar/Nobel Peace Prize-winning movie!??"

Of douchebags and drama queens

Who knew that publishing some half-assed cartoons could put someone on the path to martyrdom? The newly- (and largely self-) appointed Patron Saint of Conservative Persecution, Ezra Levant, had his day in what he and his sycophants refer to as "Kangaroo Kourt"(*snicker*) at the Alberta Human Rights Commission on Friday. The AHRC was getting Levant's side of the story as it investigates the viability of a complaint made against Levant's odious "Western Standard" for publishing the Danish "Muhammad cartoons" that enraged European Muslims a couple of years ago. ("Defiantly" rerun by St. Ezra a few days ago. Whew -- I can hear AC/DC now: "Who's got big balls!?" Whoever would have expected testicles of such cantaloupian proportions on that nerdy little Ezra guy. I'm, you know, impressed. Or something.)

No doubt Levant originally published the cartoons for the express purpose of injecting some opportunistic buzz into the failing health of the Standard, and it couldn't have played out better. In lieu of the bombs and burning cars he was probably hoping for, a human rights complaint would do. The fact that Levant went out of his way to make an unnecessary personal appearance at the AHRC (with cameras rolling to capture his carefully-scripted pontifications) should have clued someone into the fact that they were being played, but... well, remember Saddam? The people falling for Levant's histrionics are the same people who allow themselves to be led by the nose into illegal wars. They're malleable, to say the least. Add their existing persecution complexes, and the stage was set. Enter the Drama Queen.

Levant's visit with the AHRC wasn't a "hearing" as much as a first step in determining whether the complaint against him even holds any water (hint: it doesn't). Levant is a lawyer -- he knows good and well how much liability he actually has in this case. That's probably why he chose to make a personal appearance (accompanied by cameras) at such an early stage -- he knows this will be his only opportunity to make hay, so he's Drama-Queening it up. It would hardly be worth comment except that it's brought up the issue of free speech.

I think the complaint against Levant is frivolous -- however, taken in context with the Standard's pattern of behaviour it's easy to see how it came about. From the combox of the Standard's Shotgun Blog, October 2006:

"Nuke 'em"? (Who else but RG?) And that's just an abbreviated sample. There's no doubt some of the comments in that thread constitute hate speech, some of it so noxious that even another wanked-out conservative complained:

Of course this Moderate Voice of Reason was immediately called out as a "leftist" ("leftist" -- who the fuck says "leftist" anymore? Hey buddy, the McCarthy Era called, they want their word back). Well, so much for free speech! Complaints notwithstanding, these comments are fairly typical of the kind of discourse the Standard not only allows but encourages. It's not hard to see how someone might eventually reach critical mass with these mouthy morons and fire off a human rights complaint. Publishing cartoons -- meh. Advocating genocide -- not so meh.

As I've said here before, one of the reasons I'm not crazy about hate speech legislation is that it can open the door to so much abuse (which includes giving pompous assholes like Levant the opportunity to set themselves up as martyrs). But at the same time, I believe our minorities have the right to live peacefully without being subjected to bigotry. Because a scurvy, scummy little cadre of nitwits insists on being such bigoted douchebags, the unfortunate reality is that those who feel threatened need some avenue to address their concerns.

While the right to free speech comes with an implied responsibility not to be a jerk about it, there'll always be someone happy to invoke their right to be an asshole. The question is whether the right to be an asshole supercedes a minority's right to live free from abuse.

Update: Via the comments at Dr. Dawg's: See? It's only free speech when it's their free speech. Tsk tsk.