No Better Than Ezra?

Two funny things about freedom of speech:

1) Defending it makes for strange bedfellows.

2) An awful lot of people seem to defend it only when the speech in question matches their own beliefs.

Freedom of speech is supposed to be a bedrock principle of Western democracy, but it's been under attack from all sides pretty much since it was enshrined in various constitutions. We're supposed to be able to spout off whatever opinion about whatever topic, provided that - (sentence breaks off to list a vast array of exceptions to this rule advanced by a vast array of individuals and advocacy groups). It seems intuitively correct to, say, ban Neo-Nazi groups from distributing flyers in high schools or something equally outrageous, but at some point one starts falling down the proverbial slippery slope.

Recently, for example, a friend and I were discussing the case of former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, who last year was dragged in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission for his publication of the infamous "Danish cartoons" depicting an image of the Prophet Muhammad (visual depictions being, as I understand it, forbidden in the Muslim religion). 

These HRCs operate under shady terms, however well-intentioned they may be. All it takes is one complaint to initiate a hearing, and the complainant, win or lose, does not have to pay any associated costs. The "defendant" in each case, however, must pay out of their own pocket. Not that the legal jargon applies - nothing much is legal about the HRCs, where decisions don't have to be based on any definitive legal standard and "sentences" can be made up on a whim. It's simply up to the HRCs themselves to determine whether a "defendant" has to face sanctions for offending some element of the public. Can't stress enough that it isn't about hate speech, a crime that is legally codified. Anyone who makes any statement that offends anyone else could potentially find themselves in front of an HRC. Levant, after having gone through the process, has responded with the publication of a book about the HRCs.

Levant is a right wing-nut of the first order, so it was with some distaste that I found myself arguing on his behalf with a friend who suggested, probably rightfully, that Levant likely published the cartoons to stir the pot rather than uphold some kind of holy journalistic principle. But I'm pretty absolutist about this freedom of speech stuff, so I held my nose and defended a guy I'd probably smack in the nose if I got a chance.

Then there's the case of British MP George Galloway, who was recently barred from speaking in Canada on the grounds that he had provided material support for the Hamas government in Gaza. Apparently, it's this material support and not Galloway's anti-war, pro-Palestinian opinions that prompted our free nation to close the door on him. Mind you, Galloway has made the seemingly fair point that Hamas is a democratically elected government and that, if you want to help the innocent victims of armed conflict in the region, you have to deal with said region's democratically elected government whether you like it or not.

One would think that Levant, while his politics represent the other end of the spectrum, would have some sympathy for Galloway's plight. But one would be wrong. In this blog post, Levant commends the Canadian government's decision. In his mind, of course, this case isn't about free speech.

So defending freedom of speech made me, if only temporarily, an ally of the execrable Ezra Levant. And Ezra Levant, a free speech absolutist, happily abandons those principles - or at least, happily hides behind legal loopholes - when it comes to people whose opinions he doesn't like.

Thankfully, there's always Christopher Hitchens. Having pissed off pretty much everyone in the course of his career, Hitchens is eminently qualified to speak about how important it is to be able to do just that. And so I close with his position on Galloway's Canada ban.

My position? Leaving aside hate speech, which is a legally codified (if contentious and difficult to enforce) crime, I feel like one either supports free speech or one doesn't. Democracy sometimes isn't for the faint of heart or the easily offended. And it doesn't only belong to the people who agree with you.

The Answer, My Friend, Is Pissin' In the Wind

I've got weed on the brain.

Not literally. It's not quite the weekend, after all. But thoughts of sweet bud are on my mind because they've been in the news lately. Most notably, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking during a visit to Mexico, professed to sympathize with the host country's increasingly bloody fighting between its well-armed drug cartels and often overmatched police and military forces. Clinton even sensibly pointed out that the U.S. deserved a significant chunk of the blame for the problem, what with its millions of drug users being the primary market for goods grown and/or shipped by Mexican drug gangs, and said both countries needed to take bolder steps to combat the problem.

Just what she thinks those steps should be is unclear. Based on reports so far, the new vision consists of $80 million for more helicopters to crack down on illegal cross-border drug and gun shipments. In other words, $80 million worth of the same kind of initiatives that have failed the drug warriors for 40 years.

But wait! Clinton's working for a revolutionary new president who has himself admitted to trying drugs in his youth. Barack Obama, had he been caught back in his "experimenting with blow" days, might still be languishing in jail. Instead, he did what most drug users do - he tried the stuff, grew out of it and moved on to bigger and better things. He's a living example of how the misguided policies of the American drug war have greater potential to harm than to help. He's young enough and smart enough to know this, so surely he must see the rationale for legalization. Right?

Er, not so much. At his virtual town hall meeting this week, Obama ducked for cover in the face of drug legalization questions, saying that he didn't see it as an effective way to grow the American economy (never mind all the needless deaths and the billion-dollar criminal industry that prohibition creates).

It's pointless, but I'll add my stream to that of countless other commentators pissing into the wind on the legalization issue. The argument's the same as it's ever been, but really, has there ever been a time when the drug legalization - or, at least, pot legalization - argument has ever been more logical on so many fronts? 

Make the stuff legal and you:

a) Wipe out, or cripple, the cartels who make billions of dollars by growing, trafficking and selling the stuff. They only get rich because they're the only supply source.

b) Cut down on violent crime. This is related to point a). While murder is obviously a moral offence, it's also carried out based on a cost-benefit analysis. Under prohibition, the amount of money drug traffickers stand to make means it's worthwhile to risk killing or dying. 

c) Reduce the prison population. Prisons are overcrowded, and too many of them are filled with drug users who had the misfortune to be caught committing crimes as simple as possession. Many of these folks, were they not incarcerated, might be able to become (or return to being) contributing members of society. Like Barack Obama.

d) Boost the economy. Obama's denial aside, it's hard to see how legalized pot wouldn't be an economic boon. The government could control production and sales itself. Or, more stimulatively, it could allow private enterprise to do so while taking its own cut by heavily taxing pot, a la tobacco. More jobs and a great way to increase tax revenue in a way that doesn't pull from the pockets of good, honest, straight-and-narrow types. Plus, pot legalization would presumably also clear the way for hemp, a resilient, versatile fibre that could provide more options for more farmers.

All of these points have been made before, ad nauseum. But I'm not aware of any argument that has successfully countered this one, beyond the usual "what message does it send" garbage. Meanwhile, North American governments continue to send the message that they prefer to remain willfully ignorant about the simple solution to a terrible, ongoing problem. 

Change is hard to believe in when there's no change at all.

The Meaning of "Guilty"

Been following the story of two youth accused of murdering 14-year-old Stefanie Rengel, who died of stab wounds on New Year's Day 2008. The facts, from what I understand, are not in question: a boy, then 17, stabbed Rengel with a knife six times and left her to die on the sidewalk in front of her house. A girl, then 15 and in a somewhat confusing relationship with the boy, had sent several emails and text messages to him in which she told him to kill Rengel or else be denied emotional and sexual benefits.

The accused boy goes on trial for first-degree murder later this year, but the jury is, as I write this, deliberating the girl's fate - a first-degree murder conviction, second-degree murder, manslaughter or acquittal. And here's where I find myself a bit confused.

The snippets of communication between the two accused teens do seem to reveal a very manipulative girl consumed by irrational jealousy. What's more, when questioned immediately after the murder, she admitted that she was "sort of happy" that Rengel was dead. She also insisted that all her murderous messages were only a "joke." Certainly, she's not the portrait of a falsely-accused martyr.

But I have some trouble with the idea of convicting the girl - at least for first-degree murder. In fact, I'm not even sure how she could have been charged with first-degree (maybe some legally-inclined folks could provide insight?). To convict her for that would, I think, shift an unfair portion of the responsibility onto her, responsibility that I think should be borne almost entirely by the boy. 

Why? He was older, for one thing, and while 17-year-olds aren't necessarily mature, someone of this age cannot reasonably defend himself by saying he was defenseless against the diabolical spell of a 15-year-old, no matter how crafty she might have been. 17 is plenty old enough to understand that there is no moral argument for murdering someone to satisfy the anger of a loved one. So the boy, I think, should get the max. The girl? Maybe manslaughter or second-degree.

There is a caveat, though, and one that may come up at the boy's trial. If he had a history of legitimate mental instability, and the girl was aware of this, she would have to be held more accountable for knowing that her coaching and cajoling would likely lead to the boy acting on her request. That may be the missing piece of the puzzle.

Otherwise, I don't think she should have her life destroyed because some idiot took her melodrama too literally. She may be a truly awful person, but being awful isn't by itself a criminal act. 

Kanye the Good

Addendum to yesterday's post, which in part criticized Kanye West for his support of Rihanna-batterer Chris Brown. Turns out that while West is ignorant about that, he's also stepping up as a positive role model by denouncing homophobia - or at least denouncing himself as an "asshole" for previously holding homophobic views. He might still be an asshole for the Chris Brown thing, and for his enormous ego, but at least he's got this one right.

Addendum to this post: I really must stop reading this celebrity gossip shit.

How Could They Be So Heartless?

Over the weekend I had a chance, via a couple of mix CDs made by a friend, to reacquaint myself with hip-hop, the genre that converted me into a true, obsessive music fan in the early 90s. Most of the tracks were of that vintage - or at least, they weren't particularly recent - and my head nodded with nostalgic energy. The crisp beats and the haunting keyboard accents of DJ Premier. The shuffling funk and soul samples of the late J-Dilla. The righteous rhymes of Jeru the Damaja and the witty wordplay of De La Soul. Sweet. 

And, of course, the occasional dropping of n-, f- (as in "faggot) bombs and b- (as in bitch) bombs that leaves even the finest of hip-hop delicacies tasting a bit sour. I once found it easier to gloss over these glitches, thinking them simply a part of a unique culture that I didn't understand. But that forgiveness, I realize now, is condescending, and definitely counterproductive when applied to those artists who've pulled themselves from hardscrabble beginnings and are now among the world's most fortunate.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to the saga of Chris Brown and Rihanna. Neither of them are hip-hop artists, strictly speaking, but some recent developments relate to what might loosely be defined as hip-hop culture.

If your head's been in the sand, what you need to know is that R&B singer Brown allegedly beat up R&B singer Rihanna, his girlfriend, on the day of the Grammys. He hasn't been formally charged yet, but that ultimately depends on Rihanna deciding to bring charges. And if this article is accurate, she's not likely to, because she's apparently taken - or is considering taking - this scumbag back. 

It's a familiar story when it comes to battered women, and no matter how illogical or exasperating it might seem to an outside observer like me, I'll withhold my judgement of Rihanna here, because I can't pretend to understand the emotional and psychological state of a woman abused. 

Rather, what I find disturbing is the way that hip-hop artists like Diddy and Kanye West seem more concerned about Brown's reputation than Rihanna's battered face. These are men who wield tremendous influence as massive pop stars and who could have taken a stand on behalf of the hip-hop community to say that abuse of women is simply not acceptable. Normally I don't put too much stock in the whole role model thing, but it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to come down on what is clearly the right side of this issue. And yet they both failed, miserably.

Now, is this a particularly hip-hop mentality? I want to say no. But even my favourite tunes from the genre's halcyon days are sprinkled with misogyny, and the "don't snitch" code does to trump all virtues in the rap universe. If hip-hop artists continue to speak out in defence of the perpetrator, rather than the victim, they simply can't mount an effective rebuttal to those kinds of critiques.