Levant Responds

Last week, I posted an entry about free speech, prompted in part by Canada's Conservative government's ban of British MP George Galloway, a controversial supporter of the Palestinian cause (who's funneled money and supplies to Hamas), from speaking engagements in the country. In it, I mentioned that Ezra Levant, conservative provocateur and former publisher of the Western Standard magazine, supported the ban - support that I thought was hypocritical given Levant's own fight against censorship in this country, which he has chronicled in a new book.

I also called Levant a "right wing-nut of the first order."

That post found its way to Levant, who, through back channels, fired off a not-so-nutty response. In fact, it was downright genial. Here's what he said:

"I'm fine with Galloway saying whatever he likes - I don't think his words are crimes, and they shouldn't be prosecuted by the government in any way. But his deeds - giving cash to Hamas - actually are a crime in Canada. That's why he was kept out. I believe in free speech as a civil right - but Galloway isn't a citizen; he doesn't have a right to come to Canada that trumps our security concerns (a citizen would be allowed in, but then he would be arrested for fundraising for terrorists). As far as I'm concerned, he can bellow all he likes from the other side of the border, and he has!

"By the way, Christopher Hitchens has recanted his criticism of Galloway's ban. At the end of his latest column on Slate, he graciously acknowledges that he didn't go on the facts (that he (Galloway) was banned for his terrorist fundraising) but on Galloway's spin (that he was barred for free speech). Once Hitchens saw that Galloway was kept out for security reasons - and that Galloway was advised of same in advance, and invited to dispute those findings in advance, rather than to make a show of things - Hitchens wrote this.

"I'm for free speech - and I'm for borders, too! There's no contradiction."

I had noticed Hitchens' mea culpa, too, and linked to it in my own re-post on the matter. Still, I'm glad to have the chance to offer up Levant's explanation of his position, in his own words, here.

Now, I'm still not clear on how one can offer aid to Palestinians without going through Hamas. If there's an easy explanation to that question, I'd love to hear it. I have no qualms with revealing my own ignorance. But if there's no explanation, that highlights the problem with Hamas being both a democratically elected government and a terrorist group.

Nonetheless, I'd like to offer my own mea culpa for the "wing-nut" comment. Not because I'm any more in agreement with Levant's political views, but because name-calling is a weak and immature addition to a political discourse that's already too weak and immature - a point made by Andrew Coyne that I included in yesterday's post.

I think that many (most?) of the things that Levant stands for need to be defeated, but that that defeat must be brought about in the realm of honest, serious public debate in a free marketplace of ideas. So read his book, read his website and decide for yourself how "nutty" he really is (you'll have to go back in the archives to get past all the book promotion stuff).