Anyone who thinks that this is just about free speech needs to take a closer look. These commisions and tribunals are run by activists, not real lawyers and judges. They have powers of search and seisure that real cops don't have. No warrents necessary, based on a whim. 800 years of evolving judicial produre and protections are thrown out the window. Truth is not a defense, a lawyer is not provided for the accused, but one is provided for the accuser at tax payer expense. 90 percent of all cases like this are settled because it's financially more feasible to throw away a few thousand dollars to a claiment of hurt feelings than it is to fight the case. Shake down. Even if you win, you lose. The process is the punishment.

In real courts you are entitled to an expedient trial. Not so with the hrc's. These thing's drag on for years, are extremely costly, stressfull and defaming. In real courts you know who your accuser is. Not alway's so with the hrc's. In real courts there is procedure for testimony and evidence. Not so with the hrc's. In real law, you cannot make someone write an apology as part of their sentence. Not even clifford Olson. Not so with the hrc's. Not only did they order a pastor to renounce his faith and apologize in a public letter in the Red Deer Advocate, they put a lifetime speech ban on him. Private and public speech. By the way, this wasn't for hate speech. This was for dispariging speech, which has no definition. So, without knowing the definition of disparaging speech, the pastor will have to watch what he says for the rest of his life. And though the hrc's are quasi judicial, once a verdict is reached, it's filed at the court house, and enforcible. Defying their verdict will get you tossed in jail.

The other thing that is troubling about the hrc's is that there appears to be a preferred victim group and a preferred victimizer group. Justice is not colourblind.

You also take offense to the fact that Ezra didn't publish annonymously on the internet, for the sake of "information". Uh huh. After all, no hrc case to deal with that way. Sooooo, in otherwords, he should just stay in the closet, without a real face or identity to make you feel better? Because your uncomfortable with his being so out there, being so different than you? How very don't ask don't tell of you, in an ideological way. Nice try. Besides, you'd be wrong. The hrc's go after internet posters, even those that post under aliases in the comment's sections. Scary. Very scary.

Right, so in your opinion, government control of speech using tax dollars is more appropriate. The HRC unbalanced process is the punishment. Justice is supposed to be fair and balanced -- the HRCs don't exhibit either of those qualities.

And most cases are brought by those with disabilities? So, I guess you would include the non-handwashing Macdonalds employee with the skin condition and the pothead with his "medicinal" marijuana as "disabled."

You really are an idiot.

This is indicative that Susan Cole is a racist.

As for how he should have been punished? Well there are many ways which do not require $500,000 of taxpayer money. You can write a letter to his magazine and complain, as many people did. You can write your own article and attempt to have it published. You can write a blog about it. You can tell all your friends what a toad he is. You can shame him and shun him from polite company and encourage others to do the same.

But try to get the government to make him shut up? Or better yet, force him to apologize? We cannot force the worse criminals and mass murderers in this country to apologize to their victims. It is seen as cruel, and also would have no meaning if the apology was not sincere. Yet the HRCs can and often do try to force apologies out of defendants. THAT is Stalinist and very very scary.

Read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Near the very top is a section called "Fundamental Freedoms". It says...

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.

Granted the charter does restrict such freedoms, but "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

The primacy of place of these freedoms in the charter and the narrowness of the restictions say that freedom of speech is very Canadian concept.

She is even more obnoxious in print than she is on the Oakley show (which had the unfortunate experience of listening to this morning).

you're a joke, a shame on your profession, and you are extremely short-sighted.

you might like it when your ideological opponents are under the government's jackboot for practicing a basic right like freedom of expression, but you'll take a hissy fit if tax credits for movies with offensive material are withdrawn.

how hypocritical of you. shame.

you have zero credibility. you make me sick.

Yeah Susan- substitue "black guy" and see how it sounds. You're a racist bigot with apparently no insight.

Good to get that out in the open.

Susan, just so you understand....

"Artists" have produced works such as "Piss Christ", and written plays about Jesus being gay/ having sex relations with Judas etc.

Christians have had to wear this kind of thing as "freedom of expression" for a long time. And they have used the appropriate process (available to us in free societies) of protesting/complaining/boycotting etc.

In contrast, the Mohammed cartoons were- objectively- totally benign. (No representations of Mohammed covered in faeces or engaged in sexual acts.) YET, we are told by Muslims that it is FORBIDDEN for ANYONE to represent their prophet in caricature form. AND, large numbers of Muslims start KILLING and DESTROYING property.

The Christians peacefully protest about truly offensive images/representaions of Christ. The Muslims kill people about a cartoon showing Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.

And Levant reprints the cartoons anyway. That's bravery: failure to not be intimidated in the face of a very REAL threat.

Get it?

You're nothing but an old-fashioned anti-Semite Ms. Cole. Your article is a disgrace too.

The thing is, Ezra Levant and co. would not object to this flagrantly racist (read the "white guy" comment) piece of non-reporting.

Good to know he sticks up for you on principle, hey Susan?

Yep- the best way to deal with people with views like Susan's is to give them a good airing in public

She might one day need the advice of Levant.

Nice symmetry about it, this tale.

So let's analyze hers in writing this piece.

A few things stand out.

First- there's an extremely fawning tone ("trashing good relations in multicultural Canada etc) about the article. She's basically high jacked a story about free speech to elevate herself to some sort of "bridge-builder" role with the Muslim community.

Second- the article reeks of some sort of personal connection/ vested personal interest in supporting the HRCs. (Does anyone know if her significant other/ family members have their hands in the big tax-payer funded HRC loll-jar?).

Third- she is, herself, a racist anti-Semite. In fact, she makes no attempt to hide it.

Lucky for her, Levant is out there defending free-speech-for-everyone.

Does one need positive feedback from readers to remain gainfully employed at Now Magazine?

DM- I think most people read the full article, and independently concluded that it's shite.

It was Susan who spat venom, and it's her head at risk of exploding, I would think.

But thanks for your comment.

No, I don't think anyone who criticizes the actions or motives of a Jewish person is necessarily an anti-Semite. Far from it.

But to portray a Jewish person, who's incurred considerable financial costs in defending himself against government censorship, with his mouth stuffed with dollar bills is anti-Semitic.

But you already know that, I think.

Just as NOW could advertise hookers in a less graphic way.

But that would be censorship, right?

So you support Levant.

Glad to see that you get it now.

Supporting free speech isn't about supporting your own views selectively.

And that's why Susan totally misses the point.

And why everyone else (but you, it seems) sees that this is a woeful excuse of an article.

That depiction of Ezra with his money stuffed full of his mouth is loaded with negative stereotypes. It is placed upon top of an article that personally attacks Ezra Levant, his character and his motives. So I am going to pass my judment on this "journalism" and suggest that it is neither compelling nor witty but simply in poor taste.

I really don't see how one goes from the position that not everyone has equal access to getting their speech heard to therefore it is legitimate for people to attempt to bankrupt a person in their efforts to use the state as a censoring mechanism.

Freedom of speech is a negative freedom. It is freedom from state interference in your ability to say what you want. It is not a positive right that mandates that government provide you with an audience for your speech.

Any other supporters for Susan (apart from Susan's alias, "DM")???

If I was Susan's mom, I would first consider whether the opinion was a good one or not. Almost every columnist believes and stands up for ideas they consider right. If I was Susan's mom, I would first consider whether Susan was offering decent opinions.

And I doubt that Susan realized how unpopular her views on this were until she published them. I bet she thought there would be gushing agreement from at least some sectors.

I'll take the Levant's of the world any second over left wingers who need to be gay to get by in the world.

Maybe you should rethink your position. The basis of this discussion free speech, and whether the state has any right to determine what people think and what opinions they express.

Don't dismiss someone just because they're your ideological opponent.

Someday you might not get away with printing that cartoon at the top of the page. And the person you'll have on your side is the man depicted.

Talk about "offensive".

You could be dragged before an HRC for printing that, you know.

Then she goes on to prove him wrong by reflexively spewing her own bigotry with a classical caricature of the "rich jew" and obsessing over him being a "white guy". Point goes to her there.

She barely gives lip service to the issues involved, preferring to compartmentalize her intended: "jew", "white guy", "right-wing gadfly". Classification is the new bigotry. Interesting that it is more often those who label themselves as "progressives" who engage in this sort of petty discrimination. For this "new" bigotry is really as old as the hills, and about as regressive as it gets.

I tried to determine whether there was any actual content to her argument, and this is what I came up with: "Levant is a disgusting person because of his political opinions, the colour of his skin, and because he's achieving great success making his case before the court of public opinion, and as a result will probably eventually financially despite the valiant efforts of the HRC's. Sure they are a bloated bureaucracy riddled with corruption, but their existence is justified by the fact that they harass filthy conservatives like Levant." For your information, Susan, Levant promotes the work of moderate Islamic groups such as the Muslim Canadian Congress (http://ezralevant.com/Statement%20on%20OHCR%20Macleans%20complaint.pdf) and shares the podium with muslim free-speech advocates like Salim Mansur (http://ezralevant.com/2009/04/videos-of-the-london-free-spee.html). He does not need to, as you say, "build bridges" because if you don't carve great gaping chasms between classes of people in the first place, as you are apparently wont to do, no bridges are necessary. It is only people who desperately need to validate themselves and marginalize their opponents who obsess openly about "building bridges" and fixate endlessly on people's racial, cultural and political connections.

As for the article itself - not only is it full of weak so-called arguments that use old stereotypes, but it is just utterly poorly thought out and makes so very little sense. I have a really strong feeling that Susan Cole herself does not believe a word of the above, and was just stuck with this assignment by some NOW editor who decided knee-jerk-edly that since NOW is a lefty mag it automatically has to be against the outcome (also, 10 points for calling Levants's mag a "rag").

Oh dear.

I was expecting someething with a little more substance.

Does everyone have "funny" as their text verification?

As for Cole, she seems to think that making fun of the messenger qualifies as an attack on what he/she is saying. Someone forgot to tell her that it doesn't.

Egale Canada ("a national organization that advances equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-identified people and their families across Canada"}, and PEN ("PEN Canada works on behalf of writers, at home and abroad, who have been forced into silence for writing the truth as they see it") support Mr. Levant.

So do Rick Mercer, Rex Murphy, and every major editorial board in this nation. But Ms. Cole knows better about liberty and journalism it seems.

No surprises here. Time to move along.

p.s.-- that cartoon above is very offensive because it does not seem to relate to Mr. Levant or his case in any way (shouldn't he be shyting out dollars rather than eating them?) and I am not even Jewish

Someday you might not get away with printing that cartoon at the top of the page. And the person you'll have on your side is the man depicted. "

And the irony of the situation is: if and when she does appear before one of our HRC kangaroo courts,it will be HER position on free speech that only the left are entitled to it that got here there! But you are right. Ezra will be front and center supporting her right to make a fool of herself,and be ridiculed for it.

1. Ezra Levant once stood the writer up for a date in high school, and now she is trying to extract her revenge.

2. It was written tongue in cheek, like articles in "The Onion."

3. HRC employees frequent the prostitutes advertised in the magazine, and the writer is trying to drum up more ad revenue.

Is there any other real explanation as to how someone who can write a sentence would beleive this kind of tripe?

REgarding the HRC. I recall the words of my philosophy professor many years ago:

"You cannot legislate respect. It is something that must be taught."

Levant just had terrible teachers, and hrc cannot correct that.

You condemn Ezra for making money from his book for discussing his experiences . I suppose he should have done it the way the snot nosed left does by demanding his grant money from Stephen Harper. (Would that include a certain play writer?) You call foul over the Danish cartoons, and then can't see the irony of your own cartoon.

For all of the ivy covering your education, your lofty ideal's have a hard time crossing over into the real world. When you can support yourself with out tax payer funds and prostitution ad dollars, perhaps we'll take you seriously. ('cause ranting about those who can write successfully without grants makes you sound immature.) Stick your nose in the air all you want about porn, but you'll be more credible if , well, if you didn't live off prostitutes. See, I don't have a problem with snotty arrogant people. Ezra can be both in spades. But the man can produce, stand on his own two feet, and practice what he preaches. You, by comparison, are full of pretentious hot air.

Well how came so many of them seem to misunderstand their religion???

Why haven't Christians burned down buildings and killed people to demonstrate their outrage at "blasphemous" acts/ images / depictions etc? Why didn't Jews go and blow up German cities to avenge the Holocaust?

I'm not for a moment suggesting that Muslims are a homogenous block of head-hackers.

But my question is, why is there no "outrage" shown by all these moderates (who we're reassured do actually exist) when the extremists "high jack" their peaceful faith. They're out in the thousands protesting about Israeli actions, but no where to be found when there's a Mumbai-style terror attack.

The year is 2009. And the UN proposes a resolution banning criticism of religion (ie Islam). Sometimes you have to pinch yourself and wonder- is this really happening??

That also implies that the government should decide what is "offensive", and to whom. Yup- let's "legislate" people's thoughts, opinions, and feelings.

Good idea MLKJ.

We could all go class-action when rounded up by the HRCs- and those bureaucrat freaks would just have to SUCK IT UP!!

GO EZRA!!

Must have been hard as hell to have resisted Photoshopping Mr. Levant's nose into something a little more hookier, ehhh? And no skullcaps or Stars of David??

4 comments (by 2 posters) supporting the author.

There is hope!

Respect is merely knowing how to engage somebody you disagree with in a productive manner (a win-win situation): a compromise. It is also trying to understand a perspective different from your own.

a wonderful philosophy that doesn't necessarily lead to Oceania.

and yes: i said it is something that can't be legislated.

And what you're saying is that we should learn (or be taught) to show "respect". That is, avoid or modify any form of discussion which might be perceived as disrespectful by people of a particular faith.

So who decides what is and isn't "respectful".

Are you suggesting that we have blasphemy laws if people can't be taught respect??

It's believers, not beliefs, that deserve "respect" (ie. protection from discrimination etc.)

Sorry MLKJ: Your high-brow philosophy is laughably Orwellian.

"Hey I respect you, man". No they don't, they are confusing respect with appeasement.

Respect is earned, slowly and surely. You respect somebody over time because of their character. You realize they say what they mean, they do what they say and you can trust their word.

As for the article, as I understand it. it was published in NOW magazine, some sort of Toronto give-away or community newsletter. (feel free to enlighten me). 99% of the people who read the article in the hard copy are hardly likely to read the online comments. Letters to the editor are censored. (literally & they have to be).

So Ms Cole has had her say and whatever portion of the City of Toronto reads Now is nodding their collective heads and saying "Yeah right". The gospel has been spread. The indoctrination goes on.

What the Mohammed cartoons incident showed is that you are much more likely to be shown "respect" if you make it clear that there are serious consequences for any those who are "disrespectful".

That is to say, you're more likely to prevent people from publishing cartoons which you deem to be blasphemous if you protest by killing people and bombing embassies, than if you boycott/complain to the publications.

Intimidation is a very effective way of "earning respect".

Good point, 1984. People claimed to not publish the cartoons out of "respect" when it was actually "fear".

I think the term MLKJ is searching for is "self-censorship" (rather than "respect") in describing this sort of behaviour.

"MLKJ, Your leftist education/indoctrination is showing."

"The gospel has been spread. The indoctrination goes on."

You guys figured me out. I am Stalin trying to start another commune. I brainwash the masses. Ms. Cole is my propaganda minister. Scary men in turbans are my army. Respect is my weapon of mass distruction.

My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Is that really the kind of thing you want your magazine and yourself associated with?

A free society (and Ezra has fought more selflessly for free speech in Canada than I can recall NOW Magazine doing over the past few years) allows for all opinions and views, including yours.

But to bring up the rear flinging mud does not address the real questions, nor the real courage and sacrifice of all those-- from Ezra on down-- who love Canada and her freedoms.. even the freedom to say smearing and anti-semetic things.

Binks, WebElf

I doubt the author would have a such a view if you replaced the word Mohammed in the cartoons with Jesus and replaced the rioters with Christians as opposed to Muslims.

Lastly, I would have to add that the blantantly anti-semitic cartoon does nothing to advance her argument, but merely undermines her credibility and shows her to be a hypocrite.

I for one have had enough of homosexuals, Muslims and every other group of repugnant, filthy people telling me I'm a racist or an Islamaphobe or they have more rights than I. Simply for having a different opinion.

In the 60's and 70's we just called people assholes.

Cole & company certainly suite that.

However, some mid-level management type might confuse all the hits for some interest in Susan Cole's writing, which is obviously anything but.

So I propose that we boycott all of NOW's sponsors until Susan Cole is off the writing staff.

I mean, it shouldnt be that hard, there has to be at least one escort service in the GTA that doesnt advertise here, is there?

"You guys figured me out. I am Stalin trying to start another commune. I brainwash the masses. Ms. Cole is my propaganda minister. Scary men in turbans are my army. Respect is my weapon of mass destruction."

You put forward your view on "respect".

Several people here who put forward reasonable arguments countering your assertion.

I think, MLKJ, that you should take a little of your own "philosophy".........

"Respect is merely knowing how to engage somebody you disagree with in a productive manner (a win-win situation): a compromise. It is also trying to understand a perspective different from your own."

I think your descent into a Stalin/ men in turbans/ WMD just (rather than trying to "productively understand a perspective different from your own") just shows that you don't actually believe all that "respect" nonsense.

Oh- and you didn't answer the question I put forward earlier: Are you suggesting that we have blasphemy laws if people can't be taught respect??

And the basis for limiting that freedom would be what. Who gets offended. So certain people will get extra protection but others wont.

It is discouraging to see modern Liberalism, which used to hold Freedom of Speech as the highest of rights. To diminish it by adding exceptions to it.

So we have gone from "I will fight to the death you're right to say it" to " . "Well so long as you don't offend anyone"

Susan why don't you try and write a real article about how well known feminist, in Canada import female slaves? The feminist movement is a joke in Canada, and Susan you are the punchline. Ruby got caught, but she wouldn't be the only high ranking feminazi in Canada to abuse females from the lower socieconomic class.

In fact, he has already sacrificed for your right to do so.

You and your publisher owe Ezra Levant, Canada's Jewish community and your fellow citizens an apology.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/now-magazine-editor-only-lesbi.html

I would venture that Cole is losing because of how poorly written her article is and how articulate and fluid Levant's is.

After 900 days of investigation by 15 AHRC employees and a six figure legal bill. The AHRC (as do all HRCs) has a keen sense of self survival - they knew they were going to lose so they backed away.

"Or, if you're interested in information, why not post the images online and go viral? Anonymity protects you from human rights complaints. Levant doesn't do anonymity either"

Oh so the normal state of affairs should be that we must express ourselves anonymously in order to avoid persecution by the government? WOW!!!

"I don't believe for a second that Levant published those cartoons in pursuit of truth, justice and the public interest."

You "don't believe... ?". You belief is not supported by any facts. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when your arguments are based on your gut feelings and those little hairs standing up on the back of your neck?

"What's to complain about? When you're a publisher and go out on a limb and insult folks, you'd better be ready to defend yourself"

Defending oneself in a marketplace of free ideas is one thing, but being dragged in from of a bunch of government hacks is quite another matter.

"The only reason to publish the actual cartoons is to provoke fury. Levant taunted Muslims, in the process trashing good relations in multicultural Canada"

We live in the West, and anyone who migrates to the West must be prepared to embrace out core values of freedom. Freedom is a Western concept NOT an "American" concept. These cartoons were conceived and created in defense of our freedoms, in the face of attacks on those values (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy for details ).

BTW - The most offensive of the "Danish cartoons" were actually fabricated by Danish Imams (including a photo of French pig-squealing contestant) - they (the Imams) sought to provoke fury - and they did - many people died as a result of their lies and provocation. On the other hand - no one died as a result of the publication of the Danish cartoons by the Western Standard. Soharwardy and Elmasrey might have got their knickers in a twist - so what.

"And is it a coincidence that the person determined to dismantle our human rights commissions is a white guy who thinks he's been wronged because he didn't get to do whatever he wanted? Talk about trivial. "

All Levant expects is that his (and our) inalienable right to freedom of expression be protected - this is anything but trivial

The caption beside Mr. Levant's picture asserts their view that "free speech doesn't come cheap" and that its cost shouldn't be any different for magazine publishers. Let's hope they're made to put their money where their mouth is.

You see anyone who dares criticize the "Great EZ(tm)" becomes immediatley subjected to harassment, slurs and child-like attempts at bullying. Just ask people like Richard Warman, Jennifer Lynch, Warren Kinsella, Bernie Farber all of whom rubbed "The great Ez" the wrong way...it led to hordes of troglodytes, earwhigs and a host of other viral like animals sent out to attack and ridicule. There is no such thing in this crowd as decency, honest debate or civility. Be comfortable in the knowledge that you are amongst a select few who have had the courage to take on the "Great Ez" and not worry about the knuckle-draggers.

Richard Warman? Are you fucking kidding me? Canada's #1 abuser of the "human rights" process. Mr - lets get street punks to toss pies in peoples faces.

As for the rest of the motley crew you mentioned - all make me puke - and that takes a lot.

I truly hope your on the "right" side and just stirring the pot. If your not - complete idiot is a term that comes to mind.

Have you really actually taken a trademark out on your less than original take on Ezra's name, or are you actually using that symbol disingenuously? Just curious?

Bullying? People should be held accountable for thier choices and actions. If Richard Warman and Jennifer Lynch don't past the smell test applied by the court in public opinion, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

You say, "it led to hordes of troglodytes, earwhigs and a host of other viral like animals sent out to attack and ridicule."

----My, my you are comparing humans to insects and other animals. You should be aware that that sentence is a hallmark of hate according to the various human rights commissions. Oh wait, people who support freedom are not a protected group under our the Human Rights Codes. So much for equality under the law. I guess you are safe.

Yes, even self-important scribblers for left-wing alt-newsweaklies (sic).

Money quote: "Freedom of speech... is an American fantasy."

This is a direct echo of the disgusting CHRC apparatchik who declared "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept." Yes, a Canadian government employee actually said that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies Then, of course, there's the accompanying Photoshop illustration is of Ezra Levant -- who is Jewish, although NOW identifies him only as "a white guy" -- with his mouth stuffed full of large-denomination bills. (Actually, the only person I've seen do that lately was Mychal Bell of the Jena Six-on-One). Here's how Susan Cole wants you to think -- so learn your lesson well: Publishing cartoons implying Radical Islamism may contain some violent tendencies = Racism! Hatespeech! Crimethink! Publishing cartoons and articles implying conservative Jews are shifty shekel-grubbers capable of acting only in their own self-interest = Progress! Egalitarianism! Doubleplusgoodthink! Got that, all you Protest Kids*? Good. So NOW you know.

* Hat tip: Lou Reed

Yeah- Susan Cole's article exemplifies all of these qualities.

Mitka, you are (to borrow one of your online buddy's terms) a "wanker". If you stopped your intellectual masturbation for a moment, you might see why so many people are "bullying" the author of this rabidly racist, anti-West, leftist shite.

"Is there Canadian version of Ann Coulter?"

-So critiquing and article and ideas is not tantamount to bullying? The author of this article posted a virulently anti-semitic caricature of a decent person who is standing up for what he believes in.

-She has smeared his name by suggesting that he couldn't possibly be genuinely motivated by a belief in freedom but only by a hatred of Muslims and a desire to garner attention and make lots of money in the process.

-Importantly, the article does nothing to counter the arguments made throughout Ezra's book. Rather than attacking him on the substance of his ideas, she has attacked his character in a "racialized" way.

- I think it is Susan G. Cole who is the hoax here.

----So now the its the job of a journalist to act as psychologist/advisor and provide group therapy to thin skinned groups in our society? That is plain and simply absurd.

And Susan G. Cole, I want to know how you would have felt if the published cartoons (which were reprinted in the context of a legitimate news story I might add and not as a stand alone item) made fun of Judaism or Christianity instead of Islam. How would you feel if in the context of a different religion some easily wounded person forced a publisher to expend six figures in legal fees?

The folks who support the likes of Susan are not fond of confrontation. They scatter like bugs when they find out they can't bully folks in a debate. These individuals are lying hypocrites. They think it ok that a asshole like R.W. use the CHRC to supplement his income.

Oh well, they are slowly losing their support.

This statement is completely incoherent. Freedom of speech is free to all Canadians (i.e. it is a right), as guaranteed under the Charter.

Canadians right to free speech has been paid for with the lives of far too many who have understood the importance of our core freedoms (which includes freedom of speech). The HRCs are not defenders of free speech, in fact quite the opposite - an examination of the HRC decisions make that abundantly clear.

By the way Sue. Was it you or your partner that received your brothers gift?

http://www.wolfmanproductions.com/cole.htm

Just asking

Ewww. I didn't need to know that. Oops, is my natural reaction considered to be hateful?

I never had much of an opinion about Ezra Levant before any of this - but he has done the country a service. Might as well just admit it. Mark Steyn's opinions on Islam are just paranoid and silly - so just take him on. There is absolutely no need to bring the government into any of it. What an absolute waste of time and money.

The right wing are going to be dining out on this for years. And the majority commenters are right - the above cartoon is a disgrace. NOW blew this one, big time.

---I think that you are right about that Madman. However, someone needs to inform these types of people that group think is in their imagination. For example, feminists often claim to speak for all woman, or at least all women of their same cultural and socio-economic class, but in the process they engage in antics meant to shame people within that category who do not agree with them.

---Interestingly, when the claim was made by Elmasry against Macleans, the claim was put forward in such a manner to suggest that it was on behalf of all Canadian Muslims. The reality is that the grievances expressed in the claim and the decision to pursue legal action were not representative of the position of all Canadian Muslims.

The smallest minority is and always will be the individual and that is why individual rights make sense and group rights do not.

I know the "gay" rights activists comandeered the word for themselves, but that does not change the meaning of the word. I think "peculiar" is an adept synomyn.

Oh yeah, and stuff another hundred hundreds in Ezra's mouth. I think he deserves them.

The Human Rights Commission is the best thing to ever happen to Ezra Levant, I'm not sure if he would even vigorously dispute this. A bestseller; appearances on international news shows and the undying love of neo-con studs like Rex Murphy and Micheal Coren (Who care barely contain their jealousy that Mr. Levant gets to be the big show off). So, Susan is certainly right to call shenanigans on any claim Levant makes to humility in the noble cause of free speech. Levant saw an opportunity to cheese off the Muslims and took it with great gusto. Make no mistake, neo-con interest in Levant's cause has everything to do with promoting Christian primacy; however conveniently shrouded it is with this whole pesky "freedom of the press" stuff. In other words, do not expect Levant and his brethren to be charging the barricades the next time some gay porn is stopped at the border.

Unfortunately, Levant has also illustrated a very fine and important point that the state has no moral authority to protect its citizenry from mere insult and that the bureaucratic apparatus of human rights commissions needs some serious tweaking. Also Coles' suggestion that one should merely write about something that is inherently visual is beyond ludicrous for someone who bylines as a film critic. I mean, why show offensive art anywhere at all when you can just scribble a few words about Piss Christ or Karen Finley's last show? Actually, why not criticize art without even looking at it! (and ultimately art is what we are talking about) See where I'm going with this? This is why Rick Mercer and PEN are on board. The fact that Susan is not--is frankly a little scary. Especially when she runs the pop art division of Toronto's biggest weekly. Publisher take heed! The government is watching you? You don't have to agree with one word out of Levant's mouth to be scared by that. A jackass? Perhaps. But dammit if he isn't right.

---So now arguments and debate= bullying. People turn their nose up at argument and debate when they don't feel they can win in the market place of ideas. It is much easier to shut down debate before it starts or attack the character of the people making the arguments than it is to address the arguments themselves. No wonder you don't care about free speech. It is just easier to wish speech away.

I would be interested in knowing how you feel knowing that some of your comments would be classified as a hallmark of hate according to our HRCs? Doesn't it make you feel even a little vulnerable?

Your suggestion that free speech is best carried out anonymously is also distasteful. Suppose Salman Rushdie had published "The Satanic Verses" under a pseudonym; would it have burned less hotly when Muslims worldwide set fire to it? I can't follow your logic, Ms Cole; people gotta take responsibility for what they say, but they should put on disguises when they say it?

My real name is Lyle Neff, btw; and I think you are purposely missing the point. Very unpleasant trait in a journalist, that.

neo-cons are far from the only ones concerned about the HRC abuses - EGALE, Alan Bovoroy, PEN, - even Noam Chomsky have all come out against the HRCs

What I will not grant, what I absolutely will deny with my heart's blood, is that any government, anywhere, has any business punishing Levant and the cartoonists in any way, or even questioning their right to spread their views.

I'll even deny that Cole herself, and the editors of Now-Toronto, should be brought before any such tribunal, although I cannot deny the pleasing symmetry of such a trial.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Or this

"When they came for the Jews I didn't protest because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Communists I did nothing since I wasn't a Communists, when they came for the Trade Unionist, I ignore it since I wasn't a Trade Unionist. When they finally came for me no one cared because there was no one left"

Remember, Ms. Cole what rights you would deprive someone else of can in turn be taken from you.

All dictatorships start out like, this taking rights away from minorities or people who are unpopular but they never stop there.

(The violent reaction by Muslims to the Pope's statement that Islam was violent was especially absurd.)

This piece was classic white liberal guilt. Cole's implication (that Levant's views should be disregarded since he is white and has a penis) is both sexist and racist. She didn't mention that he was Jewish, but many of her ilk are openly anti-Semitic. That's the current fad with these losers.

I wasn't going to respond to this piece. It is, after all just NOW Magazine. But I couldn't resist.

And NOW, a free paper, proves the old chestnut that you get what you pay for.

Go, Ezra!

The CHRC needs some serious revisions. However I do believe that Section 13 offers protections for minority groups and I would therefore look to ensure that complaints which do not meet the test of extreme hateful discourse (as was in my view the case against Levant) be immediatley dealth with or compensation to those falsely claimed against be offered.

Now for yoy anti-Cole/Ezra lovers, look I offered an opinion without one insult and did not have to become a cyber-bully. You see that's the difference between the civil world I and most decent Canadians inhabit and the majority here who wallow in crap and mud.

What bullying? And you referred to people as insects and other animals. Is that civilized discourse in your imagination?

"Now for yoy anti-Cole/Ezra lovers, look I offered an opinion without one insult and did not have to become a cyber-bully. You see that's the difference between the civil world I and most decent Canadians inhabit and the majority here who wallow in crap and mud."

Stop crying wolf. You tone of your comments are consistent with the standard leftist strategy of casting yourself and your ideological soul mates as victims, while bullying/victimizing others. BTW nice illustration your friend Cole used to accompany the article. I don't think such things should be cause for government or legal action (read HRCs), but it is a vicious act of racist stereotyping nonetheless.

The comments responding to Coles article, speak to its (the articles)incoherence - to do so is fair game in the real world.

"You cannot legislate respect. It is something that must be taught."

Sorry if this has already been suitably dealt with, I couldn't continue reading comments without vomiting a bit. Anyway, respect is something earned not arbitrarily conferred. Perhaps your professor said something about being respectful but I seriously doubt he said that respect itself must be taught; that falls more into the category of brainwashing.

"What bullying? And you referred to people as insects and other animals. Is that civilized discourse in your imagination?"

You're right I apologize to all the animals and insects out there. You know sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire.

Then we have the old stand-bye from Solomnia:

"Mitka is a well known shill for Bernie Farber of the CJC. Both Mitka and Bernie believe it is their entitlement to undermine our society and rob their fellow citizens of the right to freedom of speech which is why they support the dangerous Section 13 (1) law."

I have been called many things but a "shill", that's a new one. And there be the rub; because I happen to support Section 13 (1) as does our own Prime Minister (read that great interview in MacLeans) and others like Bernie Farber, I then become the target of the usual puke. Frankly I'm quite happy to be placed in the same boat as people like Harper and Farber.

You still never answered the question. Earlier on in the forum you accused people of bullying you and I would like you to provide an example of a specific instance of bullying before you posted your complaint.

You say that you support the censorship provisions found in the Canadian Human Rights Code, and I pointed out that by their standards, some of your words on this forum constitute a hallmark of hate. Does it not worry you in the least that you may have violated their standards?

For my part, I could care less. By my standards you are free to compare me or anyone else on this forum to vermin. I support free speech. However, I will still call it as I see it and you were not engaged in civilized discourse like you claim.

how do you like that, for an attack on free speech, mr ezra?

Do please explain how that is an attack on free speech. Ms. Cole is free to express her thoughts and opinions in the market place of ideas. However, if the comments on this forum are indicative of public opinion as a whole, Ms. Cole's ideas are not competitive in the market place of ideas.

Ms Cole has not been dragged before an HRC in an attempt at a shakedown, she has not been criminally charged, nor has she been prevented from writing any more articles expressing similar opinions. So I ask you again, how is that an "attack" on free speech.

There are numerous comments on this blog. Some address the anti-semitic undertone in her caricature of Ezra, others address the poor logic and argumentation in her article.

Perhaps Ms. Cole did not mean to draw a nexus between Ezra's Jewish heritage and her depiction of him. Perhaps her intentions were something a little more innocuous. She is free to defend herself against these interpretations on this forum if she so desires.

The one thing Ms. Cole will have difficulty defending, however, is her very apparent disdain for white males.

"Levant just had terrible teachers, and hrc cannot correct that". --------------------------

Respect in fact must be EARNED and Ezra's teachers have been of the finest quality, starting with his father who stood up to HRC intrusion into his private dealings many decades ago in their infancy.

HRC "teachers" are of the Orwellian variety and deserve only contempt for their hubristic notion that they are worthy of pronouncing judgment on their fellow citizens' very thoughts. How 1984 to believe that government agents like themselves should be intruding on one individual's legitimate rights (speech, religion and property) to enforce those of another and fantasy "rights" at that like the "right" to go through life without being offended.

The fact that Ms. Cole does not understand that she just committed this last "crime" against an individual, gender, race and a religion with this very article and caricature means she cannot conceptualize herself as a "bad" guy. But you are, Ms. Cole, you are by HRC standards if Ezra Levant were the loser type who wished to make an issue out of it. You might be safe sneering at the white male but anti-semitism is still frowned on even by HRC's and they are especially touchy about cartoons!

Guess you missed the interview with Harper in MacLeans where he made it clear he had no intentions of making any changes to Section 13 huh?

I love how your mind seems to "make things up" too (sorta like your icon Ezra), where have I ever dictated anything to anyone?" I'm just posting on a NOW comment board-sheesh take a valium.

"Farber is an imbecile", I guess you know that because you don't like his position on Section 13. Well I can understand then why you would call him an "imbecile". What grade level did you get up to in elementary school just out of curiosity?

..........still awaiting examples of that cyber bullying

Oh, wait, Ezra's white, not a muslim, and is a member of the PC party. His case wouldn't be heard. My mistake.

If we can't have that, I'd at least like either Cole or another NOW editor to explain how reprinting a cartoon of a non-existent being can be so offensive as to warrant a human rights tribunal but a caricature of an actual Jewish person, mouth stuffed with hundred dollar bills, is acceptable.

Cole is a congenital loser, a disgruntled, immature, hate-filled woman who never grew up, and a bolshevik-in-hiding who is all for authoritarian government just as long as it targets an old flame, men, or jews like Ezra Levant.

I encourage all of you to write a few lines in an email to "bunny" farber at the canadian jewish council thanking him for his heavy-handed efforts to dismantle what tenuous free speech rights canadians have in this odd nation of ours. People like bunny, Barbara hall, susan g. cole, and feminists in our universities are a greater threat to us than any of the people they have targeted over the past several years.

terrible human beings - and quintessential bullies.

this creature, susan g. cole, has a child today because of sperm donated by her brother - who evidently happens to be a white male. Some of the gay community's most vociferous defenders - like Dr. Jack Levin are white males (and Levin is a jew to boot, which much surely upset susan). Yet, susan being susan, she takes none of that into account and feels as though she can denigrate white males in large measure because they are an easy target; its politically correct to target the unborn, little boys and white males, after all - and susan cole has made a (mediocre) career of it.

this "woman" is an abomination

pathetic - nothing more..

My wife and I have donated 300.00 to Ezra's fight against the Orcs who would silence us. Two hundred of it was money that Gordon Campbell (liberal leader BC) doled out to each family (100. per adult) to buy our tolerance of his Carbon Tax. I can't think of a better use for that money than to have it used to fight Liberal governments who do stupid politically correct horse shit that diminish us a free people.

I can now see why those on the extreme Liberal left want to censure and limit speach. Imagine what most people would say....

Indeed Susan. But the publisher should be forced to defend him/herself through dialogue and debate. The idea that a publisher should be forced to defend themself to the STATE! because someone is insulted is truly scary. You're getting a well deserved roasting here.

Also, a (poorly done) picture of a Jewish man eating money is a wee bit racist isn't it?

I wonder if good old Ms. Cole expected that only ideologically like-minded people would read this crappy excuse for a book review. It is probably so poorly written precisely because she isn't used to having to persuade anyone. Likely she is used to preaching to the already converted.

God it really must piss this woman off to no end that government cannot control the minds of its citizens.

"Here's how Susan Cole wants you to think:

Publishing cartoons implying Radical Islamism may contain some violent tendencies = Racism! Hatespeech! Crimethink!

Publishing cartoons and articles implying conservative Jews are shifty shekel-grubbers capable of acting only in their own self-interest = Progress! Egalitarianism! Doubleplusgoodthink!"

This is a debate about free speech. And many here have turned it into a personal attack against Susan Cole.

The only good thing (and truly this happens often) the normal people who read these inane comments can't help but sympathize with Ms. Cole. Thankfully you are your own worst enemies.

Mitka,

Do please inform as as to where exactly that supposedly bright line is. I would really love to know. And is the lack of approval espoused by some people on this forum grounds for a human rights complaint in your opinion? Precisely what happens when someone crosses this imaginary line in your world?

The majority of the comments on this forum are informed opinions posted by people who are engaging in debate. You know the exercise where people use free speech to discuss different points of views.

I have yet to see you engage in debate. All you seem to do is engage in character assassination, much like the author of this article.

I'm going to need some "psychological assistance" if I read any more of your pure drivel.

I'm tired of the tactics of the far left - same old BS. Nothing left to offer after taking - simply - A shit kicking. So out come the overplayed,overused same garbage comments - you need help...bla..bla...your a homophobe - which in my case I love being called that, as a gay man - it's hilarious.

Take a look around MITKA

The times they are a changing

Great bumper sticker I recently saw:

"Annoy a Liberal – Use Facts & Knowledge"

Yes, Ezra is definitely one of this American's heroes...

Instead of publishing the offensive cartoon why didn't she merely describe it in words along the lines of "melanin-challenged male with semitic features, mouth stuffed with his ill-gotten gains from pretending that he cares about human rights"? That's so much better, isn't it?

If her recommendation was exclusively for cartoons of Mohammed, when did she convert to Islam or why does she feel we non-Muslims should be forced to follow their religious precepts on pain of government persecution? Does she genuflect to the Cross? Why not? Has she publicly bewailed the besmirching of Christian iconography with excrement in the name of art? Either Muslims take their lumps with the rest of us or they are uniquely unfit as immigrants into Western pluralist societies.

For a supposed feminist, Ms. Cole seems strangely solicitous of Islam, the most ostentatiously anti-feminist religion/ideology extant.

Ms Cole, please complete the following sentence:

Mr Levant published some political cartoons, which offend Muslims and are therefore pornographic, whereas NOW's ads for prostitutes and gay chat lines don't offend the same Muslims, because...

Not even worth getting annoyed about, as she's really just preaching to the converted, ie the typical Now Magazine reader who already agreed with her before reading her article.

The points Susan attempts to make are so utterly stupid, that I wonder if she attempts to make these points only to oppose Ezra, out of some misguided principle.

You want to talk vomit - read the Gostick article in this same edition - lots of WOW going on there all right. I hope and pray that my tax dollars aren't going to pay the writers peddling this left-wing pablum, but the stench from this rag is so bad it has to be government funded.

I read that article too and just about vomited.

What a joke. It is the left that wants to keep people divided along racial/class/ethnic lines, not the right. Their objective is not the betterment of humankind, but to have something to gripe about.

I say that as someone who has worked hard to overcome poverty. Government is not the answer and neither is unaffordable government programs that will have to be paid for by future generations.

"2. (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"

If Ms. Cole doesn't like that, she's welcome to canvas and agitate for a Constitutional amendment, however I think she'd find the majority of Canadians would be willing to tell her to go pound salt.

Until then, the very existence of the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals are an affront to that section of the Charter. They need to be shown for what they are, defunded, and shut down forever. They may have been a someone's "nice" idea at one time, but they've been twisted and contorted into something reprehensible.

If someone says something offensive, let them bring those statements to the marketplace of ideas, and be soundly mocked by others for it. Come to think of it, that's exactly what's happening to Ms. Cole in these comments. Carry on!

Do you mean that Cole recognizes that race exists (as a made-up social construct or otherwise)?

I think it's totally appropriate for Cole to point out the contradiction that she does: that someone from one of the most categorically privileged groups (white men) is using his power and his voice to call for the dismantlement of an institution that's designed (as inefficient as it might be) to represent the interests of people who are categorically oppressed and DISempowered...

If racism is really your worry, you should educate yourself about it (start with a quick google search of the word 'oppression'). Then I'd suggest spending a little more time thinking about when and how 'racism' is actually a relevant term to apply.

Susan Cole posted a caricature of Ezra reinforcing the steretype of the money hungry Jew. She then followed it up with an article that demonized him by suggesting that he is motivated by greed and hatred. So I think the questions raised on this forum are valid.

You wouldn't know it from Cole's review, but he supports legal recourse for people who are victimized by racism in employment, housing, etc...but he thinks these issues should be handled by neutral judges in real courses with proper due process protections.

Lastly, Ezra is someone who was most defintely victimized by one of these commissions. I think that qualifies him to promote change. And even if he didn't, neither his whiteness nor his maleness disqualifies him from participating in democratic dialogue.

I take back one of my previous comments. The reality is that Ezra wasn't victimized by the Alberta HRC. But that is because he was too smart for them. Ezra is definitely not a victim. But if people had their way, he would be.

**And that's why a complaint was lodged by Muslim law students.**

The complaint was NOT filed by law students, it was filed by Mohamed Elmasry. (page 25) Elmasry was the puppet-master, the students were the puppets.

Elmasry the Offended, didn't even bother showing up. Khurrum Awan showed up and testified for the hurt feelings of another law student, sitting just a few feet away. The commission lawyer later hired Awan, so this was like a job interview.

This is a serious distinction.

I could add more, but for what? Cole has an agenda, bash the book without reading it.

Well you are right about one thing Ms. Cole, all this fuss is not about human rights, it's really about hurt feelings. We can agree on that.

But what does the Canadian Council of Muslim women have to do with anything? How is their position on the right to vote wearing the veil even relevant to this story? And do you think that we knuckle dragging Canadians don't associate with Muslims enough to know that they are all not a radical monolith?

You really are one pretentious woman. Perhaps it is your arrogance that makes you so stupid.

More rules and hypocrisy from the nutjob that wrote this article.

Merry Christmas, Susan! Oh, She is sooooo going on my Christmas card list! I'd love to help her neighbors put up their Christmas lights too, lots of 'em. Maybe find a little 'Tiny Tim' to bring her some fruitcake. Why don't we all send her a Christmas card today, c/o Now Magazine?

Before the internet, these smug little "alt-indy" types persuaded themselves that the sophomoric rubbish they published really had widespread support and that they were providing an alternative to the mainstream media. After all, who bothered to actually write a letter to NOW back then to tell them how lousy they were? The convenience of the internet has changed that--and in doing so, it has revealed a truer picture of people's opinions than their letters column did in the past. Clearly there are far fewer weedy leftists in Toronto than one might think, and far more of their opponents.

The simple fact is that NOW achieved its predominance in the free-newspaper market not because of its "daring, alternative" journalism but because it was the first rag of its kind in Toronto. People don't pick up NOW because of its content, but because of its listings and its ads from hookers. Articles like Cole's are simply vanity publishing. (And how could she or the other bozos at NOW miss the hilarious irony of regularly publishing her p.c. feminist boilerplate in a vehicle that is kept afloat by commercially available pussy and the johns that buy it!)

Freedom of speech is an inalienable right. Period.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. - United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, (yeah even those morons admit it, whether or not they adhere to it).

And by the way, I think it is the CBC's responsibility to get information and perspectives from their guests (that can include asking probing questions), but it is not their role to debate them or assert their own point of view.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=169476

Susan, you stupid bigot.

Cole seems to think censorship is okay when it happens to be someone she doesnt like who happens to get perhaps too much praise out of doing something inflammatory.

Pointing out Ezra getting too much credit is one thing, but Cole as usual takes a noncontroversial opinion way too far. NOW needs to dump this dope, who cant make a reasonable film column let alone talk politics.

You call yourself a journalist?? For SHAME!!

Respect can be earned through a consistent application of principles and reasonable behavior. Respect can be taught by using violence/physical punishment and/or the threat of it.

Ezra seems to be using the former. Muslims, enough of them, anyway, use the latter.

You are a disgusting hag.

You do not even deserve debate.

Just a dick in your big useless mouth.

You actually are a racist.

1. I'm glad you're just a nobody writing for a shitty leftist asswipe, and will never be in a position of actual authority or power.

2. I am INCREDIBLY heartened by the unanimous -- almost -- disgust at your sophomoric, totalitarian garbage here in the comments. I would not have expected it from my fellow Trontonians.

I guess your principles -- or whatever you have in your empty little head that pass for principles -- are pretty cheaply bought.

Lets be consitent here Susan, where do you get off putting your name to such a facist support of censorship as this piece of garbage article when you could post it anonymously? Why put your name to such freedom hating garbage as this when you have the option to spew your hate without your name.

The reason is that you believe it, just as I have no doubt Ezra Levant believes it's important to stand in solidarity with fellow free speech advocates in the face of death threats and say you will not be tolerated.

As someone who makes your living in an industry based on the concept of free speech, it truly disgusts me on that I no longer trust that you believe in the concept. If Bill O'Reilly had written your article it would have suprised me. From someone who thinks she's in favour of freedom it is beyond disgusting.

For Susan Cole to say that criticizing Islam is forbidden - shows the fascist tendency that the Canadian left has nurtured and ingrained in the past few decades.

May I ask this ignoramus Cole - why is criticizing Islam forbidded? What makes an ignoramus think that Islam is perfect and should never be criticized - that it is hijacked and otherwise there is nothing wrong with it? Ignorance is the hallmark of this post-colonial leftist and racist Susan Cole. If she had intelligence, she would go and read Surah 9 of the Koran and weep.

Forcing women and girls to vote with the hijab - is not moderation. It is bigotry and fascism - the kind that the anti-progressive leftist and NDP activists have come to like.

Shame on Susan Cole for trying to destroy Canadian liberal and enlightened values with her racism of lower expectations.

One cup bitterness, Two cups judgment, pinch of thought. Shake well and swallow.

"Levant taunted Muslims, in the process trashing good relations in multicultural Canada."

Tamils shutting down roads and highways in Toronto are doing their best to trash so-called "good multicultural relations" in Canada. Does Susan have anything to say about that?

I couldn't care less whether you find it sexist or not. I suspect you live in a bubble.

There are indeed women who are "empowered," and choose to be hookers, and I'm all for it.

However, it will probably come as a shock to you to learn that there are also vulnerable -- I guess the mindless leftist buzzword would be "unempowered", if that helps -- women who are compelled to work in the sex industry, and who are exploited by those who would profit from their vulnerability.

If you don't think that's the case, or if you think I'm sexist for pointing it out, then you are as naive as a small child, and you are the one who needs to grow up.

Yes sexual exploitation exists and is repulsive (obvious statement) but to make such a blanket statement about the sex industry shows a lack of understanding about what the industry is. Even from my bubble you think I'm stuck in thats quite obvious.

Ezra Levant may not be the most savory character but what he offers, unlike the oft lamented "author" of the clap trap written above, is an actual arguement. Susan refers to character assassination. The best part is that she retorts that it is US that are anti semetic. What a fucking joke. susan likes to offer rebutals that it is we that don't get her "awesome" writting. She did this as well with her fucking error filled obituary to Late great radio host Marty Streek. she claimed he was abusing drugs and got his birthdate wrong. She took a right drubbing on that one as well and came back with a pathetic b.s. piece accusing everyone of not getting her Irony. No susan we get you. We know what you are a finger wagging "holier then thou" leftist loser.

Your defence of silencing Ezra speaks volumes. You align yourself with a group that would just as soon kill you...Well after you have played the role of useful idiot. It is refreshing to see the ass whooping you have recieved and rightfully so. You're truly pathetic and are being called out on it.

Levant's right-wing diatribe may be odious to me, but in this case he has a point. When you have hundreds of people being set on fire over twelve cartoons, it's probably not a good idea to write an article about Levant. Write one about those brain-addled religious terrorists who kill those with whom they disagree. Or are you scared to do so, Susan Cole? Are you scared those zealots will come after you?

Shame on you, Susan Cole. Shame on you for bringing up pornography, which is irrelevant in this discussion. The point is that there are idiots in this world who will kill to "protect" their invisible friends. It's time to call them out on this.

I won't even publish my name because I'm afraid of the reprisals from these lunatics. Way to defend freedom of speech and tolerance, by siding with terrorists!

Shame on you, Susan Cole.

Replica Watches Replica Watches Rolex watches Rolex watches swiss replica watches swiss replica watches Omega Watches Omega Watches zhonglup11 replica rolex watches replica rolex watches Rolex Sports Models Rolex Sports Models rolex watches rolex watches Rolex Datejusts watches Rolex Datejusts watches A Lange Sohne watches A Lange Sohne watches Aigner watches Aigner watches Alain Silberstein watches-Alain Silberstein watches Audemars Piguet watches Audemars Piguet watches Aquraracer watches Aquraracer watches Bell & Ross replica watches Bell & Ross replica watches Breguet watches Breguet watches Breitling watches-Breitling watches Bvlgari watches Bvlgari watches Turnograph SS watches Turnograph SS watches Seiko watches Seiko watches Tudor Watch Tudor Watch Cartier watches Cartier watches Chanel watches Chanel watches Oyster Day date 18k Gold Oyster Day date 18k Gold Chopard watches Chopard watches Concord watches Concord watches Corum watches Corum watches Carrera watches Carrera watches Dior watches Dior watches Dolce & Gabbana watches Dolce & Gabbana watches Ebel watches Ebel watches Emporio Armani watches Emporio Armani watches Gucci watches-Gucci watches Graham watches Graham watches Iwc Watch Iwc Watch Jacob & Co watches Jacob & Co watches Louis Vuitton watches Louis Vuitton watches Link watches Link watches Mont Blanc watches Mont Blanc watches Movado watches Movado watches MONACO watches MONACO watches Mcrcedes-benz watches Mcrcedes-benz watches Armani watches Armani watches FERRARI watches FERRARI watches Omega watches Omega watches Oris watches Oris watches Panerai watches Panerai watches Patek Philippe watches Patek Philippe watches Philip Stein watches Philip Stein watches Porsche Design watches Porsche Design watches PIAGET watches PIAGET watches Rado watches Rado watches Roger Dubuis watches Roger Dubuis watches Sarcar watches Sarcar watches Tag Heuer watches Tag Heuer watches TSG Heuer watches TSG Heuer watches Technomarine watches Technomarine watches Vacheron Constantin watches acheron Constantin watches Zenith watches Zenith watches Yao Ming watches Yao Ming watches Hublot watches Hublot watches Tisssot watches Tisssot watches Luminor Panerai watches Luminor Panerai watches U-BOAT watches U-BOAT watches Ulysse nardin watches Ulysse nardin watches -------------------------------- Wholesale scarves Designer silk scarf Women's Scarves Fashion scarves Burberry Scarves louis vuitton Scarves hermes Scarves paul smith Scarves coach Scarves gucci Scarves chanel Scarves replica sunglass

wholewatches.com canwatches.com idolreplica.com watcheshot.com watchessell.com

zhonglup0911

I've never read such a steaming pile of hate-filled bunk in my life.