I went there not to learn anything new - in fact, he didn't say anything new from what I've read in his blog and other blogs around Canada, and of course in his book.
But, that is the crunch of this whole thing. After having exposed the HRCs as the shameless frauds they are, after announcing that they be dismantled, what else is there to say?
I actually went to spice things up a bit - although I did go in all sincerity. I wanted to ask Levant the same question I posed in my previous post: What caused this undignified scurry by Canadians to relinquish important societal and personal freedoms at what seems like a drop of a hat? Why did Canadians submit so easily? What is it in the psyche of Canadians that they allowed their leaders to establish such an institution?
I don't think Levant has answers to these questions, since I don’t think he's really thought about them. My argument has always been that we need to look at these deep societal problems in order to truly eradicate such organizations as the HRCs. I don't think that now the HRCs have been exposed, other forms of censoring free speech, and all the other freedoms, will cease. The government can continue to play a myriad of roles similar to the HRCs, one of which is to give large quantities of free (and unearned) legal services to those who bring up the kinds of grievances that the HRCs had taken care of. In fact, this already happens.
But back to the evening (sponsored by the Libertarian Party of Canada, no less). I raised my hand near the end, when Levant had said he would ask two more people before wrapping up the evening. I would have been the second, and last, but he decided to curtail the evening with the penultimate (which ended up being the final) question.
I am sure Levant saw me. I even waved my hand (gently) a couple of times to get his attention, which I did. Since I link many times to his blog, I can presume that he reads what I have written, and knows who I am – I have my photo posted at one of my blogs.
My concerns on the HRC issues are different from the other blogs that write about it, who understandably are more of a cheer-leading type helping Levant on in his battle. I also understand the Levant: a. doesn't want anyone to rain on his parade - although I do acknowledge that he has done a really great job with his dogged fight; b. probably feels he has accomplished what he has set out to do, and doesn't think anything else is required.
But, debate is the great informer (was Levant censoring me?!). I don't think the fight is over, although Levant may really not be the one to pursue it further. I thought Kevin Michael Grace might have picked up the torch, but his two-year absence from the various national debates is telling. I think his paleo part has taken over, and I don’t think he can see the light at the end of the tunnel – he says as much here:
Self-censorship has become a defining Canadian characteristic. Despite Hadjis’s brave decision, it is unlikely we will see a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend any time soon.But someone has to start. And a well-known media figure like Grace, who has clearly thought about these issues in depth, and whose analyses I have previously agreed with, is surely the best person to continue with what Levant has started.
