Western Standard
email print

Freedom requires a better defence

Paul McKeever analyses Ezra Levant's arguments for freedom of speech, and finds them wanting: Ezra comes to the right conclusions, but for the wrong reasons.

Paul McKeever - February 6, 2008

Ezra's human rights complainant considers Ezra's silence to be a value. Ezra will not consent to provide the complainant with that value. Were the complainant to obtain that value by physically gagging Ezra, the government would rightly use force against the complainant to restore Ezra's freedom because life requires freedom. For the government to obtain that value for the complainant by means of force is wrong because life requires freedom.

Ezra's legal case is, he says, his stepping-stone to the making of a political case. If, in the political realm, he drops his ineffectual legal arguments for freedom, and demands freedom on the ground that it is an indispensable requirement of his life, he will become an asset to the advocacy of freedom, rather than a liability to it.

Discuss this opinion piece online

Paul McKeever is an employment lawyer and leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario, as well as leader of the Freedom Party of Canada

More articles by Paul McKeever