It was published--not in Maclean's. In that article you gave some credence to some of his arguments on procedure, on investigations. I said before that I don't want to spend time talking about evidentiary issues. But the premise....
I think why Mr. Levant is compelling is that he becomes a bit of a poster boy for the idea that “Look, I'm a member of a minority, but I can defend myself. These are different times. We are a more complex society. The atrocities we know happened in times past cannot happen again, because we're in a flourishing democratic society.” Who wouldn't argue that Ezra Levant could defend himself verbally? Of course he can.
I'm asking both you and Mr. Farber if Mr. Levant is naive in this concept. Was it all that long ago that in the demonization of groups, people like Mr. Levant were not protected, no matter how brilliant they were?
Finally, to make it fit into the modern-day world, would a legislative framework like section 13, or any sort of tool that a government in Rwanda or Bosnia might have had before the demonization took place, prevent wide-scale genocide?