Ezra Levant: Angry, Angry Man

Levant rages against the HRC machine, posts video to the internet for posterity

A long and sad chapter of the varying controversies surrounding Canada's Human Rights Commissions took an interesting twist today, as Ezra Levant, subject of a complaint by the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and Syed Soharwardy, posted video of his hearings to YouTube.

Through the course of the videos, a hapless Human Rights Commissioner is subjected to a stern lecture on the nature of freedom of speech and the various failings of Canadas HRCs.



In his opening statement, Levant voiced the full measure of his distaste for the HRC.

"When the Western Standard magazine published the Danish cartoons of Muhammad two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life," Levant announced. "I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Although the Western Standard sadly no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, EzraLevant.com."

"I am here at this interrogation under protest. It is my position the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violaton of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press and in this case, religious freedom and seperation of Mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta Human Rights Commission is the agency violating my rights."

Levant went on to outline the origial purpose of the HRC, and how these Commissions have been subverted by special interests.

During the statement (at one point of which he stops to thank all of his supporters who read The Western Standard), Levant rages against the HRC Commissioner who alternates between shuffling uncomfrotably and shuffling angrily in her chair.

Levant certainly hadn't come to make any friends.



"We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free-born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think," Ezra insists. "It's my right to do so for reasonable intentions and its my right to do so for extremely unreasonable purposes. I refuse to concede to you that what my political thoughts are in my mind and in my heart are will determine whether or not an artifact is legal or illegal."

Of course, Levant is right about this last part. The cartoons in question were part of the story the Western Standard was commenting on -- the rioting of Muslims over the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper. Levant and the Standard had every right to do cover that story, and bore no responsibility to cover any part of it up.

At points, however, Levant veers strongly into the perversity of unrestrained freedom, particularly when that freedom is unrestrained even by the better natures of the person exercising them.

"I published it without reservation. I published it in the most unreasonable manner," Ezra insisted. "Whatever offends you, I reserve the right to publish it for whatever offensive reason I want."

"I reserve the right to publish those cartoons for exactly what they complain about. I reserve the right to publish the cartoons to do every offensive thing they claim is in my heart."

At its most base level, Levant is right. But those offended by him also have the right to censure him, and to seek censure from other sources. While they are absolutely abusing the system in attempting to use the HRC to do this using the strong arm of the law, Syed Soharwardy has every right to be offended, and has every right to protest.

In part three, however, Levant really turns up the heat:



When asked about claims that publishing the cartoons inspired hatred and hostility toward Muslims and put them at risk, Levant draws blood for the first time when he notes that nowhere in Canada has a conclusive hate crime been committed against Muslims.

However, he notes that hate crimes have been perpetrated in Canada by Muslims against other identifiable minorities.

In particular, he notes the firebombing of Edmonton's Beth Shalom synagogue

"This dumb, radical, fascist, Muslim, arab from Jordan firebombed my synogogue in Edmonton. So when Larry Shayman cries wolf he's just a fibber. He's crying wolf. The last house of worship torched in Edmonton was my synagogue. It's not these cartoons that create hatred. It's radical muslims who blow things up. Who torched my synogogue. Who file nuisance suits. They're the ones who make people hate Islam."

"When these radicals start trying to import their values whether its violence, or honour killings like Asqua Parvez or torching synogogues like the Beth Shalom that make people say 'I hate you'."

The complaints of imminent threat directed toward Muslims and other minorities tend to fall flat when that violence so often fails to materialize.

Then again, when one ignores incitory factors until such violence manifests itself, one begins to fall under an immense moral hazard. Such violence could be prevented, if only those inciting it could be stopped. However, this is a very thin line to walk: perhaps one that HRCs have proven themselves unable to walk.

When asked about Charter limits on freedom of speech, Levant once again unloads:



"I do not believe their should be any limits whatsoever on political or religious speech that doesn't fall into the categories of incitement to riot or conspiracy to cummit murder," he insists. "It is the bedrock of our western liberal society, that unreasonable speech should be permitted. In fact, unreasonable speech is the only reason we've ever had progress. People who offend the order, whether it's women offending the patriarchy to get the right to vote for suffragists. Whether it's Martin Luther King offending white society for black equality. Whether it's homosexuals who offend norms in order to get equal rights. No liberal progressive cause has ever advanced except for through offending the order. And many of those offences used quite rude language, or at least language that was regarded as quite rude in the day."

Of course, comparing himself to Martin Luther King or Nellie McClung may not seem quite as accurate as Levant would like to think, even if he considers it personally flattering.

Mostly because King, McClung and their historical compatriots (to whom Levant alludes) all fought for justice not merely for themselves, but for entire groups of people.

Levant's fight is almost entirely for himself. He wasn't protesting a great historical injustice when he published the cartoons in question, he was essentially -- whether rightly or wrongly -- accusing an entire culture of barbarism.

Yet Levant makes a very strong point when he notes the absurdity of ordering apologies.

"For them to want the state to compel me to utter words I don't believe is Orwell at its apex. For me to say words I don't mean. Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, the most heinous criminals in this country, convicted of mass murder, the state cannot order them to apologize. It's cruel and unusual punishment. More to the point, people know they wouldn't mean it. What's the use of an apology if they wouldn't mean it? A convicted murder cannot be ordered to apologize, but a convicted publisher can be ordered by the state to apologize."

"I'll rot in hell before I use my mouth to say those fascist words with [the commission] as an instrument to compel me."



Levant's lecture on freedom of speech, however, misses an important element: that of responsibility.

Levant does, indeed, have the right to say what he wants. However, he is also responsible for what he says, and what he publishes. While in this particular matter he was actually acting entirely responsibly, there is no guarantee that he can say or publish whatever he wants in future without facing any kind of consequence.

Unfortunately for Levant, one of the reasons he can't esscape responsibility for his comments is because of his own success. He has managed to earn for himself a position in the public discourse where he is well known and (by some) respected. When Ezra Levant says something, many people listen. A few people even reach for their phones and dial up the HRC.

Another reason why Levant cannot escape responsibility for his comments is because he possesses the courage to allow his comments to be identified with his own name. Particularly on the internet, there are some cowards who will spurn responsibility for their comments simply because they lack the courage to accept responsibility.

Hopefully, Levant's appearance before the AHRC will bring this sad, sad chapter of the abuse of Canada's HRCs to a close. Perhaps it will even provide the impetus for those with the power to do so (are you listening Stephen Harper? Ed Stelmach?) to fix the problems with Canada's Human Rights Commissions once and for all.

Not by abolishing them, as some self-interested individuals would insist, but by reforming them to operate like a real court of law, rule of evidence and all.

In the meantime, Levant actually has every right and reason to be angry.

CIC Complaint Reveals Disturbing Matters Regarding Human Rights Commission

Human Rights Commissions being abused for political motivations? Seemingly so

In a recent op/ed column published in The National Post, Ezra Levant takes aim at the recent filing of a human rights complaint against Maclean's magazine.

According to Levant:

"Its crime? Refusing the CIC's absurd demand that Maclean's print a five-page letter to the editor in response to an article the CIC didn't like."

It's unsurprising that Levant would have something to say about this matter, as he himself has found himself subject to such manipulations of Canadian human rights law.

The complaint deals with a feature ran in the 20 October, 2006 issue of Maclean's. Entitled "The Future Belongs to Islam", the feature is a reprint of a chapter from America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It by Mark Steyn.

Now, for those who pay close enough attention to the work at hand, there should be little question that Steyn's column is unmitigated intellectual garbage. It paints a very unflattering portrait of Steyn's feverish worldview, wherein somehow every evil at work in the world today, including Islamic terrorism, can be conveniently blamed on the very concept of social security and universal health care.

In the end, the intended point of the article becomes agonizingly clear: if only westerners would have more babies, we wouldn't need to fear the big, bad Muslims who are "transforming Europe into Eurabia".

In fact, "The Future Belongs to Islam" deals in many of the same logical fallacies pedalled by many dilletantish "foreign policy experts" such as David Frum and Michael Ignatieff, including the "Islamic death cult" plopper (god forbid anyone should ever believe that perhaps Islamic terrorists do have grievances or goals, be they legitimate or illegitimate).

A good number of the ideas in "The Future Belongs to Islam" don't stand up to precursory scrutiny, just as the very premise of his book, America Alone, melts before the listing of the NATO states currently involved in Afghanistan (America Alone... oh, except for Canada, Britain, Germany, Australia, the Netherlands...).

That being said, its in this vein that the best way to combat the kind of ignorance being spread by Steyn and his ilk isn't in a Human Rights Tribunal. The best way to combat Steyn's sophistic trash is by refuting it in the media.

But that doesn't mean that Maclean's should be legally obligated to print a five-page letter to the editor refuting Steyn's work. That being said, Maclean's isn't the only game in town. There are plenty of other publications in which Steyn's feature could be refuted (although all of them will draw the line at a five page letter to the editor).

Virtually every publication in North America places some limits on the length of the letters it will consider publishing. Yet Levant predicts that the Human Rights Tribunal may rule against Maclean's magazine:

"It may shock those who do not follow human rights law in Canada, but Maclean's will probably lose.

Forcing editors to publish rambling letters is not a human right in Canada. But that's not how the CIC worded their complaint, filed with the B.C., Ontario and federal human rights commissions. Maclean's is "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" according to a CIC statement. "I felt personally victimized," said Khurrum Awan at the CIC's recent press conference. All this because Maclean's dared to run a column discussing the demographic rise of Islam in the West."

Levant notes that the CIC has tried to use the courts to silence those critical of Islam before, but also notes that using the Human Rights Commission may prove to be more productive than tactics used in the past.

"It's a new strategy for the CIC, which in the past has tried unsuccessfully to sue news media it disagreed with -- including the National Post -- using Canada's defamation laws. But Canada's civil courts aren't the best tool for that sort of bullying. In a defamation lawsuit, the CIC would have to hire its own lawyers, follow the rules of court and prove that it suffered real damages -- and the newspapers would have truth and fair comment as defences. Launching a nuisance suit against Maclean's would result in an embarrassing loss for the CIC, a court order to pay the magazine's legal fees and it would deepen the CIC's reputation as a group of radicals who don't understand Canadian values. (Three years ago, Mohamed Elmasry, the CIC's Egyptian-born president, declared that every adult Jew in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorists).

So civil lawsuits won't work. Criminal charges are a non-starter, too: Canada's hate-speech laws are reserved for extreme acts of incitement, and charges can only be laid with the approval of the justice minister. And in criminal court, the accused must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No chance there."

Levant contends that the activist nature of the HRC favours complainants:

"That's why human rights commissions are the perfect instrument for the CIC. The CIC doesn't even have to hire a lawyer: Once the complaint has been accepted by the commissions, taxpayers' dollars and government lawyers are used to pursue the matter. Maclean's, on the other hand, will have to hire its own lawyers with its own money. Rules of court don't apply. Normal rules of evidence don't apply. The commissions are not neutral; they're filled with activists, many of whom aren't even lawyers and do not understand the free-speech safeguards contained in our constitution."

Those who have paid even passing attention to the human rights debate in Canada are well aware of the fact that many self-described right-wingers oppose the human rights commission.

It isn't as if they're disinterested individuals, either. Consider the recent furor over a decision by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to impose a lifetime ban on Bill Whatcott from criticizing homosexuality. He had recently published and distributed a pamphlet he alleged quoted a classified ad for "Men seeking boys". Whatcott more recently ran for mayor of Edmonton, and filed his nomination papers wearing a "homosexuality is a sin" T-shirt (classy guy).

Yet in the Maclean's complaint, these individuals may have finally found themselves a horse to race.

If the Whatcott example is held up as an example of the punishment that Maclean's could recieve if found guilty (perhaps a permanent ban on publishing articles criticizing Islam), the Whatcott precedent could actually be transformed from something relatively reasonable (although this will inevitably be in the eye of the beholder) into something outright sinister.

Even merely ordering a retraction and apology could turn out to be very troublesome.

"The punishments that these commissions can order are bizarre. Besides fines to the government and payments to complainants, defendants can be forced to "apologize" for having unacceptable political or religious opinions.

An apology might not sound onerous, yet it is far more troubling than a fine. Ordering a person -- or a magazine -- to say or publish words that they don't believe is an Orwellian act of thought control. The editor of Maclean's, Ken Whyte, maintains his magazine is fair. But human rights commissions have the power to order him to publish a confession that he's a bigot -- or, as in one Ontario case, even order someone to study Islam. Even convicted murderers cannot be "ordered" to apologize."

In fact, as it turns out, using the human rights commission to attack Maclean's may turn out to be an abuse of the very human rights codes these commissions are charged with administering.

"Some of Canada's human rights codes cover "publications." Those powers were originally meant to cover things like signs saying No Jews Allowed or Whites Only (in human rights jargon, symbols that "indicate discrimination") or a swastika or burning KKK cross planted on someone's yard.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know that a magazine article is not what the founders of human rights commissions had in mind. As Alan Borovoy, the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association -- and one of the architects of modern Canadian human rights law -- wrote last year, "during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech." Censoring debates was "hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions."

Borovoy's warning has gone unheeded. The opposite, actually -- it signalled to the CICs of the world that human rights commissions are the perfect instrument to pursue their agenda of censorship. At the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, one single activist -- a lawyer named Richard Warman, who used to work at the commission himself -- has filed 26 complaints, nearly 50% of all complaints under that commission's "hate messages" section. He's turned it into a part-time job, winning tens of thousands of dollars in "awards" from people he's complained about in the past few years. Warman is a liberal activist, who likes to complain against Web sites he calls racist or homophobic. He's had the common sense to stick to suing small, oddball bloggers who can't fight back. But surely the CIC has observed Warman's winning streak, and will use his precedents to go after Maclean's."

However, Levant also cites the case of Reverend Stephen Boissoin who wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, published on June 17, 2002, wherein he railed against an alleged pro-gay agenda in Canadian schools, and exhorting that "enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied."

"An even more terrifying precedent recently was set in Alberta. The case involved a letter to the editor written by a Christian pastor and published in the Red Deer Advocate newspaper. The letter was a zealous, even rude, expression of the pastor's belief that homosexuality was a sin, and that there was a homosexual political "agenda" that had to be stopped. But instead of joining the debate by writing a letter to the editor, a local teacher complained to the human rights commission.

The commission's one-woman panel--a divorce lawyer with no expertise in constitutional rights -- ruled that "the publication's exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter." That was it: Freedom of speech, and of the press, and religion, all of which are called "fundamental freedoms" in our Constitution, now come second to the newly discovered right of a thin-skinned bystander not to be offended."

Levant actually fails to mention that University of Calgary Education professor Darren Lund waited until after a 17-year-old gay teenager was assaulted until he decided to file a complaint.

Whether the assault was coincidental or not (the assault took place two weeks after the article was printed; one may make of that what they will), Lund may have been justified in feeling the letter caused harm.

“I do stand on the principle that I think the letter did expose people to hatred and I think the government, if it’s serious about its human-rights legislation, needs to make a ruling in this case and I think it’s very clear what they need to do,” Lund remarked.

Yet, the Boissoin case did take a turn for the unsettling, when the government itself chose to get involved, and certainly not on behalf of a pastor who was already finding himself in a position of legal disadvantage.

"In a rare move, the Alberta government sent a lawyer to intervene in the case -- against the pastor. The government lawyer argued that "if people were allowed to simply hide behind the rubric of political and religious opinion, they would defeat the entire purpose of the human rights legislation." Borovoy's well-intentioned laws aren't about making sure aboriginals can get taxi rides anymore.

The human rights panellist in question -- Lori Andreachuk, a former Tory riding association president -- wholeheartedly embraces this expansion of the definiton of "human rights." "It is, in my view, nonsensical to enact human rights legislation, to protect the dignity and human rights of Albertans, only to have it overridden by the expression of opinion in all forms," she wrote. Though no harm was proved to have come from the pastor's letter, it "was likely to expose gay persons to more hatred in the community" -- precisely the same language used by the CIC in their complaint against Maclean's.

In a ruling that spanned some 80 pages, Andreachuk spared just two paragraphs to explain why she was overruling the Charter's guarantee of freedom of speech. In real courts, a demanding legal hurdle called the Oakes Test must be passed before that can be done. The reason for infringing a Charter right must be "pressing and substantial," the infringement couldn't be "arbitrary or irrational" and it must be as "minimal" as possible. None of that analysis was even attempted by Andreachuk -- that's boring legal stuff for real judges in real courts. The Oakes Test was named after David Oakes, a man charged with trafficking of hash oil, who beat the rap using the Charter. Accused drug dealers get the benefit of the Constitution, but not accused pastors."

It is indeed troubling that Canadian human rights commissions are allowed to operate in a manner so contradictory to Canadian legal traditions, while handing down rulings that are still legally binding.

With the filing of the recent complaint against Maclean's magazine, there may finally be no way around this.

"There will be more human rights complaints like the CIC's, and more staggering rulings like the Alberta decision. It's odd: Mohamed Elmasry, an apologist for Islamo-fascism, using the same tools as an "anti-racist" leftist like Richard Warman. At first glance, they may seem like opposites, but they're actually identical: Both are illiberal censors who have found a quirk in our legal system, and are using it to undermine our Western traditions of freedom. Until last week, I would have thought that Maclean's magazine was too big a fish for them to swallow. I don't think that anymore."

While one of the principal functions of any healthy democracy is protecting its most vulnerable members from abuse, it may be time for Canadians to finally admit that two wrongs don't make a right.

While a belief in human rights is unquestionably one of the most important foundations of Canadian society, so is the belief in the rule of law. Yet when the principle of legal equality -- another fundamental foundation of Canadian society -- begins to take a backseat to the political motivations of those who use them to further their agenda.

It's time for Human Rights Commissions to start functioning like actual courts of law. If those administering these Commissions aren't up to this task, then the time has come to discard these commissions altogether, and start enforcing Human Rights Codes through the courts.

The CIC complaint against Maclean's magazine is both an abandonment of the CIC's responsibility in this matter -- namely, refuting Steyn's original article -- and an abuse of the system.

It cannot be allowed to stand.