Ezra Levant under “Government Interrogation”

Hear first-hand about Ezra Levant‘s proudest moment of his life, at the Alberta Human Right Commission.He expresses extreme disdain for the Commission, calls it a joke, and claims it is not even relevant to him.

Opening Statement

Other Videos

To see the rest of the “interrogation,” click on the following links:

Updates

Some of the best ongoing commentary on Ezra Levant can be found at BigCityLib Strikes Back and the Wise Law Blog.

  • In “Attributes of Free Speech,” Levant repeats his previously expressed errors on the Oakes Test, which were already corrected by the public.
  • Levant refers to the complainant in this case a clown, a fascist, and and an Islamic radical. In “What Was Your Intent” (3:26) Levant claims that he was trained in Saudi Arabia. Syed B. Soharwardy was actually trained in Pakistan, and briefly taught in Saudi Arabia (an apparantly important disctinction). This “radical” also founded Muslims Against Terrorism in January 1999, well before anyone could claim such a move was done out of defensive posturing. Soharwardy is now considering legal action.
  • In the same episode, he claims he his not a racist towards Muslims (4:30). The appropriate response would be, what Canadian Muslim group with substantial membership does Levant approve of (or vice-versa)?

Gary Wise expresses embarrassment over Mr. Levant, both as a lawyer and a Jew. He also suggests a review The Law Society of Alberta Code of Professional Conduct after observing Mr. Levant:


Ezra LevantWe received a number of comments from Muslims Against Sharia and others, that appear to be forged.See comments below, or check this site that claims that Levant supporters are impersonating Muslim groups.The author of the piece, “balbulican,” adds an alternative perspective in the comments,

Just a coincidence, I’m sure. It’s kind of heartening to know that all these Republican and extreme right wing bloggers and pundits are secretly Muslim.


BigCityLib issues a challenge to Steyn:

Yo Mark Steyn! Come over and defend Merle against your Speech Buddy!

The buddy in question is none other than Ezra Levant. A former employee of Fast Forward Weekly wrote a letter critical of Levant.

Apparently Ezra contacted the rag to get an apology and retraction for the article and the published letter, didn’t get it and is now suing Fast Forward Weekly for the Lowering the standard article and letter writer Terlesky for a combined total of $100,000 for libel.

BigCityLib says,

Let us just say that it casts doubt on Ezra’s stated reasons for publishing the now infamous Dutch cartoons.

About the Author

Law is Cool
This site is intended to provide a resource for those interested in law. Current law students, graduates preparing for their bar exam, and members of the general public, can all benefit from a deeper understanding of the legal framework that helps shape our society.

18 Comments on "Ezra Levant under “Government Interrogation”"

  1. For every initiation of force, there is retaliation. Free Speech is a safety valve you idiot.

  2. I’m beginning to think you’re part of the illegitimate elites than currently run the West.

  3. Four such statements by the MCC:

    Former MCC President Tarek Fatah criticizes your Orwellian campaign against Mark Steyn.

    Fatah again, while still MCC President, called for legal tolerance of the Danish cartoons, for the publication of which Levant is being investigated.

    El-Farouk Khaki, Secretary General of the MCC condemned the boycott of Danish goods.

    Current MCC President Niaz Salimi slammed CIC President Muhammed Elmasry, and Levant’s accuser Syed Soharwardy for “asking for changes in Canada’s hate laws ‘so that offensive remarks or depictions of any religious figure are considered a crime.'”
    ——————–
    Finally, how on Earth can you criticize others for not being “genuinely interested in dialogue” when your response to criticism is to invoke State authority?

    Look, you have a logically (if not morally) defensible position: you advocate censorship in the name of societal harmony. But you are censors. Don’t condescend to your audience by claiming otherwise.

  4. Ok… I know some but not all of the people on this site are connected to the complaint — my use of “your” was addressed to them.

    The right to free expression isn’t contingent on that expression being “balanced.” My right to free speech and open public dialogue doesn’t entitle me to decide what the content of another’s (Maclean’s) speech (in this case its magazine’s pages) will be. Start your own magazine, your own newspaper, or your own blog. The most popular blogs on the web have a circulation that dwarfs that of Maclean’s.

  5. Just for clarity’s sake – as the author of the post at Stageleft, I don’t think that Ezra is impersonating Muslims…

    I think a number of American Conservative bloggers and pundits are pretending to be an organization called “Muslims Against Sharia“.

    I think this because:
    – their website, while soliciting funds, provides no information whatsoever about their membership, governance, corporate structure, or staffing. My inquiry elicited the following response “What part of None Of Your Business don’t you understand”?

    – one can, however, access information about their writers and contributors. These include bloggers like “Atlas Shrugged”, a particularly virulent anti-Muslim writer, and others of her ilk. Curiously, their contributors do NOT include any Muslim clerics or scholars.

    – their “blog” is virtually indistinguishable in tone and content from pretty much any of the many neoconservative, Islam-bashing sites on the web;

    – their core projects (the only specific project mentioned, and the initiative for which they appear to be raising funds) is an attempt to produce a censored version of the Koran, edited by bloggers, which removes the sections they feel are “objectionable”. One can imagine the response among devout Christians if someone were to attempt to produce an edited Bible with all the “objectionable” bits bowdlerized.

    But most all, one can tell from the tone of these folks when challenged.

    The discussion quickly declines into the sort of abusive trolling one usually encounters on the more primitive blogs – the pretence of representing moderate Muslim thinkers disappears very, very quickly. Those wishing to read the real voice of this alleged organization are invited to view their contribution to Stageleft, where their real nature is quite unmistakable.

    LawIsCool: Thank you for the clarifications. Although the site has attempted to provide an explanation, we do not find it compelling, especially in light of what we have observed here with posting patterns.

  6. I take exception to that characterization. I am a nerdy but perfectly adequate milquetoast.

  7. The infinite touchiness of Muslims about their “rights” in the west derives from their determination to bend the host society to their own retrograde and intolerant value system. Funny how the myriad of ethnic minorities that emigrated to Canada over the years seem to have less a victim complex than our Muslim friends. Of course, Islam has never existed as a minority culture and that’s gotta suck when you’re shambling around Toronto or Windsor or Calgary or Montreal in the dead of winter with your Mom in her Abaya and you in a cheap Hezbollah logo’d t-shirt.
    I guess I’m just another Islamophobe i.e. someone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work. So sue me.

    LawIsCool: Not true. Islam has existed as a minority culture in all of the following places: China (which has more Muslims than the entire Arabian peninsula), India, Myanmar(Burma), Thailand, Philippines, Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Uganda, Congo, Ghana, Cote D’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.
    But also Sicily, Crete, Sardinia, Spain, Portugal, France, and Yugoslavia, and we know what happened in those countries.
    In contrast, the first four centuries of Islam in the Mediterranean was characterized by Christian majorities that were very slowly assimilated, and Christian communities continue to thrive in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Palestine, and Jordan, where they have existed uninterrupted for longer than Christianity ever existed in Europe or America, and with relatively few problems until the modern era (i.e., no Inquisitions, or anything comprable to it).
    But it’s okay, Islamophobes are not expected to know any of that.

  8. Howard R Gray | January 16, 2008 at 12:56 am |

    The use of substantively bogus tribunals to supervise human rights, suggests a nation that fears criticism and freedom of speech per se. Free speech either matters or it doesn’t. In Canada the establishment, in some quarters, fears its own shadow in the glare of political correctness. The casualty, as always in this class of case, is free speech!

    I listened to some of the proceedings with a sense of dread and not a little anger. The very existence of this civilian method of intrusive inquisitorial style of jurisprudence demeans Canada as a nation. The sooner this device of Star Chamber politics is extirpated from the body politic the better.

    For me, the Ezra Levant experience is a modern “inquisition”. The only thing missing is Michael Palin in with the immortal words, “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition “.

    Here is a nation that is now clearly in decline and, ever so slowly, in free fall into the abyss. There probably won’t be a Gibbon to chronicle the demise of once proud Canada.

    Robust comment and speech are the bedrock of a society that is vibrant and above all free from inquisitors. Religion should never be off limits to comment. Once it becomes so, lethal consequences are never far behind. Dusty private rooms harboring closet quasi justice are a plague that must not be tolerated along with religious bigots using such courts to further their bigotry.

    These dismal courts should be closed forthwith and the Kangaroos given their Quantas tickets home ASAP!

    Howard R Gray
    Barrister at Law of Lincoln’s Inn and the Middle Temple.

    LawIsCool: Mr. Gray, thank you for weighing in.
    We will ask the same question we have asked others: Do you support freedom of speech when it comes to child pornography? If not, you believe in limits.
    Mein Kampf was also about freedom of speech against a religious group.

  9. I take issue with lawiscool’s statement that non-muslim religions thrive in islamic countries. They do not thrive. They die slow and painfully. Get your facts straight.

    LawIsCool: As opposed to dying quickly, i.e. large scale genocide, Holocaust, etc. There is actually one very clear of example of this, the Armenian genocide. But that occurred at the hands of the Young Turks, who sought to secularize the Ottoman Empire, so that example doesn’t sit very well with your hypothesis. This process is typically considered illegal by international law, whereas the descriptor you provide is not.

  10. This is to thank the complainants for filing complaints against Macleans magazine and Mark Steyn. The debate has begun in earnest and you cannot control it. It is the beginning of the end of the legislation that permits human rights commissions to hear complaints against the fundamental rights of Canadians to free expression. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada will decide limitations on the speech of Canadians, not human rights commissions. You have done all Canadians a great favor.

    LawIsCool: We would love to see the case go before the SCC. But then we’re biased, we’re law students and would love to see the judicial analysis of the issue for the academic merit alone (and not because of any vested interest in the case). We do agree , this is probably the only way the CHRT/CHRC would be disbanded or limited in scope given its extensive history.

    Levant and Steyn put themselves in an awkward position though. Filing for review by the FCC does validate the legitimacy of CHRT/CHRC to express an opinion on the subject up to this point, something they have been adamant it does not. Failing to file however omits the opportunity for any legitimate challenge. But you can only challenge an authority in court that you acknowledge has authority to begin with.

    And as for your thanks, we appreciate the gesture but we do not deserve it. It’s probably best you direct them to the complainants themselves, as we have nothing to do with the case.

  11. Of course the Human Rights Act has authority. The point that Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are making is that it shouldn’t have any authority to define what is lawful and unlawful expression in Canada. Do you not agree that the SCC should be the only authority in Canada to define unlawful expression and if not, why not?

    LawIsCool: Actually, no. Both have explicitly denied that it does not have such authority, through the tribunals established in s. 48, to address issues that have been raised against them. As Gary Wise says, Levant recently “refuse[d] to acknowledge the lawful authority of the Commission itself, throughout”.

    The Act does have a section that appears quite pertinent:

    Orders relating to hate messages
    54. (1) If a member or panel finds that a complaint related to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make only one or more of the following orders:
    (a) an order containing terms referred to in paragraph 53(2)(a);
    (b) an order under subsection 53(3) to compensate a victim specifically identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice; and
    (c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars.

    Again, we’re not involved in the case, so we only know what has been publicly announced. But the complainants do not appear to be seeking monetary damages, even though that would be supported under the Act. More likely they are seeking this:
    (a) that the person cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from occurring in future, including

    The SCC is obviously not the only authority in Canada to define unlawful expression, but it is the final one.

    Why not? Because they have to go through appellate courts first. And before that, tribunals. S. 13(1),(2), provide interpretations for hate speech that tribunals mentioned in the Act should use. And we’ve already provided case law on the subject as well, including the definition provided by the SCC. See Hatred and Contempt Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was actually written by one of the complainants. (We really wish people would read the material before commenting, but that’s fine).

    They may not be able to be held in contempt of tribunals, but any court reviewing these videos is not likely to look upon the defendant favourably.

  12. I really don’t understand this at all. Islam is an ideology, not a race. In a free society anyone should be free to criticise an ideology, including Islam, Nazism, Communism, Christianity, Capitalism, Secularism or whatever. In the marketplace of ideas, all belief systems, including idiotic dark age superstitions, should be subjected to intense criticism and even ridicule, to advance the progress of humanity. If this had never happened, there would not have been an Enlightenment. You people would’ve censored Voltaire! You seem very much anti-Enlightenment in your attitudes as expressed here. Very regressive and reactionary indeed. I should point out that I am very much of the Left and your attitudes strike me as extreme far-Right.


    LawIsCool: Hi Mike from Australia,
    We’re not sure about your country, but in Canada we have a serious problem of Islamophobia and hatred towards Muslim communities. Critique by a dominant majority of a vulnerable minority population experiencing discrimination, marginalization, harassment, and violence, in this context does not seem appropriate.


    We’re personally not as ecstatic about the Enlightenment as you are, and don’t necessarily ascribe “leftist” philosophy to it.

    You are right, Voltaire would have come under scrutiny for these statements in Dictionnaire Philosophique, where he said Jews were,

    …the most abominable people in the world
    …In short we find them only ignorant and barbarous people with long united and most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred of every people by whom they are tolerated…

    Even Napoleon, often heralded as champion of the Jews because he let them out of the ghettos and wanted to rebuild Solomon’s temple, was hardly “enlightened.”
    He advocated for forced marriage of 1/3 Jewish population to non-Jews to assimilate them.
    “It takes weakness to chase them out of the country, but it takes strength to assimilate them,” said Napoleon.

    In fact, Arthur Hertzberg states claims that the origins of modern anti-Semitism can be found in the French Enlightenment. Herzberg claims that anti-Semitism is less due to Christian ideology than it is to Libertarianism.

    Other “enlightened” activity during this era included the massacres in Ukraine during the Chmielnicki Uprising. Bohemia expelled, then let Jews back in, but forced them to give up Hebrew and Yiddish.

    Hence, we do not find that the “enlightenment” in itself was necessarily moving towards a more liberal society for anyone other than the Christian church.


    Here is a brief explanation of the pertinent legislation:

    Purpose
    2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
    Prohibited grounds of discrimination
    3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.


    And even though we’ve covered this before, here are some cases. Our point is that these specific critics are complaining now only because it is their speech being infringed because previous cases regarding other religious groups were not objected to publicly; they are disingenuous about their motives:

    RICHARD WARMAN v. TERRY TREMAINE
    Warman v. Wilkinson
    Warman v. Kouba
    Warman v. Bahr
    Warman v. Kyburz
    Warman v. Warman
    Warman v. Kulbashian
    Richard Warman v. Tomasz Winnicki
    RICHARD WARMAN V. Marc Lemire
    Warman v. Harrison
    Warman v. Beaumont
    LeDeuff v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission
    Schnell v. Machiavelli Associates Emprize Inc. and J. Micka
    Khaki v. Canadian Liberty Net
    Citron v. Zündel
    Hay v. Cameco-A Canadian Mining and Engergy Corportation
    Smith et al. v. Western Guard Party
    Bhinder v. Canadian National Railways

    (Is Richard Warman available for comment? Please contact us if so.)

  13. As the Human Rights Act is currently written, interpreted and administered by Human Rights Commissions it is hard to think of a group of persons in Canada who have NOT been discriminated against and exposed to hatred and contempt. The Act contains the seeds of it’s own destruction and the sooner the better.

    LawIsCool: Perhaps. We just find the choice of this instance to protest as being highly suspect. Typically these things are interpreted in their social context to protect the vulnerable, so the more these Steyn fans spew virulent hatred (just check their sites), the higher the likelihood of success of tribunal cases on the subject. But they don’t get those kind of things…

  14. LawisCool, I do get the sense that you are sincere in your efforts. You think you are doing a good thing. But to see people as only of value as part of “communities” is to fall for the very kind of bigoted or racialist thinking you purport to decry. Every individual has value. And dark age, bigoted ideologies such as Islam and Christianity do not deserve our sympathy. Their victims do, including those who hold such primitive beliefs due to the conditioning of their upbringing (which I consider a form of child abuse). Criticism of their beliefs is their only hope of liberation from dark age bigotry. It is ironic that you cite the oppression of Jews in defense of your assault on the values of the Enlightenment, as you defend Islam, an ideology which asserts that Allah will only be satisfied when every last Jew has been eliminated. This is NOT to say that most Muslims are not nice people who only wish to get on with their lives like everyone else; I have known many such people. But the sad truth is that their belief system, Islam, is bigoted to the core – against Jews, against Hindus (“idolators”), against gays, and against women’s rights – as many Muslims have told me themselves. To lobby on their behalf against Western values of freedom of speech and belief/non-belief is to support an extreme far-right racist ideology. I’m sure you are only doing this out of ignorance combined with naive good intentions. You need to realise that Islam, like the fundamentalist Christianity of George Dubya but even more so, is NOT our friend in the fight against bigotry, racism, misogyny and homophobia.

    Most Sincerely,

    Mike from Australia


    LawIsCool:
    Mike,
    Thank you. We don’t personally define people as communities, but the law does prevent hate speech “against a person or a group or class of person.” And again, it’s not us that protect the rights of the communities you list, but our constitution. And we do find it strange that you pick those two as distinct from the others, as there is very little material difference between any of them for the purpose of the law.
    We would politely claim that we do know a little about what we are talking about through extensive exposure to many of the diverse communities of Canada, and think that despite what you may have heard, you have been misinformed. A major source of such misinformation are major media sources that perpetuate stereotypes and myths that have very little or no theological backing. This is a law site, and not a theological one, or we would expound further.
    People are entitled to believe whatever they want, including that the world is flat, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. This includes the misconceptions that you hold about other communities, as well as beliefs that other communities hold that you do not agree with. By doing so we help create a more pluralistic, diverse, and tolerant society.
    The problem in this case are that misconceptions that some have are being published in major media without any rebuttal, and are possibly being infringing on the rights of others; an issue that will be resolved henceforth. But it is the complainants’ right, even if mistaken, to take this to a tribunal. And the overwhelming opposition to this specific group asserting the same rights as other Canadians only reinforces the notion that such imbalances in our society exist.

  15. So if a Christian group demanded that Monty Python’s Life of Brian be permanently banned from ever being shown again in Canada, because so many Christians find the movie extremely offensive (it is a spoof about Jesus and my all-time favorite movie), you would support that as well? There would be a substantial outcry against such an action; would such “overwhelming opposition to this specific group asserting the same rights as other Canadians only reinforce the notion that such imbalances in our society exist” as far as you are concerned? I suspect not, and if I am right about that then your view is not balanced in the least. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to live in a theocratic society that bans “Life of Brian” as well as the Motoons. I suspect a lot of Canadians wouldn’t either. You are on the wrong side of this one in every respect. You think you are doing the right thing, but so did many “nice” Germans during the Nazi era.

    LawIsCool: We find it pointless to speculate on hypotheticals. However, if Life of Brian was resulting in marginalization and discrimination of the group in question, and impossibility in the context of Canada, we could entertain the notion. We’re on the side of Canadian law, and that’s probably a good place to be.

  16. PS I have read the entire Koran and it contains a substantial number of anti-Jewish passages that must be highly offensive to Jews; perhaps you should ban it! Or at least those sections.

    LawIsCool: Congratulations on learning classical Arabic, and reading the text in light of all the commentary that it goes with. Now how the heck did you come up with that interpretation considering everything that goes contrary to it? You do realize that substantial numbers of Jews became Muslim, not by force, especially during the early era of Islam? And you do realize that they have enjoyed far more protections than there than they ever did in Europe? But again, that’s not legal commentary.
    The fact that you retain such gross distortions is only a testament to the type of hate propaganda that has existed for some time against this group, and in nearly every case is completely groundless, or not appropriate qualified (“of courses” are not sufficient in themselves).

  17. Pretty funny that you deleted my response. If you can’t take the heat in a rational, reasoned debate then you don’t deserve to become lawyers. It seems to me you are aiming for the career of Grand Inquisitor instead.

    LawIsCool: Not deleted. Still in queue and under review. They don’t seem to be adding to anything remotely related to law.

  18. Howard R Gray | September 16, 2008 at 3:09 am |

    “Warning: Comments must be approved by editors before appearing on the site. Comments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. or otherwise offensive will be deleted without notice.”

    And you suggest that I might have limits about free speech?

Comments are closed.