RSS FeedEzra 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
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8[/youtube]
Other Videos
To see the rest of the “interrogation,” click on the following links:
- What Was Your Intent?
- The Real Violence in Edmonton
- I Don’t Answer to the State
- Entitled to My Opinion?
- Attributes of Free Speech
- How does the commission make decisons?
- Closing argument
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:
- refer to the investigator as a “thug” (00:57);
- reference Human Rights Commissioner Lori Andreychuk as a thug (00:56, 1:43);
- refuse to acknowledge the lawful authority of the Commission itself, throughout;
- refer to the investigator as a potential instrument of a fascist complainant (5:14);
- accuse the investigator of “hunting for a thought crime.” (2:53)
We 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.
Comments
25 Responses to “Ezra Levant under “Government Interrogation””
Leave a Reply
Podcast Feeds
[...] Law Is Cool also weighs in with Mr. Levant’s “proudest moment” and video links - Garry J. Wise, Toronto Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: http://www.wiselaw.net EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE [...]
For every initiation of force, there is retaliation. Free Speech is a safety valve you idiot.
I’m beginning to think you’re part of the illegitimate elites than currently run the West.
I suspect Mr. Levant approves of the Muslim Canadian Congress, which has been commendable in its staunch defence of Enlightenment values and the traditions of the secular West.
But hey, what do I know? Maybe he doesn’t.
And I’m sure it’s easier for you to think your political opponents are hopeless bigots, rather than people of good intentions with reasonable grounds for disagreement. That way you don’t have to go through all the trouble of trying to counter their arguments — you can simply ask the State to silence them. Carry on.
LawIsCool: We would be interested in seeing any such statement from the MCC, whose membership is limited in the low hundreds. They are the perfect example of a self-proclaimed community organization that has no legitimacy. The Ontario Liberal Party has struggled to identify which leaders actually have support in their community, which led to the formation of the Muslim Unity Group (MUG). Interesting enough, this group has given their full support to the CIC on this issue.
If you review the older posts on this site, we have done a quite thorough job of addressing arguments and viewpoints. Those criticized have not responded to these analyses and instead have engaged in ad hominem attacks, leading us to conclude that they are not genuinely interested in dialogue.
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.
LawIsCool: Thank you for the links. The first one on the Maclean’s site fails to appreciate the position of the complainants, which was to seek further dialogue on the issue by having a neutral story published in Maclean’s (statements about taking over the magazine are erroneous). They (not us) went to the tribunal only after Maclean’s insisted that their publication was balanced (which it clearly is not).
As stated, MCC is not considered by anyone who deals with communities in Canada as an organization with widespread support or representation from the Muslim community. We now await statements of support from any organization that has more than a few hundred in membership.
As for your other points, we have no problem with editorial discretion. This discretion in the case of Maclean’s failed to exclude contentious statements in their publication maligning certain communities within Canada. The substance of these complaints are more than what other communities have successfully brought before tribunals. Raising opposition to them when it comes to this specific case screams of partiality and an unbalanced approached to resolving disputes in our society.
>> And I’m sure it’s easier for you to think your political opponents are hopeless bigots, rather than people of good intentions with reasonable grounds for disagreement.
Bullshit. This is the view of the post-modern relativistic left that thinks attributes like bigotry, authoritarianism, etc. are relativistic and untestable. And “good intentions” is all that counts - no matter what the action is or the results may be. Therefore, lets have a test for good intentions.
What is the “reasonable ground” of Mr. Soharwardy, may I ask you post-colonial idiot? Since when is Shariah law liberal and open, and since when did free speech become a bigotted attribute?
You idiots just amaze me how naive and clueless and anthrophobic you are. Again, if you do not like the western open society concept with freedom of expression and freedom of and from religion, then get the hell out of here and move to Darfur, and spare us the misery of your ignorant company.
Idiot.
LawIsCool: The quote you cite belongs to Joel.
Although we cannot speak for him, we do find your response unreasonable and insulting. We think that as law students, almost all of us born in Canada (unlike yourself as ), we have a pretty good grasp on Canadian values.
In fact, it is exactly these Canadian values enshrined in laws that encourages us to support the Maclean’s case going before a Tribunal. Unreasonable persons such as yourself seek to exile those that don’t agree with them to Darfur (as if that is relevant here).
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.
went to the tribunal only after Maclean’s insisted that their publication was balanced (which it clearly is not).
I fail to see why this makes a difference. 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.
Ok, but, now you’re moving the goalposts. At first it was “substantial membership,” now it’s “more than a few hundred in membership.” Especially, when one considers Elmasry’s contention that Fatah was “smearing Islam” — which Fatah interpreted as essentially an accusation of apostasty — is it really any wonder that more Muslims don’t speak out against the illiberal campaigns Elmasry, Soharwardy, and co. wage in their names?
I resent and reject your implication. Don’t assume what’s not in evidence. I opposed restrictions on David Irving’s right to free speech, as well as that of David Ahenakew, despite the abhorrent nature of their views.
Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission
Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let’s consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This “investigation” will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals’ claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and radicalize moderate Muslims. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!
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.
I want to sue for misrepresentation.
The title of this blog clearly states ‘Law is Cool’.
Yet when I read your posts all I find is a bunch of nerdy inadequate milquetoasts.
Could you advise a suitable HRC where I can lodge my complaint?
I take exception to that characterization. I am a nerdy but perfectly adequate milquetoast.
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.
I think Christians, Jews, and women should use the HRC against any muslim that preaches the doctrines of the Koran in the Mosque.
/Sarc.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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,
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:
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:
(Is Richard Warman available for comment? Please contact us if so.)
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, 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
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.
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.
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.
Jessie…
I love the blog. I added you to my digg account to bookmark it for later……
“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?