Grim repercussions of posting political cartoons

Chewycorns · January 14, 2008, 3:11am

Sometimes the repercussions of posting political cartoons can be grim indeed. Ezra Levant, who published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in his Western Standard Magazine, was called up in front of the farcical Aberta Human Rights Commission. His excellent speech sure irritates the mid-level bureaucrat in charge of the hearings. I recommend listening to all three of the hearings below.

Ezra Levant:

I have just returned home from my session at the kangaroo court, called the Alberta human rights commission. Here is my opening statement that I delivered at the interrogation. I will post more details about the interrogation soon.

My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement.
When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though 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 government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words.

I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.

I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech. That’s my first point: the commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote, “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.” Unquote.

The commission has no legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They’re just making it up – even Alan Borovoy says so.

But even if the commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional.

We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War.

In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote

“ human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Those were even called “fundamental freedoms” – to give them extra importance.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.

It is also deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant – in this case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia law to govern Canada – doesn’t have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose – the process has become the punishment. (At this point, I’d like to thank the magazine’s many donors who have given their own money to help us fight against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)

It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.

I have no faith in this farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under your compulsion to answer the commission’s questions. But it is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.

You may start your interrogation.

ezralevant.com/2008/01/kangaroo-court.html

littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ … crime&only

jdsmith · January 14, 2008, 3:29am

Wow. Winning friends and influencing people.

He gets the Basketballs Award of the Day!
:bravo:

Chewycorns · January 14, 2008, 6:23am

[quote=“jdsmith”]Wow. Winning friends and influencing people.
[/quote]

If the Alberta Human Rights Commission actually rules in favor of Syed Soharwardy, I will realize just how much political correctness has become ingrained into the fabric of Canadian society. This claim should have been thrown out the minute it was filed. Being brought up by ultra-left feminists, I agree with some tenets of political correctness. However, this lawsuit is a form of McCarthyism on the left. I’m glad Levant is quoting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to defend himself.

Relapsed Catholic:

Syed Soharwardy on separation of church and state:
“…the government should also provide prayer facilities in public schools. Similarly, students of other faiths should be allowed to practice their daily religious rites and the government should provide facilities for them to do so.”

On Islam in the media, and American something or other:
"The Americans feared from the increasing power of Germany and fought against it. World War II added the Italians and Japanese to the ‘feared peoples’ for the Americans. This was followed by the Red Scare and subsequent wars in Korea and Vietnam. In the coming years the Communists served as convenient targets through the end of the Cold War. The Gulf war provided the Middle Easterners… and so the legacy of American xenophobia continued.

On the definition of “terrorism”:
“Unless and until the United Nations declares someone to be a terrorist, it should be illegal to label that individual or organization as a terrorist.”

In other words, Syed is just your typical Chomsky-chompin’ Leftist, but halal. And as I’ve explained (for the sake of my many US readers), the Western Standard is Canada’s only conservative magazine, so…

Western Standard columnist Mark Steyn comments:
This is a tactic western Muslim lobby groups use to make public discussion of Islam more trouble than it’s worth. Even in Canada, the police can’t close down The Western Standard at the behest of the usual aggrieved identity groups, but it’s part of a sustained effort to shut down debate. The Mounties don’t always get their man, but the Muslims always get their Mountie, and send him round to knock on your door.

relapsedcatholic.blogspot.com/20 … ehind.html

dustmybroom.com/

Chewycorns · January 14, 2008, 9:24am

I hope Ezra Levant files a complaint with the federal Human Rights Commission, naming all of these group members below as co-defendants. I also hope that he provides us with daily updates of the progress of the case, and how vigorously the HRC pursues his case. Let us see if they pursue these people as rigorously as they have pursued him.

smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007823.html

politbureau · January 14, 2008, 9:36am

I can count on the fingers of one hand the people I know of who believe as I do in the right to free speech as a universal principle.

MikeN · January 14, 2008, 9:44am

Yep, I started bitching against these odious laws when they were first came out while too many of my lefty colleagues were cheering them on:
“But it’s okay to go after Keegstra- you can’t let Holocaust deniers run around saying all those terrible lies.”

And guess what? They ain’t just for right-wingers:

nationalreview.com/comment/bernstein

I don’t follow Canadian news much any more, but I didn’t realise things were getting that bad.

Never happen in America- what do you expect from a country whose Constitution is based on “peace, order and good government.”?

politbureau · January 14, 2008, 9:55am

Okay, spook, MikeN. Anybody else?

Jaboney · January 14, 2008, 9:59am

Straw man, spook.

politbureau · January 14, 2008, 10:11am

Should I take that to mean there are some points of view you would believe shouldn’t be allowed to be expressed?

Jaboney · January 14, 2008, 10:15am

Yes.

politbureau · January 14, 2008, 10:22am

Then my point is valid, is it not, that there are actually very few people such as myself and, presumably, MikeN, who believe in the right to freedom of expression as a principle equally applied to everyone.

Jaboney · January 14, 2008, 10:27am

Probably.
But I wasn’t referring to your point that there are few people will to take a hard line on freedom of speech.
I was referring to your --correct me if wrong – apparent use of this idiotic case to push back against all limits on free speech.

politbureau · January 14, 2008, 10:32am

[quote=“Jaboney”]Probably.
But I wasn’t referring to your point that there are few people will to take a hard line on freedom of speech.
I was referring to your --correct me if wrong – apparent use of this idiotic case to push back against all limits on free speech.[/quote]

By “idiotic case” I presume you mean something like this:

"U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

jdsmith · January 14, 2008, 10:41am

FIRE!!! FIRE!!!

Jaboney · January 14, 2008, 10:46am

No. Last I checked neither Canada, generally, nor Alberta, specifically, is governed by the First Amendment. The Alberta Human Rights Commission certainly isn’t.

The language of rights, having proven to be successful in combating all sorts of entrenched social ills, has been far too widely extended. In this case, by a quasi-judicial body interested in offense rather than serious harm.

I support limitations on freedom of speech where individuals actively promote hatred and violence.

politbureau · January 14, 2008, 10:49am

As any “idiot” knows, you’re not expressing your opinions or beliefs. You’re making a false claim that results in immediate, demonstrable bodily harm to others.

No reasonable person believes the founders meant you should be able to cause deadly stampedes with your speech.

politbureau · January 14, 2008, 10:51am

[quote=“Jaboney”]No. Last I checked neither Canada, generally, nor Alberta, specifically, is governed by the First Amendment. The Alberta Human Rights Commission certainly isn’t.

The language of rights, having proven to be successful in combating all sorts of entrenched social ills, has been far too widely extended. In this case, by a quasi-judicial body interested in offense rather than serious harm.

I support limitations on freedom of speech where individuals actively promote hatred and violence.[/quote]

That’s fine, but it’s not fair to call absolute freedom of expression the “idiot” case, given its long legal history. It’s also questionable whether Canada really believes in “freedom of speech” or something lesser.

jdsmith · January 14, 2008, 10:57am

As any “idiot” knows, you’re not expressing your opinions or beliefs. You’re making a false claim that results in immediate, demonstrable bodily harm to others.

No reasonable person believes the founders meant you should be able to cause deadly stampedes with your speech.[/quote]
How about “Death to AMERIKKKA!”

Is that better? If I make it such that a certain type of speech would result in violence and a stampede, would that speech then be “unreasonable?”

In the case of the “FIRE!” thing, common sense might dictate that people would look the fuck around them before mindlessly stampeding out the door.

Jaboney · January 14, 2008, 11:02am

[quote=“spook”][quote=“Jaboney”]No. Last I checked neither Canada, generally, nor Alberta, specifically, is governed by the First Amendment. The Alberta Human Rights Commission certainly isn’t.

The language of rights, having proven to be successful in combating all sorts of entrenched social ills, has been far too widely extended. In this case, by a quasi-judicial body interested in offense rather than serious harm.

I support limitations on freedom of speech where individuals actively promote hatred and violence.[/quote]

That’s fine, but it’s not fair to call absolute freedom of expression the “idiot” case, given its long legal history. It’s also questionable whether Canada really believes in “freedom of speech” or something lesser.[/quote]Actually, the idiot case to which I refer is the one before the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

The hard line case for freedom of expression, I would characterize as intellectually interesting. It would be compelling if we could assume common sense.

politbureau · January 14, 2008, 11:06am

As any “idiot” knows, you’re not expressing your opinions or beliefs. You’re making a false claim that results in immediate, demonstrable bodily harm to others.

No reasonable person believes the founders meant you should be able to cause deadly stampedes with your speech.[/quote]
How about “Death to America!”

Is that better? If I make it such that a certain type of speech would result in violence and a stampede, would that speech then be “unreasonable?”

In the case of the “FIRE!” thing, common sense might dictate that people would look the fuck around them before mindlessly stampeding out the door.[/quote]

You should keep in mind that you have the right to say “fire!, fire!” anytime you merely want to make a political point or express an opinion, just as you should have the right to say “Death to America” or “we should turn Iraq into a glass parking lot” in order to make a point.

You should also have the right to publish cartoons of the prophet Muhammed even though it will predictably result in unlawful acts of violence.