For A Man With an LLB...

Ezra Levant appears to have a shocking of disregard and disrespect for the laws in Canada.

His "opening remarks" to the Alberta Human Rights Commission officer set the tone for Levant's normally noxious behaviour:

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 hate to point out the obvious here, but unless Ezra is now claiming that he is not a citizen of Canada, and is now choosing to reside in another part of the world, he is very much subject to the laws of Canada, and as a resident of Alberta, to the laws of Alberta. Surely his years spent acquiring his oh-so-coveted LLB would have imparted upon the man some comprehension of such trivial matters.

The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas.

Really? So publishing those cartoons was not an act? How fascinating. Ezra knew damn good and well that publishing those would provoke a reaction from Canada's Muslim community. They had been bubbling about, and were readily available on the web well before his pet issue of The Western Standard even hit the presses - much less the newsstands.

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.

* Link added

Oh brilliant reasoning, Ezra. Because you don't see merit in the case it clearly must have none. Ezra fails to note that said case was in fact dismissed as not falling within the bounds of the relevant legislation.

Of course, that isn't in Ezra's interests - he wants to draw a picture of a system "out of control", instead of one where in fact due process (however grindingly slow it may be at times) has its purpose.

The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote



1. “ 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:

2. 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.

Amazing. Unlike many, at least Ezra took the time to half read the constitutional laws in play. Sadly, what Levant has failed to do is understand that rights do not exist in some arbitrary hierarchy, rather that they exist in relation to each other, in rather a state of mutual tension.

His claim that the Section 2 freedoms bear a "greater legal weight" than, for example, Section 15 is not, in my view, borne out by the case law surrounding the interpretation of the Constitution since 1983. The courts have taken a much more "equal" view of the weighting of individual rights.

Of course, one must take Levant's hypothesis in context - it is coming from a man who has overstepped his bounds repeatedly, leaping to conclusions about a tragic accident, blaming it on the "hijab" he accused the driver of wearing; and slandering former senator Ron Ghitter. He now finds himself faced once again with the consequences of his own actions.

I see that he has published video of his initial hearing on his website (and youtube) - claiming that his "notice" that he reserves the right to publish trumps the commission's right to ask for confidentiality in the hearings. It's grandstanding, along with the rest of Ezra's behaviour in this matter.

I feel sorry for anyone who has to investigate this case - Levant's blustering attempts to declare the whole topic "invalid", from the complaint itself to the investigation, will make it very difficult for anyone involved to see Levant's case as having any merit whatsoever. When you open your comments with "you are invalid", it pretty much guarantees that anything said subsequently will be held in a much different light than if you started perhaps with a modicum of respectfulness. More or less, it's not a lot different than telling a police officer to F--- Off when they come to your door with questions.