On Ezra's Dustup This Week And Ethics In Journalism

Okay, Ezra won a battle this week with Alberta's NDP government.  They tried to toss him from press events held by the government, and he made enough of a stink about it to get the government to back down.  In the last few days, we've seen all sorts of media personalities start blathering on about how the government was being heavy handed, and that Ezra's team has a right to be there just as they do.  After all, how do you define "journalist"?, they argue.

Let me be abundantly clear here:  I don't like Ezra Levant.  I never have.  He conducts himself as a public spectacle, and has been abundantly clear that he has no respect for anyone who dares to disagree with him.  That's his choice, I don't have to like it.

However, in reading Andrew Coyne's diatribe on the matter (which is really just a thinly veiled attack on the CBC), it occurred to me that all of the arguments made supporting Ezra Levant fail to acknowledge the moral and ethical issues that the field of journalism in Canada has largely ignored for most of my adult life.

No, It's Not "Short Sighted"

I've seen stories popping up recently where Justin Trudeau is being criticized for refusing to engage with Sun Media.  

The issue is that Sun Media has allowed people like Levant to run amok.  Of course, they're going to play the taunting card.  What Levant's tirade demonstrated was that Sun Media is acting as a mouth organ for the PMO.  

From the Liberal party's perspective, why would they engage with a group who is so obviously biased, and will no doubt take anything that Trudeau says before their cameras and splice it into something entirely different?  

If Sun Media wants Canadians to believe that they are a legitimate media source, they need to take a step back, and rein in the extremists that they are putting in front of the camera.  At this point in time, that may well include insisting that Ezra Levant issue a full, public apology ... on air.   Otherwise, Canadians, and Trudeau's family in particular, are quite justified in assuming that Sun Media is nothing more than a propaganda organ for Stephen Harper and Conservative Party.

Canadians deserve better from our news media than Ezra Levant's childish tirades.

Pat Buchanan: Civil Rights Laws Have Served Their Purpose

Wow.  I've known that Buchanan had long since fallen off the rhetorical cliff of the far right, but today's column is a real prize winner.

A radical idea: Suppose we repealed the civil rights laws and fired all the bureaucrats enforcing these laws. 

Does anyone think hotels, motels and restaurants across Dixie, from D.C. to Texas, would stop serving black customers? Does anyone think there would again be signs sprouting up reading "whites" and "colored" on drinking foundations and restrooms? 

Does anyone think restrictive covenants against Jews would be rewritten into contracts on houses? Does anything think that bars and hotels would stop serving blacks and Hispanics?

Having travelled in parts of the US, and long since learned that although the Civil Rights movement successfully broke down the legal barriers which stood between blacks and legal equality, the wounds of racial segregation still run deep in the national psyche on both sides.

Buchanan might think that civil rights laws have "run their course", but he is profoundly mistaken in his thinking.  I would suggest that the demonstrably uneven application of the so-called "stand your ground" laws and the laws being proposed in Arizona which create a hierarchy of rights with religion at the top are clear indications that the need for civil rights laws continues to exist.

And, indeed, some bigots might revert to type. But so what? 

Cannot a free people deal with social misconduct with social sanctions? 

And isn't this what freedom is all about? The freedom of others to say things we disagree with, to publish ideas we disbelieve in, even to engage in behavior we dislike?

As for the Christians of Arizona and same-sex unions in Arizona, if they don't like each other, can they not just avoid each other? After all, it's a big state. 

Funny.  I would imagine that more than a few people who have been on the receiving end of bigotry might just see it a little differently.  The couple that a baker refused to make a cake for comes to mind as an example, and yes, I can imagine the reappearance of signs in restaurants saying "No Service for ...".

The point is not that someone might publish something objectionable, or that a restaurant might decide to deny service to others.  Rather, it is that too often those tools have been used to marginalize and demonize other human beings.  If Buchanan truly understands the concepts of liberty, justice and equality, he will understand that there are those who will always try to limit the ability of others to access rights.

One wonders how long it will be until we start hearing this same argument from so-called "Free Speech Warrior" Ezra Levant?

It Only Makes Sense If You're Insane

So, it seems that Ann Coulter wants to file a human rights complaint in Canada ...

Inflammatory right-wing pundit Ann Coulter took aim at a University of Ottawa administrator Monday night, saying an e-mail from the school warning her to use “restraint, respect and consideration” when addressing Ontario students during a speaking tour this week made her a victim of a “hate crime.”

Speaking to students and academics at the University of Western Ontario Monday, Coulter said the e-mail sent to her Friday by Francois Houle, vice-president academic and provost of the University of Ottawa, targeted her as a member of an identifiable group and as such, she will be filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission alleging hate speech.

Kind of makes you wonder just what Ms. Coulter's speech was going to be, doesn't it? But then, like a lot of the extreme right wing in the US - and Canada for that matter - Ms. Coulter is well known shooting from the lips and not really paying attention to facts or reality.

... and right on cue, we find Ezra Levant on the stage:

Ezra Levant, lawyer and former publisher of the Western Standard magazine, spoke before Coulter on Monday and called Houle’s letter a “veiled threat.”

Why yes, Ezra, only you could possibly take a bit of advice given to someone who may not be fully cognizant of Canada's laws and interpret it as a 'threat'.

Of course, Ms. Coulter opens her yap during her speech and says the following:

“A word is either offensive or it’s not. In a world of political correctness, all words are banned unless they’re used against conservatives.

Ummm...no. It doesn't work that way, Ann - and you know it. The e-mail you received encapsulated the concept in three words: “restraint, respect and consideration”. It's not like your track record for saying amazingly ignorant things in public isn't well known in Canada.

If the notion of speaking in a manner that respects others, and being asked to do so, is 'discriminatory' against them and a form of hate crime, it does make one wonder just what they had in their minds to say in the first place.

Not News: Ezra's Unhinged

Over at Ezra Levant's blog, I see he's getting himself worked into quite a fine snit over the CHRC placing a wreath at the cenotaph in Ottawa. {I won't bother linking to Ezra's bile-laden site, google it if you must}



Okay, that's a pretty normal thing for Better-Than-Thou Ezra to get upset about. He's been utterly unhinged about Canada's human rights law ever since he decided to go playing journalist provocateur while he was running the Western Standard into the ground.



Apparently in Ezra's fantasy world, you don't pay attention to the various underground organizations that spew hatred - often in some pretty amazingly vile ways unless they bubble to the surface. In the festering heat of his delusion he seems to equate the concept of investigation as being equivalent to what the organizations are based on - using that logic, the parts of the police that investigate organized crime are themselves organized criminals.

As for his assessment of how the CHRC actually spends its budget, I suspect that's pure Ezra-style hyperbole - invented solely to fuel his self-righteous anger.



Yeah, he's pretty much unhinged all ways around. He'd probably benefit from talking to a therapist for a while - he's obviously completely lost any sense of perspective. Reality clearly doesn't matter to him so much.

You've Got To Be Kidding

I've said for a long time that just beneath the veneer of civilized that the current owners of the name 'Conservative' in Canada is a squirming base of ugliness.

It appears the veneer's wearing thin:

Ezra is definitely in the Harper war room, a place he jokingly considers to be more of a "peace room. It's more huggable.

"I'm a volunteer helping out. I do burger runs. I do TV panels as a Conservative strategist. It's not that big a deal," says Ezra.

Well, when Ezra is contacted, he is not about to do a burger run but he is about to go on CTV as a Conservative strategist. Ezra tells us nothing about the burger preferences of the Tory war room but he lets us in on strategy.

"Huggable"??? Harper? Right ... but then again the odds of me seeing eye to eye with Ezra Lerant on anything are pretty slim.

Anyway, Chandler is back in the game and he plans to be working on the Harper team, almost certainly being in a Tory phone room wooing undecided voters in Ontario.

"I've been asked by the Tories to be involved heavily in this campaign. I get up from one fight with a black eye and it heals and I get into another one," says Chandler, who no one accuses of staying on the canvas long.

"The federal party is not like the provincial PCs. We work well together. We don't have a problem. I will have an involvement. It's a 99 percent guarantee. It will be in the phone rooms, wherever they are."

Chandler also says when Calgary gets new seats in Parliament because of the city's growth, some top Tories want him to run for one of the open spots.

"I've been asked to seek one of the seats," he says. Who has asked?

"These are people who are high-profile in the party."

The man also has a book coming out next year.

Chandler is well aware his presence in the campaign will raise some eyebrows.

"People can complain all they want. Democracy takes all kinds. We have to learn to play in the sandbox. If they can't grow up, that's their problem," he says.

"I'm not going away. Politics is a blood sport and I'm just going to get better at it."

Half of Chandler's problem is that he has no idea how to compromise. I've yet to see him in a contentious situation where he hasn't tried to bully and bluster his way through it - and then have a major hissy fit when it doesn't go his way.

To hear him talking about 'learning to play in the sandbox', it's almost laughable. It's not like his track record exactly shows us that kind of willingness to cooperate with anyone who dares disagree with him.

If the HarperCon$ are inviting him to run for a seat, they are either just as nutty as Chandler himself has proven to be, or they are oblivious.

Whatever vestiges of the old PC party that used to exist are long gone indeed.

Geez, Ezra - Want a Brick of Cheez

... to go with your whine?

It seems that the AHRC just took a plank out of the soapbox that Ezra's been grandstanding on lately by rejecting a complaint against him.

Apparently this isn't good enough for Ezra, so he's gone on quite the little temper tantrum about it all:

The two complaints cost Alberta taxpayers in excess of $500,000 and, according to access to information documents, involved no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats. What a scam – on the part of the complainants, who were able to wage “lawfare” against an infidel without paying a cent; and on the part of the HRC, as a make-work project.

Fire. Them. All.

I have no idea where Ezra gets the figure he posting here as if it's fact - I don't imagine that the AHRC publishes per-case costs somehow, and their annual budgetary reports certainly don't contain that kind of granularity. I imagine Ezra's talking through his hat here.

However, even if two complaints did add up to $250,000 to investigate and ultimately reject, what's the big deal. How many police investigations of 'criminal complaints' go on for years only to finally end up with no charges laid, or a conviction overturned? (It's not like Canada hasn't had its share of wrongful convictions) How much did it cost to overturn Milgaard's conviction? - and unlike Ezra, Milgaard spent time in prison - not just paying lawyer's fees.

If Ezra wants to wear the mantle of being persecuted, perhaps he should consider his lot in relation to others who have had much worse treatment.

But I’ve read the dismissal letter three times now, and each time it makes me more angry. Because I haven’t been given my freedom of the press. I’ve simply had the government censor approve what I said. That’s a completely different thing.

Bullfeathers, Ezra. Freedoms are not an absolute - they never were, never are, and never will be. Essentially a complaint was made that you had abused the principle of Freedom of the Press. That complaint was investigated and found to be unpersuasive. Your problem is what, precisely?

Your freedom of the press does not give you carte blanche to publish anything you want, and you know it. There are all sorts of guidelines and rules that come into play. You knew that publishing those cartoons was going to raise someone's ire. You chose to publish them, even though it wasn't necessary to do so. You gambled, you took a chance and it had a price.

Deal with it, Ezra.

Rights in Ezra's World

If I hadn't read it myself, I don't think I'd believe it. Apparently, Ezra Levant thinks that informing people about their rights is a bad thing.

He's whining about this booklet that the AHRC has published which outlines in very broad terms the scope of what is covered in the legislation that the AHRC is responsible for implementing.

Apparently he doesn't like that the booklet is full of simple examples:

Let's start with this one, called "Maria's story". I can tell you right now, having read every ruling issued by the Alberta HRC is recent years, that there is no "Maria", and there is no "Maria's story". There has never been a ruling about a woman whose parents came to Canada from Mexico, who was upset about Mexican jokes that aren't funny.

It's a fabrication. That's called propaganda -- telling new Latino immigrants that they're coming to a bigoted province, where Mexicans are treated poorly.

What part of example do you not get, Ezra? It's intended to give people who don't spend their time trolling through AHRC decisions for fun an idea of the kinds of topics that are considered discriminatory.

I'm sad to inform you, Ezra, that you've horribly abused the term 'propaganda'. Propaganda attempts to make a truth out of a non-truth. Giving people examples that are fictitious is not the same thing at all.

It's disgusting to begin with, but the fact that it is deliberately targetting new immigrants is downright vile. The Alberta human rights commission -- in other words, the Government of Alberta -- is trying to persuade newcomers to Alberta to support their grievance industry, and become little race hustlers, little Al Sharptons, just like Khurrum Awan of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

I see. So it's a bad thing for people to know what their avenues of redress under the law are? Sure...

What that really tells us is that Ezra wants the world to revolve around him - it's all about his right to spout off in whatever ugly way he chooses, nobody has any right to challenge him unless they have enough money to do so.

The vast majority of people are pretty benign when it comes to situations where discrimination could happen. But, that doesn't invalidate the need for avenues of redress when it does occur. More often than not, the person on the receiving end of discrimination is in a position of relative social and economic weakness. (especially in the workplace)

Do you like how Albertans are being described to newcomers -- as a bunch of stupid bigots? And do you like the instructions given to 60,000 of those newcomers, in the guise of "learning to read English" -- a propanganda tract telling them to sue their neighbours?

Oh please, Ezra. It's time to get off your high horse. Perhaps you'd like to reserve all knowledge of rights and law to those who have been through law school, but the real world knows that doesn't work in a free, and democratic society. (There's an irony here, since it was Mr. Levant who filed certain lawsuits against Dr. Lund a few years ago in an effort to halt his complaints against Stephen Boissoin and Craig Chandler's "Concerned Christians Canada" organization.)

Apparently Ezra Has Forgotten Some History

Somewhere along the way, Ezra has either forgotten or horrendously misinterpreted some significant chapters in human history. Especially in his latest round of whining about human rights commissions.

He's picked up on the remedy decision in the Boissoin affair that I commented on back here.

Unsurprisingly, he's not impressed. After all, Dr. Lund is merely "the town scold" who had no business complaining:

No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.

That's right Ezra, resort immediately to the refuge of those who have no real merit to their argument and attack the person. Brilliant strategy there - after all, what could Mr. Lund's reasons for objecting possibly be - he was only a high school teacher living in Red Deer at the time? Right? Oh wait, Mr. Lund had already seen the ugly side of bigotry and discrimination in the white supremacist movement that Terry Long and Jim Keegstra were part of.

Mr. Lund saw something he believed was egregiously wrong and acted on it.

So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints -- and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh -- and for his "suffering". Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but "as a result of his complaint".

Hmmm...so death threats are not suffering? Putting up with a lawsuit that Mr. Levant filed on Boissoin's behalf is not harrassment. Got it. In Ezra's pithy little world, he should be absolutely free to harass and harangue anyone he pleases without being held accountable - unless of course some gets injured physically.

Perhaps Mr. Levant would like to review the myriad ways in the 20th Century that "mere words" have been used to provoke genocide on grand scales. How broad generalizations against identifiable groups can be used to tar an entire population, regardless of their actual status? From the 1930s onwards, the world is filled with examples - whether we choose to talk about Adolf Hitler's propaganda campaigns, Stalin, McArthy or the tribal genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. Pick one - any one - they are amazingly vicious and broad in their impact, and every single one of them spawned from the words of a handful of loudmouthed brutes who believed they had some god-given right to treat others as lesser beings for their own ends.

The fact that Mr. Lund himself is not gay doesn't mean that he should not speak out against bigotry when he sees it. It is all of our responsibility in a free society to speak out when we see someone like Boissoin screaming out for violence.

Ezra claims "nobody was hurt" - well, that's a matter of opinion. Within two weeks of Boissoin's letter, a gay youth in Red Deer was severely beaten - while the furor was still raging in the Red Deer Advocate's letters section. I know of quite a few GLBT people who lived in Red Deer at the time who moved away quite specifically because that letter made them feel that their safety was jeopardized. Nobody was hurt? Well, only if the youth who was beaten is "nobody", only if those who chose to leave homes, family and careers in the area because they feared for their own safety are "nobody".

The broader society of Red Deer was hurt by that letter because it drove people away from Red Deer - people who are otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens. You might say "good riddance", Ezra, but the fact is that letter had an impact far beyond physical harm. Beatings and physical violence leave scars that you can see. Verbal and written violence leaves a different kind of scar that you cannot see, but is just as real.

As I have said before, rights exist in a tension with the various players involved. Boissoin's right to express his religiously held views exists in a state of tension with the rights of others to live their lives without being subjected to arbitrary and illegal discrimination. There is no "single" victim in the case of Boissoin's letter because that letter tarred an entire population segment without good reason.

Although Boissoin likes to claim that he wrote the letter from a "religious viewpoint", I question that. His words do not substantiate such a claim. More recently, his website attempts to cite bits and pieces of scripture that he believes justify his position, but the letter itself does not couch itself in the terms of anything even vaguely religious. If it weren't for the "Reverend" on the signature tag, I imagine few would have any idea that it was written by someone of supposedly "Christian" beliefs.

Case Studies In Why HRC's Exist

Today's case study comes to us from none other than The Ezra himself.

Most of his post is his perceptions of a hearing in the Marc Lemire case currently before the federal CHRC. Since I wasn't present at the hearing, I'm not going to comment on Ezra's stated perception of how things went. There's lots of accounts out there if you wish to sift through them all.

However, I'm going to pick on the most fetid part of Levant's posting, where he goes on the attack against one of the tribunal's investigators:

Which brings us to the matter of Steacy himself. He's blind, and he has an assistant help him function -- no doubt a double-expense that the CHRC regards as a source of pride and a symbol of how the rest of society ought to work. I think it's great that Steacy is still working despite his handicap. But being an investigator, especially where the matters investigated are words and symbols and intricate websites, requires eyesight. Keeping a lead investigator who is blind isn't just an act of supreme political correctness, it's an act that so obviously risks the integrity of the commission's work. Again, if it helps, imagine if an investigator hunting real crimes, not thought crimes, were blind. It's inconceivable that any defence lawyer wouldn't immediately object to any of the evidence that such an investigator collected, on the grounds that it was flawed; I can't imagine any criminal judge accepting such evidence -- if it related to anything important, it would simply provide "reasonable doubt" to any charge, and yield an acquittal. It's so ridiculous, it wouldn't even fly in a fictional TV show, even the most politically correct of the Law and Order series just wouldn't be able to have a blind investigator without fans jeering "yeah, right".

Apparently, it's vastly beyond Ezra's ability to imagine that a blind person could do their job effectively. I'm not blind myself, but I went through my undergraduate degree with a blind man in many of my classes. Although there were certainly places where he struggled with things, he was unquestionably smart, and very creative in his solution to the various problems that his visual difficulties presented in dealing with material which often was described in very visual terms. Sorry Ezra, but your inability to imagine someone doing a job or role doesn't mean that they can't do it - period.

Frankly, if anything, this tells us more about Ezra himself and why he hates the HRC process so much. Quite simply, Ezra himself is so filled with his own self-importance that he will do anything possible to continue justifying his stance - including attacking someone for their disability, when he obviously knows somewhere between very little and nothing about how the individual does their job.

I hope nobody with a disability of any sort ever applies to work in Ezra's office - I can hardly imagine a more hostile environment to end up working in. (But then, I suspect that like a 'white supremacist' won't hire a black man, Ezra wouldn't hire someone with disabilities - it would be too laughable for him to imagine that they might be able to do a job at all, much less do so effectively)

While being blind doesn't render someone stupid, it would seem that Ezra's ego renders him blind.

Shorter Ezra Levant:

Because Richard Warman keeps filing human rights complaints that Ezra disagrees with, the CHRC is an invalid, rogue organization.

Of course, in Ezra's fevered imagination, there is no due process wrapped around the CHRC complaints process, and every complaint that Warman makes is slavishly granted by the tribunal. I've already pointed out how Ezra has distorted the reality of the situation to suit his own ends.

I won't speak to the merits - or lack of them - in Warman's complaint filings - it's actually quite secondary to Ezra's real goal, which is to ensure that Ezra has the absolute right to spew whatever crap about whomever he so chooses - just so long as he stays on the legal side of libelous.

Of course, what Ezra conveniently doesn't tell people in his grandiose tirades about the CHRC is how half-truths that don't fall into the heading of libel can be used to demonize entire populations - quite legally under the comparatively narrow definition that applies in libel law.

The human rights laws in Canada came into play because the issues that they address are not adequately covered by legal concepts such as libel. The kind of remedies available are relatively limited - why? Because the very issues being dealt with are often much more vague than is appropriate in a court of law. Lastly, the option does exist to appeal a decision to the courts.

Contrary to Ezra's repeated claims of a lack of due process, there is in fact a process in place and one that is largely balanced to keep the vast majority of cases from going much beyond initial investigation. It is a sad statement indeed that a lawyer with Ezra's professional background not only cannot see that, but seems so blinded by ego and ideology that he will not admit that there's a lot more to the picture than his strident claims of censorship.

Mark Steyn Lies, and Ezra Laps it up

I'm getting quite sick of hearing the utter bullshit coming out of clowns like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant lately.

The latest claim is that Richard Warman has been involved in every Section 13 (Hate Messages) claim in the last few years. Of course, Ezra just has to parrot Steyn.

I'm pretty sure that there's at least one case that did not involve Mr. Warman - that was the complaint that Rob Wells filed against Craig Chandler for republishing Boissoin's letter on multiple websites. I suspect the real truth is that Warman doesn't respond well to being bullied, and will push an issue through the full process and hearings. Since Mr. Wells' complaint was resolved through the mediation process, it doesn't even turn up on Steyn's radar, so the logical fallacy eludes him.

At one point Steyn complains that a transsexual who complained about access to medical services is now working for the government on a study about transsexual health issues:

"Human rights" plaintiffs are professional activists: since filing her complaint, the transsexual in the labiaplasty case has been given a government job investigating the health status of transsexuals.

Hmmm...lessee - it's a bad thing to ask a transsexual to quantify the problems that transsexuals face accessing health care services how? While I would expect more than just that individual to be involved in the study, I can't imagine someone better qualified to give voice to the issues experienced by a small, and relatively obscure minority population.

Oh yes, and in a similar case in California where a hospital refused services to a transsexual woman because of her past, the hospital has changed its "policy".

Of course, to people like Steyn and Levant, denial of services that would otherwise be available to others isn't discrimination, is it? No, no they don't. They seem to be of the opinion that their beliefs are unassailable and beyond question.

Dear Ezra: It's Over, So STFU

So, not satisfied with Soharwardy's withdrawal of his complaint, Ezra Levant's out for blood.

"Not only am I going to finish this human rights complaint and win it, but I'm going to launch a lawsuit against Soharwardy for abuse of process," Levant said. "That's basically when you use a government agency — a lawsuit — for frivolous and vexatious purposes to punish someone."

I propose that the next edition of the Canadian Oxford dictionary place a copy of Mr. Levant's picture beside the word "vexatious".

Most people would be quite satisfied that the complaint had been withdrawn - a moral victory of sorts. Instead, Ezra is now threatening to sue Soharwardy for using a legal process.

But then again, Ezra's not exactly known for taking the high road, either. Frankly, this doesn't particularly strike me as any different than the kind of boasting threats that Craig Chandler made on his "Freedom Radio Network" program in reference to Mr. Wells' complaints.

In both cases, we see the words and actions of people accustomed to getting their way, and dealing out retribution to those who stood in the way however they think they can get away with it.

Let's Get A Few Things Straight Here

Apparently, some people haven't taken the time to understand the blatant distortion of process that Ezra Levant is propagating.

Let me be abundantly clear about one thing: I am not speaking to the merits of the complaint against Levant - I have my own opinions about that topic, and my own suspicions about Mr. Levant's intention and motives in publishing those cartoons. I have commented on that before on the blog, you can dig it up in the archives. Levant had every right to publish those cartoons, but in doing so, he also stands to bear the consequences of doing so.

When I speak of due process being carried out, the criticism has been raised that Ezra hasn't been allowed to call witnesses, etc. There is in fact a reason for this. Then AHRC processes are specifically designed with a significant weighting towards conciliation as opposed to courtroom-like adversarial proceedings (which are about the last option used)

Based on this flowchart, I would suspect strongly that the complaint in question is currently in the "Investigation" stage, not the formal hearing process as took place this past summer with regards to the Boissoin case.

On that basis, the criticism that Ezra hasn't been able to call witnesses, or engage in cross-examination activities is hardly surprising - in general practice, during the course of an investigation, someone being questioned by the investigator has a right to counsel, but not necessarily to call forth witnesses etc. - that happens in the courtroom - later. (Granted, since I am not directly party to the case, it is possible that the inquiry has been styled a "hearing", but I think procedurally it is in fact an Investigation - if you have clarity to the contrary (from a source other than Mr. Levant), let me know)

With respect to the more formal hearings process, I draw your attention to the following from the Commission Bylaws:

Submissions to Panel

11(1) The party with carriage of a matter shall provide the Commission with any documents or evidentiary matters upon which they intend to rely at the hearing for distribution to the party opposite at least 21 days prior to the hearing. The respondent shall provide responding documentation to the Commission for distribution to the party opposite at least 14 days prior to the hearing.

11(2) The admission of the evidence shall be determined by the panel at the hearing.

11(3) A submission shall state the nature of the order which is sought from the panel and may in addition, include:

1. an acknowledgment of any agreed upon facts,

2. written arguments covering legal points and authorities,

3. affidavit evidence,

4. any documents or exhibits,

5. the names of the witnesses the party intends to call,

6. the estimated time that the party needs before the panel, and

7. any preliminary matters that the party intends to raise, including any questions of jurisdiction.

Now, that sounds a great deal more like the kind of "courtroom hearing" that Ezra claims is being denied to him. More rationally, I suspect it's a matter of the Conciliation process having been tabled and failed for whatever reason.

(I should point out that last summer's hearings in the Boissoin case included witnesses and third party intervenors) Those interested in the boundaries of the AHRC's authority are referred to the legislation: Human Rights, Citizenship
and Multiculturalism Act.

There is a process here. It is fairly well defined, and available to the public. Further, the process at play is "quasi-judicial" - not entirely anchored in the rigors of the legal system in some respects, but certainly subject to appeal in the court system. See S. 37 of the act, which reads:

Appeal

37(1) A party to a proceeding before a human rights panel may appeal an order of the panel to the Court of Queen’s Bench by originating notice filed with the clerk of the Court of the judicial district in which the proceeding was held.

(2) The originating notice under subsection (1) shall be filed with the clerk and served on the Commission and the other parties within 30 days after the date the appellant receives a copy of the order of the human rights panel.

(3) Forthwith after being served with an originating notice under subsection (2), the Commission shall file the following with the clerk of the Court:

(a) the order of the human rights panel, together with reasons;

(b) the complaint;

(c) the evidence taken at the hearing and all exhibits filed.

(4) The Court may

(a) confirm, reverse or vary the order of the human rights panel and make any order that the panel may make under section 32, or

(b) remit the matter back to the panel with directions.

(5) Commencement of an appeal under this section does not operate as a stay of proceedings under the order of the human rights panel unless the Court so orders.

In short, even if hearings in this matter do not go in Ezra's favour, he has the right to appeal the decision into the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta.

At this stage, following the AHRC investigator's report, there are several possibilities - only one of which results in a Panel Hearing taking place.

Oh The Hypocrisy

There is a grand irony at play here.

Apparently, in the course of 2006/7, The Western Standard magazine received some $132,063 in taxpayer funding. In 2005/6 the amount was $63,366.

Coming from a magazine whose editorial stance constantly complained about the evils of "big government" and the supremacy of the "free market", I can only muse about the irony of learning that Ezra was as firmly attached to the teat of government funding as that.

h/t: Canadian Cynic

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.

And Ezra Steps Forth ...

and vomits up yet another moronic screed - this time he appears to be channelling Mr. Hannaford - blathering on for five screens of crap about human rights complaints.

Blathers the LeRant:

Human rights commissions are a relatively new creation, formed in the 1960s and 1970s for political reasons, not legal reasons. The main issues that these commissions were created to address -- such as racial discrimination in rental housing and employment -- were already covered by established landlord and tenant law, as well as labour and employment law. The commissions were supposed to be an informal, sympathetic forum for vulnerable people who needed extra help; and commissions were limited to dispensing a few thousand dollars.

No, Ezra, you are completely wrong in that regard. The legislation that substantiates the Human Rights Commissions in Canada are mysteriously called "Human Rights Legislation". Discrimination can take many forms, and some of them can be quite subtle and insidious, others are more blatant.

The most common cases seem to be employees quitting over squabbles with other staff -- a female backhoe operator claimed her rights as a woman were violated for being called "honey" and other locker-room talk on a construction site

That backhoe operator has a name, and her coworkers should be using it out of basic decency. Names like "honey" have their place and purpose, but it's not in the workplace. In the workplace, it is condescending, crude and inappropriate...even if the person uttering it is married to the other. Using a name like that in a workplace of that nature can set the stage for dehumanizing the individual whom it is directed at. Sorry Ezra, that's an amazingly bad example.

Sure enough, Ezra has to wade into the Boissoin issue:

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.

Sorry Ezra, but it's pretty clear that Ms. Andreachuk knows what she was talking about. She grounded her opinion quite nicely in precedent and reasoning. I'm appalled that a man who is supposedly a lawyer himself is so crude as to attempt to challenge her credentials simply because she came to a conclusion that Mr. Levant doesn't like.

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.

Again, like Mr. Hannaford, Levant makes a gross mischaracterization of the situation regarding Boissoin. The AHRC ruling on Boissoin is quite clear why Boissoin's "letter" steps over a reasonable line. (Declarations of war always go so well, don't they?)

Mr. Hannaford I expect more from - Ezra simply keeps demonstrating to us that he's an utter loon. At least the Sun has had the relative smarts to quit publishing his tirades in the weeks since he blamed a tragic accident on someone wearing what he thought was a hijab - apparently the National Post's editors haven't heard why Ezra's tirades don't deserve the time of day in print.

That was quick

It seems that The Sun pulled Ezra's last column.

I commented on it back here. It's a rare thing for Sun Media to pull a column of any sort - I can guess just how warm some of the letters they were getting must have been.

...and no, that's not "censorship" - it's called calling a bigoted moron out on his suppositions. Clearly a lot more people than just me saw that column for what it really was.

Ezra Opens His Mouth ...

[Update: 23/10/07]:
Over at bigcitylib, you can find video that includes what Ezra claims is "vision obscuring headwear". (Which amusingly, bears little or no resemblance to the muslim styles that Ezra was ranting off about)

...and yes, Richard over at "no-libs" apparently doesn't see where Ezra's leap - and subsequent tirade - is such obvious bigotry.
[/Update]

and shows us just how ugly he really is.

According to Ezra, he figures that the bus driver in last week's tragic collision with a gravel truck, was impaired because she was wearing a traditional Islamic headdress - specifically, headwear that would impinge on her peripheral vision.

I won't speak to whether a niqab or hijab can (or did) obstruct the driver's vision. I'll leave that to the police investigators who are trying to sort out what happened.

However, Ezra's argument is fundamentally full of crap to begin with. I've driven the stretch of road where the collision occurred too many times to buy the "it could have been averted if she could see" argument. The road speed along that stretch is 80 km/h, and she was driving the visual equivalent of a 1 ton cube van. Trust me, "peripheral vision" doesn't matter on a relatively straight chunk of road where you would have had ample time to see the truck parked on the side of the road; and by the time that "peripheral vision" would have mattered, it was far, far too late given the size and inertia of the vehicle involved.

I agree with Levant only insofar as obstructed vision in a motor vehicle is a hazard - but by that measure some of the latest "styles" in glasses should be outlawed for those very reasons - the great thick arms are broad enough to completely obscure your peripheral vision. But then again, the number of drivers who tool around oblivious to their surroundings that it's a bigger hazard than someone driving with limited peripheral vision.

Of course, Ezra's real purpose is to try and illustrate to us how "privileged" those muslims are in our society:

I think it's obvious why these questions were not asked: because it is politically incorrect to question a religious veil -- or even anything that looks like one -- for fear of being regarded as politically incorrect.

Maybe the woman wasn't Muslim. Maybe it was just a scarf to stay warm.

Why didn't a single reporter even ask?

Of course, it doesn't matter if the woman was Muslim or not, or it if was a religious hijab or just a winter scarf. Or an Eastern European baboushka.

What pisses me off about this is not Ezra speaking out and raising the question, but rather the way in which he goes about it. It's so blatantly obvious what his position is - even though he doesn't know what charges are pending himself.

Frankly, given Levant's past track record of showing us exactly how narrow-minded a bigot he can really be, I think it's pretty safe to assume that underlying his latest tirade is nothing more than simple bigotry with only a superficial veneer of "broader concern".

Western Standard: Good Riddance

Via Buckdog, we learn that Ezra LeRant's Western Standard is now defunct - or at least its print edition is.

I imagine that Ezra will keep the on-line version in some capacity - at least the discussion forum/blog sections.

Given the narrow, hard-line politics of Ezra's publication, I'm glad to see the "free market" he so idolized swatting his publication down. It reinforces my long-held belief that even in Western Canada, the extreme right wing conservatism is not by any means the majority view.