The Suicide of Reason in Canada
Ezra Levant was one of the few publishers in Canada to reprint the notorious "Mohammed cartoons" in 2006. Two years later, he's been hauled before a "human rights officer" to explain why offending the delicate sensibilities of sharia-minded imams is legal, legitimate and necessary. Heather Cook reports on Levant's video-captured testimony.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Everyone remembers the Mohammed cartoons. Those ten cartoons, each with its own level of offensiveness towards Muslims. Each an affront to anyone professing to believe in Islam and Mohammed as the messenger of Allah.
Very few publishers in North America chose to reprint the cartoons, which originally appeared in the Danish newspaper Jylland Posten in September 2005. Ezra Levant of the now-defunct Canadian magazine, The Western Standard, was one. Known for his controversial conservative commentary, pro-Israel stance and libertarian beliefs, Levant believed that publishing the cartoons was a necessary exercise in free speech.
On the very day that the Western Standard with the infamous cartoons was being printed, Levant appeared on Calgary radio to debate Syed Soharwardy, an imam trained at an anti-Semitic Saudi university, who advocates Sharia law in Canada. The debate centered around the cartoons and all the accompanying shouldas, wouldas and couldas. Soharwardy did not know that Levant was about to publish the cartoons (a.k.a. offend Mohammed), but that did not matter. Levant was the clear winner in the debate and that offended Soharwardy, who marched down to a Calgary Police station and demanded that they arrest Levant for offending him during the debate and simply discussing the cartoons in the media.
After the officers explained that they didn’t do that in Canada, Soharwardy filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Commission is made up of individuals appointed by the government to hear human rights complaints. The commissioners are a mish-mash of lawyers, nurses, politicians, engineers, who may or may not have direct legal experience. It costs nothing to file a complaint, so Soharwardy could avail himself of it at no charge while the defendant bears the cost of his defense.
Fast forward to January 11, 2008 and Ezra Levant is finally before an Alberta “human rights officer” for questioning. The officer refused to allow journalists or part of Levant’s defense team to enter (something that is normally allowed in regular courts) but did allow the proceedings to be videotaped.
In his opening statement, Levant made his feelings on the proceedings very clear:
“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.”
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
45 Comments
southdakotaboy:I wonder how long it will take before violence erupts in Canada. I know they have pretty strict gun laws up there, but they have a wide open border with us. What would be our reaction to a full blown civil war in our own backyard?
Jan 18, 2008 - 7:44 am jer420:Don’t worry man, you’re right about the gun laws. The government of Canada, while stealthily removing our freedom of expression, has more publicly been removing our right and ability to defend ourselves; against others, but more ominously against the tyranny of the state. A civil war here amongst the populace would be conducted with pitchforks and kitchen knives, and it would be over as soon as a couple people got tasered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Jan 18, 2008 - 10:30 am A.W.:It’s worth noting that in the U.S. they even have the doctrine of the “chilling effect” which is specifically designed to give us a wide berth to discuss controversial matters without even the fear of suit.
Btw, you should follow up and talk about how the same is happening to Mark Steyn. And the actual issue is pretty appalling. While Levant is discussing the issue in the broadest terms, his actual “infraction” was showing the cartoons in a story about the controversy. He is not really speaking in that context, just reporting. The rule this imam would have us establish is that when reporting on things that offend muslims, they can’t descibe what was said or done to offend them, however neutral you are about this.
Btw, I assume then he is going to haul into court all the muslim-friendly orgnizations that publicized the cartoons to stir up a controversy?
Jan 18, 2008 - 10:31 am David Thomson:“And the limiting of free speech has begun.”
How many Americans have any idea about the situation in Canada? The MSM has buried this story. Our own free speech is jeopardized by subtle censorship. It will only get much worse if a Democrat is in the White House in 2009.
Jan 18, 2008 - 10:36 am Diggs:During the late 60’s, early 70’s, we Americans exported our cowards to Canada. If memory serves, they were welcomed with open arms. Now, apparently, those very cowards have found a niche in the quasi-legal HRC.
Ain’t karma a bitch.
Jan 18, 2008 - 10:55 am HoustonTexan:Everytime a Muslim or a Canadian says something mean about the US can we take him to the human rights commission?
Jan 18, 2008 - 11:07 am rbj:I just have to quibble with the valiant Mr. Levant about “other than ‘how’s the weather’ and talking about recipes” being noncontroversial. He obviously is not familiar with the debate about vinegar vs. ketchup vs. mustard barbecue sauces.
Jan 18, 2008 - 11:12 am Heather Cook:A.W., In my interview with Ezra, I did mention the possibility of filing back against Soharwardy. Especially since the actual filing has room (in section C) for you to file a complaint if you feel someone has filed a complaint against you in a “malicious” fashion.
But it’s the system that Ezra has the most issue with, and I do not think he’d use the system to his own means as that would give it some validity.
rbj, it’s vinegar. Behead those who choose ketchup.
Diggs, you may note that Canadians have recently been yelling “send them back” to deserters of the current conflict because many see a HUGE difference between people who were fleeing a draft and people who are fleeing something they signed up to do.
Heather Cook
Jan 18, 2008 - 11:19 am Heather Cook:HoustonTexan,
If you are offended, you can file a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission… so, yes. That’s why this joke of a commission is so broken and faulty…
In fact, you don’t have to be a Canadian, Albertan or even I resident. At least I don’t see anything here that says you do:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/complaints/complaintform-guide.pdf
Heather Cook
Jan 18, 2008 - 11:24 am Wants to know...:Maybe I missed it in the articles but what happens if Levant refuses to apologize after he is convicted?
Jan 18, 2008 - 11:41 am David:rbj,
It’s vinegar AND mustard!
Anyone who would use ketchup in barbecue sauce is offensive and is liable to find themselves before the hrc!!
Jan 18, 2008 - 11:41 am Heather Cook:If he refuses to apologize he can be fined… however, he can appeal and take it to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Heather Cook
Jan 18, 2008 - 11:51 am Richard Dyman:Thanks for providing this.
First, allow me to point out that your Video 2 and Video 3 links point to the same address. Please correct this.
And after listening to all of the postings on this topic by EzralLevant I have to say that my favorite (and most chilling) moment came near the end of the posting titled, “Entitled to my opinion?” when the interviewer says, “You are entitled to your opinions. That’s for sure.” She obviously missed the irony of such a statement.
Jan 18, 2008 - 12:09 pm Brian:Wants to know…
To refuse to appear before the hrc will get you a contempt of court charge.
After conviction a refusal to apologize would at least get you the same charge.
Jan 18, 2008 - 12:13 pm Mark Buehner:“Everytime a Muslim or a Canadian says something mean about the US can we take him to the human rights commission?”
Actually, this has happened. I cant remember the details, but a rabidly anti-Bush academic was hauled before the commission for calling Americans blood thirsty or some such.
This beast bites both ways and he left can see it as clearly as the right. Fascists like these commissions ultimately only prop up the power of the state. Politics end up being secondary.
Jan 18, 2008 - 1:10 pm darrell:Yes, this is very serious. Please read what I wrote about Mr. Levant. It’s at the top of http://www.darrellepp.com. If you scroll down, there’s also stuff on the same Human Rights Commission’s attack on Mark Steyn, as well as my James Madison bio. cheers
Jan 18, 2008 - 4:11 pm John:darrell
http://www.darrellepp.com
Carefull there Diggs…we’ll put pop cans in the doors of all your Camaros and a lot of Pickups.
Jan 18, 2008 - 5:07 pm ic:Can one sue the human rights commissions in regular courts for depriving one’s human rights of free speech, free expression, due process, and malicious persecution?
Jan 18, 2008 - 6:48 pm Little Much:One has to hand it to these muslim imams. Little by little, in every corner of the world, they have acclimated their tactics to the lay of our lands. Where the atmosphere has been brutality, they fight tooth and nail. Where the culture is civilized, they use our very laws to tie us in knots and litigations. Damn clever, these people. Outwit. Outsmart. Outfight. And to what end? Spread the Islamocancer right under our latte-sipping, PC-righteous turned-up noses.
Jan 18, 2008 - 6:54 pm Jim R:What’s The Matter With Canada?
Jan 18, 2008 - 7:53 pm Brian:Mark Buehner:
Sorry Mark, that is an urban myth.
Jan 18, 2008 - 8:20 pm kactuz:The hrc conviction rate is 100%.
Free speech is the fundamental element of Western ideology and is the cornerstone of all our freedoms. Without free speech there can be no honesty, political freedom, religious freedom, or even economic liberty.
Islam is fundamentally dishonest. Muslims cannot, will not be truthful about their religion and their dear prophet. Muslims refuse to think about the hate and violence in the Quran and the evil deeds of Mohammad, as recorded in their own traditions. They also do not want us to talk and think about these.
What we see is a conspiracy of silence — and the silenced. Nobody says what needs to be said for fear of offending Muslims. Thus, because Islam is off limits and cannot be criticized, nothing changes.
Muslim will continue to do hate and violence and people in the West will pretend that these have nothing to do with the ‘real’ Islam — and so the hate and violence will continue, and grow worse.
We need brave, honest people to tell Muslims the things they do not want to hear — for their own good.
I have had quite a bit of experience with Muslims, mostly ‘moderate’ Muslims, and the news is not good. You cannot count on them to be honest about Islam or to stand up for our liberties.
Most Muslims are ignorant, in denial or dishonest about Islam (http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html)
Sadly, the only honest Muslims are the radicals, and yes they want to subdue or kill you.
The future will not be nice.
J. Kactuz
Jan 18, 2008 - 8:35 pm Brian:Ic:
Like the U.S. in Canada anyone can sue anybody at any time. Good luck overturning an hrc conviction.
Jim R:
What’s the matter with Canada?
Jan 18, 2008 - 9:58 pm Rubicon:Well, look at Britain. The erosion of civil rights are now so blatant that HMG is Fascist in all but name.
Re Canada, remember the huge migration of Briton’s after WW2.
They brought Britain’s disease to Canada.
Communism was in the air. Socialism was not simply in the air, for Canada’s elites it became the air.
Anti-American attitudes were part of that baggage.
I’d like to say that 60 plus years of this has given Canada a Rennaiscence or at least a reformation. Alas we have a long way to go.
kactuz… unfortunately, you may be correct. And there are others who have & are issuing warnings that unless we stand up & say, “being offended is not a crime,” &
Jan 18, 2008 - 10:07 pm Muslims Against Sharia:“religious laws are not acceptable in our societies,” we could end up in open confrontations to restore the freedoms our free nations are built on!
If offending were a crime, the world would have a case against any who physically attack them &/or kill, injure, maim, or destroy property, just because they “think” we oppress them.
If Muslims want to discuss & deal with being offended, then perhaps they should file suit against their own native government leaders who have so oppressed & denied their own citizens freedoms to prosper, freedoms to think, worship, talk, & all of the freedoms to be free.
If anyone can legitimately claim they have been offended, I suggest it is women in many Muslim nations. Honor killings, group &/or gang rapes, prohibiting driving &/or leaving the home w/o the permission of a male, forced covering clothing (in incredibly heat oppressive conditions) because some men say they cannot or more accurately, will not, control their basic urges, plus whippings, & other seriously oppressive laws & attitudes which legally permit males to openly subjugate women as inferior beings, are about as offensive as offending gets!
Cartoons are child’s play. What is done to women or people of other faiths in predominantly Muslim nations, is seriously offensive business!
How about depicting Christians & Jews in deplorable contexts? How about doing so in schools as part of a supposed educational curricula?
Human rights begins with respecting others as much as you expect them to respect you! Running to courts or other legal systems designed to suppress the freedoms of others to pacify your feelings, is also offensive.
One man said, “I am offended others are offended!” Go figure that one!
Americans & Canadians have the right to express themselves so long as they are not doing physical harm to others. Cartoons & words that take exception with Islam & its teachings, are expressions of free people.
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 moderate Muslims will be pushed towards radicalization. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!
Muslims Against Sharia are proud to be the first Muslim group to publicly support Ezra Levant and denounce HRC inquisition
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/canada-freedom-of-speech-succumbing-to.html
Sign Free Dominion Against the HRCs Petition
Jan 18, 2008 - 10:39 pm David W. Lincoln:http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html
Canada is afflicted with the going berserk of the upper middle class in the late 1960s, and it has gone further here than in the United States.
One way is, far more eggs have been put into the basket of government than in the United States. This means less importance to the other areas of life.
It boils down to a crisis of confidence in the other areas of life.
There is also this: the book, “Property and Freedom” by RIchard Pipes makes it clear that anti-discrimination laws are the anti-thesis of the freedom to contract. This is ignored by those who set up the HRC’s and those who have run then, and those who run them.
So, if walking on eggshells regarding Islam is the order of the day - it has become more and
more challenging because there are other groups who view the HRC’s as a shield against
their feelings being hurt. Alas, they are mistaken because the HRC is more like a behemoth striding the land and it pays no regard to the damage it has done.
One other thing; “The Case for Democracy” by Natan Sharansky makes it clear that how free a country is is in proportion to the town square test. Canada is less free today than it was when the Canadian Navy was the third largest navy in the World.
Jan 19, 2008 - 2:37 am NikFromNYC:About the second most popular joke to Dangerfield’s “Take my wife…please.” is the answer to “What to Americans think of Canada?” which is “We don’t.”
Yet it is fitting that one of the reasons why not has now become one of the reasons why indeed.
Instead of writing a book, I’ll just offer another follow-up idea. Have many people in Canada (now the laughing stock of the Western world…and remember how comic Johnny Carson cut French tourism by 25% by simply, once, calling them “stuck up and rude”?, back in the 70s?)…
Submit “Humans Rights Commission” complaints AGAINST the HRC trial situation, so they can hold their Inquisition against themselves, which the bureaucrats probably have no checkbox for on their clipboard sheets, so it would by mere mechanical laws, lead to some sort of internal melt down, or else self-ruling in which they would apologize to themselves, on camera.
Jan 19, 2008 - 2:40 am Crafty Hunter:I will not rehash the obvious and restate what has already been said well in this thread.
My question is simple. Do the Mohammedans truly wish total war with the West, with the children of the Enlightenment??
Recall the appalling viciousness of the American Civil War on both sides, the utter ruthlessness of the Nazi political movement, the hellish nightmare of the Thirty Years War in medieval Europe. I think we all know what will happen if the Mohammedans truly wish to force a final confrontation in this age of nuclear weapons. They will be exterminated.
Jan 19, 2008 - 2:59 am tanstaafl:Hasn’t it already become clear that one of the tactics of “would be imposers of shari’a/Islam” all over the planet is attempting (sometimes with success) to use the laws and administrative procedures wherever they’re living to complicate the lives of “western” citizens ?
Imams, mullahs, whomever, particularly in western countries where Political Correctness has taken hold (see especially Great Britain, Canada, Australia…) vigorously attempt to use those countries’ own legal systems to make life as difficult as possible for anyone who even marginally criticizes Islam or criticizes an adherent of Islam.
This system of “offense taking” (for whatever) is right out of the Muslim playbook. It’s a strategy to weaken principles and values on which those countries are founded.
As such, undermining the Canadian Bill of Rights/Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the point.
Bringing Saudi (in a broader sense “Islamic”) values to Canada. is the point.
As is bringing them to Great Britain, to Australia, to Holland, to the US…
My major point of outrage isn’t with the specific targets of these attacks as much as it is with the institutions (the Canadian HRC ? British courts ?) allowing them to take place in the first place.
Those who would make inroads into “democratic” processes are laughing all the way to the bank.
Jan 19, 2008 - 7:41 am ic:Crafty Hunter: “Do the Mohammedans truly wish total war with the West, with the children of the Enlightenment??”
“children of the Enlightenment” are the ones who set up the “(non)human rights commissions” in Canada, are the ones who prosecute a woman for selling vegetables by the pound in Britain. (She faces 13 charges which are set out in a document that runs to 67 pages. They include two counts alleging that she used imperial weighing scales without an official stamp.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/19/nmetric119.xml)
Mohammedans do not have to wage a total war, the West has already lost.
Jan 19, 2008 - 10:15 am Joshua:Crafty Hunter: I think we all know what will happen if the Mohammedans truly wish to force a final confrontation in this age of nuclear weapons. They will be exterminated.
And then find themselves in paradise with Allah and 72 virgins, etc. Or so they believe.
The “threat” of extermination is no deterrent to people who value their place in the afterlife above all concerns about this life.
Jan 19, 2008 - 10:58 am venividivici:ic,
The items you mention are things that “the children of the Enlightenment”, such as myself, tolerate under certain conditions, out of pragmatism. Under the conditions that are arising vis-a-vis “the clash of civilizations” between the West and Islam, such frivolities will certainly be amongst the first casualties (think of how many people’s ideas were changed by 9/11 and multiply that by a thousand, once people truly understand what’s going on). Basically, there will be an internal Western “civil war” before the clash of civilizations begins in earnest, sad as that is to say.
Muslims against Sharia,
Considering that Islam’s “revelation”, however bogus, is inextricably bound to Sharia, the only thing I will accept is people renouncing Islam as their religion “tout court”. Nothing else is acceptable for this Westerner. Even that is fraught with problems, due to the doctrine of taquiyya. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, “Sell Islam somewhere else, we’re all full up here”. I long for the day when the practice of Islam is forbidden in all Western countries. I think I’ll be happier that day than the day I had my first beer.
Jan 19, 2008 - 12:04 pm Rod Carpenter:AVI videos of the first 7 segmets of Ezra’s hearing are now circulating as a torrent:
http://www.isohunt.com/torrents/?ihq=%22Ezra+Levant%22
Jan 19, 2008 - 1:38 pm Fred Dickey:After watching the You Tube video of Levant’s inquisition, I wanted to stand up and cheer. The man is a gutsy, articulate hero, and should be celebrated as such.
Jan 19, 2008 - 2:23 pm tanstaafl:Considering that Islam’s “revelation”, however bogus, is inextricably bound to Sharia…)
I don’t agree.
Shari’a is of men, in the centuries since the Koran.
Here (link) is a not so brief list of passages from the Koran that Muslims Against Shari’a say must be excised.
Fat chance in hell of that happening, you don’t edit the immutable word of God.
http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
Jan 19, 2008 - 5:22 pm tanstaafl:While E. Levant is admirable, he wouldn’t be in the position he’s in if Canada had more spine.
Jan 19, 2008 - 5:25 pm venividivici:tanstaafl,
No, Muslims consider Sharia “divine” and the law code God wants all humanity to follow. They worked out the details of some debatable prescriptions made or implied in the law codes of Muhammed, but they all believe that junk about the divinity of Sharia.
Yes, the amount of breath I’ll be holding while I wait for Muslims to repudiate the stuff in their religion that is harmful to non-Muslims is zero.
Jan 19, 2008 - 5:55 pm Heather Cook:I have to interject here.
Keep in mind that this is a provincial commission. It’s the ALBERTA Human Rights Commission.
What Ezra wants is for him to be convincted and have the appeal go to the Supreme Court of Canada because it simply will not stand up in that court.
So it’s not Canada that is screwed up (well, not entirely), it’s the faulty quasi-judicial set up of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Heather
Jan 19, 2008 - 8:31 pm tanstaafl:Per that not so reliable source Wikipedia, shari’a contains both elements of the divine and the not necessarily divine.
Sharia has certain laws which are regarded as divinely ordained, concrete and timeless for all relevant situations (for example, the ban against drinking liquor as an intoxicant). It also has certain laws which derived from principles established by Islamic lawyers and judges (mujtahidun).
I can’t speak for what all (or any) Muslims “believe”. I consider all such kinds of rules and regulations “of men”.
Jan 19, 2008 - 8:49 pm Brad:I was so glad to be advised of your valiant struggle. I left Canada years ago because of the arrogance of the Canadian government and their provincial lackeys. I spoke out against the intrusive role of the federal government in healthcare. I was often censured and paid a heavy price for daring to speak out in Alberta.
My hat is off to you for standing for freedom. A country that does not even pretend to recognize property rights, as is true in Canada, is not a government of freedom. Canada does not recognize rights as God given and inalienable, but sees them granted at the pleasure of the Crown. But then again my adopted homeland is no better, and in fact perhaps even worse in some ways. Here they pretend to recognize rights, but use the same ways to abrogate them. Here medical star chambers try, convict and punish physicians in kangaroo ‘courts’ with complete disregard for the constitution, in absolute secrecy, with no governmental oversight due to absolute privilege and immunity. The Supreme Court turns a blind eye and those cowards won’t even address the issue head on. Courts routinely misinterpret the plain meaning of the constitution and are moving to adopt concepts of international law in direct violation of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
Freedom is a precious commodity. It is under attack everywhere.
I thank God there is another Albertan who is not afraid to stand. I just hope I don’t meet you in jail.
Jan 20, 2008 - 8:11 am venividivici:I can’t speak for what all (or any) Muslims “believe”. I consider all such kinds of rules and regulations “of men”.
Of course, in actuality they are man-made rules, dressed up with some pretty words to make them sound divinely-ordained, so I don’t disagree with you. The chance there is an angel named Gabriel who spoke to a man named Mohammed about the wishes of a deity named Allah is nil. Anyone who tries to start a conversation with me about how his laws are the laws of God and my laws are the laws of men is in for a long night, because I would never agree to that statement.
The only reason I can speak about what Muslims believe is that I read their diatribes on Sharia, and all of those diatribes reference the divinely-ordained nature of the Sharia laws.
Jan 20, 2008 - 8:24 am Silly Allah:How can we enlighten others about what the Koran really says if we can’t criticize? Given the violent, terrorist environment we live in, freedom of the press is one of the most important rights at stake.
Jan 20, 2008 - 10:04 am Brian H:It is even more phantasmagorically ironic that the actual offensive entries in the cartoon suite were actually ringers — introduced by the agitators to make the Moslems freak out. FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE ORIGINALS WERE PUBLISHED!
So the people who insulted Mohammed were actually Moslem agitators. Where are the fatwahs and lawsuits and complaints against them?
The world of Islam is a frothing sea of delusions.
Jan 20, 2008 - 1:37 pm Heather Cook:Let’s not forget that this Human Rights complaint was made *before the cartoons were published in Canada*.
This complaint was centered around the offense of just speaking about the cartoons in the media and offending Allah.
Heather
Jan 21, 2008 - 8:49 am David W. Lincoln:Heather, also remember the launcher of the complaint was in the process of launching his own newspaper, and he saw this as a means to gain publicity not available elsewhere.
As long as they rail against freedom, they weaken the means by which they are no longer dominated by corruption. For the freer are those who are less corrupt.
Jan 21, 2008 - 6:26 pm