51st State
Needs liberating. Ezra Levant:
Alberta Human Rights Commission Interrogation
Opening remarks by Ezra Levant, January 11, 2008 – Calgary
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, freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of assembly and association; and freedom of the press.
In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote, Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; 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 … 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.
I’m sorry, did we forget to invade that place? It’s coming back to me now, that as with Europe (which we were required to liberate by force of arms, but since have graciously left to their own devices, though as with Canada, we generously have provided the lion’s share of their defense in a hostile world), the 51st state has been allowed to follow its own path. Under benevolent American “cultural imperialism” policies, all they chose to accept were the greasy, cheesy, instant gratification parts. The McDonalds, the Coca Cola … apparently the Judge Judy part, too.
Much like children who would gorge themselves on sugar and fries, they haven’t grasped you still have to eat your vegetables, and get some exercise. Actual freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. Not Euro-style freedom with training wheels, where speech is free as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings, violate Canadian cultural affirmative-action broadcast policies, etc.
It’s their country, their business, except for the fact that they share a 3,000-mile border with us, which already has been used by jihadis for entry into this country. Maybe it’s time to do Canada a favor, do what we forgot to do, and liberate them. Hey, someone come liberate Massachusetts, too. It isn’t just Alberta. What’s with human rights commissions that makes them so opposed to … human rights? Then there’s the Euroconfusion over what a human is, but that’s another matter.
Anyway, great speech, Ezra. Glad to see a spark of freedom burns in the frozen north. Reminds me of the kind of speeches people used to make around here 230-odd years ago, in defiance of oppressive government.
Here are some news reports on what Levant is talking about. National Post. Calgary Sun indicates Levant overstated the case about his accuser’s background, so I’ve removed the potentionally libelous bit. I don’t want to get sued by Canadian imams, and anyway, accuracy is important. Canadian readers encouraged to add relevant links, comment. Don’t worry, we love you in all your adorable Canadianness and are actually too busy liberating people who need it more than you to do more than foist the Big Macs and super-sized Cokes on you at present.
Ace with more, including vid, on the Canada Inquisition.
Former Levant employee Steyn: “The last house of worship torched in Edmonton was my synagogue.”
Powerline: de Tocqueville’s warning against the dangers Canadian human rights advocates pose to democracy.
Greenwald: Hateful hatemongers may deserve it, but as much as the sockpuppet hates to admit it, hating hate-speech is hateful. Or something like that.
Topics: Canada
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:02 am on Sunday, January 13, 2008
11 Responses to “51st State”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:46 am
From Guantanamo prisoners to Geneva Conventions to extracting “apologies” from authors for writings or cartoons or whatever…one facet of the great Islamic takeover of the planet and the dismantling of western civilization (I kid you not :-) ) is that Muslim agendists will use statutes and courts (and “human rights” commissions) as another means to effect the agenda.
As noted in the Canada case, no expense accrues to the (Muslim) complainant in bringing that action, therefore he has nothing to lose in making one more tiny dent in the system for shari’a. It’s a free for all, and laws are such (such as jurisdiction, which kinds of statutes the action is brought under…) and judges weak enough on the overall plan, that these idjits can meet with success, as in the British judgment against Rachel Ehrenfeld for writing truths a Muslim complainant in Britain found to be”slanderous”.
January 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
When they came for the salon owners, I didn’t say anything because I did not own a salon. When they came for the restaurant owners, I didn’t say anything because I did not own a restaurant. When they came for the authors and owners of the means of communications . . . .
You are right to talk about connecting this to pre-revolutionary British-America. I’ve been studying this era and have been stunned with the parallels to what is happening in our own country. We’ve lost the values and principles that not only caused us to confront British abrogation of their own laws. We now hear the same sophistry to seize power from a citizenry as ignorant of those values and principles as Britain’s own citizens back then.
I hope the publicity of what this court is doing leads to it being abolished. Perhaps, at some point, people will stop talking about “human” rights and start talking about individual rights.
January 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
as a Canadian, I must congratulate Ezra Levant for filming the hearing. The great thing is to watch the body language of his inquisitor (who looks like a librarian. I wonder if Torquemada and the NKVD types actually, in real life, looked like librarians???)
Also. I HATE the term “human rights.” It is a way of erasing the far more potent “citizen rights”. A Citizen exists within a net of law and regulations. “Human Rights” is all about feelings and intentions and a vague morality hiding a Will to Power. That brown haired little clerical librarian - in fact - loves her Power.
Queen Elizabeth I of England had it right: she didn’t think it was the business of the government to inquire into its citizens’ souls; only actions should count in a state that respects the law. But then, Human Rights Commissions justified their existence from the beginning by pleading that the Law is inadequate to address the needs of the disenfranchised and powerless… so the HRCs explicitly operate OUTSIDE the Law of the land.
Oh, Canada!
January 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
For the record, I hate the term “human rights” also :)
And the self-righteous think tanks and agencies (such as “the UN” or Amnesty Internat’l) that purport to speak for “human rights” while sitting on their duffs (AI)and (these days) not so clandestinely providing a pulpit and penumbra of legitimacy to some of the baddest actors on the planet (”The UN”).
And you’re completely correct about that librarian !
January 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“the hrc”
They have Hillary?
Have an idea…Why don’t we (the U.S.) enlarge Canada by ceding them parts of Oregon, Washington State, California, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York.
OH…Also just out right deed them the entire State of Vermont AND the land that the NYT’s sits on.
January 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Damn…Forgot Rhode Island. I mean it’s so damn small, Christ why have it, huh?
I mean, it REALLY isn’t an “Island”, now is it?
They lied to get into the States to begin with…Phhhfffllllttt. Rhode “Island”, please.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I’m pleased to see the videos and news of Ezra Levant’s interrogation spread throughout the blogosphere. The issue needs to be kept alive, until eventually even the MSM has to take notice. Islamic radicals are using our own laws and Western enlightened philosophies to cripple us and impose their own twisted version of law and human behavior. This is every bit an act of war as anything on the battlefield, and it must not go unanswered.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden believes that Canada “needs liberating.” I don’t think so: I think that if there are more [...]
January 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hey, El Cid! Careful there. Me and mine in central Calif aren’t all libby luvvie.
Btw, y’all. There’s been a recent victory achieved by enemy sympathizing scum that should be gathered up and imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives…
The author of this:
http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf
Was recently fired for daring to offend the filthy degenerate scumbags we’re currently engaged with in an existential fight.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Grimmy,
I’m about 1/4 through it, reading fast. So far, I could say in a lot fewer words…
1. You want to know how it works, for jihad and God’s appointed holy warriors, the Mujahideen ? Read Osama’s and al Z’s pronouncements & sundry fatwas, it’s all there. Think about the thinking of an Ayatollah Khomeini.*
2. The knowledge of the inner dynamics of Radical Islam (including such basic stuff as who’s Shi’ite, who’s Sunni…) is woefully lacking in many Congresscritters, many Intelligence Agencycritters and all kinds of other “official” critters.
*http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B1F890361-DF36-4B4B-823C-77A0F7442FA9%7D
January 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Sorry, I haven’t mastered the art of short URL’s.
It’s a Frontpage magazine article by Amir Taheri entitled: “Terrorism Cannot Win”