Monday, June 8, 2009

Lemire and Levant on the same side?

What would put an alleged white supremacist from Ontario and a Jew from Alberta on the same side of any question?

Wake up Canada. If Ezra Levant and Marc Lemire agree on something, there might be something to it.

Ezra Levant comes across to me in person, like a cocker spaniel, pit bull cross. He looks harmless until he bares his teeth. He is a product of his own Calgary Jewish upbringing, his legal education, his time in Ottawa, and above all, his recent trials at the hands of the HRCs and their minions and hangers on. He is a good guy to have on your side. He is opinionated, loud and carries a sharp bite. However, his opinions are researched not just shot from the lip. His being loud is also a good thing, so maybe he can be heard above the deafening white noise of the HRCs and their ilk. And, he is doing his best to sink his teeth firmly into the ?sses of the HRCs and bring them to justice, not the frontier, kangaroo court type that they mete out, but real justice. You know, bring it out into the light of day where we can all see it and be disgusted by it. In my mind, Ezra Levant is a freedom fighter.

Merc Lemire is a different kind of freedom fighter. He is reported to be a white supremacist, and may well still be. He was raised in Toronto and now lives in Hamilton, Ontario. He reportedly was President of the Heritage Front, from 2001 until it disbanded in 2005. That organisation was a neo-Nazi white supremacist group founded in 1989. But, he too is dogged in is determination, more like a Doberman. He does not seem to be cute and cuddly, more dogmatic, yet well researched, and with technical skills to ferret out meaningful information, that is embarrassing to his enemies.

But, these two have a common enemy, Canada's Human Rights Commissions, and in particular the Hate Speech sections of the law in each jurisdiction.

Marc Lemire challenged the consititutionality of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, resulting in many days of hearings over seveal years and which culminated in 3 final days of summation in September 2008.

At the summation, he documented what Simon Fothergill, a lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada had to say about the truth: “It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation."

I have 3 young adult daughters, and in recent years have expended considerable energy trying to get them to understand the concept that "It is more important to figure out what the truth is then it is to be right." Little did I know that I was preaching sedition to them.

As Marc Lemire blogged on his Freedom Site, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member hearing the Lemire Case, Athanasios Hadjis then asked Mr. Fothergill: “So, I’m to judge a truthful statement on the basis of who made it” and as Mr. Lemire comments "to decide whether it’s likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt?"

In one of the earlier days of hearings Dean Steacy, an investigator for the CHRC was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?" — to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value … It's not my job to give value to an American concept."

This guy is allowed to investigate free speech based discrimination on behalf of his employer the CHRC, but seems to have misplaced his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or at least Section 2 thereof. I did not make this up.

But, back to Fothergill, and the Summation hearings. Mr. Fothergill had the audacity to state the following, which Mr. Lemire detailed in his blog: “There are excerpts from the Bible that can expose people to hatred or contempt and the Tribunal has dealt with that,” Mr. Fothergill stated.

It appears from Mr. Lemire's notes that Fothergill was apparently defending Tribunal Vice Chairman Hadjis’ previous ruling in the Warman v. Jessica Beaumont case where she was condemned for citing two passages from Leviticus in support of her critique of same sex marriage. For those of you who care, Leviticus is also the 3rd book of the Hebrew Torah, and is sacred to the Jews as well.

I don't know about you, but I believe as do Christians and Jews throughout the world that the Book of Leviticus in the Bible and Torah is the undisputed word of God. To discredit the Word of God is foolhardy at best. I have not yet reviewed the Jessica Beaumont case, but think I will in the future.

The more I read and try to understand what is going on here, the more I conclude that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

As Ezra Levant says, and I am sure Marc Lemire would agree: Fire. Them. All.

No comments: