Thursday, September 3, 2009

Ezra Levant Breaks Silence, CHRC Breaks Wind

He's Back, On His Game, But I Don't Totally Agree with All His Conclusions

Much of my introduction to the Human Rights Holocaust in Canada came at the hands of Ezra Levant. I started to get interested because, as I have written before, a friend of mine was being hounded here in Ontario, and I thought there was something wrong. Ezra and Kathy Shaidle came to London and along with Salim Mansur discussed the insanity that is the human rights racket in this fair land. I bought both "Shakedown" and Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere's book "The Tyrrany of Nice", and read them cover to cover in no time, and then got going on my own, looking into this nonsense. And here I am.

Ezra came out of seclusion from writing his next book yesterday to go on the radio (would like to hear that, but missed it) and to write this piece on his blog.

It carries with it Ezra's knowledge of the history and nuance of the battle and I recommend you read it before you go further with anything I have to say.

But, what Ezra had said earlier in December about Section 13 and the Supreme Court take on it in Taylor in 1990 bears repeating:

Section 13 -- the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act -- has been before the Supreme Court of Canada already. In 1990, John Ross Taylor, then 80 years old, appealed his section 13 conviction all the way to the SCC. The seven judges split, four saying the law was constitutional, three (including Beverly McLachlin, now the Chief Justice of the SCC) saying it was unconstitutional.

But the four who let section 13 slide were strict about its application. Here's what they wrote in their judgment (I've bolded a few key words):

In sum, the language employed in s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act extends only to that expression giving rise to the evil sought to be eradicated and provides a standard of conduct sufficiently precise to prevent the unacceptable chilling of expressive activity. Moreover, as long as the Human Rights Tribunal continues to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pays heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in the phrase "hatred or contempt", there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section.

Take a look a that just for a moment.

Three judges said the law was illegal. Four said it was legal, but only if it remained focused on truly evil hatred, that was ardent and extreme. Subjective opinions about offensiveness weren't permitted -- and, said those four judges confidently, there was little danger of that happening.
But, here is how I commented on Ezra's blog to his piece:
"Actually Ezra, the way I read this Decision J Ly won this one by a nose, or as they say in Hockey parlance, in a shootout, in what was the longest match in history.

Hadjis did find Lemire guilty of posting the Aids piece, though he had no part in its authorship, or I think in its actual publication, just being the webmaster. That much of it happens to be true, and that the intention was to provide information was no defence, as he himself had reported Fothergill had testified a year ago at trial in his own blog. How you decide that something subjects people you don't know to hatred is beyond me.

Hadjis did fail to award the Gold to J Ly and to Warman which is some solace to us all, but leaves the game far from over.

I believe that you were the prime reporter a few months back the the Queen of Censors was pushing for more teeth to S.13. That should have been the "tell" that this decision was coming as it did.

Hadjis also forgot to admonish those who stole Ms. Hechme's internet services and the other fake, pretend nazis, as opposed to the real pretend nazis who were on Stormfront before the government pretenders went lurking. Oh, forgot to admonish. He forgot to even mention them.

In my book, Mr. Hadjis did a very good CYA under difficult circumstances. He still managed to pull an HRC rabbit out of the hat. It is tiny, though and might not live very long, but he still pulled it out, fortunately on the slowest news day in the slowest news time of the year. What a coincidence."

The political nuance of this move is slowly dawning on me. It appears to me that J Ly gave a sneak preview of this months ago when she was talking about more power in S.13 to stamp out hate. It did not make particular sense to me at the time, but with this decision, it now makes perfectly good sense to me. The ink just didn't dry on Tuesday evening. The ink was dry on this Decision months ago, folks. What better time to slip this ugly thing past the people than the week before back to school, when everybody is getting in the last gasp of summer holidays, and getting kids ready for school.

As Ezra pointed out, there are choices that the AG, Rob Nicholson has in front of him. If not him, then his boss the PM. Ezra said:
Will Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, send his lawyers to appeal? If he does so, he risks a backlash within his own party’s base, on the eve of an election. But it is not acceptable for him to stand back, while his lackey, Jennifer Lynch, sends her CHRC lawyers in for the appeal. It’s essential that Nicholson – or the PMO, if Nicholson lacks the political judgment – orders Jennifer Lynch to stand down. (Frankly, it’s staggering that she hasn’t yet been ordered to just shut up and get on with her job as a bureaucrat. Seriously, as Peter O’Neil reported the other day, Lynch flew all the way to Dublin, Ireland, to beg for political help, admitting that her campaign to demonize her opponents, collect names on her enemies list and save her censorship powers “monopolizes our energy”. Why is she not fired yet?)
Ezra says "Today is definitely a day to celebrate." Me, I'm not so sure. I don't yet see anything to hang my hat on. I do know that this day would not have come without the hard work of Marc Lemire on the front line, and Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and the bloggers and others out there stirring the pot to keep this this alive, but I will repeat like a broken record, this has not been tested in a real court, so I am waiting on Boissoin v. Lund at Alberta Court of Queens Bench before I get into a celebratory mood.

I wonder if Marc Lemire has any money left to celebrate, and if after reading this Decision, he is really in the mood YET.


Okay, I was looking at a few blogs and picked up on GenX40 who is a legal beagle with a good eye on this Decision, and I refer you to his post here. He implies that I am being too tight in my britches, and maybe I am. He says: "it is a good day to admire your country and your constitution. Enjoy it."

No comments: