GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Liberal Fascism — Canadian Style?

by

Familiar with the case of Ezra Levant?  Of course not… CNNABCNBCNYTIMES won’t bother to highlight this case of Canadian political correctness gone bad.

In February of 2006, the Western Standard magazine, of which I was publisher, reprinted the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.  We were immediately hit with two “human rights complaints”.  These are a strange species of lawsuit, inimicable to Western liberal traditions of rule of law and freedom of speech.  A real court would have thrown these complaints out as baseless, but Alberta’s human rights commission has proceeded.  Friday was the day of my interrogation. I videotaped it.

Suppression of freedom of speech and criminalizing different points of view.  Right out of the handbook of Pelosi, Reid & Clinton, I’d say.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. this is just one case on freedom of speach that is now going on in Canada.
    it is very worrying that this does not even make the Canadian news and NO polititian has the guys to speak out in defence of free speach.
    our rights are slowls chipped away at and no one seems to care
    Chris
    Ottawa, Canada

  2. Ezra’s eloquent put down of all that Progressivism has planned for all the free citizens of the world was priceless. Amazing when actual speaking truth to power occurs, no one on the Left or our incompetent media have any interest in listening.

  4. This sort of “prosecution” is against my beliefs, our countries laws and the decency of human sensibility. I’m not sure how this would be “out of the handbook of Pelosi, Reid & Clinton.” I think there should be more elaboration on that. I also think there should be more background about the commission. What sort of punishment does Mr. Levant face?

  5. Chase, you want to know more? Go to ezralevant.com

    He will give you the full case from AtoZ and you can see multiple clips. You can also go the Mark Steyn’s blog and get an eyeful of the problems he is having with the human rights commission in Canada.

    You might also read or reread “1984” by George Orwell. It was never meant to be an entertaining read for high school students. It is a very real examination of how a government can go about creating a mystique and then become over zealous in protecting its fantasy.

    As to Reid and Pelosi, they did come into power determined to shut out opposition to the belief that global warming is man made and man must be severely regulated in order to save the planet. They based this all on a “majority of scientists” that have the same beliefs. Of course, the scientific method does not operate in any such way. The First Amendment should apply to the government promoting a belief system that is held by scientists or scientologists or quacks.

    The road to government thought control is paved with bricks of “political correctness.” Political correctness tells us what is taboo and what is acceptable. One clear example is the concept of “hate crimes.” When one strikes out against another, it is a worse crime if the attacker had a type of malice in his heart to which the government has given extra political weight. Another clear example is Affirmative Action which is in clear violation of the very words of the 14th Amendment. But in the world of political correctness and government “doublethink”, it is the 14th Amendment that was used to create the program. (To be clear here, Affirmative Action gives preferential treatment based solely on skin color.)

    Universities are largely populated by liberal professors. Universities have taken political correctness as a standard. They have diversity deans and all manner of staff who help “victims” navigate the crude and misguided norms of a rough and churlish society. You find courses on Multiculturalism, Diversity, Feminism, The Gay Alternative, Racial Politics, etc. These courses are promoted to give us understanding of the world to which we have been blind or made blind by a corrupt society. They are promoted as cutting edge and a haven of free discussion. Yeah! free discussion so long as you do not disagree with the premise. Students get expelled or sent to re-education seminars for thinking or saying things that violate the political correctness norm of the university. Shouting down a conservative speaker is intellectual growth, disagreeing with a liberal is a sign of social pathology.

    Mercifully, I shall end here. Political correctness and using good sense in public discourse are two entirely different animals. The latter is judged by society in general. Political correctness is a weapon of power and backed by the government’s ability to do harm to those who disobey.

  7. Every time I see a Leftist thug college student going on about how this or that guest speaker is a -ist or a -phobe and how that person has no right to speak at the university, I want to take her and drop her off in Saudi Arabia. Let her live in a society that takes her idea to its logical end.

  8. Here’s a great demonstration of this live.

    There’s a video of a speech Tammy Bruce gave at a university on themes from her book “The New Thought Police” about how leftists are the thought police of today.

    Here’s the video link

    Skip to 1hour 13min 00secs… A college leftist girl comes up to “ask” Tammy Bruce a question.. but as usual when a Leftist feels indiginant about something, instead of just asking the question, she has to give a little speech.

    So it devolves from there and goes on for a few mins.

    That the Left is so irrational and emotion like that girl scares me. They are incapible of mature calm debate.

  9. Also, you seem to forget that we do have the 1st Amendment in the US which provides a fair amount of protection from this kind of nonsense.

    Comment by werdna — January 15, 2008 @ 5:03 am – January 15, 2008

    Ah yes… call us paranoid.. and then broadcast to all just how complacent and lazy you are.

    You think the First Amendment is going to protect you?

    How is that goign to happen? Is the piece of paper in the National Archives going to break out of its case and stand in front of you , when some Thought Police comes to silence you?

    No… freedom requires constant vigilance…

    When you get complacent you become Canada and look where they are now.

  12. you want to know more? Go to ezralevant.com

    He has a very lengthy, indepth webpage and I don’t quite have time to read the whole thing, thought I did view many of his interview clips. I searched for the words “punishment”, “prison”, “jail”, “years”, “sentence”, “fine” and couldn’t turn up what actual punishment he might face.

    Does anyone know?

    Two words: “Fairness Doctrine”

    I would vote against the fairness doctrine and would be frustrated with our leadership if they pursued to reinstate it.

    Or how about gay liberals cackling in delight and support as the Democrat leadership openly threatened to yank Disney’s broadcast license for daring to air something negative about Democrats?

    I don’t interpret that letter in the same way John Aravosis does. I see the letter as a complaint. Mr. Aravosis is the one who adds most of the inflammatory language through his editorial comments. The fact that no such action was taken against Disney following the broadcast of the miniseries and subsequent Democratic takeover of the Congress, would seem to discredit Mr. Aravosis’s interpretation of the letter.

  13. Chase: this is the closet I found for an answer to you.

    http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128/9/9/

    Wise and the ways of the world
    Steynposts
    Wednesday, 02 January 2008
    Garry J Wise is a Toronto lawyer who’s taken an interest in the CIC’s complaints and has been quoted on the story in The Washington Times. His shtick is very consistent: eminently reasonable, Mister Moderate, nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, folks. “My impression,” he writes, “remains that the complaints against him are dubious, politically-motivated and extremely unlikely to succeed.” But that’s the point: The thing’ll work its way through the system, and at some stage toward the end of this year or maybe next year, the Canadian, British Columbia and Ontario “Human Rights” Commissions will all decide that Maclean’s and I should be “acquitted”, and that will demonstrate that the system “works”.

    That may make sense from a lawyer’s viewpoint. But it’s not how the world operates. As evidence of how the process is ultimately “fair”, Mr Wise cites a 2002 case from Saskatchewan, in which the HRC ordered both The Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to pay $1,500 to each of three complainants who had objected to the Star Phoenix’s publication of an advertisement by Mr Owens. The advertisement quoted some of the sterner Biblical passages on homosexuality. Actually, it didn’t “quote” them. It merely listed the relevant chapter and verse: Romans 1:26, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and I Corinthians 6:9. Nonetheless, that was enough for the HRC, which relieved the parties of nine thousand bucks for “exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule”.

    However, as Mr Wise points out, four years later the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, and he evidently regards this as a satisfactory outcome demonstrating the robustness of freedom of expression in Canada. He’s right, in an extremely narrow legal sense. But in real terms what’s the consequence of Mr Owens’ four-year struggle? I would invite Mr Wise to attempt to place the very same advertisement as Mr Owens with The Saskatoon Star Phoenix today. They won’t take it. They’ve learned their lesson. So, regardless of the appeal, the practical consequence of the Owens case has been the shriveling of the bounds of public discourse in Canada.

    I would expect the same consequence from an “acquittal” in this case, which is why neither Maclean’s nor I want one. I don’t know why Mr Wise is so proud of a system which takes four years to determine whether a Canadian citizen and a major provincial newspaper are permitted to cite passages from the world’s all-time bestselling book, but there is plenty of prima facie evidence to suggest the “human rights” racket is systemically corrupt. I will cite only the most obvious example:

    In the three decades of its existence, no defendant dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Commission under a Section XIII complaint has ever been acquitted. A “court” that only reaches the same verdict is not the most reassuring example of justice’s blindness. Furthermore, over half of all Section XIII cases have been brought by a single complainant, Richard Warman. Mr Warman is not only a near parodic definition of a nuisance plaintiff but he is also a former employee of the very same HRC that has been so attentive to his “grievances”. When we run one of our election competitions at this website, there’s a little bit of small print way down at the bottom saying that any employees past or present of SteynOnline or Mark Steyn Enterprises are ineligible to enter. That’s standard boilerplate in the commercial sector. But apparently in Canada’s highest “Human Rights” “court” there’s no problem about a former employee using it as his own personal inquisition (and, indeed, given the fines he’s collected, personal piggy bank). The willingness of the CHRC to serve as Mr Warman’s enforcer for what he boasts of as a personal enemies list ought to be a public scandal.

    However, let’s not be too hard on Mr Warman – and not only because, by now, he’s almost certainly got me lined up as his latest “complaint”. Mr Warman is only taking the system to its logical conclusion. Being (I assume) a proper lawyer, Garry Wise ought to know that the “Human Rights” process is not an exercise in law. Truth is no defence. In all their whiney columns and letters about their lack of opportunity to “rebut” my piece, the four Osgoode Hall students have not “rebutted” a single quotation, a single fact, a single statistic. And why should they? The accuracy of the statements is not at issue. All that matters is whether you were “offended” by them. So these pseudo-courts are weighing nothing but hurt feelings. And, if you’re as ready to take offence as Richard Warman is, you might as well take profitable advantage of such a skewed system.

    What exactly does Mr Wise find so admirably “Canadian” about this business? To modify M Trudeau, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Unless you’re tucked up reading a copy of Maclean’s.”

    “Acquittal” would only legitimize this racket. I say it’s time to end it.

  14. Steyn, as shown in the post by Vince P., and Ezra Levant have decided to expose the Kangaroo Court that is unleashed in the various Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Levant video taped his inquisition and has been releasing it in sections. He calls the woman inquisitor a “thug” and makes clear that he is not cooperating with the commission in any manner, for to do so would be to imbue it with some sort of legitimacy. He is extremely eloquent and precise.

    When the time comes for Steyn to face the inquisition, I am certain he will be as equally articulate and damaging to their mission to commit censorship.

    I contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission by phone. They require you to call or fax. They said they were unable to provide information on just what issues and codes brought Ezra Levant before the Provincial Commission (Alberta) beyond his unwillingness to cooperate and negotiate a settlement with the complainant.

    Isn’t it passing strange that a publisher can be called to account for not actually violating a law? Qui ipsos custodiat? (Who watches the watchers?)

  15. #12: “I would vote against the fairness doctrine and would be frustrated with our leadership if they pursued to reinstate it.”

    Who says you would get to “vote” on it at all? It’s a doctrine, not an initiative or even a legislative act–because, of course, that would ensure some type of accountability to WE THE PEOPLE. If the shameful Democrats (i.e. Feinstein) and Republicans (i.e. Lott) reinstated the Fairness Doctrine to eradicate conservative talk radio, they would do it with the stroke of a pen, First Amendment be damned.

  17. I finally viewed the guy’s video. Fabulous!

    I hope I’m not the only one here who is reminded of the “Rearden Trial” scene in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand. Mr. Levant attacks the fundamental moral premises of his being compelled to appear before such a commission – brilliantly. I hope the Alberta HRC crumples as easily as that faced in _Atlas_ by the fictional Hank Rearden – although, realistically, I fear it won’t.

  18. #13 – Wow. That is a serious money racket they’ve got going there. That is shameful.

    If the shameful Democrats (i.e. Feinstein) and Republicans (i.e. Lott) reinstated the Fairness Doctrine to eradicate conservative talk radio, they would do it with the stroke of a pen, First Amendment be damned.

    I was unaware that its prior existence was as FCC regulation and not a legislative act. Still, while I am cognizant that perhaps the fairness doctrine would benefit my political viewpoint in some of its applications, I think it is fundamentally flawed and I oppose it.

    Interesting side note: Samuel Alito argued the case for the government in FCC v. League of Women Voters, an important case involving the fairness doctrine in 1984. The liberal/moderate majority on the SCOTUS sided with the appellees, finding that it was unconstitutional for the government to ban editorializing by a non-commercial broadcaster under the fairness doctrine, merely because the broadcaster received public money.

    In this instance, the hats were switched. It was the conservatives that were arguing for the fairness doctrine, as can be read in Justice Rehnquist’s dissent which channel’s Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf.

  19. If Sam Alito was arguing the case on behalf of the government then his personal opinion on the subject doesnt’ matter. He’s acting on orders/behalf of his client.

    Do you know of his personal view on FD?

  20. Do you know of his personal view on FD?

    I do not. I only noted his name due to the novelty of seeing it attached to a case from 1984.

    However, given the correct representation and legal argument, I do not believe the fairness doctrine would hold up under scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC notwithstanding, the application of the fairness doctrine to today’s media would be virtually impossible and create an unmanageable bureaucracy. The media is simply too large and any sort of accounting for what views account for what position, and the subsequent allocation of time, would be far too vulnerable to partisan interference.

    Getting back to the original topic also, I viewed the cartoons on Ezra’s website and found them to be fairly meaningless to me. Few offer humor and I have difficulty even deciphering the intent or message in the majority of them. Was the anger directed at the mere depiction of the prophet muhammed? I do know that he is not supposed to be depicted (for what reason I do not know).

  21. Chase: A few years ago, a newspaper editor in Denmark noticed that artists were self-censoring their work when it came to Islam.

    So he sent a challenge to all teh cartoonists in Denmark to make a cartoon of Mohemmed.

    In Islam, represetnations of the prophet is a no – no (alledgedly.. depends who you ask)

    So from 100s of invites he only got a handful back.. and of those only one or two could be considered to be rude or disrespectful

    MONTHS later, after a lot of underground pot-stirring, Imams from Denmark when to the Middle East with the cartoons AND THEY ADDED VERY VERY VERY OFFENSIVE ONES OF THEIR OWN in order to enrage the arabs… and the Cartoon riots started.

    A dilemna then surfaced for Western media.. do you show the cartoons that are at the heart of the story or do you cave into muslim initimdation and not show them?

    The guy in Canada was the ONLY news publisher to show them in print.

  22. fyi, I like the cartoon that shows the two women wearing a hijab, with the man in the middle wielding a sword. A black bar, presumably representing the leftover fabric from the hijab, covers his eyes. I view it as a statement against the suppression of moderate voices in the Muslim world. The women who can see are hidden from view, while the blind, represented by the man with the sword who has his eyes covered, lead. At least, that’s how I see it.

    I think it’s a powerful, artistic work.

  23. The guy in Canada was the ONLY news publisher to show them in print.

    Yeah, I do remember most of that. According to wikipedia, they were widely published in continental Europe though, but no publisher in the US or UK chose to run them. I know that because I purposely remember reading stories about it and thinking the omission of the cartoons deprived the reader of critical knowledge needed to form an opinion of the controversy.

    I’m with you guys on this and think it’s an embarrassment that any western nation, particularly our canuck friends to the north, would participate in any sort of prosecution over these cartoons. It is outrageous.