Merry Christmas!

Here are some snippets from Ezra Levant's latest terrific Sun column:

Michael Ignatieff’s Christmas card isn’t a Christmas card.

It’s a “holiday” card. It has a Jewish menorah on it, which is great. Fully 1% of Canadians are Jewish and though Hanukkah was three weeks ago, it’s a nice thought.

The card has some snowflakes on it, too, and mittens and a gingerbread man (or a ghost, it’s not clear). Those are symbols of winter. Which is great, because it is winter time.

But there’s not a single Christian symbol on the card, the religion of the majority of Canadians. It’s the faith our Queen Elizabeth is officially the “defender” of, the religion that inspired the names of so many places in this country, from the St. Lawrence Seaway to St. John’s.

It is the religion whose cross adorns the coats of arms of almost every province, the religion from whose Bible comes Canada’s motto, “From sea to sea.” Our anthem asks God to keep our land, and the French version says we will “carry the cross.”

Even the Charter of Rights begins with the reminder that neither judges nor politicians are at the apex of Canadian society, but rather both are under the “supremacy of God.

Then, after discussing how Jack Layton expressed such heartfelt and respectful feelings toward Islam including saying that "we" want to renew the spirit and faith of Islam, Levant ends by saying:

Could you imagine him or Ignatieff or frankly most Conservative MPs saying they want to extend Christ’s blessings throughout Canada? The mainstream media would have an embolism — remember when Stephen Harper dared to say “God Bless Canada” after his speeches — and the Canadian Human Rights Commission would launch a hate-speech investigation.

Canada is a Christian country. Thank God that it is. Because it is precisely that Christian spirit of tolerance and charity that has accepted millions of refugees from countries that are less enlightened — and that don’t value freedom of religion for anyone.

Queen Elizabeth isn’t the only head of state who is also the head of a religious institution. So is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who enforces the Koran as that country’s constitution. Iran is called the Islamic Republic of Iran, etc.

Which is precisely why the flow of refugees is from enslaved Arabia to the Christian West, and not the other way around.

Levant has it exactly right. The politically correct posture of pretending that Canada is as much an Islamic country as it is a Christian country is just that: cheap posturing. It is an insult to the majority of people in this country as well as a slight to its heritage.

It is precisely the Judeo-Christian heritage of Canada that has made it a beacon of light and a destination for those fleeing poverty and oppression. Tolerance was invented by the Christian culture of the West, not by Islamic culture, which remains totalitarian in most Islamic countries to this day. Immigrants get that. Ezra Levant, a Jew, gets that. We need some political leaders who are not so utterly hostile to Christianity that they get it too.

Ezra Levant Calls for the Repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act

Ezra Levant was asked recently what advice he would give the Conservative government and he responded with this piece. I agree with him 100%. Let us hope Stephen Harper is listening.

The Conservative government is getting the big issue of the day right: the economy. Canada leads the G7 nations in almost every measure; we were the last into the recession and the first out, and it was less deep here than in other countries. Not a single Canadian bank failed or had to be bailed out. Contrast that with the ongoing debt crisis in Europe and America's 10 per cent unemployment rate. It's not surprising that Canada's opposition parties and the media have chosen instead to focus on ephemera or spectacles, like the Jaffer-Guergis story.

The government is wise to concentrate on the issues that matter to Canadians and to tune out the chattering class in Ottawa. But there is a policy project they should adopt: reforming the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The CHRC is the largest of Canada's 14 human rights commissions, and it has been the most aggressive censor. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives the CHRC the power to prosecute anyone who publishes anything on the internet that is "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt.” It's an incredibly vague offense, which is why for 32 years the CHRC had a 100 per cent conviction rate on all of their prosecutions, until the law was finally declared unconstitutional last fall. (The CHRC is appealing.)

The government should not wait for the question of political censorship to work its way through the courts. It should act now to repeal Section 13 and to make other badly needed reforms to the CHRC, including bringing in a civil liberties oversight committee to monitor abuses by CHRC staff, who have admitted under oath to publishing anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-gay material themselves in an effort to entrap citizens. A full-scale audit of the CHRC's policies by the auditor general is also in order, especially given the failing grade the CHRC received in a confidential internal government audit.

This is good policy: the CHRC has increasingly used its censorship powers as a political weapon, picking on religious Christians and conservative activists, even as it strenuously avoided prosecuting any politically correct "haters," such as radical Muslims. Simply put, censorship in the age of the internet isn't just ethically inappropriate, it's practically impossible – in other words, a perpetual source of work and expense for empire-building bureaucrats. It should be shut down.

From a political point of view, it's a winner for the government. Standing up for freedom of expression puts the government on the side of groups that traditionally have liberal sympathies, from artists and authors to civil libertarians. Even groups like Egale Canada, the gay rights lobby, have called for the repeal of Section 13, along with the likes of PEN Canada and the Canadian Association of Journalists. It would be a win for the government to have them as allies.

Other than those who earn their living from human rights commissions or file complaints there against their political enemies, there are no supporters of Section 13 in the whole political spectrum. I appeared before Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the subject last year, and I was impressed by the concern that all parties had about the abusive censorship of the CHRC. Based on my interactions with various Liberal and NDP MPs, I sense that the opposition would not take a party-line stance against such reforms. Even Ujjal Dosanjh, a left-wing Liberal, hinted to reporters after that meeting that he could be satisfied with repealing Section 13 and keeping the Criminal Code provisions against hate speech, which are not as easily abused.

Repealing Section 13 and deeply reforming the culture of the CHRC is a political winner. It would strengthen the government's civil libertarian bona fides. It would appeal to the party's base, which correctly senses that the CHRC is on an anti-conservative warpath. It would likely garner enough opposition votes to pass – and if an opposition leader insisted on opposing such reforms, it would likely cause splits in those opposition caucuses. (Michael Ignatieff has written against censorship in the past; he would be hard pressed to defend it today.)

Getting the economy right is important. But ending the 33-year record of abuse at the Canadian Human Rights Commission is important, too. It's the right policy decision. It will appeal to the party's base and impress civil libertarians outside the party. It will win support across the aisle – and pose problems for any opposition leader who tries to fight it.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin Has His Day in Court

The National Post today reports that the Rev. Stephen Boissoin's appeal is underway in the Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary. Fundraising efforts have allowed him to hire a lawyer and mount an appeal to the Alberta Human Rights Commission's attempt to punish and silence him for his politically incorrect views on homosexuality in a letter published in The Red Deer Advocate in 2002.

Ezra Levant, a Jewish, conservative advocate of free speech, who himself endured 900 days of investigation by the same Alberta Human Rights Commission for daring to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons, has written a book Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights (McClelland and Stewart, 2009) has led a crusade to restore basic democratic rights in Canada. He has championed Boissoin's cause and has accused the Human Rights Commission of an anti-Christian bias. He notes that the Human Rights Commission has a track record of singling out Christian pastors with few financial resources and a low public profile for persecution. This time, however, it might be different as a growing consensus is developing across the country that the Orwellian, mis-named Human Rights Commissions are out of control.

In a related, recent and most heartening development, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal chairman Athanasios Hadjis has declared the use of Section 13 Hate Speech clause to be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The National Post reports:

"Finally, a human rights commission decision that makes sense. Yesterday, a
senior member of Canada's human rights apparatus declared that the power the
Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken on itself to monitor hate speech on
the Internet is unconstitutional.

Ruling in a case against Marc Lemire, webmaster of the extremist freedomsite.org,Canadian Human Rights Tribunal chairman Athanasios Hadjis concluded Sec. 13(1) violates defendants' Charter right to freedom of expression because it gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) authority to impose penalties such as fines on those it finds guilty.

Mr. Hadjis, himself a human rights lawyer, argued that while the Supreme
Court had found the section legal in 1991-- when its strongest provisions merely
compelled the complainant and defendant to mediate their differences -- since
then the addition of monetary penalties and forced apologies has amended the act
to the point where it is no longer in harmony with the Charter.

The opinion does not "strike down" the hate-speech provisions of federal
human rights law, as has been widely reported. The offensive section of the
federal rights legislation is still on the books. But as Mr. Hadjis explained "a
formal declaration of invalidity was not a remedy available" to him. All he
could do under the existing law is "simply refuse to apply these provisions for
the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire." Now it us up to Parliament to
do the right thing: Repeal Sec 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and stop
witch-hunt prosecutions by human rights investigators."

As a recent National Post editorial says:

"This is the second time in under a year that the CHRC (and by extension,
Parliament) has been told that 13(1) is inconsistent with free democratic
debate. Last year, University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon, acting as a
paid constitutional consultant, told the CHRC there was no way it could
investigate and adjudicate hate-speech complaints consistently. Therefore, they
were unable to assure the equal protection of everyone's Charter rights, so they
should stop trying."

Many members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, many newspaper editorial boards accross Canada, PEN, and even the homosexual advocacy group Egale have joined the criticism of the attacks on free speech by the Human Rights Commission. The Provincial Conservative Party in Ontario is on record as wanting to reform the Ontario Human Rights Commission if they win the next election and it will undoubtedly be an issue in the next Federal election. No politician who does not promise to abolish the HRC, or at least repeal Section 13, will ever get my vote.

A group of over-paid, under-qualified, partisan, political appointees to these quasi-legal bodies is able to persecute anyone they wish based on any complaint they wish to accept (or generate themselves) at any time. This is a travesty and a disaster for a country that wishes to remain free. It is time that conservatives and liberals who believe in free speech stand up and demand change.

NOTE: Ezra Levant is speaking in Toronto on Sat. Sept. 26. See here for details.

Ezra Levant Interviewed on TV Ontario

Here is a link to Ezra Levant's blog where he has embedded an interview he did yesterday with TV Ontario on how human rights commissions are undermining human rights. It is 18 minutes long and is an excellent interview with hard-hitting, aggressive questions by Steve Paikin and eloquent and reasonable answers by Levant.

http://ezralevant.com/2009/06/tv-ontarios-the-agenda.html

The funniest moment comes about 5 minutes in or so when Steve Paikin poses a hypothetical question to Ezra saying something to the effect of: "Just suppose you yourself were a member of an identifiable minority and you were the victim of hateful . . ." and Ezra Levant objects "But I am a member of an identifiable minority" and seeing the blank expression on Paikin's face he says "I'm Jewish!" The look on Steve Paikin's face at that point is priceless!

Paikin asks good questions and Levant gives great answers. If you are doubtful about the validity of Levant's crusade, you will find this interview hard to brush aside. (Incidentally, I can't believe something with this much substance actually was on TV. I guess things inevitably slip throught once in a while.)

Ezra Levant, Human Rights Commissions and Free Speech: Some Updates

The campaign to ban these quasi-judicial kangaroo courts and the odious censorship and arbitrary abuse of human rights that they perpetrate continues. How long will it take for Canada to reform this shocking anti-democratic wart on the body politic? Which politician(s) will end up getting credit for doing the dirty job? Which party will hold out to the end in support of this horrible example of political correctness and state power run amuck?

Here are some encouraging straws in the wind.

Ezra Levant's Opening Statement at the Alberta Human Rights Commission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8
The other parts of his 90 minute interrogation are here too; well-worth watching.

Rex Murphey on the Western Standard Cartoon Controversy (highly entertaining as well as completely right)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaQiGnR2Xw0&NR=1

Tim Hudak, Ontario PC Leader Candidate Opposes HRC (2 of 4 leadership candidates so far)
The Globe and Mail Story
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090516.ONTTORYOTTART2216/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/
Ezra's Comments From His Blog
http://ezralevant.com/2009/05/tim-hudak-proposes-to-abolish.html

Review of Shakedown by the Winnipeg Free Press (the Free Press lives up to its name)
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/entertainment/books/human-rights-commissions-called-chilling-influence-45248792.html

A good opinion piece in the May 19 The Globe and Mail by Tom Flanagan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcorights19/BNStory/specialComment/home

Ezra's book, Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, is currently at #4 on the Globe and Mail Canadian Bestseller List (hardcover). It is currently (May 19) sitting at #41 on the Amazon.ca bestseller list. At this rate Ezra might just make back the $100,000 he spent defending himself from the outrageous charges brought against him by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. I hope so. There probably will be more legal battles ahead.

I believe:
1. Freedom of speech and of the press is a non-negotiatable, fundamental human right backed by 800 years of English common law, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2. There should be no such thing as a "thought crime." The government has no business monitoring what free people think.

3. Freedom of speech means that we all will be offended sometimes by what we hear or read. It is actually everyone's duty to be offended from time to time in a democracy. It is the price we pay for freedom and part of living in a democratic society. Anyone who does not like it can lump it or move to a country that has no free speech.

4. The best way to handle racists and bigots is to argue with them, refute them, mock them and get public opinion against them. That is how democracies function. We don't need the police to interfere as long as we all do our public duty to speak out. That is why the last thing we need is a "chill" on free speech.

Levant's Movement for Human Rights Gathers Steam

This just in from the People's Republic of Canada: Ezra Levant's book Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, sits at #20 on Amazon.ca this morning. Thanks be to God! If you haven't read it, buy it before it is banned!

On his blog, he describes a non-partisan human rights event held on Parliament Hill on May 5th attended by 230 people including many from the Prime Minister's Office, at least 50 MP's and Senators including many cabinet members. Levant describes the nature of the event as being to "to give Members of Parliament, Senators and Hill staff a chance to learn more about Canada's corrupt and abusive human rights commissions, and the a pressing need for change." The event was hosted by Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin and Conservative MP, Rick Dykstra. Some Liberal and Bloc MP's were in attendance as well as Conservatives. (No mention of the NDP - I wonder why!) Listen to this next part where Ezra describes what Senator Jerry Grafstein had to say:

"Sen. Grafstein's comments were touching: he acknowledged that he had personally been involved with the creation of Canada's human rights commissions, and that he regretted their wayward course. He actually said he wished he had lost the debate decades ago. I found that quite touching -- and his criticisms of the radicals who now run the commissions was very powerful, given Sen. Grafstein's impeccable human rights credentials."

It sounds like there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. But as long as government-appointed party hacks on HRC's can fine ordinary citizens, force them to spend a fortune defending themselves against ridiculous charges in long drawn-out procedures with no time limits, order their "re-education" and compel them to shut up in public on certain issues - all for doing nothing more than exercising their right to free speech as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - we can never rest easy.

Canada's Charter has been hijacked by a well-intentioned, but poorly designed, system of Human Rights Commissions - intended as a way of helping immigrants not be denied housing and to settle low-level disputes out of court, but which have now morphed into tribunals enforcing political correctness, policing thought and taking away the right to free speech. These HRC's are the spear tip of the politically correct movement. Freedom is a precarious thing and it is clear that many people in our society hate it with a cold passion that is chilling. Ezra Levant is turning over rocks to expose what many would rather not look at. But that is exactly why we must look and not look away until the mess is cleaned up.

Some people think socialism is benign - that it means something like being nice and sharing like we learned to do in kindergarden. Such people are misty-eyed optimists with little experience of life and too gullible to be trusted with responsbilitity in the real world. The reality, as we have come to see in Canada, is quite different. Socialism is about bureaucrats in some office tower downtown telling you what you can say and what you can think and what opinion you are allowed to express in public - and they will define "public" post facto. It is about a clique of politically-correct, group-thinking civil servants, whose hold on their positions depends on their not rocking the boat, thinking that it is up to them to decide according to what moral code your children will be educated, if your church qualifies for a tax ememption or not and if you should be allowed to hold a meeting on public property or not.

In socialism, the very concept of the public changes. Rather than meaning "that which belongs to all equally" it comes to mean "that which belongs to the majority or the group in power." So students who wish to protest abortion on the University of Calgary campus can be arrested. A student group that wants to hold a prayer meeting can be forced off school property. This sort of thing exemplifies the socialist thinking that reasons: "Since we are the ones in power, public property is for our use and that of those who agree with us."

Ezra Levant is gaining a hearing for reason and common sense. It is about time someone stepped up to challenge those who threaten our basic democratic rights. He needs all the help he can get. Buy his book. Invite him to speak. Pray for him. He is a Jew but he won't mind. He knows that he needs all the help he can get in this fight.

Fundraising Dinners for Rev. Stephen Boission Legal Defence Fund

On Apr. 30, May 1 and May 2 legal defence fund-raising dinners will be held in Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton for the Rev. Stephen Boission, the pastor who is being persecuted for his faith by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (with the help of the supposedly Conservative Alberta government).

Here is a handy summary of what happened to him for sending a letter to his local newspaper criticizing the introduction of pro-homosexual propoganda into the public school system. Ezra Levant will be the speaker at all three dinners. For more information, including how to donate to the cause, go here.

Ezra Levant explains the nature of the ruling here. Rather than me trying to outline what happened to him, please read Ezra's wonderful rant. It has all kinds of links and his style is inimitable. This blog post is from last year, before Mark Steyn and MacLean's had their hearing. But the fight for free speech in Canada goes on.

If you are one of my American readers, you may not believe what you are going to read, but you need to understand that this is your future. This is what the battle to normalize homosexual behaviour and make it equivalent to marriage is all about. Homosexuality is already tolerated and has been for some time. Tolerance is so '90's. The point is not tolerance - either for homosexuality or for Christians who oppose it. The goal is a secular police state in which heretical/dissenting opinions cannot even be voiced.

Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights

This is the title of a new bestseller by Ezra Levant published by McClelland and Stewart.

For years, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its provincial counterparts have been acting as "thought police" persecuting ordinary Canadians without regard for the basic principles of Canadian law for their politically incorrect speech. But when they went after Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed cartoons in the Western Standard and then took on MacLean's Magazine for daring to publish exerpts of Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, they found they had overstepped their boundaries and the pushback they received was something they were not used to receiving. The resulting media coverage was a fire storm and brought these commissions under the spotlight for the first time. Eventually, the controversy has made this book a Canadian bestseller.

Here is a clip from the Michael Coren Show that gives you an idea of why the AHRC is now sorry they messed with Ezra Levant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv3gimI2G_A

Both Steyn and Levant eventually had their cases dropped, which is not to say they won exactly. Both had to pay legal costs to defend themselves and neither received any compensation for having been drawn through a wringer. Their cases were atypical because in 91% of these kangaroo court complaints, the target cannot afford a lawyer and the HRC does not provide legal aid. Murderers fare better in our legal system because if they cannot afford a lawyer the court appoints one for them free of charge. This is why most people settle "out of court" even though they are innocent. Its the same reason small business owners pay protection money to the mob. It's not fair, but under an unjust system it is the path of least resistance.

This is exemplified by the contrast between the case of the Calgary pastor, Rev. Stephen Boisson, who was convicted by the Alberta Commission for daring to express an anti-homosexual activity position in a letter to the Red Deer Advocate. He was fined and told never to speak against homosexuality again for the rest of his life. Ezra Levant re-published Boisson's original letter to the editor, in support of Boisson, and literally dared the HRC to charge him. They refused. Levant, who is Jewish, by the way, comments:

"That's a double standard. It's a violation of the rule of law: I shouldn't be above the law, and Reverand Boisson shouldn't be beneath it. If he's guilty, I am too. If I'm free to publish his words, he should be too. That's why this case was the perfect lab experiment: All the factors were 'controlled' except one variable - the political power of the defendant. . . 'There is only one reason for [the discrepancy in treatment]: the CHRC is anti-Christian, and thus you excuse in me what you condemn in Rev. Boisson . . . I note that the CHRC has never once prosecuted a 'hate speech' complaint against any non-Christian, though there is plenty of non-Christian bigotry in Canada. . . . But you'd rather pick on a seventy-something Catholic priest for publishing a newsletter. That's why you're letting me go - I'm not a weak, penniless Christian clergyman.'" (Shakedown, 215-6)

Thankfully, Levant and Steyn have been stirring the pot to the point where some real heat is being put on these obscene parodies of "human rights" commissions. In particular, Section 13 of the legislation on the basis of which they exist, the famous "hate speech" clause, has come in for particular concern, since it has become the basis for prosecuting thought crime.

The mentality of these folks is revealed by a statement made by Dean Steacy, the senior Section 13 hate speech investigator for the CHRC, who said "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." (Shakedown, 201) Perhaps Dean Steacy has never heard of Section 2.b. of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads in context as follows:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

These kangaroo courts are being investigated by the RCMP, the Privacy Commission and Parliament. We are still far from their abolition, but progress is being made. Details are in the book. Buy it. Read it. Make the abolition of these commissions an issue in the next Federal or Provincial election.

Here is Ezra Levant's blog: http://www.ezralevant.com/