The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Complaint dropped against Ezra Levant
According to the National Post, Syed Soharwardy has withdrawn the complaint against Ezra Levant from publishing the Muhammad cartoons. (Really? Yes, really.)
Here's the reason Soharwardy offered:
"Over the two years that we have gone through the process, I understand that most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech, that that principle is sacred and holy in our society."
Got that? Freedom of speech is sacred and holy in Canada. (He said that? Yup, he did.)
"I believe Canadian society is mature enough not to absorb the messages that the cartoons sent. Only a very small fraction of Canadian media decided to publish those cartoons."
There you have it--we are mature enough, as a society, to have freedom of speech and expression. We don't need the paternalist state to filter the media like mom filtered your TV shows and your access to MySpace. (Does that mean he won't file charges if someone posts the cartoons again? Uhm... Check with your lawyer.)
Ezra doubts Soharwardy's sincerity. He called it a "temporary tactical truce," and continued:
"I don't believe him. He thought this would be easy to do, just sic the human rights commission on me and it would be done. But I decided to fight back.
"He's hurting right now... What he's now saying he is going to do is not a true reflection of his feelings."
Saying that Soharwardy's values are "out of sync" with Canada's, Ezra plans on launching a civil suit against him to recover the hundreds of hours he spent researching his case, defending himself, and appearing before the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
It's not so difficult to see why Soharwardy is backing down. After news of the human rights complaint reached the blogosphere and the broader anglosphere (including the U.S.), Canada's speech squelching became the subject of outraged scorn and ridicule. That we even have a section 13 that would legally punish a media outlet for publishing what Ezra called "the central artefact in the largest news story at the time" way back when is in itself an offense to, let's see here, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and maybe even freedom of religion (if that is understood broadly enough to include freedom from being religious in the first place. The prohibition on depictions of Muhammad especially--and humans in general--is a religious prohibition. You are prohibited from doing it only if you are a member of a specific religion, and you want to remain in good standing with them. It is not a prohibition on atheists and Christians and deists and Buddhists, and so on.)
Dropping these charges is a good first step. Backing up Keith Martin, who had the courage to put forward a motion to eliminate section 13, is a good second step (where are the federal Tories on this? And the NDP? And the Greens? You give lip service to freedom of speech, let's see you risk some political capital on this issue.)
This battle is far from over. Until section 13 lays in the trash heap where it belongs, I'll be keeping my (figurative) powder dry. I suggest you do the same.
UPDATE: Reason magazine (my personal favourite) weighs in on the battle against the HRC in "Mandatory Niceness." As everything always is from Reason, this, too, is worth a read.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Complaint dropped against Ezra Levant:
I wonder if the fact that his "enemies" at the mosque filing charges against him had anything to do with this?
Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-02-12 8:37:07 PM
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-02-12 8:44:28 PM
Bad news. The state should be forced to fight to the end. The principle of a human rights commission should be debated.
Posted by: Tom Sawyer | 2008-02-12 9:05:59 PM
I agree with you, Tom. It *is* a shame that we won't see this tested through real courts. But I think the genie is out of the bottle--the existence of the HRC as a cap on freedom of expression is no longer an obscure regulation no one knows about. It's getting a lot of light, a lot of attention, and a lot of scorn. (There's still a wave of press coverage to come with Steyn and Maclean's squaring off against the HRC).
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-12 9:14:51 PM
The relief for me comes from the fact that public pressure had some effect on the dropping of the case. Enough of the Canadian media and public were outraged, spoke out, and showed that we will not stand for these kinds of violations of free speech.
I agree that this can't be the end, and that Sec 13 needs to be debated and ultimately removed. The issue doesn't go away now.
When the Steyn/Maclean's hearings start I hope that there is more media attention than there was for Ezra, and that even more people speak out in defence of the right to make offensive speech.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-02-12 9:24:01 PM
Principle is irrelevant, Tom. The HRC has moved from protecting black apartment tenants to squelching one of our most cherished freedoms in the name of political correctness. Indeed, it is THE freedom that is the key to all the others. The HRC's mandate should be returned to what it was originally intended to be, the rules of evidence tightened, and the existing councils sacked. They're top-heavy with untrained ideologues.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-12 9:32:31 PM
Cross-posted at SDA.
I do not think this is necessarily a good thing. Like Ezra, I was expecting the HRC to find guilty; Ezra would then take the case to a real court and win. The win would then be used to support the government in making changes. Harper, et.al. may still make the required changes/extinction to the HRC but it would be easier with the decision of a real court.
The left knows how to play these games too. To use a baseball analogy, they decided to walk Ezra rather than letting him hit the ball out of the park with bases loaded.
Good move on Ezra's part to launch the civil action. Man, do I ever enjoy a good game of chess. :)
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-02-12 9:44:04 PM
It is not right that he be allowed to pull out midway through well after the official investigation began, to nothing of all the time and money the accused has been forced to use. I see two things at play here.
Perhaps the public outrage finally started to sink in for one, but I also suspect a ploy to deflect attention away from the private member's bill and possibly any attempt to dismantle these kangaroo tribunals. The old ploy that once they return to the shadows, they can continue without public concern.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-12 10:38:59 PM
Or perhaps the same lawyer that Soharwardy hired to send Levant a letter demanding a withdrawal of defamatory statements published on his website and an apology persuaded Soharwardy that his chances were better if sued for libel in the civil courts than if he proceeded with his dodgy human rights complaint.
We shall see if there is more to this than a letter. If there is, I like his chances far better than Ezra's chances of prevailing in his threatened abuse of process tort claim against Soharwardy and the AHRC.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-12 10:40:12 PM
This is a victory, but only a small victory of a long war. We need to reestablish our right to freedom of expression as inalienable. It is our right as Canadian citizens. The state should fight this through; a complaint has been made, the process has started. Let's expose this idiocy in court.
Just because Mr. Soharwardy realizes he's going to lose the case is no reason to let this drop off the political radar.
Posted by: Ori Rubin | 2008-02-12 10:46:39 PM
From the moment Soharwardy filed the complaint, he had the power to withdraw it. Once he does so - and Levant claims he hasn't -- the matter is over, since the dispute between him and the Western Standard is resolved.
I understand your confusion, since both Peter (through his use of the misleading term "charge") and Ezra (through his careless or wilful misrepresenation about human rights processes) appears to have led folks like you to believe this is like a criminal proceeding. It's not.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-12 10:55:59 PM
get your facts straight...
Ezra ha never led anyone to believe this is a criminal proceeeding
Although he was treated like one!
Posted by: Paul | 2008-02-12 11:16:38 PM
get your facts straight...
Ezra ha never led anyone to believe this is a criminal proceeeding
Although he was treated like one!
Posted by: Paul | 2008-02-12 11:16:41 PM
And yet, curiously, Mr. Jaworski, who appears to be no dummy, understood the complaint to a "a charge".
Ezra may not have said this is a criminal proceeding, but that's not what I said he did. I said that his distortions led people to believe it was LIKE a criminal proceedings.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-12 11:33:00 PM
I changed the title, and the reference to "charges." You're right, this isn't a criminal proceeding, and I should have been aware of that. Didn't mean to perpetuate that misunderstanding.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-13 12:00:29 AM
I am glad to hear Ezra will be launching the civil suit. That should make interesting ongoing reading, and should make others think twice before making complaints to "human rights" commissions.
Posted by: Karen Selick | 2008-02-13 4:01:31 AM
I smell a rat in all of this. All Government departments and Agencies operate in a murky and arcane fashion in order to protect their turf. If the HRC found in the complainants favour, there would be outrage, further bringing more criticism on them. If they dismissed the complaint they would be losing their previously perfect score of a 100% "conviction" rate.
Either way, it would look bad for them. I'm not a conspiracy nut but, could it just be that Sorharwardy was encouraged by the HRC to withdraw the complaint for some future consideration?
he HRC saves face, the heat is taken off them and the Muzzie lives to fight another day.
Posted by: atric | 2008-02-13 5:39:02 AM
Maybe Mr. Levant can sue Mr. Soharwardy for libeling him with a public complaint of 'hate speech'.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-13 6:32:28 AM
This complaint was before the Alberta HRC. Of the four cases that have gone to hearing since the legislation was introduced more than a decade ago the "conviction" rate, as you incorrectly call it, is 75% ( or 50% because one was overturned on appeal and sent back to the HRC for rehearing but the Western Report went out of biz before the rehearing)
He has no cause of action. If anyone has abused the process it's Levant with his little You Tube stunt.
Posted by: Nbob | 2008-02-13 6:39:28 AM
I tend to agree with those who say Soharwardy shouldn't have been allowed to just withdraw the complaint without penalty.
While it may be false that Ezra was "charged" because the terminology isn't legally correct, it's certainly far more serious than a civil proceeding if the state takes on the role for the complainant and shouldn't be dismissed offhand - there are a lot of levels of "bad" between having someone think you're a jerk and being charged.
In a criminal trial the state takes on the case for you for the good of society. If you were to go "Oh, just kidding - I wasn't really afraid the defendant was going to try to kill me," then there would be some sort of recourse - that's why public mischief is a crime.
In civil proceedings you can just pull out, but you also have to pay your way to file a complaint in the first place, and, akin to public mischief, you'd have to pay for the costs you've incurred on the defendant and society by wasting the court's time because it's believed to be better for the court system if you're not able to just rack up costs against someone by suing them without cause.
For this reason, I certainly do hope that Ezra's legal action has legs, and I think it should.
Posted by: Janet | 2008-02-13 7:01:39 AM
Oh I forgot to mention - in 3 out of the 4 cases the complainant had carriage of the matter not the state. The one that the state (the Director) had carriage of was the only one dismissed by the tribunal.
Most times when a civil suit is withdrawn it's done "without costs"
Posted by: Nbob | 2008-02-13 7:08:47 AM
Gotta agree with Janet. The Alberta taxpayers are on the line for the costs of this nuisance complaint.
Posted by: Anne | 2008-02-13 9:52:53 AM
Nbob.. that "little Youtube stunt" as you call it was the brilliant light of clarity shining on a cockroaches' nest of ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy.
Thank you Ezra Levant!
Posted by: Lori | 2008-02-13 10:01:19 AM
The HRC thugs are used to everyone caving in to their bully tactics. I'm sure they regret going after Hurricane Levant.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-13 11:52:49 AM
...(if that is understood broadly enough to include freedom from being religious in the first place. The prohibition on depictions of Muhammad especially--and humans in general--is a religious prohibition. You are prohibited from doing it only if you are a member of a specific religion, and you want to remain in good standing with them. It is not a prohibition on atheists and Christians and deists and Buddhists, and so on.)
Quite an "IF' there. Like many religions (including various Christian ones) there may not be a "prohibition" against the acts of non-members, but being a non-member is itself prohibited or punished. Some sects still go further than others (for the moment a couple of Islamic sects are in the forefront, but bear in mind the 200-or-so members of the Phelps family cult), even unto declaring non-followers to be also non-human who may be treated as beasts - including killing them.
This must be resisted/fought but alas will take time, and bear in mind that Eurocentric/Anglosphere societies have only fairly recently outlawed some of the practices which used to be lawful - or even law, such as executing [male] homosexuals.
Posted by: teqjack | 2008-02-13 12:05:16 PM
If anything, the fact a human rights complaint can be summarily withdrawn in this fashion only adds to the by parts farcical, by parts despicable nature of these kangaroo proceedings. If Mr. Levant was accused of a criminal act it would be the Crown pressing charges; the offense would be against the sovereign as opposed to the individual.
The matter was supposed to concern "human rights", not the perceive offense of one individual. If all Muslims were potentially to be held in hatred and contempt as a result of publishing the cartoons the fact this particular complainant has changed his mind should be irrelevant. The fact he has the power to summarily suspend this farce of justice suggests the only rational response on Mr. Levant's part is to sue.
More important, until this section of the act is removed there is nothing to stop anyone - you, me, some other offended Muslim - from making the same complaint on the same basis against Mr. Levant and anyone else choosing to report the facts.
Posted by: Flea | 2008-02-13 1:46:24 PM
Why does Levant have to keep going (e.g., lawsuit, etc.)?
The German language has an apt saying:
Der Klügere gibt nach, und der Esel fliegt in den Bach.
Translation (literal): The smarter one (Soharwardy) gives in, while the ass (Levant) falls into the river (and drowns).
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2008-02-13 1:53:53 PM
Werner: Ezra is carrying on because it isn't merely about the complaint lodged against him, it's about the HRC as a whole.
He views victory as elimination (at the very least) of section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Getting the complaint dropped against him was not his battle. If you watch the YouTube videos, you'll see this plain-as-day.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-13 2:17:42 PM
Just a friendly clarification: The case against The Western Standard was brought under section 3(1)(b) of Alberta's Human Rights, Citizenship and Multicultural Act. Martin's motion deals with section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is the section that Macleans is being pursued under. Same issue, different level of government, different legislation.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-13 2:24:45 PM
Nbob: "Most times when a civil suit is withdrawn" the opposing parties agree with each other not to ask for costs. This is either because the dispute is settled or because it's not worth the trouble of filing for costs. However, where an action has been brought maliciously, solely for the purpose of harassment, the party who's had to incur costs will sue for them, or bring a separate suit for mailicious prosecution. (Here in the U.S., it has become obligatory for a lawyer or party to sign a statement that his or her action has not been brought for "frivolous" (i.e. unsupported) accusations.)
Soharwady has basically confessed that, after thinking about it, he saw that there were no legal grounds for his claim. To the extent that he caused Levant to waste time and money to defend himself from an unsupportable claim, he should compensate Levant for all damage done.
Posted by: johnbrown | 2008-02-13 2:24:51 PM
"If anyone has abused the process it's Levant with his little You Tube stunt."
That "little you Tube stunt" annoyed people like you, apparently. If this process is so admirable, why do you want it hidden? Only cockroaches fear the light.
BTW, judging by the number of viewers, it wasn't a little stunt.
As always, the whining of the losers proves the significance of the victory.
And i wouldn't attempt to match legal wits with lawyer karen sellick, if i were you.
Posted by: chris rune | 2008-02-13 3:02:06 PM
If Ezra doesn't fight back, what is the overall effect?
Soharwardy gets away with bringing a nuisance complaint against someone and walks away scott-free. Levant spends x amount of time and money fighting the complaint and... what? He just eats it? Are you suggesting it would have been better not to spend any time or money defending his rights?
What would you do in the same place? Would you fight or just accept the punishment handed down by McGovern and her ilk? Either way, it's going to cost you money. How much money would it need to cost you before you decided to fight back?
You, as a blogger, should be particularly thankful to Ezra. Sooner or later, Werner (and truewest), they'll come for you. Maybe you mentioned the cartoons of Muhammad and forgot to add the "peace be upon him" bit. If you're lucky, Ezra's actions will have seeded the changes that mean you won't be forced to spend your retirement savings defending yourself from this abomination of justice.
Posted by: Rob R | 2008-02-13 3:04:39 PM
Maybe now Levant will fade back into the oblivion he so richly deserves.
Posted by: trudeau's ghost | 2008-02-13 5:48:06 PM
The withdrawal of the complaint may function to deny Ezra standing to challenge the Alberta statute on Charter grounds. The Zundel case demonstrated to pro-censorship folks that - to preserve censorship - one must not fight those who have the means to challenge it (the Zundel case is the one that ended with the Supreme Court of Canada concluding that the False News provisions of the Criminal Code were in violation of the Charter, hence were not enforceable).
Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2008-02-13 6:57:24 PM
Cheer up. According to Ezra, there is a parallel complaint that is proceeding, so assuming that it a) gets to hearing and b) Ezra takes a dive or botches it, he may yet get his chance to bring a Charter challenge. Which he will lose (see Canada v. Taylor,  3 S.C.R. 892, which upheld a similar provision).
And if he brings an abuse of process suit, he'll probably lose that too. Given that human rights law is designed to encourage settlement and withdrawal of claims, as well as to educate the parties on the concept of human rights, it seems unlikely that a court is going to punish someone for having a change of heart about filing a complaint. If Ezra sues, he'll be throwing good money after bad.
BTW, anyone care to explain how Ezra managed to spend close to $100,000 on a human rights complaint that, if it was as flawed as he claims, he could have answered with a letter that would have taken a lawyer (even one as modestly talented as Ezra) about one hour to write? Or is the problem that Ezra has trouble with numbers (see his estimate that this complaint cost $500,000 to investigate or, for that matter, the dazzling financial success of the Western Standard.)
Actually, the problem is that this isn't about the complaint or about human rights law or even about free speech. This is all about shameless self-promotion, about promoting the Ezra brand.
if you were nbob, then nbob wouldn't know dick about the law and would think that Karen Selick is Clarence Darrow reincarnate. However, nbob is nbob and knows the law and likely understands that Selick is just another lawyer with a typewriter and a libertarian agenda. If he wants to "match legal wits" with her, I'll happily hold his coat.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-13 8:42:58 PM
Such a legal expert as trueleft must work for Crown Council. When I see such pretentious rot trying to pass for legal expertise, I feel like throwing up.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-13 8:56:03 PM
So if I understand you correctly, the truth makes you want to vomit? Gee, that must be tough.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-13 9:31:57 PM
Well, one of the reasons for dropping this complaint could be the threats he and his family could be facing.Ezra's bogus and ridiculous comments on the imam has forced the community around him to think of Mr Suharwardy as a radical extremist who is just creating a tension. Frankly, Mr Suharwardy should have filed a law suit agaianst Ezra demanding to have his publishing shut down and a public apology on insulting the Prophet of Islam and what he represented. This compalint shouldnt have taken this long to be handled in the first place, and Edmonton Muslim Council should just pursue theirs until a verdict is acheived. As Canadians, we should look at the big picture. The immigration laws of this country clearly state that residents of CANADA have a right to practise their religion and Canada provides protection and respect to those rights. What Ezra did was an offence not just to the muslims but to Canada, its citizens and the MOJO of this country i.e "RESPECT".
Posted by: Sumaiya | 2008-02-13 9:58:44 PM
Hey truewest while yer holding my coat could ya send it out for dry cleaning ? I was at a Flames game couple a weeks ago and got mustard all over it - can't seem to get it out.
As for the abuse of process claim - given that the process is designed to encourage settlement and withdraw and given ( I suspect ) when the HRC asked him if he'd be interested in a conciliation session with the complainant Levant responded with a PFO - I doubt he'll find much favour from a court when he refused an opportunity to have the matter resolved much earlier.
Posted by: Nbob | 2008-02-13 10:11:46 PM
Sumaiya: I'd have to disagree. He printed cartoons..he didn't even mention that Mohammed was a pedophile, who consummated his wedding to a 6 year old when she was 9.(Mighty nice of him to wait until she was mature, eh?)
Cartoons...muslims were rioting around the world over cartoons. People wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Turns out they weren't even all that exciting...but muslims killed people because of it. What does that tell you?
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-02-13 10:20:31 PM
I'm afraid the constitution doesn't guarantee anyone - or any religion - respect, not even the Prophet of Islam. And while defamation law provides protection for reputations, only the living can avail themselves of its protection.
Which means that while yr Prophet is S.O.L., Suharwardy might have a decent defamation claim against Levant.
Given that libel suits are Ezra's preferred method of supressing free speech, it would be kind of poetic if he ended up in the defendant's seat in this one.
Posted by: Truewest | 2008-02-13 10:21:55 PM
Prophet Muhammed wed that girl 1500 years ago and at that time that was the culture. Coming to teh point,its all about what those "CARTOONS" represented. Every religion,nation and ethnic group has an extreme side to it. What muslims did around the world was definitely wrong and unjustifiable . But my point stands only within Canada. Imagine a situation where a muslim prints a cartoon of Jesus Christ with a gun in his hand pointing towards Iraq etc etc. The agony will be undefinable.
Posted by: Sumaiya | 2008-02-13 10:32:09 PM
I agree a little with the second part of your comment that since the prophet is not in this world, Suharwardy doesnt have a right to stand up for his integrity. Consider this, if a prominent preacher of any religion dies, does that means that the world is free to make a mockery out of him/her? Absolutely not!!.Religions are based upon beliefs, if people dont agree they shouldnt attempt to twist them. If muslims nowadays are radical and extremists , they are not true muslims.Thats not what the religion tells them to do. Quite honestly, that danish cartoonist should have done some research before making his "work of art!!"..
Posted by: Sumaiya | 2008-02-13 10:49:17 PM
in law - or at least in defamation law -- only the living have reputations So your prominent preacher can sue if he's still drawing breath, but as soon as he shuffles off this mortal coil, his name is fair game. Unless he incorporates a company bearing his name (but I digress).
as for beliefs, everyone has 'em and has the right to them, but nobody has the right to protection from having those beliefs challenged or even disrespected. It's part of the rough and tumble of western society.
The prohibition here doesn't concern disrepect or even giving offence; it concerns hate speech, speech designed to ostracize and marginalize a group based on race, religion, etc. Now, as we've seen, one man's hate speech is another man's (or woman's) telling the truth about those damn (fill in the blank) who've been ruining things since they got here and should be rounded up and shot, deported, etc. These things can get complicated.
If it's any consolation, your not the first religious or racial minority to have to put up with this. the Catholics, Jews, Hindus and Jehovahs Witnesses have all had their day in the crosshairs (and let's not even get started on the Doukhabors) and most of them seem to have survived. Think of it as a hazing from the members of the remedial reading class of Canadian society. It may sting now, but this too shall pass. Unlike the members of the remedial reading class.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-13 11:22:24 PM
If some people in the remedial reading class are willing to pay 100 G's for a 90 minute interview I'd say the math skills are also a little lacking.
sorta funny that the "collateral" purpose that Levant's hanging his abuse of process action upon is an attempt to " shut him up" yet withdrawing the complaint might wind up silencing him some what.
and while we're at it - since the HRC can actually issue a cease and desist type order to silence him where's the collateral purpose? Any cause of action would have to be founded on malicious prosecution ( btw - that'll be $ 20,000 for the legal opinion, thanks )
Posted by: Nbob | 2008-02-14 12:59:25 AM
Glad to see another blow to the term, political correctness, in the name of losing our freedoms, because of some groups ideologies, that don't like our culture. We are all Canadian let it remain that way. Good Win!!!
By the way wasn't Mahammed around 1500 years ago
did he leave any portrates or photos so we can see if there are any similarities to this cariacture, for all I know this could be just another person of peace with wierd turban on its head.
Posted by: Concerned Calgarian | 2008-02-14 9:08:32 AM
Sorry for a late reply , I am actually at the east coast.
Perhaps you didnt understand where i am coming from. I am speaking as a Canadian.A Canadian who converted to Islam only few yrs ago. And this is not about just Islam. As you said this has happened to other religions as well, while it shouldnt. This kind of INDIRECT CRITICSM tells the world what a poorly cultured soceity we are living in. Its not about the rough and tumble, its about being understandable to people who are a part of your nation , who are contributing the same way to the soceity as you are. This has gone from hate speech to hate media and a prejudiced soceity.Numerous muslims and other immigrants migrate to Canada every year, and you and I both know that they get so crushed under the economic burden of this country everything else stays behind. If a black or white activist raises voice agaianst hatred its freedom of speech , whereas if a brown person does the same and god forbid if he's a muslim he's supposed to get his ___ kicked and deported... dude you need to reconsider....
People survive regardless. A few pricks cannot force people to give away their faith. But the anger and depression it creates , you and I both know where it ends up.
I used to think the same way, but before giving a verdict a judge has to go through the evidence.No where in Islam does it says that be a suicide bomber or kill people or inflict violence.Current radicaled situation of muslims is a result of political and economic crisis upon them. Hey 1/3 of the muslim countries are fightinga war thay they didnt waged.People need to understand this before they attack on anyone.Even canadians who convert to other religions are victims of this atrocity. When an immigrant comes to canada he/she knows what they are walking into.. mind you many of them leave if they realize they are not welcome. But the ones who stay are the ones following norms of the soceity. This is a land of 100 religions,people have a right to practise their idealogies in their own manner without hurting anyone.No one has to answer the world about what they do in their boundary. If that was the story, there wouldnt be any temples, churches or mosques in Canada.As for your question no there are no pictures of Prophet Mohammed.
Posted by: Sumaiya | 2008-02-14 11:22:51 AM
Ezra Levant is nothing but a stupid idiot guy. Who dosent even believe on any thing. He forgot he will have a very very very miserabele life you will see.If you dont want to agree with me you dont have to becuz i dont even give a damn.
Posted by: Ali | 2008-02-14 3:35:24 PM
Well said Ali. I'd like to see what it sounds like in English. You're the reason the Islamic culture has gone steadily backwards since 1099.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-14 4:04:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.