The Shotgun Blog
« The HRC on Trial, Part 2 | Main | Daniel Ortega endorses Barack Obama »
Friday, February 15, 2008
Soharwardy: "Why I'm withdrawing my human rights complaint against Ezra Levant"
Syed Soharwardy, the Imam who initially filed the complaint against Ezra Levant for publishing the Muhammad cartoons in the Western Standard, has had a very serious change of heart. He is withdrawing the complaint, and has decided to make his reasons known in a Globe and Mail op-ed published today.
The whole thing is worth reading, although here is a choice excerpt:
"Having no previous experience with any human rights commission, I was unaware of the ongoing debate about whether such commissions should have narrower or broader mandates, or of the doubts many Canadians have about whether such commissions are the right venue in which to argue questions about hate speech.
"Subsequent discussions with several Muslim leaders, and more particularly with some of my Christian and Jewish friends, have led me to conclude that my complaint was beyond what I now believe should be the mandate of such a commission. I now am of the view that this matter should have been handled in the court of public opinion.
"Consequently, I am withdrawing my complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Mr. Levant's right to publish the offensive and hateful drawings.
"I believe his decision was irresponsible and was intended to cause strife, but I now appreciate that it may not fall outside the limits of free speech."
And he's extending an olive branch to Ezra, who is pursuing a legal case against Soharwardy for abuse of process:
"Which leads me to an offer to Ezra Levant: We clearly disagree about the cartoons; but I'm willing to sit down with you and discuss it.
"And if you really believe the central issue is that human rights commissions have over-broad mandates, then that is an issue on which we may now be able to converge."
Ezra's response to Soharwardy's piece?:
"Soharwardy has spent two years trying to have the Calgary Police Service arrest me, and the human rights commissions condemn me. What's happened instead is that he himself has been exposed as a tin-pot fascist -- and he's rekindled a national rededication to the idea of freedom of speech and the separation of mosque and state. That's why he's changed course, and is opting for a PR strategy. I know it's not a halal metaphor, but you just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 15, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5504c35738833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Soharwardy: "Why I'm withdrawing my human rights complaint against Ezra Levant":
Comments
More proof religion trumps our laws in Ontario with the HRC Commissars. A turban wearer who drives a motorcycle without a helmet is exempt from the laws that "everyone" must wear a helmet.
As long as we have such exemptions, we are not all equal before and under the law. Some are more equal than others.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-02-15 7:08:13 AM
Ezra's evaluation that the letter is disingenuous seems accurate to me.
I wonder whether the HRC complaints brought against Mr. Soharwardy by two women in his mosque had anything to do with alerting him to the fact that when it comes to Human Rights Commissions, the sword can cut both ways.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080118/CULTURE/225250584/1015
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-02-15 7:54:58 AM
Soharwardy is shit and Ezra flushed him. I donated to the cause long ago and Ezra is welcome to keep the money. I am sure he is still well out of pocket on this effort.
Sue the bastards and prosper Ezra.
We like our freedom to bitch, it's just about the only one we have left.
Posted by: John West | 2008-02-15 9:37:08 AM
No where in his statement does Mr. Cowardly
even hint at an apology to Ezra.
This guy NOW wants to talk?
Can anyone imagine the riots a You Tube debate would cause if Ezra called his bluff and wiped the floor with Mr. Cowardly?
It would make the re-rioting over the same cartoons currently occuring in Denmark look like a Sunday walk in the park.
But sue his sorry butt first.
Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-02-15 9:37:47 AM
The time has come to expose a myth: THIS COMPLAINT HAS COST EZRA NOTHING IN LEGAL FEES. In a court proceeding, one needs a lawyer, in fact, one really must have a lawyer. But there are lots of interactions with government that one can have that are not court proceedings and where lawyers are not only not needed, they are not allowed. A human rights investigation is one such place. You will recall that Ezra bringing a lawyer to his meeting with Shirlene McGovern was not only unusual, but the lawyer was not even a part of the proceeding at all.
Now Ezra can consult lawyers about this if he likes. He can spend a thousand hours with hundreds of lawyers if he chooses, but the question of costs incurred is one of whether any of that legal consultation was REQUIRED of him, or whether it was just his CHOICE. If I don't like how my taxes have been assessed, I can meet with government representatives to deal with the issue. But whether I want to talk to a lawyer about it is up to me. I am not required to do so. If I want to go to a city hall meeting and express opposition to a new proposed law that affects me, I can talk to a lawyer first, but there is no requirement that I do so, so the decision is up to me.
What if Ezra had never hired a lawyer at all? What if he spent no money at all on legal fees? Well, everything that has happened so far would have been the same. In fact, other than the one hour Ezra spent scolding Shirlene McGovern, none of Ezra's time has even been taken in dealing with this matter. If he had given less long-winded diatribes, it would have been less time. So he is out of pocket nothing but lawyer's fees he decided he wanted to incur.
If Ezra was so convinced that the matter should be one for the courts - where there are lawyers and the rules of proceedure that he prefers - then he could have refused to meet with Shirlene McGovern and waited until a judgment came against him and THEN hired a lawyer and appealed the case to a court of law. Only then would he actully have the grounds for claiming he incurred costs other than ones of his own choosing. Why didn't he do that? because when Ezra sees an opportunity to grandstand, he takes it. His appearance before Shirlene McGovern was grandstanding and his new legal action is the same. It is not about changing free speech laws. It's about self-promotion. So far, that campaign has gone very well.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-15 9:58:11 AM
KK
That's some very serious and sad shit you just posted. No, I am not offended, but your obsession
with "faggots" and your suggestion that they are purposely plotting to infect the general population with HIV is quite revealing. Please tell me it was just an attempt at satire.
Posted by: atric | 2008-02-15 9:58:50 AM
Fact Check-
While you may be technically correct in stating he didn't need a lawyer, I believe any prudent person would retain one even if it was to serve as a witness to the goings-on during the interrogation.He stated that he would pursue
legal remedies should the HRC find against him.
Only a fool would do that without adequate representation. You may not like the man but to nit-pick this issue is just plain silly.
Posted by: atric | 2008-02-15 10:24:32 AM
"Now Ezra can consult lawyers about this if he likes. He can spend a thousand hours with hundreds of lawyers if he chooses, but the question of costs incurred is one of whether any of that legal consultation was REQUIRED of him, or whether it was just his CHOICE."
Most sane people would think it prudent to CHOOSE to have a LAWYER present when you're SUMMONED to appear before a STATE-SANCTIONED INVESTIGATION into your THOUGHTS.
Sure, you're not REQUIRED to, strictly speaking, but if you're not MENTALLY RETARDED, you'll CHOOSE to RETAIN COUNSEL.
"..he could have refused to meet with Shirlene McGovern and waited until a judgment came against him and THEN hired a lawyer..."
Perhaps Ezra felt like NOT ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE RAILROADED by the kangaroo court and the complainant, you know, FIGHTING BACK.
Mind you, I can see how somebody who thinks fighting back is BAD and NEVER REQUIRED would find it odd that somebody else who is ACTUALLY UNDER ATTACK might FEEL DIFFERENTLY.
A liberal is somebody who has nothing at stake, at the moment.
Posted by: Darrell | 2008-02-15 10:27:25 AM
atric and Darrell,
You both agree with me on the key point: Ezra was not required to hire a lawyer and doing so was his own choice. That means that he has no case against Soharwardy. Seeking compensation for legal fees is something you can do if brought to a civil or criminal court because there you need a lawyer. They are sometimes called "court costs". Well, court costs don't include every expenditure you choose to make, only the ones you must make. Ezra is asking for money he did not need to spend. He has no real costs. He just has a need for the spotlight.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-15 10:57:15 AM
In to-day's Calgary Herald:
Human rights complainant attacked in her home
Pair used ruse to enter woman's house
Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, February 15, 2008
Calgary police are investigating an assault on one of three women who recently launched a human rights complaint against a local Muslim leader.
Police are looking for two people who pushed their way into the Coral Spring Mews N.E. home of Robina Butt about 3 p.m. Wednesday.
Const. Paban Dhaliwal said a man and a woman knocked on the door of Butt's home, and when questioned, identified themselves as members of the press.
When Butt opened the door, the couple forced their way into the home, pushing Butt against the wall a number of times and producing a weapon.
Dhaliwal said the victim did not recognize the intruders.
He said the woman was fully covered in a dark burka and was wearing black gloves. The male suspect is described as of East Indian descent, about 45 years old with a short moustache, five feet nine with a slim build and wearing blue jeans, a light shirt and black jacket.
Butt's husband, Najeeb, said his wife was badly shaken by the attack, suffering a number of cuts to her hand as well as bumps and bruises.
"There were some neighbourhood kids coming home from school who were talking outside. We think the attackers might have thought they were coming to our house, so they ran off," said Najeeb Butt.
Robina Butt and two other Calgary women filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in late December against Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.
The complaint alleges they were subjected to abusive language and threats during a Nov. 11 meeting at the Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, where Soharwardy also serves as imam.
Soharwardy has denied all allegations in the human rights complaint.
Butt said he's convinced Wednesday's attack was not random.
Butt said the male attacker told his wife, "We come from Al-Madinah; if you ever talk anything about Al-Madinah . . . this is the first instalment."
When contacted by the Herald on Thursday evening, Soharwardy said no one from the Al-Madinah Centre would be involved in such a violent incident.
"We are law-abiding people. We had nothing to do with this. I condemn this attack absolutely, and I urge the police to do everything to find the people who were involved in this and bring them to justice."
Posted by: bocanut | 2008-02-15 11:05:53 AM
I'm confident Ezra has thought this through and wisely obtained legal counsel (in addition to his own legal training) early in this fight.
I've been involved in this type of adventure "both ways" i.e. (a) passing the hat around our small group and hiring a fresh out of law school kid (to fumble the court appearance against a city-paid lawyer representing a sitting city official who absolutely violated our State election procedures); and (b) passing the hat around BIG TIME and then hiring a top notch law firm and taking on the entire State government, through three levels of court proceedings and kicking the State's (two Governors) asses in court on the HUGE money issue AND getting ALL of our legal costs reimbursed (ten years of litigation of the $400.00 per hour flavor)!
I hope-expect that Ezra can still utilize the Western Standard entity as the litigant and thus HE can also bill every minute of his time, pursuing this VITAL issue of freedom of Speech and thought against both this screw ball "victim" of hurt feelings, AND the Human Rights Commission complex-monstrocity which spawned him.
The neat thing about it is, when you are right from the start, and you fight, you win. Big time!
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-02-15 11:06:07 AM
Karol, please express yourself with a more respectful tone. It is one thing to be a critic of the gay lifestyle; it's another thing to use this type of inflamatory language. No subject is off limits, no perspectives are taboo - but we must engage in civil discussions on this site. I understand that dicussions get heated and real differences exist even among like minds, but we need to try to govern ourselves as gentlemen and ladies. Thank you.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-02-15 12:45:52 PM
Matthew Johnston -
I've read comments from Karol for quite awhile and have thereby been regularly informed of facts that ARE NOT reported (elsewhere), yet impact innumerable lives (among vulunerable populations, i.e. children).
Clever use of language is sort of an accelerant for mental activity and argumentation, which I think Karol uses temperately and well.
U.S. Navy guys call U.S. Coast Guardsmen, "brown water sailors" (since the Coast Guard has significant responsiblity for security in navigable rivers and harbors, etc.). There are all sorts of dirisive terms, such as "sexual deviants" which are precisely accurate English language usage, but may also "hurt feelings" of the group under discussion.
Let's not act like "girls" (e.g. U.S. Marine Corps lingo - pre Clinton), or at least, please keep tabs on the direction your previous readers were heading when last seen on this blog (e.g. so that I can follow).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-02-15 1:52:01 PM
Conrad-USA, the gratuitous use of the word "faggot" and the accusation that these "faggots" are deliberately trying to poison the blood supply simply goes too far.
Karol has a lot to say, and socially conservative views will always be well represented here. Like you, I hope he continues to comment on this website.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-02-15 3:04:12 PM
I agree with Johnson as evidenced in my post of 9:58:50
Karol, you do a disservice to yourself and your cause when you use such inflammatory language to make a point. Had you presented it in a more moderate fashion with regards to descriptives, I might well have agreed with you to some extent.
When you continued to use the word "faggot" over and over again, I lost interest in your message.
To me, it quite frankly came across as a screed by someone who is morbidly obsessed with this issue to an unhealthy extent.
I wasn't trying to chide you for using such language but rather to advise you that you are not doing yourself or your cause any good by using such inflammatory language. How you express yourself is your personal privilege however I found it uncalled for and am certainly not impressed with either you or your presentation.
Posted by: atric | 2008-02-15 3:50:56 PM
Technically, Fact Check, isn't it true that *all* legal cases are ones where you have a choice to hire counsel? You can always, like Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, represent yourself.
So are you claiming that "abuse of process" litigation is all of it, every instance, bunk? In every case, the accused isn't required to have an attorney.
Surely, that can't be right.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-15 4:02:09 PM
Fact Checker. You are right that it's rare to award defendant's legal fees as costs. Having said that, it does happen when the complaint in frivolous and/or it is clear legal action was used to intimidate someone.
In this case, the complaint was dropped, and IMO the complaint was intimidation pure and simple. Mr Soharwardy tried to have him arrested and turned to this forum when the stupidity of that approach was revealed.
Faced with the entire power and money of HRC, Levant was smart to get a lawyer. If you are sued by someone in civil court (not small claims), you likely would get a laywer to represent you. At least the plaintiff would have to pay for their own lawyer rather than having the state provide one. If the suit was ridiculous and thrown out immediately, you would be within your rights to demand legal fees as costs.
Posted by: Shamrock | 2008-02-15 4:29:37 PM
Jaws: "Technically, Fact Check, isn't it true that *all* legal cases are ones where you have a choice to hire counsel? You can always, like Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, represent yourself."
I considered addressing the fact that one can represent oneself in a court of law if one chooses, but decided not to. But since you ask....
(1) The technical answer is I'm not sure you always have a choice. Certainly a criminal defendant with little legal knowledge who asked to represent himself would at least be strongly discouraged, but I believe sometimes the request to represent oneself is not allowed by courts (if for no other reason that to preclude an appeal on grounds of inadequate representation). In addition, I believe that it has happened at least some times that criminal defendants with legal expertise have not been allowed to represent themselves if it means, for example, letting them cross examine an alleged victim of a violent or sexual crime (and especially if the victim is a child). So technically, no, you don't always have a choice.
(2) The less technical answer is that the tradition of allowing victims of frivilous legal actions to seek recovery of legal costs is one that is intimiately connected to situations where the proceeding has been ion a criminal or civil court. The costs of legal consultation in other circumstances are not recoverable. Many posters here continue to talk about Ezra's case as if it were a criminal or civil court proceeding, but it isn't. So to assume that the same right to recoup legal fees applies is a mistake. He didn't make a court appearance. He was not charged with a crime. If he talked to lawyers, it might have been a good idea, but it was not something either de facto required by the process.
It also might be worth pointing out that the costs he claims he incurred in legal fees reflects more his affluence than his situation. Had Ezra been a dirt poor letter-to-the editor writer who was being charged, he would (at most) have hired a lawyer for a simple consultation. That he could hire expensive lawyers for many many hours of work reflects not his need, but his ability to afford it. So his claim of real loss is quite exaggerated. He chose to hire all those lawyers.
Which leads to a final point: Ezra is a lawyer. What kind of expertise did he lack that he really needed to hire anyone? Surely he could figure out for himself all he needed to know to prepare his one hour rant. In fact, he even says that doing so was against his counsel's advice. I am not a lawyer and I was able to figure that much out.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-15 7:02:38 PM
It seems that you still havn't figured out that satisfying your juvenile need for attention by posing ridiculous arguments and statements about Ezra is transparent.
Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-02-15 7:57:56 PM
Peter,
An abuse of process claim requires, among other things, evidence that the plaintiff brought the action for an improper collateral purpose. It's a high bar in any case. It is by no means clear that it is available in relation to a complaint brought before a body, like the HRC, that is designed to mediate and adjudicate claims by legally unsophisticated parties, that is charged with educating the public about human rights and that frequently resolves cases by persuading the complainant to withdraw the complaint.
In short, I think Ezra's blowing smoke here. And even if he weren't, his claim would be limited by the fact that a reasonably competent lawyer would have advised him to write a letter to the HRC explaining that he published the cartoons to show his readers what all the fuss was about. The cost of such a letter, assuming it was written by counsel: $300. If Ezra did indeed spend tens of thousands of dollars, it was legally unnecessary, and the money was spent for the purpose of either a) fighting some quixotic campaign against the HRC or b) raisig his profile in the conservative schoolyard. In neither case is that money recoverable as damages.
Personally, I doubt he spent nearly that much (just as I doubt his estimate that the HRC spent $500,000 investigating this matter). In my opinion, those numbers are inflated solely to make this little putz look like a big putz and to secure more donations from the schmucks who see Ezra as a hero. To anybody without an ax to grind, it is clear that Ezra's a shameless glory seeker who, when faced with the offer of compromise, rages against the dying (spot)light and flings epithets at the party seeking an end to hostilities.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-15 8:16:09 PM
Truewest said
"To anybody without an ax to grind, it is clear that Ezra's a shameless glory seeker who, when faced with the offer of compromise, rages against the dying (spot)light and flings epithets at the party seeking an end to hostilities. "
As told by someone with their own axe to grind.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-15 9:02:23 PM
Fact Check,
I don't concede at all that he had any choice. Why for God's sake should anybody have to decline to defend themselves before the HRC, when they'd been accused of what Levant was, for financial considerations? He had a choice in the same way that a guy with a gun at his head has a choice; sure he can tell the mugger to pound sand, but of course his only choice is to hand over the wallet. He has a "choice" in only the most Clintonesque manner.
Perhaps this comparison somewhat overstates the analogy, but the point is that by any meaningful standard he was obliged to appear; and obviously, since to enter into a legal proceeding, even if only quasi-legal, without counsel would be absurd and irrational. So he didn't really have a choice there either.
(I personally feel that anybody who files a complaint with the HRC should, if the decision goes against them, be liable for all legal and other costs incurred by the accused. Such a verdict is exceedingly rare, of course, but it might discourage frivolous and politically motivated complaints such as Levant's or Macleans'. If a plaintiff suddenly drops a complaint after costs have been incurred, because of bad press, they should be liable then also. But they're not, so Levant must go after Soharwardy.)
Incidentally, may I assume that your sensibilities would be offended if someone of lesser means than Levant was unable to adequately represent themselves at an HRC hearing due to financial constraints?
Posted by: Darrell | 2008-02-15 9:22:59 PM
Darrell,
You may personally feel that, but not even an ordinary court will award all legal costs against someone who loses a case. At best, a costs order will cover a fraction of your legal bills.
In small claims court, you get nothing, unless the case is clearly an abuse of process. I suspect the same rules govern human rights tribunals, which, like small claims court, is set up to accomodate unrepresented litigants.
In any case, Ezra's legitimate legal costs in this matter are modest. If he says he spent tens of thousands dollars, he's either lying or he's an idiot. Or both.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-15 9:38:49 PM
truewest,
"In small claims court, you get nothing, unless the case is clearly an abuse of process."
Precisely. If somebody clearly brings a frivolous, politically motivated complaint against another, like Soharwardy's -- particularly with the HRC, which they can do at little to no cost to themselves, but at at least some cost to the victim -- why should they not experience a financial penalty?
Posted by: Darrell | 2008-02-15 10:00:41 PM
Darrell,
Sorry, but while the complaint may have been wrong-headed, it wasn't frivolous, nor have I seen any evidence that it was brought it bad faith. And the fact that it was withdrawn, apparently in good faith, will be a powerful defence to any claim for abuse of process. (Think of it this way; a court will be reluctant to set a precedent whereby a complainant before a body such as the HRC is dinged for costs for agreeing to withdraw the complaint, because it will discourage parties from settling.)
As for political motivation, I would suggest that Ezra's response, which was non-responsive to the complaint and amounted to an attack on the HRC, rather than an answer to the complaint, was far more politically motivated than anything Suwhardy did. An idiot could have defended the claim; only an egotistical putz like Levant would have blown into a cause celebre. No court is going to reward him for that sort of self-aggrandizing nonsense.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-15 10:11:21 PM
"(Think of it this way; a court will be reluctant to set a precedent whereby a complainant before a body such as the HRC is dinged for costs for agreeing to withdraw the complaint, because it will discourage parties from settling.)"
I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you're being extorted, and you pay, are you "settling?" In my world, a judge would have the discretion to find that a plaintiff's action constituted abuse of process.
I don't suppose that we're likely to convince one another of the merits or lack thereof of Soharwardy's claim; still, without seeing any evidence to the contrary, I believe his intent was simply to intimidate.
His sudden conversion ("I now am of the view that this matter should have been handled in the court of public opinion...I now appreciate that it may not fall outside the limits of free speech.") is laughably transparent.
As I see it, the only reason he's withdrawing his complaint is that the "court of public opinion" has suddenly started paying a great deal of attention to him, and is not pleased.
I agree that Levant is a shameless self-promoter and that he has exploited the situation with a view to advancing his politics. However, he is not the one who filed the complaint.
His occasionally vulgar narcissism aside, I'm glad he's drawn the attention he has and I believe he is in the right.
Posted by: Darrell | 2008-02-15 11:15:51 PM
Darrell,
This really isn't about the merits of the claim; almost every defendant honestly believes that every plaintiff's claim is entirely without merit. But you need some evidence of collateral and improper purpose to sustain a claim for abuse of process and I simply don't see any, or at least any that would persuade a court to award damages. Suwhardy clearly wanted the WS held accountable to crapping all over his Prophet and while he might not be entitled to that accounting, there's no abuse of process in seeking the remedy, any more than Ezra's dubious libel actions were abuses of process.
There's also the issue of damages. Levant could have resolved this with a simple letter stating that he printed the cartoons because he thought his readers would be interested in seeing what the fuss was all about. Instead, he waited two years and then invited the HRC to assume the worst. Now, he may have had a collateral purpose to that -- to make the HRC look bad -- and you may or may not agree with that purpose, but I think it quite unlikely that a judge is going to order Suwhardy to pay the freight on Ezra's self-aggrandizing flight of folly. As for suing the HRC itself, he's dead in the water; they received a complaint and investigated it, just as the enabling statute told them to.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-15 11:35:50 PM
Damages?
Simple letter?
OK
Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-02-15 11:52:01 PM
Will Ezra Levant provide the public with a full cost accounting of his own billable hours and those of his hired lawyer in order that his many donors can account for what exactly they are supporting? Will he be reimubursing said donors if and when he succeeds in his suits against Sohowardy and/or the ahrc?
Mr. Levant would be a wonderful champion of free speech were it not for his day job -- suing those who make what he considers to be unflatttering comments about him under Canada's anachronistic, Victorian and proto-fascist defamation law.
And props to the worthless and weak editorialist(s) at the Calgary Herald for joining the fight for free speech at such an early date and for asking all the tough questions about Mr. Levant's sadly compromised campaign.
Posted by: Livingston Rodriguez | 2008-02-16 1:57:31 AM
LR,
Better questions - Will the taxpayers of Alberta get a full cost accounting of the money wasted on this frivolous complaint? Will the residents of Alberta get an explanation of why no one in the ARHC has ever heard of Section 2 of the Charter, or if they have, why they get to ignore it?
Those who donated to Ezra are free to ask for an accounting, those who didn't aren't.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2008-02-16 7:56:57 AM
Truewest,
"As for political motivation, I would suggest that Ezra's response, which was non-responsive to the complaint and amounted to an attack on the HRC, rather than an answer to the complaint, was far more politically motivated than anything Suwhardy did."
As it was the HRC that actually constituted the threat to Ezra's reputation and rights, he was correct to defend himself from the HRC. The fact that Suwhardy initiated the process is irrelevant. If the HRC had not existed, Suwhardy's complaint would never have had any traction in the first place and Ezra would not have been in jeopardy whether it be personally or financially.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-16 8:08:10 AM
Mr. Levant merely conducted his business in the normal traditional manner of his free nation. He owed nobody anything for doing his work using his own energy and resources and risk taking.
Mr. Sohowardy misused governmental offices (HRC not designed to muzzle free speech-public forums) to attack Mr. Levant's private property and sully his reputation (a large part of his ability to earn his livelihood).
Mr. Levant answered the government agents as they proceeded to misuse their offices, but ONLY on the point of their misuse of their authority.
Mr. Sohowardy "accomplished" his purpose (i.e. cast a pall over the entire concept of freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY FREEDOM OF THE PRESS in a great western nation - one currently under military attack by Mr. Sohowardy's compatriots), via the misuse of a misguided agency of the Canadian government (note bene: we've got the same crap down here, all excrement from the perverted-hijacked United Nations).
The Canadian government implicitly "sides" with the abuser (Sohowardy) of government procedure and offices, by allowing Mr. Sohowardy to "withdraw" his attack after landing the destructive blow against the innocent party (Levant - AKA "Canadian Free Speech").
Evidence of the success of Sohowardy's attack is found herein with verbal abuse heaped upon Mr. Levant, in the form of literal name calling and calumny and defamation, by Sohowardy's ilk, such as truewest and FACT CHECK (et al, e.g. those who join in with muted echo cheap shots, at the same time as they rise up to criticize Karol Karolak's use of non-specific generalized terms to describe lethally dangerous and premeditated deviant practicioners of criminal actions).
So, how is it that Mr. Levant has not been damaged by Mr. Sohowardy? How is it that Mr. Levant needs greater cause to grab hold of the greatest tradition of rights-freedom (of speech and publication) to drive home his point (and "case") that the Canadian government is misusing its force to blunt and muzzle the voice(s) of it citizens-taxpayers?
Notice as always it is the Leftists who champion the Totalitarian use of government, truewest and FACT CHECK, and they "get by" with it by the current sponsors of this blog, mainly because they carefully avoid calling somebody a "faggot" or similar "big offences" while themselves using only "approved" name-calling choices.
YOU LOSE ALL OF YOUR FREEDOMS AND FUTURE IN ORDER TO CHAMPION AND DEFEND OBVIOUS UNFORTUNATE AND PREVENTABLE AND "CURABLE" MENTAL ILLNESS.
Politically correct by way of short sighted vacuuous "thinking" about timeless issues surrounding the protection of innocents (mainly children).
Has the Western Standard moved from something to nothing in the space of, a month?
Please don't call me a faggot (or a Nazi), at least not until I reach the age of six.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-02-16 9:08:59 AM
h20,
The HRC does exist. It is the creation of democratically elected (Conservative) government. Ezra may object to its continued existence, but that is a political question, not a legal one. Surely you're not suggesting that Sorharwardy or the HRC should pay legal bills incurred by Ezra's attempt to make a political point. Because that would be silly, even by your standards.
Kathryn,
Do try to keep up. The Supreme Court of Canada has found that the hate speech provisions of Human Rights acts are consistent with S.2 of the Charter. As for the frivolousness of Soharwardy's complaint, I seem to recall that the publication of the cartoon was followed by an outpouring of anti-Muslim bigotry on this forum; that's not to say one causeed the other, but you could see how someone might make the connnection.
Conrad,
You might try to keep up too. The law is what the law is -- human rights commissions are required to investigate complaints of hate speech and folks like Soharwardy are allowed make complaints. It follows that neither the HRC or Soharwardy will face liability for doing what they did, absent demonstrated bad faith. It further follows that Ezra hasn't got a snowball's chance it hell of recovering his legal fees, whether those fees amount to $500 or $50,000.
As you hero Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things" and if those facts stick in your craw, perhaps it is because, as Stephen Colbert has observed, "Reality has a liberal bias."
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-16 9:35:26 AM
Truewest,
"Surely you're not suggesting that Sorharwardy or the HRC should pay legal bills incurred by Ezra's attempt to make a political point. Because that would be silly, even by your standards."
Please read my response again and ask yourself where I mentioned legal bills and payments. Then notice that I didn't inject a disparaging comment like calling it "silly". Then, feel free to respond to my original comment.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-16 9:47:43 AM
h20,
Maybe you better try again. Still don't see your point. Seems to me that you've set out a hypothetical -- if the HRC didn't exist... -- that isn't likely to become a reality in an attempt to jusify Ezra's clown show.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-16 9:58:32 AM
h20,
Maybe you better try again. Still don't see your point. Seems to me that you've set out a hypothetical -- if the HRC didn't exist... -- that isn't likely to become a reality in an attempt to jusify Ezra's clown show.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-16 9:58:39 AM
Our entire government is a Human Rights Commission, back to the Magna Carta, and the teachings of Jesus and Moses with the Ten Commandments. ALL of it was explanation ennunciation codification of real and essential human RIGHTS. "Thou shalt not murder" is a protection of human Rights. "Thou shalt not commit adultry" is a protection of human (child) Rights to live in a cohesive stable reliable home.
You puny pricks of politically correct phrasings have it all perverted upside down; viewing these basic protections of all humanity as some sort of restraint on your deviance and self centered narrow lives, which cannot survive the bright light of day, let alone clear and free discussion and speech.
Your reference to the commedian, Colbert, as support for your deviance and Totalitarian bias is wrong too. Reality in fact includes ALL things both the stable and the changing, but the "bias" of reality is toward success, not deviance. Conservatives endeavor to identify and understand and hold and nurture and rely upon that which works best for the greatest number (all if possible), whereas "Liberals" of your ilk merely toy with and attack the stable culture and natural human family in order to destroy that which your deviance cannot produce.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-02-16 11:13:41 AM
Truewest,
"Seems to me that you've set out a hypothetical -- if the HRC didn't exist... -- that isn't likely to become a reality in an attempt to jusify Ezra's clown show. "
It was about as hypothetical as
"As for political motivation, I would suggest that Ezra's response, which was non-responsive to the complaint and amounted to an attack on the HRC"
which of course calls for mind-reading of Ezra's response. And his response to the HRC was in point of fact a response to the complaint...just not the one you wanted to hear.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-16 11:13:43 AM
In to-days Calgary Herald:
Imam undercuts himself by twisting his own words
Licia Corbella,
For The Calgary Herald
Published: Saturday, February 16, 2008
Earlier this week, Calgary Imam Syed Soharwardy spent nearly two hours with the Herald's editorial board before announcing he would withdraw his two-year-long Alberta human rights complaint against Ezra Levant, the publisher of the defunct Western Standard magazine.
Soharwardy lodged the complaint after Levant published Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that were central to murderous protests around the world by Muslims, including renewed violence in Denmark on Friday.
Soharwardy is trying to take back his complaint, but it's already too late. Levant's resolve is too strong and freedom of expression too fundamental a right to be so easily shrugged off after the microscope of world attention ended up being turned on Soharwardy.
The founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC) asked for a meeting with the Herald's editorial board via an e-mail, arguing that Levant was "attempting to paint me as a hate-mongering, anti-Semitic, Wahabi radical who wants to see Canada governed under sharia law. Nothing could be further from the truth."
While preparing for the meeting, a quick search on Canwest's library system showed a Jan. 17, 2004, column written by the cleric.
In it, he wrote: "Sharia cannot be customized for specific countries. These universal, divine laws are for all people of all countries for all times."
In the same column he also boasts: "I am one of the founding members of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice. The mandate of the institute is to resolve disputes within existing Canadian laws by using the principles of conflict resolution from Islamic Law, or sharia."
His column is clear. He wanted to bring sharia to Canada and even helped found the organization that spearheaded the drive to do so.
But in our meeting, Soharwardy denied his own column. "I never asked to bring sharia in Canada," he now insists.
As for the allegation he's anti-Semitic, in 2000 he wrote in his newsletter: "Presently, what Israeli forces are doing to Palestinians is worse than the Holocaust of World War II." Comparing Israel's attempts to defend itself to the carting of millions of Jews in cattle cars to gas chambers is obscene.
In our meeting, he said the above quote was taken out of context, that he has numerous Jewish friends and holds a Hanukkah celebration at his mosque, the Al Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre.
Some of Soharwardy's most vile words came after the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami that killed more than 280,000 people.
While Christians from around the world were emptying their wallets to help the victims of this natural disaster, Muslim leaders were blaming the disaster on immoral Christian tourists in their countries.
Soharwardy seemingly got swept up in the wave of anti-Christian rhetoric and sent out a news release accusing Christians of kidnapping Muslim orphans in Indonesia. Again, he denied his own written words.
"I don't believe that, I just quoted what was in the newspaper and asked where are the wealthy Muslim governments, why are they not helping."
But here's what his Jan. 23, 2005, news release actually said: "ISCC . . . strongly condemns the exploitation of tsunami victims by the Christian missionaries. There have been several reports that the Christian missionaries are kidnapping Muslim children in Indonesia. . . . It is now proven that the Christian missionaries do not help people on humanitarian grounds. They help people in order to exploit their needs and convert them to Christianity."
Even though it was mostly "Christian" countries and organizations that came to the aid of these devastated people, these kinds of news releases caused many Indonesian Christians to be attacked and killed, including three Christian school girls who were beheaded by Muslim men.
Soharwardy explained: "I wanted to use that news to send a message to Muslim governments." In other words, he knew his news release would find its way overseas. Perhaps he was hoping to join the lecture circuit there, too.
Soharwardy is a charmer. He convinced me that I must have misread his columns. But relistening to the tape of our meeting and rereading his original texts, one thing is clear: he cannot be believed.
To us, he said he lodged his complaint with the AHRC because he felt Muslim "youth were getting alienated" not because the cartoons subjected him to hatred.
This man with two master's degrees in engineering, who has lived in North America since 1980, now says he has just realized how important free speech is. For a fella who practises outrageous forms of it -- you would hope so.
To the CBC's The National on Wednesday, however, Soharwardy gave a different reason for dropping his complaint against Levant, who has spent two years and $100,000 in legal fees fighting this Orwellian battle: "People were looking at Ezra Levant as a martyr of freedom of his speech . . . taking this into a different direction that I did not want."
Soharwardy wanted to be the hero and martyr in his campaign against Levant.
It backfired on him.
Now he's the subject of a human rights complaint by women claiming sex discrimination at his mosque, Levant is planning an abuse of process lawsuit against him and he's being scrutinized on CNN and across Canada.
Soharwardy fell into his own trap. Changing his words, as is his way, won't likely be the salve to his reputation that he's looking for this time.
lcorbella@theherald.canwest.com
Posted by: bocanut | 2008-02-16 11:41:34 AM
h2o,
No, it wasn't a response to the complaint. It didn't speak to the merits of the complaint or address the question at the heart of the complaint of whether or not the publication was likely to incite hatred or contempt. It was a challenge to the HRC's jurisdiction -- which is clearly established by the legislation.
Levant is, of course, entitled to make any response he wants, but if he says that the HRC has not right to ask him his intent when the statute clearly makes that an issue, then it seem clear to me that he's raising a political issue in a legal setting. That' doesn't require minding reading; it's a logical and obvious inference from his behaviour.
Conrad,
I see you're one of those folks who think our legal system is somehow based on the ten commandments. Well, I see the how the bits about not killing, not stealing and not bearing false witness might fit into our legal system, but where in our law are we required to worship a particular god, refrain from making idols and keep the Sabbath holy?
As for my bias, I have a bias against ignorant blowhard sexist clowns like you trying to impose you narrow values on the rest of us. Other than that, I'm open to discussion.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-16 11:51:52 AM
Truewest,
"No, it wasn't a response to the complaint. It didn't speak to the merits of the complaint or address the question at the heart of the complaint of whether or not the publication was likely to incite hatred or contempt. It was a challenge to the HRC's jurisdiction -- which is clearly established by the legislation."
Actually, his rights to challenge their jurisdiction and publish in the first place was clearly established by legislation as well. Not to mention a 1000 years of tradition. You know, Charter of Rights, Magna Carta, American Bill of Rights, etc.
Goose meet gander.
Over to you.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-16 12:08:15 PM
truewest -
My answer to your (Canadian) question, responds only with respect to my (American) "law" of governmental limitation, which comes from the philosophical foundation (i.e. our Declaration of Independence) upon which our basic law (i.e. our Constitution) relies.
The key words from our Declaration: "We...are endowed by our Creator..."
This is the powerful fundamental concept that "government" is the servant of the People and the People are created and subservient to our Creator.
NOBODY gets to trump our Creator, and He (or She or however you or anyone else might conceive of Him) belongs to us ALL equally (and thus protects us all equally).
And similarly, all people can share and obtain the freedom of "America" (and the brilliant beautiful language of our many founding fathers) by merely holding those ideas in their minds and hearts and sharing them with their fellow men, through free speech and free thought, to develop the basis for liberty in their own lands (or we welcome you to come here and join us abiding by our cultural Rule of Law).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-02-16 12:27:34 PM
frozen dog
1000 years of tradition?
In England, up to 1694 one needed prior permission to print anything and it had to be done at a licensed printer.
The common law that developed from then was there should be no prior restraints upon publication but one could still face censure once published. That is still the common law today.
In the US, while the federal government was constrained from limiting speech, the states were free to enact laws as they saw fit until the 1920's (when the 14th amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to include freedom of expression at the state level)
Despite that ruling hate laws similar to those found in s. 13 of Canada's Act were found to be constitutional in the 50's. It was not until the 60's that anything resembling the doctrine of free speech that you claim to be ancient arrived. Even then it was not an absolute right ( e.g. the 1978 ruling by the Supreme Court upholding FCC censorship of certain swear words on the bases of the " pervasiveness doctrine)
In Canada freedom of expression was not elevated to constitutional protection until 1982. Even so one can still face censure for expression if they are " reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
Douglas Christie made the same argument as Levant before the Supreme Court 17 years ago. They didn't buy it and upheld s. 13 as constitutional.
Posted by: Nbob | 2008-02-16 12:44:18 PM
Nbob,
"In Canada freedom of expression was not elevated to constitutional protection until 1982. "
So you agree that Ezra's right was in fact also legislated.
" It was a challenge to the HRC's jurisdiction -- which is clearly established by the legislation. "
So why is truewest using the fact that they have the shield of legislation as if that settles the matter?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-16 12:59:16 PM
Nbob,
BTW, the reference to a 1000 years of tradition was to point to the evolving process of jurisprudence in the English speaking world that lead to the rule of law (read: legislation) in the first place. The same rules of law that provide for the protections that Ezra is using to defend himself.
I would have thought that was obvious by my referencing the American Bill of Rights which is not directly applicable here though, fortunately, has had great impact.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-16 1:04:09 PM
No - Read my last sentence. The Supreme Court said , to paraphrase, yes hate speech provisions violate s. 2(b) rights (freedom of expression) but are reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Thus the legislation is constitutional and the HRC's have jurisdiction.
Posted by: Nbob | 2008-02-16 1:08:14 PM
Nbob
"Thus the legislation is constitutional and the HRC's have jurisdiction."
I assume this response was to this statement.
"So you agree that Ezra's right was in fact also legislated."
Are you saying he doesn't have a right to challenge the legitimacy of the HRCs or to publish the cartoons? Why isn't he in jail or been heavily censured then?
Which is it? Does he have that right or not? I submit he does, he has, he should, and fortunately, he and others will continue to challenge the orthodoxy. Since when are rulings carved in stone?
Jim Crowe, anyone?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-16 2:03:07 PM
Of course he's free to argue as he wishes. Same as the tax protesters who show up in court every once an a while claiming the Magna Carta sez they don't have to pay income tax.
Rulings are not carved in stone but it's very rare because changing their mind would introduce uncertainty in to the law. At the very least it would require new evidence or argument that was not before the courts the first time. Levant has offered neither.
Posted by: Nbob | 2008-02-16 3:20:47 PM
h2o,
Law is governed by precedent and in particular, by the principle of stare decisis, a Latin term that means, roughly, "let decided things stand". The legal effect is that courts are bound by the decisions of the courts directly above them on a particular issue and all courts are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada found long ago that a s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was constitutional, and since that provision is, in its essential elements, identical to the hate speech provision in the Alberta act, the Alberta act is, by analogy, constitional as well.
Ezra may nominally have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the provision in court, but, in fact, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which means that if he wants to remove the provision governing hate speech, he needs to persuade the legislature, not the courts, to do so. To that extent, his clown-show performance at the HRC was a bit of political theatre that had nothing to do with legal argument. I would also suggest that it had more to do with shameless self-promotion than anything else.
Your other questions betray a profound misunderstanding of what's going on here. First, he has the right to publish the cartoons, just as I have the right to publish something nasty about you. However, in both cases, there may be legal consequences to publication -- in the form of a breach of the human rights act or a finding of liability for defamation. Second, nobody is suggesting that anybody be thrown in jail for publishing anything (and wherever did you get the strange idea that they were). Third, nobody has been censured, because there's been no hearing. Ezra's clown-show took place at an investigation of the complaint.
Eat crow, anyone?
Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-16 3:29:51 PM
truewest,
Nbob said
"Of course he's free to argue as he wishes. "
and Nbob said
"Rulings are not carved in stone ..."
Hence your argument appealing to authority
"It was a challenge to the HRC's jurisdiction -- which is clearly established by the legislation."
is not very convincing. Even Nbob realizes that Ezra has the right to challenge HRCs legitimacy and jurisdiction despite protests to the contrary.
"Your other questions betray a profound misunderstanding of what's going on here. First, he has the right to publish the cartoons, just as I have the right to publish something nasty about you. However, in both cases, there may be legal consequences to publication -- in the form of a breach of the human rights act or a finding of liability for defamation."
Actually, I understood this point quite clearly as that is precisely my point. Ezra can challenge them. Your appeal to authority hasn't worked very well. The HRC seems to be impotent in stopping Ezra from highlighting the HRCs attempts at defaming him in the first place.
Do keep trying.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-16 4:01:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.