Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Quote of the day | Main | Meeting Moe »

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons

Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've graduated from law school, and I've never seen a more frivolous, vexatious, infantile suit than this.

But that's the point -- this complaint is not about beating us in the law. Freedom of speech is still in our constitution; we'll win in the end. It's a nuisance suit, designed to grind us down, cost us money, and serve as a warning to other, more timid media.

The hand-written scrawl and the spelling errors were what first disgusted me with the suit; but the arguments were what really got me. The complainant, Imam Syed Soharwardy, a former professor at an anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, doesn't just argue that we shouldn't have published the cartoons. He argues that we shouldn't be able to defend our right to publish the cartoons. The bulk of his complaint was that we dared to try to justify it.

He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime.

Here is a letter I sent out to our e-mail list, explaining our legal situation.

Here is the formal response I shall file with the human rights commission tomorrow.

And here is where you can chip in to our legal defence fund if you want to support us. Our lawyers tell me we'll likely win, but it could cost us up to $75,000 to do so -- and the case against us is being prosecuted by government employees using tax dollars.

We're a small, independent magazine and we don't have deep pockets to fight off nuisance suits, so please chip in if you can.

ADDENDUM: In response to various commenters, unfortunately, even if we are successful in the human rights commission, we will not be compensated for our legal fees. It's not like a real court, where an unsuccessful plaintiff would be ordered to pay a successful defendant's costs. So even if we win, we lose -- the process is the penalty. Worse than that, the radical imam who is suing us doesn't have to put up a dime -- the commission uses tax dollars to pay lawyers and other inquisitors to go at us directly. Human rights tribunals themselves are illiberal institutions. Read my larger brief, linked above.

UPDATE 1: Here is a scan  of the imam's complaint.

UPDATE 2: We are currently working to change our legal defence fund web page to accept donations from outside Canada. In the meantime, please e-mail Rita at [email protected] or phone us at 403-216-2270 and we can help you that way -- thanks!

Posted by Ezra Levant on March 29, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons:

» Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons from Complacent Nation
A nutball is trying to financially hurt the Standard using the Western legal system Here's the opening lines: Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've gra [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-29 8:34:32 PM

» Western Standard Sued for Publishing Cartoons from The Life of Nick
The only Canadian news source with the guts to actually print the cartoons of Mohammed (seen above), the Western Standard, has been sued by a radical Calgary imam. He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime. The press has been g... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-29 10:17:53 PM

» Western Standard Sued for Publishing Cartoons from The Life of Nick
The only Canadian news source with the guts to actually print the cartoons of Mohammed (seen above), the Western Standard, has been sued by a radical Calgary imam. He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime. The press has been g... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-29 10:21:59 PM

» More Fear of a Jihadist Planet from Kesher Talk
And you thought the Motoon kerfluffle was a) over, and b) a kerfluffle. But no. Dominos continue to fall. This week saw NYU unprecedentedly denying the public access to a previously open panel discussion. The Western Standard of Canada published... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 12:54:25 AM

» Western Standard Legal Defence Fund from Blue Blogging Soapbox
From an email sent out by Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant. If you don't want to donate to the fund, at least consider purchasing a subscription. Link to the subscription page is at the top of the blog. [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 1:20:52 AM

» Fear of a Jihadi Planet from Winds of Change.NET
And you thought the Motoon kerfluffle was a) over, and b) a kerfluffle. But no. Dominos continue to fall. This week saw NYU unprecedentedly denying the public access to a previously open panel discussion. The... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 2:13:25 AM

» More Fear of a Jihadist Planet from Kesher Talk
And you thought the Motoon kerfluffle was a) over, and b) a kerfluffle. But no. Dominos continue to fall. This week saw NYU unprecedentedly denying the public access to a previously open panel discussion. The Western Standard of Canada published... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 2:41:45 AM

» Western Standard Before Human Rights Commission from small dead animals
The complainant, Imam Syed Soharwardy, a former professor at an anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, doesn't just argue that we shouldn't have published the cartoons. He argues that we shouldn't be able to defend our right to publish the cartoons.... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 6:24:27 AM

» Islamofascist Tries To Silence The Western Standard from Riehl World View
It appears a radical islamist has figured out a new way to try and silence a free press.Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 10:55:53 AM

» Western Standard sued over Mohammed cartoons from Magic Statistics
Syed Badauddin Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, has lodged a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against the Western Standard magazine, and its publisher Ezra Levant, for printing the Danish Mohammed... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 12:52:18 PM

» Is Levant using frivolous lawsuit to make money? from The Sudden Sage
Ezra Levant must be loving this. His publication is being sued in human rights court for publishing those anti-Muslim cartoons the other month. Yes, hes happy! With this in hand, he gets to be the victim, and hes fundraising for lawyers&#... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 12:56:27 PM

» Freedom of the Press vs. the Alberta Human Rights Commission from EclectEcon
This morning I read in the Trono Globe & Mail that the Danish newspaper that published the infamous cartoons is being sued: [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 1:46:57 PM

» Canadian magazine sued over cartoons from Overlawyered
Following up on earlier threats (Feb. 14, Mar. 19), Syed Soharwardy has brought a complaint against the Western Standard before the Alberta Human Rights Commission over its publication of the Mohammed cartoons. Ezra Levant, publisher... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-30 8:08:16 PM

» Canadian Paper Sued Over Muhammed Cartoons from The Jawa Report
For a bunch of F*cking fascists, they sure are a bunch of whiney bitches. FYI-our good friend Kate from Small Dead Animals writes for the Western Standard, so were more than just supportive on the principle of the matter.... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-31 9:46:05 AM

» What Craveness Begets from Just Some Poor Schmuck
What the "Danish Cartoons", to use the current euphemism, showed the world was not the superiority of Western ideals or the strength of a free press, but how easy it is to roll the Politically Correct who seem to make... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-31 10:43:07 PM

» You Can Help Defend Free Speech from Captain's Quarters
The excellent Canadian magazine Western Standard now faces a lawsuit from an Islamic cleric in Calgary for publishing the Prophet cartoons in its coverage of the massive riots around the world earlier this year. The suit was presented in "human... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-04-01 8:55:53 AM

» You Can Help Defend Free Speech from Captain's Quarters
The excellent Canadian magazine Western Standard now faces a lawsuit from an Islamic cleric in Calgary for publishing the Prophet cartoons in its coverage of the massive riots around the world earlier this year. The suit was presented in "human... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-04-01 8:59:13 AM

» Rally to defend freedom of the press! from Being American in T.O.
Apr. 1 - It appears that there is more than one way to supress press freedoms, and I'm finding it hard to restrain the contempt I feel as I report that a Canadian human rights commission in Alberta is complicit... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-04-01 2:28:36 PM

» Cartoon Jihad: The Canadian Front from Winds of Change.NET
In Canada, only one magazine published the Mohammed cartoons. To my knowledge, you couldnt find them anywhere else. That is, by any standard, an incredibly shameful record. That shame is compounded by Imam Soharwardys use... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-04-04 3:40:15 AM



Yes, that begs a lot of questions doesn’t it?

I think what David Warren is raising is the notion that the HRC is Sharia Law by stealth. BTW DW is undoubtedly the most knowledgeable Canadian on Islamofascism, IMHO he ranks with Mark Steyn as a world class pundit, only not as funny.

We have the SC the HRC, the Charter of Rights, and we almost had Sharia in Ontario. For the same reason that Dalton finally dumped his political musings about allowing Sharia, we need to dump HRC. Maybe we need to do something with the Charter too. Canada should only have one law of the land. If that law doesn’t work then Parliament and 308 under-utilized MPs need to get off their duffs and legislate laws that do work.

Where is Osgoode Hall on all of this? is Osgoode so stacked full of lefties that this charade is allowed to continue until we become a Theocracy? Where is the Globe and Mail on this? They are always the great defenders of all that is secular. Hypocrites!

I think Parliament should pass a law that does what David Warren suggests “explicitly provide civil protection to non-Muslims and Muslims alike, against Shariah courts (or the potential implementation of anything relating to Shariah) and their rulings.” A good offence is a good defence, even if it offends those that want to dominate us. In fact, especially if it offends those that want to dominate us.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-30 8:52:36 AM

Subject: Fw: Two Thumbs up to Australia


The Australians have the right idea.

CANBERRA - The Capital of Australia.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.
Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another, the Islamic law, that this is false. If you can't abide by parliamentary law, independent courts and democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country.
Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should “clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation’s mosques.

Posted by: Conservative Crusader | 2006-03-30 8:54:05 AM

I'd like to see Soharwardy's complaint published in facsimile, any legal trouble with that? Keep up the good work. Greeting from Berlin/Germany

Posted by: Marek Moehling | 2006-03-30 8:54:10 AM

Oh, and I fully support the WS. Islamofacism is the greatest threat to the world today and I'm disappointed that more North American papers didn't have your fortitude.

Posted by: Rich | 2006-03-30 8:55:26 AM

Great response Ezra. Persoanlly, I wouldn't bother to even recognize some star chamber farce where the rules of evidence and my charter legal rigts are suspended...I'd tell this fanatic and the statist termites that take his claims seriously to stuff it....take me to court of queen's bench if you think you have a case...the HRC star chamber is illegitimate justice....but I suppose in your position to make a point you have to play their silly policy worshipping games.

I like the direction of the defense....hits the secular inquisitioners on the AHRC right in their secular statist dogmatic bread basket.

I do wish you would launch a counter suit in common courts to recover your coasts and the expenses the Canadian tax payer is wasting on this insipid farce....and take that money from the foamy mouthed bigot from the Calgary mosque who started this civil abomination.

Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 2006-03-30 9:11:26 AM

nomdenet -

I certainly think our Charter of Rights should be changed, even scrapped. As I said, most of its sections and pages refer to bilingualism, in great detail. The other 2 and 1/2 pages contain everything else - with no detail. The fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights and general. All of that is a mere 2 and 1/2 pages. But, bilingualism is 3 pages. Hmmm.

AND, the four fundamental freedoms are nullified by the contradictory section 15 (equality rights) and the two sections 26, 27, which promote whatever... and multiculturalism. So, as far as it being a Charter of Rights - it isn't. It's a Charter of Bilingualism.

I've provided two links.


The first is where a priest is being charged in Brussels with 'Islamophobia'. Can you imagine that? I don't want to be alarmist, but, under our Charter, I see nothing to stop such a charge being made in Canada.


This second link refers to worries in Sweden, where young Muslim youths are running rampant, stealing and attacking 'for the thrill'. I'll take this report with a large 'grain of salt', for the words sound like any gang youths, of any ethnicity. My point is - that every western country has to do what Australia has done. Stand up and say - there is ONE law, and ONE normative standard.

I claim that Islam, as a human construct, CAN be moderated. This has to be done on two fronts: Above all and first, the West has to refuse to accept or accomodate extremist Islam. Do what Australia has done. Refuse it. AND, then, the moderate Muslims have to speak up and out - loudly. They exist. These moderate Muslim women, and men, stopped Sharia Law in Ontario.

The problem, in Canada, is that our Charter asserts, promotes - MULTIPLE LAWS, and MULTIPLE standards. All in the name of 'our multicultural heritage'..and sections 15 and 27 of our Charter.
And, unlike in Australia, Canadians are brainwashed; we've been brought up as Platonic CaveDwellers, because of Trudeau's legacy of that Charter, and the propaganda of Canada as 'tolerant, multicultural, peaceful, and all the rest of that nonsense'.

So- Canadians, as CaveDwellers, living in a fictional world of their own making in that nice save postmodern multicultural cave, protected by the US military and economy - don't know how to reject anything or anyone, including terrorists. The difference between us and the Australians, is between a child and an adult.

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-30 9:17:03 AM

Alberta has made an error in combining the Provincial HRC with what appears to be an obscure
Citizenship function. Any legal aspect of Canadia
Citizenship is the venue of the Feds. So why the
connection? As a point of interest. Some years ago a friend of mine who owns and operates his own substantial business was subject to a sexual
harrassment complaint, which was submitted to the
NS HRC. What he did was interesting. He undertook
a thorough due diligence on each of the then members of the Commission, who were subject to intense scrutiny; two were found, in his opinion to have sufficient personal, ongoing problems which precluded, in his opinion, a fair assessment of the unsubstantiated charges. He made his findings know to the then Attorney General who subsequently advised the HRC to go away, which they very quickly did. Point is Ezra, you have to know who you are really dealing with. Full support from the tiny, little perfect City of Moncton NB

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-03-30 9:22:52 AM


Western Standard's web site/email system won't accept American zip codes or comprehend American States vs Provinces, in order to receive contributions.

We're trying to be friendly, You'all (I'll have to contact "W" for the correct spelling).

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-03-30 9:34:27 AM

Canadian Sentinel, you're the first to add "a leftist" to the list of the many things I have been called.

As for your accusation that I am being "unfair" in pointing out the inconsistency of overlooking the Canadian journalist jailed in Belarus and myself overlooking the WS's shoestring budget, two things.

1) This is a blog. There is little if any cost involved in a blog post, or even an editorial in a print publication for that matter.

2) A Canadian journalist was imprisoned in a foreign jail for advocating Freedom of Speech ... a colleague as well as a fellow citizen ... and not even a mention?

Fellow citizen. Fellow journalist. Hello? And I get dumped on for having the audacity to question the oversight.

My comments weren't about "fairness" but about priorities and professionalism. And motivation.

The point has already been made that broadcasters on a limited budget should respect those limits.

If, despite the obvious risks, you choose to grandstand on a broad issue like free speech, then you should be prepared for the consequences. My point is just that if you're being grandiose and trying to create a following, then it's wise to at least be consistent (especially when there's little cost involved). Otherwise you just invite potshots and strewers of red herrings.

I had so hoped that WS would provide an alternative to the largely Marxist agit-prop that passes for our mainstream media. I had hoped the blogosphere would as well. But all either seems to be doing is just following the same old MSM herd mentality.

Unfortunately, in Canada we still "get the media we deserve."

Posted by: PM | 2006-03-30 9:45:54 AM

The WS hasn't yet incurred any legal costs as a result of the complaint, yet it already has its hand out seeking donations. I'd like to know if the WS will be returning donors' money if the complaint is dismissed or if legal costs aren't as high as expected. Or will the WS just roll these funds into general revenue? Hmmm... there's seems to be something a little fishy here. Seems like an excuse to drum up a bunch of cash at the expense of good-willed (if wrong-headed) readers and supporters.

Posted by: wondering | 2006-03-30 10:42:43 AM

When I was a teenager growing up in Lethbridge I sat beside the brother of one of the current commission members. He was one of the most racist people I have ever met. I faced a lot of ribbing because I was aboriginal, but even Brian Trottier was criticized for that one. The girl behind him was VERY large breasted, she was given the nickname 'Tito'. He loved to use words like 'paki, faggott, nichi, wagonburner'

Its not like I am bitter against the guy, I just think it is amusing, and have to ask 'To what degree did he learn this from his family?'

Posted by: Dan Bergen | 2006-03-30 10:53:56 AM

I agree, wondering. I'll send a modest cheque now and more later if and when the expenses mount.

Meanwhile, WS ought to be making an application to the Court of Queen's Bench for an order on whether the Commission has the jurisdiction to hear such a complaint. It would be an interesting application, it will be heard in public and it will, if nothing else, set some limits for the Commission.

Then WS can still appeal an adverse decision on its merits.

C'mon - is this a fight or not? If it is, then FIGHT.

Posted by: Moose Hunter | 2006-03-30 10:54:18 AM

Sue them for infringing on your right to free speech.

Posted by: ed | 2006-03-30 10:58:10 AM


Why is it that when GreenDay or TheDailyShow do something "bold" and "controversial" and "high-risk" they're being clever and thought-provoking artists, but when a right-wing outlet dares the same its a "callous lack of accountability" with an outcome that should have been predicted?

Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-03-30 11:10:53 AM

Ezra, I enjoyed the lengthy dissertation that you submitted to the HRC, but I'm amazed that you, a lawyer, would put so much dressing in the bird. If I was (God forbid) a member of the commission, I would be so annoyed by the verbiage that I might be a tad spiteful. (And spitefulness is part of the job description for those folks.) Unless you want to lose, in order to continue the fight in the political arena and/or the legitimate courts, a straightforward presentation of the facts would have been in order.

Posted by: Zog | 2006-03-30 11:21:13 AM

I bet you, uh, $75,000 that Rachel Marsden is getting a kick out of this.

Posted by: Hahahahaahhaha | 2006-03-30 1:26:03 PM

I note from viewing your scan of the imam's human rights complaint that Section C of the form contains a box that can be checked to file a complaint for "a vexacious or frivolous complaint made with malicious intent," in other words for doing exactly what the imam is trying to do the Weekly Standard. Will the WS file its own complaint with the Commission, with said box checked? Perhaps the progress of the counter-complaint will be expedited when the imam's head explodes.

Posted by: Wolt | 2006-03-30 2:10:28 PM

"vexatious," typo, sorry.

Posted by: Wolt | 2006-03-30 2:13:40 PM

He seriously needs to improve his penmanship. This kind of shit isn’t going to fly in Canada. Put down the bomb and grow a pair!

Posted by: Arun Kumar | 2006-03-30 3:31:03 PM

To Ezra Levant - "May peace be upon him", and on the right side of this ridiculous suit.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-30 3:46:30 PM

Ha ha ha. Reap what you sow. So long to this rag. I hope you get sued into oblivion.

Posted by: Jay_TheUnBaptist | 2006-03-30 4:11:42 PM

And I hope you get stuck in a dark ally with some of these "tolerant" people.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-30 4:27:55 PM

We, at Rebellog, are in total solidarity with the Western Standard. We publish the letter (below) to show our support to Western Standard to collect money for their upcoming court case. By publishing the Muhammad cartoons they spoke for all of us in the Western World in defence of freedom of speach which is not a negotiable part of our lives.

Please make a donation to the Western Standard to helpin the cost of this case. Thank you, Robin Renitent

Rebellog-The libertarian Cabinet is mainstream-resistent, unconventional, critical and straight forward. We believe in the principle of self-ownership. With regard to economic and political questions we hold radical-libertarian views. We are pro-capitalist and believe that any form of socialism creates poverty. Our position is clearly pro-American and pro-Israeli. We resist left-wing and right-wing freedom enemies. Our web pages have been on-line for about one and a half years. We endeavour to design our web pages in bi-lingual format (English/German). Blog.rebellog is the Blog page for Rebellog.

Posted by: Robin Renitent | 2006-03-30 4:41:08 PM

We seem to have overcome Soviet fascism, though the heirs of Nazi-fascism live; but the biggest threat to freedom lies in Islamic fascism.

Freedom is notself-evident.

We are at war – and we have to defend ourselves.
For the sake of our children.

Posted by: Robin Renitent | 2006-03-30 4:45:17 PM

Howcome I didn't see McLelland cheerleading for the Islamofascists here??

Posted by: PGP | 2006-03-30 5:16:20 PM

Really, it's enough for Ezra to tell "certain of us" where these maggots live...

But seriously, the Aussies (God bless 'em, I hate 'em in sport for all their whinging and their drug use, but on this they're spot on) have the right method. Inform the dear imam that this is Canada, not Canadistan. And if it's Shariah he wants, well there are flights leaving the country every day. I suggest he go live in Sweden, or France, where he will find a ready and willing populace...

Posted by: bcf | 2006-03-30 5:32:15 PM

Seems that Mr. Human Rights is fomenting hatred against Jews and Israelis in this article accusing Israel of treating Palestinians worse than the Nazis treated Jews:


Somebody should be reporting him to the AHCC for spreading hatred against Jews and Israelis.

Posted by: FactChecker | 2006-03-30 5:35:10 PM

By the way - minor point, but shouldn't the imam who filed the suit, at least try to spell Mr. Levant's name correctly? (It's LEvant, if I read the very bad writing correctly, the imam spells it LAvant.)

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-30 6:48:06 PM

This whole cartoon business reminds me of the hypocrisy of the left-wing press here in Australia. A few years ago some trendy 'artist' staged an exhibition in Melbourne titled 'Piss Christ', featuring various models of the aforementioned gentleman bathing in urine, being showered in the aforementioned substance, and various other associations between the two.
I am someone of non-existent religious sensitivity, but even I considered this was pretty 'up there' on the offensive scale. In other words, if something is bad taste on my scale, we can safely assume it IS bad taste.
However, the chatterati of the leftoid press were falling over themselves to talk it up. The Melbourne Age (the paper of choice of Melbourne’s ‘progressives’) defended their giving it coverage on the grounds that its readers 'deserve to be informed'. Its art critic praised it, presumably for its artistic content. Given that I, the planet's most artistically-challenged inhabitant, could pee on a statue, I can hardly see how it merited such fawning on those grounds.
Anyway, onto the cartoons. I saw them on a web site here, and actually couldn't see anything funny in them. As one would expect from Scandinavian humour, they were just bland, and in no way as offensive as the above exhibition. One wonders what a 'Piss Mohamed' exhibition would have started.
The same Melbourne Age refused to publish the cartoons, citing the usual stuff about journalistic responsibility. This would have been quite valid had they exercised the same restraint over 'Piss Christ'. However, their sense of responsibility is pretty selective. Fine to be avant garde and provocative with a creed that will not slit your throat. A rather less robust approach with the other kind.
If these sorts of censorship and double-standards were confined to Alberta, I suppose 16,000-odd kilometres could keep me more detached. However, I could see the same happening here.

Posted by: Sholto Douglas | 2006-03-30 6:52:01 PM

You posters are all hilarious. I told Mr. Levant in person that freedom does indeed come with responsibilities. You all don't get it!

I thought Freedom of Speech meant that there was no "prior restraint"...meaning the government would not restrain you from making a statement. Yet one can be sued after or punished for "libels or obscenity".

In the United States, "obscenity" is not protected -- although what de

And for all you American lovers, there is no separation of church and state in their constitution. People just seem to think that there is. Talk to Pat Robertson.

It doesn't mean that you can't express, but it does mean that you will pay the price for what you do. Like if I tell my mom she's a bitch, I'm sure she will write me out of her will.

I don't think Muslims are saying you have to respect Islamic law. They are saying that as members of the Canadian community their definitions of "obscenity" should be respected.

The Jesus "piss" Christ art was also offensive. But, doesn't that art truly represent what Jesus seems to have died for?

Canada is really supposed to be about Peace and Order. Isn't that the motto "Peace, Order, and Good Government"?

Life, Liberty, and the "pursuit of happiness" is a sham.

Right or wrong, there are consequences for every action.

Posted by: William McCullough | 2006-03-30 7:09:41 PM

Okay -

One More Time!

Someone at Western Standard NEEDS to setup an online Paypal account, where those of use who just positively absolutely do NOT want to give out our credit card numbers can donate money to the cause through Paypal (don't diss me on this: the fewer places I post the frickin' info, the better I like it).

I've offered to send money to Western Standard BEFORE this idiotic lawsuit (just to show my appreciation for posting the bloody cartoons in the first place).

I would like to do so now too.

Paint it as part of my semi-Luddism if my recalcitrance at phoning or posting on the web seems, umm, quaint.

But if *I'm* to be thought of as a Luddite, how much more so an organization that won't use the relatively painless expedient (for a lot of us), of transferring cash money through Paypal? - I'll even add extra for Paypal's pound of blood!

Get That Paypal Moving!

Posted by: brdavis | 2006-03-30 7:23:52 PM

Why don't you just send an interac money transfer to Ezra's email. You're afraid to use your credit card online? Doesn't "verified by VISA" have password protection now?

I'm not dissing you but I think it's strange that someone would give a gas attendant, restaurant, or department store their credit card but be afraid to do so online -- where it seems more secure.

Posted by: William McCullough | 2006-03-30 7:32:04 PM

Sure Mr. McCullough,where does it stop? Should we also respect thier right to beat thier children and wives? Should we also respect thier right to behead teachers for the grevious offence of educating females? They are here in Canada,they have to respect our laws.If they are so uncomfortable with our values there are planes leaving everyday.And there is nothing stopping you from joining them.

Posted by: wallyj | 2006-03-30 7:45:03 PM


that's not Mr. to you, that's

Mullah McCullough

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-30 7:49:53 PM


Freedom and the rule of law didn't fall out of the sky or grow on a host like cancer or hair. Water doesn't turn it green nor does mathematics capture it.

Keep up the great work.

Posted by: Peng | 2006-03-30 8:29:43 PM

Last time I checked Canada is not ruled by islamic law, thank god.

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-03-30 8:42:49 PM

Wallyj - step away from the moonbat! You may as well beat your head against the wall. Another youth lost to the cave mentality.

>Like if I tell my mom she's a bitch, I'm sure she will write me out of her will.<

Think that is about all you needed to hear.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-30 8:50:29 PM

Hard to say which is funnier: a bunch of rednecks responding to a complaint that the publication of certain cartoons is likely to expose Muslims to hatred or contempt by ranting on and on about how much they hate Muslims and how they'd like to wipe them off the face of the earth or ET, a senior academic at a Canadian university, offering her definitive take on the Charter of Rights and Freedom, an analysis based almost entirely on how many pages are devoted to any particular subject matter. (Note to Elmer Driedger: time to update The Construction of Statutes to include this incisive new method of statutory interpretation.)

For all the fuss, you'd think that someone had flown an airplane into the Calgary Tower. A little perspective: Mr. Soharwardy isn't asking for the imposition of Sharia law or anything of the sort. He has exercised his right to file a human rights complaint, the merits of which will be determined in due course. And unless he thinks to pillage the archives of this board to show just how the publication of these cartoons inspired you crackers to a frenzy of anti-muslim hysteria, which went so far as to suggest that the entire religion should be converted to Christianity or put to the sword, his chances of success are minimal.

If you clowns want to send Ezra a cheque, far be it from me to dissuade you (as if I could) but if I were you, I'd demand to see the legal bills once the smoke clears. This complaint may not fall to the level of vexatiousness (thanks, again, in large part to you lot and your anti-muslim rants) but it shouldn't take $75,000 to deal with. Unless, of course, you decide to launch a challenge in the Court of Queen's Bench to the jurisdiction of the Commission (which seems clear as day) or adopt some of the other hairbrained schemes suggested above.

The WS should whining, step up to the plate and defend your right to offend, a task that even Ezra should be able to handle.

And before you start calling me Mullah this or Moonbat that, let me reiterate; I've never agreed with the WS's decision to publish the cartoons, but I've never disputed its right to do so. The right to whine endlessly, play the martyr and deceive its readers about the human rights process is another matter altogether

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-30 9:06:49 PM

"I'd demand to see the legal bills once the smoke clears."

Hear, hear. I'd like to see, to the penny, how much the taxpayers are forking out for Soharwardy's hissy fit.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-03-30 9:15:10 PM

So, has anyone found out where this radical cleric preaches his hatred, here in Calgary?

As a Calgarian and a Canadian (born and raised), it disgusts me to know that we have some radical in-bred tyrant trying to change the very laws in my country which allowed him to be here in the first place.
I live near a "Halal Meats" grocery store, and I will be scouring the advertisements to find out, where exactly this mosque is located.
Once I found out, I will be MORE than happy to share the info with the interested parties in this blog.
Good job Ezra!!

Posted by: serious | 2006-03-30 9:28:15 PM

Yo serious -
Mr. Soharwardy choose to have his dispute resolved in a peaceful way according to Canadian law and practice while you choose to make veiled threats of harm. And the reason you're better than the mob that burns down embassys would be exactly what ?

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-03-30 9:46:19 PM

Glad we amuse you true west. I guess thats what happens when you hang around those you think are below you. Most have given up and moved on by now but the true, omnipotent one remains.

Posted by: Lemmytowner | 2006-03-30 9:56:56 PM

TrueLeft and McCullough already live in dhimmitude, subservient to iSLAM. Fine examples someone died for, eh?

Posted by: wharold | 2006-03-30 10:00:35 PM

It's not who you are; it's what you do. Stop doing and saying stupid things and I'll stop laughing.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-30 10:01:19 PM

Of course, as long as you've got folks like weird harold sharing their deep thoguhts, I'm sure there'll be plenty of opportunity for smiles and chuckles and giggles and laughs.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-30 10:05:40 PM

Sholto Douglas.... Spot-on,m8! You have less to be worried about than we do here. As I told my mates "down there", I applaud your govt's position that "... this is Australia, like it, love it, or LEAVE it!" Not exact, but it'll work. I only hope, dream, and wish our govt here has the balls to start taking the same stand. Given more time, we'd be a carbon-copy of Iran if it was left to the Liberals. Can we "clone" Costello and company? :)))) You've always been a determined lot down there, keep the socialists out of power and I know Australia will endure!

Posted by: Snookie | 2006-03-30 10:18:09 PM

Dhimmitude, trueleft. Do you know what it is and how you are not just complying, but doing so in the mindless tradition of the "useful idiot?"

Trueleft, walking with your arms straight out in front of yourself, murmuring in a monotone and looking to feed on another's brain may pass for "deep thoguhts" where moonbats and zombies convene, but to fend off iSLAM, we'll need far more than your left asleep negligence.

Posted by: wharold | 2006-03-30 10:20:10 PM

weird harold,
I know what you think it is. Although "think" may not be an accurate word for what you do.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-30 10:24:13 PM

So much support, thanks for giving people like me a voice (I have to remain secret and hidden).

I just donated $30.

Posted by: nomdenet | 30-Mar-06 8:52:36 AM

^^ this guy said it right, I agree 100%. Several of you have also asked if Shari'a is already enshrined. It is not, we did not take the dhimma oath, Jewish women aren't wearing bells on their shoes, Christians aren't wearing crosses that make them crippled, kaffirin don't ride donkeys (they still drive cars), we read quran, etc. This all shows that Islamic law ain't here yet.

Posted by: Ibn Rushd | 2006-03-30 10:41:27 PM

I was about to ask truewest to point out the anti-Muslim hysteria, but then 'serious' came along and rather undermined my case.
But his own position is hardly defensible. He seems to shrug off the impending law suit as mere trivia. It is not, especially given the capacity of courts to hand down insane judgements. If Canadian courts are like Australian ones, that 75k could be a mere down payment in the quest for common sense.
At the very least, the case is an abuse of the generosity that Soharwardy and his ilk would never accord to their opponents.
Mr McCullough has rather strange notions of free speech. To most people, bland cartoons are not the stuff of cultural holocaust. Lower on the scale than insulting Mom, even. To suggest that to publish them is to ask for trouble, while at the same time apparently excusing 'Piss Christ' as 'what Christ died for', is the sort of moral relativism we have come to expect from western correctoids.
My criticism of the Melbourne Age's double standards was not based on the fact that it published 'Piss Christ', or that it didn't publish the cartoons. It was that it should have had the responsibility (or balls) to publish neither (or both).
The curious ethnic and cultural self-loathing of the 'progressives' allows, encourages even, gross insults against anything 'white' (especially Anglo) or western, but forbids the most trivial ones against anything else. This despite the fact that it is 'white' western culture (and only that culture) that allows them such freedoms in the first place.

Posted by: Sholto Douglas | 2006-03-30 10:56:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.