The Shotgun Blog
« The Deputy Minister's Prayer | Main | Random Thoughts on the Campaign »
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Ezra Levant slammed with another human rights complaint
Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the Western Standard, has had another human rights complaint filed against him.
Gay activist Rob Wells -- who is also pursuing a human rights complaint against Catholic Insight magazine -- launched this latest complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) in response to Ezra publishing Rev. Stephen Boissoin's controversial column (or was it a letter-to-the-editor?) on his blog.
As readers will no doubt recall, Boissoin lost his case before the Alberta Human Rights Commission, although he is presently appealing. In that case, Boissoin received a $7,000 fine and was banned from -- well, basically from publishing anything disparaging about homosexuality ever again.
(Forgive me, but I find it hard to type anything about Boissoin's draconian punishment without wanting to punch someone in the face.)
Ezra republished Boissoin's column on his website back in June, daring the "'human rights' bullies" at the Alberta Human Rights Commission to pursue a complaint against him.
It appears the CHRC has now investigated such a complaint. However, as you can see in its "Assessment Report" (around page 9-10), the CHRC investigator recommends that the commission dismiss the complaint. The chief reason, according to the investigator, is that, in the context within which Ezra published Boissoin's column, "the material is more 'likely' to stimulate debate over the issue of freedom of expression and the role of human rights commissions, rather than to 'expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.'"
Ezra suggests the standard the CHRC investigator is employing here is something of a novelty.
In response to the investigator's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, Ezra has republished Rev. Boissoin's letter yet again, this time noting that he's not publishing it to foster debate, but solely to expose the human rights commission and its employees to contempt:
"I’m not publishing these words as part of any “debate”. I am publishing them for the express purpose of promoting contempt – contempt for Rob Wells, and contempt for his gophers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission."
More information can be found here.
Personally, I'd like to hear from Rob Wells...
Updated for accuracy.
Posted by Terrence Watson on August 21, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55409ac428833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ezra Levant slammed with another human rights complaint:
Comments
Terrence,
"It appears the CHRC has taken up this task, albeit reluctantly."
No. The CHRC cannot truthfully be said to be "pursu[ing] a complaint against him". The fact that the investigator has recommended dismisal means they are doing the exact opposite of that.
"Ezra suggests the standard the CHRC investigator is employing here is something of a novelty."
That's untrue. He's just making that up. Ezra has never said that he agrees with the content of the Boission letter because he doesn't. When he posted it he made it clear to all that his purpose was to stimulate debate over the HRCs, not to spread hate against homosexuals. His readers are people (as Ezra admits himself) who are interested in the issue of HRCs. So just as every newspaper in the country can (and did) print the comments for which David Ahenakew was convicted without it also being an offence, Ezra can print Boissoin's comments without it being a violation. Context is everything.
"Ezra has republished Rev. Boissoin's letter yet again, this time noting that he's not publishing it to foster debate, but solely to expose the human rights commission and its employees to contempt."
Well, that's no different from the last time. If he said he was reprinting the letter to expose homosexuals to contempt, then the CHRC might think there was a case. But if his goal is to expose the HRCs to contempt, he won't spark a legitimate complaint. Being a HRC or an employee of one is not a protected ground under the CHRA.
[[Now, I wonder how long it will take for some numbnut to read my comments and assume that I support section 13. Around here, probably not long at all.]]
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-21 6:25:53 PM
Terrence,
About Rob Wells ... If you are interested, I am sure he is easy to find to contact to ask him to comment on his complaint. But here is some interesting information. In addition to his case against Catholic Insight, which was dismissed (and he is appealing), he also brought a case against Craig Chandler of Freedom Radio Network. Information about that complaint can be found in an article here: http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=4302
The case was settled when Chandler backed down in the mediation phase of the process. Chandler agreed to make a public appology and to remove some material from his websites. The appology letter can be read here: http://www.freedomradionetwork.ca/content/news/robWellsApology.htm . Note that at the end of the letter is a link to a pdf of the "settlement". It's an interesting read.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-21 6:47:23 PM
Fact Check,
Well, the CHRC pursued it, then dropped it. You can argue that it is their job to do this (evaluate complaints, etc) on their merits and then dismiss them if necessary. And you'd be right.
But isn't that the same as saying, "they initially pursued the complaint, then dismissed it"? Before this report came out, wouldn't we have said, "The CHRC is currently pursuing a complaint against Ezra Levant, though they'll probably end up dismissing it"?
This has got to be pure semantics, as much as I hate to say it.
About the standard the investigator used:
Yes, I wasn't sure how novel it was; I was just reporting Ezra's suggestion. The standard does sound a bit weird, though: as I understand it, she ruled that that the material, in context, is not likely to expose people to hatred/contempt, and IS likely to contribute to important debate.
There are at least two things going on here. If Ezra's post, in context, was not likely to expose people to hatred/contempt (under Section 13), then its social value should have been irrelevant, no? But, while denying that it is likely to expose people to hatred and contempt, the investigator also notes its social value in fostering debate (serving a "social purpose"), etc.
What I don't see is what the legal relevance of "social value" of Ezra's republishing the letter is supposed to be. Something that would likely promote debate could also expose people to hatred and contempt. While I agree that the good of the former almost always outweighs the evil of the latter, I didn't think that Section 13 could account for the "social value" of an otherwise hateful publication.
Sorry, perhaps I am not making much sense. But I'm genuinely curious about this, so anything you have to add would be greatly appreciated.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-21 6:47:48 PM
Thanks, Fact Check. I'm going to look into this!
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-21 6:49:16 PM
Terrence,
"But isn't that the same as saying, 'they initially pursued the complaint, then dismissed it'?"
At the very least the word "pursue" is very misleading. To say someone is "pursuing" a complaint strongly suggests that they have determined that it has some merit. This is not the case with the CHRC here.
This reminds me of a very old episode of "The West Wing". The press secretary (CJ) is asked if the President is considering calling a "lame duck" session of congress (a politically dangerous thing to do). CJ says he has said nothing about it and so the reporter asks if she could check with the Prtesident and get back to them. CJ agrees.
The problem, she immediately realizes, is that the moment she asks the President if he has though about calling a lame duck session, he will have considered it, so the answer must be "yes". But to say "He has considered it" will be taken to mean he saw merit in the idea.
Just as if I ask if you think suicide would be a good idea and you say "No! I love life!" you would have to admit that you "considered" it in that you thought about it in order to reject it. But if I told someone that you "considered" suicide they would be rather worried.
So the point is semantic, but a very important semantic point. To say the HRC "pursued" the claim makes it sound like they did think, for at least some time, that it had merit. So it is very misleading to the point of being false to say it. It is much better to say they received the complaint, read the complaint, read the document that the complaint was about, and found no basis for the complaint. That is more accurate.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-21 7:10:44 PM
Fact Check,
Would you say that the CHRC at least investigated the complaint? After all, the person who wrote the assessment is apparently the director of investigations (or some such... it's on Ezra's site.)
So I'm thinking.. "Now the CHRC has investigated such a complaint," blah blah.
Hm.
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-21 7:26:45 PM
Terrence,
I'd say "investigated" is the right word. In fact, I'd say they investigated the complaint and, as a result of the investigation, decided not to pursue it.
:)
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-21 7:34:59 PM
Ezra is the Marc Emery of speech. In a just society, these challengers of illegal law would be given the Order of Canada.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-22 10:10:12 AM
Terrence,
Why do you think that my letter is hateful?
I do hate homosexuality and the propagation of it to young people. I have never hidden that.
Stephen Boissoin
Posted by: Stephen Boissoin | 2008-08-22 10:10:54 AM
The HRC's of our country have obviously lost site of their original mandate, Racially based labor discrimination etc. They are (seemingly) now on a path of social engineering and "thought" control.
Particular issues all aside, our government has no legitimate business in these areas. Its simply Immoral.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-22 11:04:43 AM
Stephen,
"Why do you think that my letter is hateful?"
I know you asked Terrence, but let me try an answer. First, you describe homosexuality as a "sexual identity crisis" that constitutes an "enslavement" that can be "remedied". To use language that clearly suggests that homosexuality is a mental disorder is hateful in the same way that suggesting that religious belief is a mental illness would be hateful.
You wrote: "Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds." This is hateful in exactly the same way as it would have been had you written this: "Where Christianity flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds." In fact it's worse since no one choses their sexual orientation, but people do choose their faith.
You wrote, "Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate." This is hateful in exactly the same way that is would have been hateful if you had written: "Your children are being warped into believing that mixed-race families are acceptable; that whites kissing blacks is appropriate."
You describe a "homosexual agenda" aimed at "recruiting our young into their camps". This is false and hateful because it implies that homosexuals do not respect the legitimacy of heterosexuals being heterosexual. Homosexual activists make no attempt to change anyone's sexual orientation. You are the one doing that.
Your words, "children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies" strongly suggest that you believe that homosexual activists are setting out to harm children. This is false and a claim, if it came to be more widely believed that would certainly lead to more hatred for homosexuals. After all, who likes people who premeditatedly victimize children?
Bigots never realize that they are bigots. White people who sincerely believe that non-whites are morally inferior really believe that it's true, thus they think that believing it is not bigotry at all. But it still remains true that white supremacists are trying to get people to adopt hateful views of non-whites. They just think that it's justified.
The same is true of you. I do not doubt the sincerity and depth of your conviction in the truth of what you say, but these claims are patently false and if adopted by others would lead them to have a more hateful attitude toward homosexuals. I suppose you see an important distinction in your words that you feel sympathy for self-loathing homosexuals and only hatred for self-accepting homosexuals who speak out against the idea that homosexuality is a disease, but it is hatred for homosexuals nonetheless.
The AHRC reached the correct decision in your case under the law. The letter you wrote is covered by section 3 of the Alberta HRA. But having said that, I also agree with EGALE, the CAJ, PEN Canada, and others that this section and others like it in other HRAs should be eliminated. Good luck with your appeal. I do hope you are able to push the case to a level where the section can be struck down.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-22 11:29:30 AM
FC - what a pompous windbag you are. Psychiatry recognised it as a mental disorder until pressure from the homosexual lobby forced them to drop it. Furthermore you dismiss his statement that the homosexual lobby seeks to recruit youth, while ignoring the openly stated goal of one homosexual lobby demanding the right to have sex with children. Before you spout off about others being bigots, get your facts straight.
As for promoting hate, there is nothing is the letter encouraging violence against homosexuals. It has to do with the Christian concept of hate the sin but love the sinner, but of course this is beyond your grasp.
Finally using Fact Check as an ID is on pare with The People's Republic of China.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-22 12:33:26 PM
Well, the CHRC is plainly bullshitting shamelessly. Both publications of the Boissoin letter were made in the same context, that is, in the course of public discussion of important matters of public policy. And while one can argue that the context can affect whether hatred is likely to be roused, that has never been recognized in the past. The only test recognized in law is the likelihood of incitng hatred, and that depends entirely on how the words are likely to be received. It cannot be affected by the intention or purpose of the words.
All that's happening here is that: 1) Ezra has made it clear that he's not a pushover, and 2) Rob Wells has failed to make the necessary arrangements to split his takings with the gang at the CHRC the way Richard Warman does, and so 3) they'll beat up and rob somebody else who won't fight back, thanks.
Posted by: ebt | 2008-08-22 12:53:40 PM
Stephen: I agree with Fact Check's analysis of your letter. In fact, your letter strikes me as the ramblings of a scientifically illiterate and deeply ignorant man. I am repulsed by your letter. It is morally repugnant.
Nevertheless, you have my support in your legal battle. I strongly support your right to be a complete fool, and to publicize your lunacy to the world. Fight them as hard as you can, and with everything you've got.
Alain: Psychiatry removed homosexuality as a mental illness because it wasn't, and isn't, a mental illness. The scientific community brought pressure for scientific reasons. Just like they did when they used to believe that the sun went around the earth, and when scientists proclaimed that we were surrounded by ether. Those theories were trumped by better theories.
And lest you forget, psychiatry was a joke founded on Freudian nonsense back in the day. It has progressed from pure myth to something with genuinely scientific standards not too long ago.
"Promoting hate" and "promoting violence" are not the same things, Alain. The claim is that Boisson's letter did the former, not the latter.
Posted by: Fool Check | 2008-08-22 1:26:17 PM
Fool C - Do the research concerning the removal of homosexuality from psychiatry, and this was not too long ago. I stand by what I stated as to the sole reason it was removed. It is not a matter of rejecting or accepting psychiatry as a science, but pointing how that Mr. Boissoin's claim was not baseless.
Also how about a rebuttal with proof concerning one notorious homosexual lobby group advocating sex with children.
Mr. Boissoin's letter simply expressed views based on certain facts and his Christian belief. Furthermore there is not one religion which accepts homosexuality as normal acceptable behaviour. You want real hate, then you have Mr. Wells as a prime example. Still no one here is advocating that he be denied the right to spout off his hatred.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-22 2:30:39 PM
There are hetero- and homosexual lunatics, Alain. The fact that there exists a NAMBLA is indicative only of the non-discrimination of lunacy--it affects all of us, whether gay or straight.
It would be like me pointing to the KKK as an example of a Christian lobbying group that is indicative of what Christianity is all about.
Go to Vancouver, Toronto, San Francisco and elsewhere, and you will see gay-friendly churches. Maybe they're being inconsistent with doctrine, but they claim to be in keeping with it.
Posted by: Fool Check | 2008-08-22 3:20:58 PM
Fact Check and Fool Check,
I agree with you both about the letter. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-22 4:03:30 PM
One thing, though, Rev. Boissoin:
I had to check again, but I'm sure I didn't call your letter hateful in my initial post. I did say thinking about what's happened to you makes me want to punch someone in the face -- but not you, of course. The way you have been treated angers me, despite my distaste for the content of your letter.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-22 4:05:37 PM
Gay activist Rob Wells -- who is also pursuing a human rights complaint against Catholic Insight magazine --
Posted by Terrence Watson on August 21, 2008
This pretty much says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPUE9xpxjcc
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-22 5:11:29 PM
"They are (seemingly) now on a path of social engineering and "thought" control.
Particular issues all aside, our government has no legitimate business in these areas. Its simply Immoral."
Lets cut to the chase--They're INSANE.
With the Rev's letter, I'm in agreement with him and his religious duty to protect his own.
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2008-08-22 6:33:43 PM
I'm a bit confused about the definition of homosexuality. If it isn't a learned behaviour, and doesn't serve any useful purpose, then it must be an affliction.
I don't hate gays. I don't even object to them having the same rights as straight folks. I'd rather my sons didn't turn out that way, but that's not hateful. I know the number of gays has always been consistent, and no amount of "recruiting" is going to change that. I think the letter was rude, pointless, and ineffectual.
But still, I can't help but think homosexuality is, by definition, a disease. I don't mean any harm by saying this.
Posted by: dp | 2008-08-22 7:42:54 PM
There are people, dp, who get sucked into homoworld and eventually escape.
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2008-08-22 7:55:25 PM
I think they're called escaped felons Reg.
I realize there are some fringe homosexuals. There are so many variations of sexuality, It would take an entire blog site to keep track of them. Some are harmless enough, and some are downright sick.
What I'm talking about is the general tendency to be attracted to same sex. It's been a consistent 5 to 10 percent of human population for time immemorial. It also happens in animals under certain conditions. Since it serves no purpose in the survival of the species, it has to be some sort of "disease". If I were gay, I don't think this description would bother me. Maybe I just don't have the proper empathy.
Posted by: dp | 2008-08-22 8:25:51 PM
Actually the actual percentage is much lower than 5 to 10 percent. In any case the issue here is that Mr. Boissoin's letter or preaching was not promoting hate of anyone. He was pointing out the wrongness of the sin. Yes, I know sin is just not a word progressives like to hear. The same goes for the word evil. However once the state decides what one is allowed to think and to say, we no longer live in a free society.
I am unaware of anyone advocating prosecution of individuals caught in the homosexual act, nor would I support the idea when it comes to consenting adults. Still there are a lot of other legal activities that I reject for religious reasons without feeling the need to censor the same activities. Last of all it would be silly to claim that everyone involved in homosexuality thinks and believes the same thing.
As I have already mentioned that is not one religion which accepts homosexual behaviour as normal and acceptable behaviour. Yet the only religion attacked for this by homosexual activists is Christianity. I find it interesting in that Christianity to my knowledge does not advocate the killing of homosexuals while Islam is very clear concerning what their punishment must be.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-22 9:22:07 PM
Hate the sin, not the sinner. Treat the sin, save the sinner and save the world entire. That's what I got from the good Rev.'s article. Hate? I don't think so. Voicing his opposition to societal the degradation of society? Yes.
Posted by: ike | 2008-08-22 9:33:08 PM
oh where did the freedom of speech go now losers
Posted by: k-man | 2008-09-04 7:37:21 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.