Ezra Levant: The 'Canadian Human Rights Commission' Blinks

Canuckistan: Orwellian Swine Inquisition

* Sharp-as-a-razor Ezra Levant doesn’t mince words and exposes the self-serfing little swine from the Canadian brain police once again:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, like any petty tyranny, has a strong instinct for survival. As I predicted last week on the Michael Coren Show, that instinct would cause them to drop the complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s. And so they did.

Mark Steyn

With an RCMP investigation, a Privacy Commission investigation and a pending Parliamentary investigation, they’re already fighting a multi-front P.R. war, and losing badly. Not a day goes by when the CHRC isn’t pummelled in the media. Holding a show trial of Maclean’s and Steyn, like the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal did earlier this month, would be writing their own political death sentence.

So they blinked. Against everything in their DNA, they let Maclean’s go. That’s the first smart thing they’ve done; because the sooner they can get the public scrutiny to go away, the sooner they can go about prosecuting their less well-heeled targets, people who can’t afford Canada’s best lawyers and command the attention and affection of the country’s literati.

* Here’s Andrew Bolt: Ezra Levant smuggles out news from the People’s Democratic Republic of Canada

“There’s nothing to see here, people! So turn your TV cameras off, and let us continue on our work without your scrutiny! We promise not to target famous Canadians — at least not for a little while. We’ll keep picking on under-lawyered weaklings. We’ll continue to build up our jurisprudence, continue our 100% conviction rate, continue building legal precedents. So when we come for Maclean’s next time, we won’t have to blink.”

Here’s Maclean’s reply, which is far more polite than I would have been:

Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation’s media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.

The only question remaining is whether Heather MacNaughton, chief kangaroo of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, will convict Maclean’s. The “jurisprudence” is there; Maclean’s surely is “guilty” of “likely” “exposing” someone to “hatred or contempt”. Everyone’s guilty of that; so the only question is who gets charged.

Will MacNaughton save her skin — and preserve her tax-funded sinecure, like the CHRC is trying to do? Or will she continue her Stalinist approach to speech? Tough call; her decision in the comedy case shows she’s as nutty as a Snickers Bar. But I’m still betting she’ll acquit Maclean’s. She’ll throw that big fish back into the sea, so she can continue to haul in lots of smaller ones with political impunity.

UPDATE: Several readers ask if this means that section 13, the thought crimes section, no longer has a 100% conviction rate. No — it still does. Because that 100% conviction rate is at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The agency that refused to run with the complaint was the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They’re the pretend police and prosecutors; the CHRT are the pretend judges. Every single section 13 case the CHRC has brought to the CHRT has resulted in a conviction, and there’s no reason to think the Maclean’s case would have bucked that trend. The CHRC blinked, and decided not to prosecute. They knew that to do so would have been political suicide. Better to keep going after powerless, and often lawyerless, targets.


From Stey’ns blog:

The ‘roo jumps for the exit
FRIDAY, 27 JUNE 2008

On Thursday, the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission (very quietly) dismissed the Canadian Islamic Congress complaint against Maclean’s re America Alone – and without even giving the Socks the consolation of an Ontario-style drive-by verdict. The decision of the Jennifer Lynch mob includes the following:

The Steyn article discusses changing global demographics and other factors that the author describes as contributing to an eventual ascendancy of Muslims in the ‘developed world’, a prospect that the author fears for various reasons described in the article. The writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13 (1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.

For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed.

Here‘s the official reaction from Maclean’s.

We now await the decision from the pseudo-judges of the British Columbia tribunal.


Citizens of the Western world should work back from the results. When the British government decides that it cannot deport Abu Qatada, identified as a leader of Al Qaeda in Britain, because he might be ill-treated in Jordan, and further decides that it cannot put him in prison, but can only confine him to electronic-bracelet life in a $1.6 million dollar home, on a leafy street, in a well-off neighborhood, with his wife and five little Abu Qatadas (who will grow up, speak English perfectly, know the lay of the land and the ways of the locals, and each become far more of a threat to Infidel laws and rights and customs and freedoms than their clumsy thick-accented father ever could have been), all paid for by the British taxpayer, and that outrage is hardly alone, then it is the law, or those in charge of administering the law, or both, that need to be changed.

It is the same in Canada, or in particular Canadian provinces. The human type, the mental type, who participates in, who enthusiastically endores, inquisitorial efforts of this kind, who does not see what a farce, what an invitation to a beheading, this kind of thing is, and who, furthermore, we have every right to suspect are the kind of people who would be the first to support Muslim demands, at the U.N. and elsewhere, for a ban on “Islamophobia” which means, of course, as interpreted, a ban on intelligent analysis and discussion of the texts, tenets, attitudes, of Islam, and of the source, goals, and means of Jihad, pursued world-wide by Muslims, for the world-wide Jihad is merely the sum of all the local Jihads, against non-Muslims already living in a state of permanent imperilment in the Muslim-ruled lands, and against non-Muslim states that dare to continue to exist, such as Israel, that has in Muslim eyes no such conceivable right, or states whose citizens, as is becoming more common eve in Western Europe and North America, do not always yield, but start to resist Muslim demands by the Muslims who have so foolishly and negligently been allowed to come in, and settle deep within what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines of Dar al-Harb — in which case, these demands continue to be pressed, for changes here, in schools (a special room for prayers, a special table in the cafeteria, special versions of textbooks designed to meet Muslim ideas of how Islam is to be presented, in a direct attempt to dictate how history, and the truth, are presented in order to “improve” the image of Islam), in workplaces (again, those prayer-rooms, or that special dispensation for the five daily prayers, and other accommodations that clearly interfere with work, such as checkout clerks refusing to handle pork products, or ever sully themselves by any even accidental physical contact with Infidels –say, in handing back change, and you, reader can fill out the page here with your own examples.

Those who participated in, and eagerly supported, the comedy of would-be terrors, that is the bureaucratic state, attempting to terrorize the sensible Steyn, Levant and others, are the ones who should now — oh, not be brought up for inverstigation and the show-trial that they favor, but have their powers limited, and they themeslves made mock of, in every possible forum, in the Canadian equivalent of Saturday Night Live and other shows, with all kinds of mock trials put on (the kind in which 9.5 and 9.29 and 3.11 and other parts of the Qur’an are read out, or in which the cwaziest Hadith are read out, and then mock charges are brought, until it is revealed that what was read was not a cruel parody of Islam, but nothing but Islam itself. That’s the way to teach Infidel publics about what is in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — and the more they know, the more they find out about Islam, but not from the espositos and the rest of the Saudi-funded army, or such camp-followers as Karen Armstrong, the better.

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2008 8:42 AM


Islamophobia its formal, legally tested definition, is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a lavishly-funded organ of the European Union. Based in Vienna, this body diligently tracks the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Old Continent and summarizes them in its reports. The Monitoring Center’s definition of Islamophobia includes eight salient features:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and “other.”
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

Posted by: Mr.Fitnah [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2008 9:50 AM