Here's Barbara Kay's excellent Op-Ed from today's National Post, about the soft jihad of lawfare. Lawfare, of course, is the hijacking of Western legal processes by Islamic radicals. It's no accident that the human rights complainants against Maclean's magazine, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, and the Western Standard and me were all filed by foreign-born jihadis.
Lawfare doesn't work without collusion of what Vladimir Lenin called "the useful idiots of the West". In Lenin's day, those were Western "intellectuals" who willingly, even eagerly, engaged in anti-Western propaganda, espionage and sabotage for the Soviet Union, usually without compensation except for their own misguided feelings of moral righteousness. In today's lawfare, the foreign-born jihadis are aided by domestic leftist busybodies, usually in the "human rights" industry.
It's a bizarre combination: secular leftists -- for whom, for example, sexual liberty is their political signature issue -- teaming up with the kind of medieval brutes. Radical Islam would ban abortion, put women in personality-obliterating niqabs, and kill homosexuals -- in other words, they're everything the Left abhors. The radical leftists who inhabit Canada's human rights commissions would never do the bidding of any other religion -- they love to persecute Christians. But when a second-rate imam issues a fatwa, they hop to it, using our tax dollars and government bureaucracies. Just read this crap, filed against me by Pakistani-born imam Syed Soharwardy. If such a semi-literate piece of theocracy were to be filed by any other group, it would be laughed at. In Soharwardy's case, it has been prosecuted for 900 days by 15 Alberta bureaucrats. Soharwardy abandoned his complaint this spring, but his jihadi allies in Edmonton have picked up where he left off with their own complaint.
Here are some excerpts from Kay's article:
...Ayatollah-prescribed fatwas are so pre-9/11. Nowadays, as liberal elites rush prophylactically to ward off charges of tolerating "Islamophobia," the fatwas (in all but name) against damn good books like Mark Steyn's America Alone aren't bruited in mosques; they issue forth from human rights commissioners.
An unintended but all-too-predictable danger inherent in the prosecution of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn (the latter via Maclean's magazine) was the encouraging message it would send to more fevered imaginations. As reported on his blog on Monday morning, Ezra Levant has received an anonymous e-mail death threat: "Ezra, you will be killed by my hands."
Although this is doubtless a hollow menace (real killers rarely serve notice), the sender's wish to sow fear in Levant, and by extension all journalists, is merely a cruder version of the impulse behind the human rights complaints.
...The soft jihad is gradualistic and law-abiding, but no less desirous of Islamic domination of the West than its violent counterpart. Soft jihad strategy exploits liberal discourse and weaknesses in our legal system to induce guilt about a largely mythical "Islamophobia."
The list of complaint-triggering speech offences is long in all Western countries, and ranges from the trivial to the politically existential: A decoration on a lid of ice cream distributed by Burger King offends because it resembles Allah in Arabic script; Fox Entertainment's drama 24 portrays South Americans, Bosnians, Germans and Muslims as terrorists, but only Muslims complain; a Turkish lawyer sues an Italian soccer team because the red cross on their jerseys reminds him of the Crusades.
...One way or another we must stop the fatwa industry in its tracks. Begin with removal of speech-regulation from the HRCs' legal mandate. Build on that with legislation that imposes costs and damages on litigious third parties who seek to chill journalists.
Canada should also pass legislation imitative of the U. S. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) law, presently active in 24 U. S. states, which disallows harassment of those writing on matters of "public concern," as well as the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, a New York state initiative that will combat libel tourism.
The HRC crisis is not a tempest in a teapot. Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, says: "I don't think it's too strong to say that the [HRC] complaint against Mark Steyn is a totalitarian document."
It is therefore no exaggeration to say that Levant and Steyn are fighting for the defining ideal of Western civilization which, once lost, would spell the beginning of the end of all our other freedoms.
If Pat Condell was a Canadian, I think he'd have more human rights complaints and lawsuits than me. (It sounds like he gets more death threats than I do.) But he'd be twice as devastating to the human rights commissions. He mentions the CHRC about five minutes into the video editorial, below.
I went to Condell's YouTube homepage -- I'm frankly surprised that YouTube hasn't censored him, given their timidity -- and his videos have had literally millions of views collectively.
I don't agree with every word the man says. But that's not the point, of course. The point is that it's bracing to see a man speak so confidently and masterfully about freedom, and Western culture. The fact that millions listen to him is a sign of hope -- we're not all politically correct zombies.
h/t SDA and others
See update below.
An employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has threatened me with another lawsuit, because I criticized his conduct at the CHRC.
So now the government is suing its political critics. Sorry – are we in Russia or Canada?
The CHRC staffer is Giacomo Vigna, one of the CHRC lawyers who prosecutes section 13 "hate speech" cases. He’s a censor. And he’s also a bit of a buffoon. One day last year, he stopped an entire tribunal hearing because he said he wasn’t feeling “serene”.
Nobody could understand what he was talking about, but they stopped the trial anyways, at enormous cost to the taxpayer – the government had to pay for all of the other lawyers' costs for travelling across the country to be there. The tribunal chairman demanded a doctor’s note, which Vigna gave his solemn professional undertaking to provide. It’s been more than a year, and Vigna hasn’t complied with his promise. The CHRC had to drop him from the case and hire a new lawyer at great expense, because the trial couldn’t continue until Vigna kept his promise. How embarrassing.
I learned all of the above from reading a transcript of the trial. You can see the details here, for yourself, starting at page 4867. I’m not quite sure what Vigna's legal argument is. Is he disputing the facts, as captured by the court stenographer?
Just to keep track, this is the second lawsuit threatened by Vigna. And it's on top of the lawsuit already filed by Richard Warman, the former CHRC employee who remains the heaviest user of the CHRC's section 13 "hate speech" law. Out of 13 Internet cases to have gone to a full hearing, 12 of them have been Warman's. Vigna and Warman were a team at the CHRC, in fact -- Vigna was the CHRC's lawyer prosecuting Warman's complaint against Marc Lemire.
And then there's the defamation threat against me by Warren Kinsella. Kinsella has been the CHRC's lonely defender in the public square. He's friends with Warman -- they even share the same defamation lawyer against me. Kinsella is also part of the "human rights" industry himself, if marginally, having written a loving book about it. And he once gave a keynote speech to the "human rights" industry's luxurious annual convention in Banff. Nice gig.
So that's four defamation suits, all filed or threatened by members of the "human rights" industry. And then there's the two "human rights" complaints themselves (one of which was abandoned, one of which continues against me). And then there are other legal assaults (twelve of them, actually) that have been thrown at me, which I’ll describe another day.
And then there’s the odd death threat.
If that sounds excessive, you're getting the picture. It's a strategy. It's called "lawfare", and it's an attempt to smother me under so many hassles and costs that I abandon my criticism of Canada's HRCs and their abuse of real human rights, like freedom of speech.
They're not even subtle about it. Warman calls his strategy "maximum disruption". He boasts he files legal actions against his enemies just to cause them a hassle. Kinsella calls it “Kicking Ass”. Now you'll understand why I'm putting "human rights" in quotation marks when talking about them.
Instead of rebutting my criticisms, these folks think that if they just throw enough nuisance suits at me I'll pack up and leave.
Not bloody likely.
And not as long as I have the support of the blogosphere to cover my legal fees. I know that support frustrates my antagonists. See, this is the part in their fantasy where I'm supposed to crumple under the weight of their lawsuits, and beg for their forgiveness -- like so many of their previous targets have done. This isn't where I'm supposed to say "not bloody likely.”
Enough preamble. Let me show you Vigna's new legal threat. You can find it here. It was served on one of my lawyers in Toronto.
You will see that it is written entirely in French. My translation of it is here.
Vigna speaks perfect English. My lawyer is unilingually English. The words I wrote that he complained about are in English. The fact that Vigna chose to write his demand to my lawyer in French tells you that he is trying to do a little "maximum disruption" of his own. I don't dispute that Vigna technically has the legal right to file a lawsuit in Ontario in French -- though that will add some cost and hassle to my defence, which is clearly his intended effect.
But he is going much beyond that. He is writing his general correspondence – not his court pleadings, but his day-to-day communications with my lawyers – in French. He's using bilingualism as a weapon. He probably thinks he's pretty tricky. I'd say it proves my point -- he's a little off balance and a lot unprofessional, the very things he's denying in his suits. And it shows a larger sickness in the CHRC: instead of using laws like “human rights” legislation and “bilingualism” as shields to protect people, they’re being used as weapons, to battle people. They’re being abused – especially by activist-bureaucrats.
I’m not going to fisk the whole demand. I think it’s pretty clear that Vigna ought to get himself a lawyer other than himself. He’s not particularly experienced at civil litigation – he’s more used to the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel practice of prosecuting hate speech cases, where a 100% conviction rate suggests that the work isn’t particularly challenging. I’m not sure how he’ll do in a real court – where, unlike section 13 hate speech cases, truth and fair comment are defences. But even if Vigna had experience and expertise in defamation law, it’s clear that he’s -- uh, how can I phrase this – not serene enough to use good judgment in his own case.
I don’t propose to go through all of Vigna’s minutiae. But there are a few points I’d like to address.
Vigna – like so many people in the “human rights” industry – characterizes people who disagree with him as law-breakers. Either you agree with him, or you're an outlaw. In particular, he’s mad about this blog entry I made about the harassment that Vigna’s private investigator subjected my parents to. It takes an extra helping of chutzpah to harass my parents, and then threaten to sue me for complaining about that harassment, and even call my complaint itself harassment.
(I note that his private investigator, one Gaby Saliba, has sworn a false affidavit. Saliba swears that my father told him that I still live at my parents’ house. It’s hilarious in a way; I haven’t lived there since I was a teenager, and my parents kept telling the trespassing Saliba this. Saliba’s perjury makes it a little less funny. But the CHRC isn’t exactly known for its ethics.)
Vigna also complains that his antics – first his antics in the courtroom, and then his ham-fisted antics on my parents’ property – were reported elsewhere on the Internet. He says I’m acting in concert with other websites to intimidate him. Apparently, he thinks there should be some sort of publication ban when he wants to sue people. (I note that Kinsella, too, demanded that I not publicize his legal threats against me. Sorry -- I'm not interested in being threatened in secret.)
I note that one of the websites cited by Vigna is the white supremacist site, VNN. I’m a Jew. I’m not a member of white supremacist Internet communities. I don’t have any dealings with them.
But Vigna can’t say the same, can he? Vigna was one of the CHRC staffers who knew about their secret memberships in neo-Nazi groups. Vigna even knew the passwords and account details for such neo-Nazi memberships, including one called Jadewarr.
You’d think that a man who had access to membership privileges on neo-Nazi websites wouldn’t exactly be bringing that up in court, especially when the suit is about his reputation. I don’t know about you, but whenever I hear about some shocking “news” on Stormfront or VNN that just happens to justify the latest CHRC tyranny, my first thoughts are “the CHRC planted it themselves.” That’s because the secret accounts that Vigna, Warman and others at the CHRC had access to were in fact used to plant hundreds of hateful messages online, and were used to entrap the CHRC’s targets. I’ve never had the access codes to a neo-Nazi website. Vigna has. It’s just creepy that he’d try to tag that on me.
I’m not going to dignify Vigna’s response with any more time. I’m going to put a top defamation lawyer on the case, and tell him to fight Vigna hard.
I'm going to make sure we subpoena all the CHRC's own records that touch on the case. Vigna is Jennifer Lynch's man. Let's get her on the record about his conduct. Let's get their internal files about why Vigna was sacked from the case. And what the whole "serenity" nonsense was really about. Vigna's direct boss, the great Ian Fine, was part of the whole "serenity now" business, too. I've debated against him. Prediction: not a strong witness.
I'm going to fight hard. Not just because it’s so obviously a nuisance suit from Vigna (two, now). Not just because it’s my right as a Canadian to criticize the government, and the on-the-job conduct of government employees like Vigna (and when they harass my parents in retaliation).
But because Vigna is part of a larger pathology: an out-of-control “human rights” industry that feels it can squash criticism, rather than have to answer to it.
Dear reader, I know you’re probably growing tired of helping me out. I’m a little tired of spending my time fighting back against such suits, too. But I know that I can’t back down. I have to fight these fights all the way to the end.
Not just to win them for my own sake, but to send a message to the HRCs that the way they bully their opponents is not acceptable. That message will be sent by the trial judge to Vigna. But I want that message to go to Vigna’s boss, Jennifer Lynch, the Chief Commissioner of the CHRC, too. She presides over a corrupt, ethically-challenged swamp, that is under investigation by the RCMP, the Privacy Commissioner, Parliament, and even an internal review. Lynch smiles for the media, and pretends she’s fine with it all – but the fact is, her own staff and former staff are her attack dogs, suing and harassing her political critics. I blame Lynch as much as I blame Vigna and Warman, for Lynch has created a corrupt corporate culture where abuse of process and vindictive lawsuits against political critics are just a normal day at the office.
My legal fights are about beating Vigna, Kinsella, Warman, etc. But they’re also about standing up to the poetically named Ms. Lynch and her petty tyranny.
If you agree with me, please click on my PayPal button. If you can help me bear my legal costs, as God is my witness I’ll keep fighting these antagonists as hard and as smart as I can
The Lancaster Building
800, 304 - 8 Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta T2P 1C2
"This organization is not a registered non-profit organization. Donations to this organization are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes."
Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals and Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury have filed their defence against Richard Warman's nuisance suit. You can see their defence, drafted by Toronto lawyer Chris Ashby, here.
(Ashby's defamation work has made headlines before. Here's a story about his successful lawsuit against the CBC. Taking on the CBC with its in-house stable of lawyers is a bit of a David and Goliath exercise. I understand that, during that 5 1/2 week trial, it was just Ashby and his client on one side of the court, and six lawyers and CBC managers on the other side. Ashby won $200,000 plus costs for his client.)
But back to the case at hand. Warman's suit can be seen here, and my commentary on it at the time can be seen here.
The National Post and Jonathan Kay filed their defence, which you can see here. My commentary on it is here.
Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion filed their defence here. My commentary on it is here.
I am now the only defendant who has not filed his statement of defence. I expect to do so this week.
Ashby's defence is written in pretty plain English, but allow me to point out some interesting parts.
I liked paragraph 4. Warman had sued not only Kate and Kathy, but their website addresses, too. That makes about as much sense as suing a phone number. A URL is simply a place in cyberspace. It's not a legal entity. It's just plain old weird that Warman was suing those electrons, and Ashby pointed that out.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 are good points: the nature of the blogosphere is that people can rebut and respond immediately, and blogs incorporate those changes in real time. There is a rough and tumble -- even rude -- nature to the Internet, but netiquette (and common sense) suggests that if someone complains with merit, those complaints are often incorporated. It's the whole Web 2.0 thing -- interactive. Warman knows that as well as anyone -- what with his extensive experience as a member of the Stormfront online community. When Warman went online in his various neo-Nazi personas, he interacted with other members of Stormfront, correcting them, insulting them, rebutting them, agreeing with them, plotting with them, dissing Jews and gays with them.
See here, here, here and here. Warman knew his way around the Net. But while he was comfortable chatting on neo-Nazi websites, and chastising people for not being white enough, or Nazi enough, for some reason he didn't deign to write the Internet equivalent to a "letter to the editor" to Kate or Kathy's sites correcting what he thought were their errors. Why's that?
Paragraphs 11-15 are weird, too. Warman has sued Kathy for things she didn't write. If I'm not mistaken, our friend Jay Currie wrote some of those words, but Warman hasn't sued him. I'm not encouraging anyone to sue Jay, but it's a little bit odd that Warman has sued Kathy for Jay's remarks.
Paragraph 16 is a pretty important point, and it goes to a much larger issue than the substance of Warman's suit. Warman seeks to establish new defamation law, in the realm of the Internet. In his statement of claim, he wants the courts to hold websites legally responsible not only for what they publish, but for what they link to. By that theory, anyone on the Internet is liable for everyone on the Internet. For you are liable for everyone you link to, and they're liable for everyone they link to (and so are you, too), and so on and so on. It sets up a cascading series of infinite liability.
Fortunately, such a punitive approach to defamation and censorship is not Canadian law. Yet.
The heart of Kate and Kathy's defence is paragraphs 17 to 22. That's where they plead that what they wrote was based on true facts, and their fair comments on those facts, as part of a bona fide public debate.
Paragraph 24 is deceptively small. It claims that Warman's poor reputation isn't because of Kathy and Kate, but because of Warman's repeated postings of bigoted material. That's just a sentence in the statement of defence. I expect it will turn into a week at trial.
There's not much for me to add by way of commentary here that I didn't say when the previous four defendants filed their statements of defence. Ashby's style is efficient -- just pleading the key points. He'll be interesting to watch at trial.
I'll wait until it's filed before discussing my approach to my statement of defence. Let's just say I'm going to be a little bit more loquacious about the reputation that the plaintiff claims has been damaged.
See update, below.
I received another report from a free speechnik who attended Guy Earle's comedy benefit last night.
As regular readers will know, Earle is the comedian who has been ordered to stand trial in British Columbia for sparring with two lesbians who heckled him during a show last year. The chair of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Heather MacNaughton -- who also chaired Mark Steyn's five-day show trial last month -- ruled that Earle and Zesty's (the nightclub he performed in) must stand trial for "discrimination" because their jokes hurt the hecklers' feelings.
Here's the report I received from last night's event, emphasis in the original:
I was at the benefit last night. I’m going to tell you what I thought, but I ask that you keep my identity strictly confidential...
I see [Jason Kenney's] attendance is on record: great.
I arrived with a donation for Mr. Earle at about 8:00. I was sorry to see there was no line up. The building was totally non-descript and one entered the basement venue via a glass door, covered with brown paper. Various comics were milling around. I had a nice chat with Guy and one other comic: I mentioned both you and Mark Steyn and they both seemed to have very little idea of your importance in all of this. E.g., I said to Guy what an honour it is to be linked to your and Steyn’s blogs where thousands of people have been made aware of his plight. He was polite but not at all excited: I honestly felt, including my discussion with him, that he doesn’t really get it. I explained that, as an observant Christian, I’d been unhappily aware of the HRCs for a couple of decades. I noted that we’re unlikely allies but that it was good that we’re fighting the illegitimate power of the state together. He was very grateful for the support, but I feel, in talking to him, another comic, at length, and watching the show, that these people don’t understand who the enemy is or how deadly serious this issue is.
When I had an extended conversation with one of the comics, while sipping my wine in a plastic cup, he became more and more interested. He had no clue about who you and Mark are: I said, “Get over to Ezra Levant’s blog and read ALL OF IT!” He had no clue what’s at stake—the end of democracy, period! After we talked, he said, “Now I have a much better idea about how serious this is.” And the fact that there were only about 100 people at the benefit—I was really disappointed at the puny turn out—displayed, I thought, the typical Canadian apathy to what’s really important.
Guy was very pleasant, very grateful for the support, interested to hear I was a Christian and that this kind of thing had been happening to Christians for some time. He was also solicitous that some of the show might offend me (nice of him!): I told him not to worry, “Christians have big shoulders about these things;-)”
The show, itself? Unimpressive, I’m afraid. Almost no dealing with the topic of the gulag. There was loads of smut and very unsavoury references to various bodily parts, orifices, and fluids, in the bluntest language. I found it juvenile and unfunny. I wasn’t offended, per se. It’s just that a golden opportunity to educate people—but one has to know what the ISSUE is—and to ridicule our political masters was almost entirely squandered.
There were all kinds of nasty, sexually explicit jabs at lesbians—lots of laughs, from lesbians too, I think!—as if they’re the enemy. Judging by the potty language and grossness of nearly every performance—for its own sake, IMO—the level of political knowledge and sophistication seemed extremely low. And at the beginning, when, Earle made a few a propos comments about freedom of speech—sorry, I can’t recall his words—[my friends and I] clapped like mad and cheered: about the only three to show any enthusiasm about this at all.
The crowd seemed under informed and uninvolved. They often didn’t even bother to clap for the performers: perhaps that was discernment, as most of the routines were really quite dreadful! Not witty or intelligent political commentary, which is what was needed, IMO: just juvenile, sexual filth. I altogether support their right to make fools of themselves—their T-shirts say, “It’s not illegal to be an asshole”—but I don’t see that the benefit educated anyone about what’s really going on or made fun of the HRC assholes who so richly deserve it.
The crowd seemed to be a group of isolates. Except for being generally friendly to the comics—the audience was probably mainly made up of their friends/relatives (but not many!)—I didn’t discern any momentum or community spirit. In general, the audience response was relatively flat and I’m quite sure that most were there for a lark. There was no feeling that we were all there with a serious purpose and a serious enemy that needs to be defeated. That (and to leave my donation) was why I’d left home last evening to visit an underground dive and listen to substandard comedy!
I found the experience disheartening: the usual Canadian ignorance and apathy, even as the HRC tentacles are wrapped around one’s body! These people seem to be fiddling while Canada burns. Just WHAT does it take for Canadians to wake up and fight back? This group of threatened Canadians are still sleepwalking. They, including Guy Earle, who has obviously not been following your blog, are not informed: some soldiers they are! Very disappointing.
Ezra, you’re a bright light in the gathering gloom. Maybe these people will see the light: at this point, though, it seems they need to spend some time at boot camp!
I thought it was an interesting report. I replied:
It's a little bit depressing. But recall how you were when you first heard about human rights commissions -- like me, you probably didn't have any idea of the depth of the problem. I remember, clearly, that I thought the HRCs critics were nutty, and that their accusations were conspiracy theories or madness. It took me months of immersion to realize they were the sane ones!
So don't be too tough on these folks, who are closer to "severely normal" Canadians, in terms of political activity, than you and I are!
My correspondent made some good points about the apathy of the crowd. But as I mentioned in reply, most Canadians are closer to those fellow comedians than to the revved up blogosphere. My estimate is that, seven months ago, 99% of Canadians hadn't even heard of human rights commissions, and that now the figure was down to 90%. That's a spectacular success, by the way, since most people don't care about politics of any sort, even during an election campaign. The key is getting normal people to care, not just the political die-hards.
That's why, though I sympathize with the hassle he is going through personally, I am glad that Earle has been persecuted. Again, what is being done to him is immoral; evil, even. And I don't wish such a persecution on anyone. But if Canadians are to be targeted by these HRCs, it is better that they should target comedians like Earle, and political cartoonists, like Bruce MacKinnon at the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. That is, people who are mainstream. For decades, the HRCs were strategically smart enough only to target politically marginal people -- neo-Nazis, then Christians, and now conservatives. But going after Maclean's, and Earle, and the Herald -- that's hubris, and it will generate a backlash that would not come to the defence of more marginalized targets.
My correspondent's report is somewhat depressing for its description of apathy. But I'm not too alarmed. If only one or two people out of that theatre -- including Earle himself -- decides to become well-briefed and political as a result, that's a good start.
Earle filled a room with 100 people, mere weeks after he was ordered to stand trial. I'm not sure if my case -- which is now a cause celebre -- could have filled a room with 100 people when it first began.
Last night was a baby step in the right direction.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that Earle's rant in response to the lesbian hecklers was quite rude, and it was for these very rude remarks that he's being sued. This doesn't weaken my point at all. The phrase "free" speech means that speech is free from other factors that would limit it -- including other values or dogmas that may also be worthwhile. It means that speech can trump politeness, or correctness. That's the whole point here. Earle wouldn't have been charged with "discrimination" if he hadn't offended some other value -- in this case, someone else's standard of politeness in the face of two very rude women (who threw drinks at him). That he chose to pick on them for their sexuality may be offensive; but it does not erode his right to free speech.
We have to stand up for the hard cases, for they set the precedent for the rest of us. We didn't stand up strongly enough for the "neo-Nazis" who were charged with hate speech, so now we have 30 years of jurisprudence being used against Maclean's, and me, and Earle, etc.
Canadians understand the importance of giving rights to everyone, including odious people, when it's in the context of violent criminals. We all knew that Paul Bernardo was guilty. But we gave him all the rights of our constitution anyways. We didn't void those rights because we hate what he had done. I don't know why there is a disconnect for the rights of political criminals.
My correspondent who was at the benefit made it clear that she didn't find the evening particularly funny. (My other correspondent last night mentioned one funny skit.) If we only believe in free speech for comedians we think are funny, then we're not really for free speech at all. It's frustrating how often this has to be clarified for Canadians, who think that other values -- like "compromise" or "niceness" -- trump free speech. But then it's not free speech.
See updates, below.
Tonight at 10:30 p.m. MT I received this comment posted to my blog:
ezra you will be killed by my hands
The IP address from which the comment was made is 72.137.199.43
I'm not a good Internet sleuth; I think that's a Rogers account. That's all I know. But I'd like to know more.
Who is he? Or she?
Is it a serious threat? It's anonymous. Is it the rant of a timid do-nothing? Or is it a warning from someone who is serious -- and would move from threats to actions?
What's his beef? Is it my opposition to human rights commissions -- maybe even written by someone who works for them? Is it my opposition to radical Islam -- written by some jihadi?
I'm not sure. But instead of being afraid, I think I'm going to turn it into a win-win situation for all of us.
Be the first to answer the above questions, and I'll give you $1,000 in prize money.
I think it will be an adventure -- I just hope it ends well!
P.S. For a moment, I thought the threat was an allusion to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's order that McDonald's employees in Vancouver no longer have to wash their hands when preparing food. But I don't think that's what my correspondent meant by "killed by my hands". (That's an attempt at humour.)
UPDATE: Here are some more clues for you. I searched for the above IP address within my blog's statistics program, and I came up with the information here. The user is in Toronto, the host name is "CPE001217af1113-CM00195eebd328.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com" and the ISP is called "Rogers Cable Inc. Wlfdle" I don't know what Wlfdle means -- do you?
UPDATE 2: Thanks to everyone for your interesting comments! I've learned a little bit about how the Internet works. Fewer pipes and tubes than I had thought; more switches.
Seriously, though, I'm grateful for the information and advice. I have communicated with Rogers in some detail, as well as with two police forces -- one out there, and one over here. I think we've probably gleaned everything we can from the existing information. Everything else will have to come from Rogers itself.
I had thought that, perhaps, the perpetrator would have left other footprints -- namely, the same IP address in an e-mail to someone else, or in a comment to someone else's blog.
We'll have to wait to learn the final facts from Rogers and the police. You can be assured that I'll keep you posted.
I imagine the perp is one of two species: a foolish blowhard, who didn't think he could be traced; or a more serious activist from whom violence is more of a likelihood. Either species ought to be exposed. When I learn more, I'll make a proper decision about what to do -- as will, I'm sure, the police, and Rogers, too.
I just received an e-mail from the Guy Earle comedy benefit, on right now in Toronto. Jason Kenney, the federal cabinet minister and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, is there, along with his Director of Communications, Alykhan Velshi.
I have no information about the event itself -- whether the comics are funny; how political they are; what Earle himself said by way of introduction, etc. Those will be interesting details, and I'll publish them as I get them.
But the fact that a federal cabinet minister has attended this dissident event, in support of free speech and in solidarity with a Canadian who has been targeted by the illiberal human rights racket, is impressive to me.
I remain optimistic that the government will move from symbolic gestures, such as Kenney's appearance tonight, to substantive actions, such as gutting the Canadian Human Rights Act's section 13 -- the political censorship provision. It was the B.C. analog of that section that has trapped Guy Earle, and trapped me, too, in Alberta, for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed nearly three years ago.
UPDATE 1: I'm reminded somewhat roughly by a commenter that the actual complaint proceeding against Earle is not for "discrimination" in his communication, but "discrimination" in his "provision of a service". That's even nuttier. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal will have a hearing about whether Earle's "service" -- how he responds to hecklers -- meets their standards of non-discrimination. It's actually more absurd than a section 13 "hate speech" case, if that's possible. Will will now have "jurisprudence" about the right and wrong way for comedians to reply to heckles.
Fire. Them. All.
UPDATE 2: I'm told the event was full to capacity. I inquired about the political nature of the jokes -- because entertainers often show their political bravery by attacking, oh, George W. Bush, rather than anyone who might actually hurt them, Theo van Gogh-style. I'm told the comedians were not in that cliched rut at all.
There were quite a few lesbian jokes -- not surprising, given that Earle's persecutors are lesbians.
There was a hilarious routine about a Chinese guy named... Raymond Chan who loved playing World of Warcraft and whose pet peeves included... women with opinions. I don't know if that comic knows about the Liberal politician Raymond Chan, but I'm told it was the funniest segment of the night, either way.
I'm told the feeling in the room was pretty laid back -- and there was even a heckler, though he wasn't part of any official victim's group, so it's unlikely he'll file a human rights complaint about how he was handled.
Earle himself was the last comic standing, and he delivered a slightly longer routine than the rest. The event ended with him receiving a standing ovation.
It sounds like a great evening -- some good laughs, a little bit of bad behaviour and dissident comedy, and some encouragement and financial support for a comedian who is just the lastest victim of Canada's politically correct HRCs. It sounds like I missed a great night.
I hope that the 40 comedians who participated go forth and add a few jokes about human rights commissions to their schtick. They'd reach a whole group of Canadians who probably haven't heard about HRCs before -- and I'd be those 40 would be as persuasive advocates as any Op-Ed writer or politican.
Let the denormalization of the HRCs continue.
If any reader was there, feel free to expand on this report in the comments section.
Rex Murphy fires another broadside at British Columbia's laughable Human Rights Tribunal, and its decision to have a full-blown hearing into the case of comedian Guy Earle, and his response to two drunk hecklers. Rex also mentions the cartoon complaint being prosecuted by Alberta's human rights commissions against me, a 900-day, 15-bureaucrat investigation that continues with no end in sight.
Some excerpts:
...Human-rights commissions are good on cartoons. The one in Alberta, for example, has been savaging Ezra Levant's peace of mind for almost three years because his now-departed magazine published the famous Mohammed cartoons. Chewing on his bank account too. The still unfinished quarry into whether the genial and courageous Mr. Levant is an Islamaphobic hate-monger has so far cost him almost $100,000. Cost to the two complainants so far: zilch.
Incidentally, one of them, Syed Soharwardy, withdrew his complaint 21/2 years in. Did he get a tap on the wrist for instigating so costly and disturbing a process and then – on a whim? on a soul-awakening? out of boredom? – cancelling it? Of course not.
This is one of the less-noticed glories of the Canadian human-rights insanity. Complainants float unburdened like puffballs in a summer breeze – blowing whither they list. Targets – Catholic bishops, Catholic magazines, fundamentalist pastors, genital surgeons, heckled comedians, school boards, fast-food joints, school-prom nights, Maclean's magazine – empty bank machines and call in lawyers while the “leisurely” process unfurls in an eerie, Kafkaesque slow motion.
...And out in B.C., the Case of the Heckled Comic and the Drink-Tossing Lesbians has intervened and obviously offers a more diverting stew. From national newsmagazines to amateur night at the local comedy store, there is nowhere your fearless human-rights commission does not tread.
Incidentally, what are the human-rights protocols governing stand-up comedians in their delicate dance with drink-lubricated hecklers – whether said hecklers be lesbians, heterosexuals or, as is increasingly the case, of indeterminate orientation? Has the International Criminal Court had time to give this explosive area a once-over? Will Don Rickles – finally – be arrested on some international warrant? Is Triumph the Insult Comic Dog on some human-rights watch list?
...the comedian in the heckling lesbian case is holding a fundraiser in Toronto tonight [Saturday night].
...They should also avoid any jokes involving sex, religion, politics or global warming. Outside those boundaries, I think they're safe. Chicken crossing the road jokes are safe. Assuming, of course, the fowl pedestrian is free-range and it doesn't meet a vegetarian halfway over. Absent those elements and I fear cries of chickenphobia will rear their squawking heads.
The really funny joke in all of this, however, is not going to come of out the mouth of any comedian. It is the dreary fact that comedians are the latest targets of Canada's human-rights commissions. Did you ever in your wildest dreams see heckling as the subject of a human-rights inquiry?
The mirthless sitting in adjudication over the mirth-makers, telling Canadians what they're allowed to laugh at.
Fire. Them. All.
see update, below
Lindsay Blackett, the freshman Alberta MLA who is the Minister for Culture and Community Spirit (I'm not kidding), has finally responded to the avalanche of mail he received when his government sentenced Rev. Stephen Boissoin to a lifetime ban on preaching his Christianity. He supports the ban.
More than two months ago, Blackett's fellow Tory, Lori Andreachuk, was the human rights commissioner who issued a Stalinist order telling Rev. Boissoin that he not only was banned -- for life -- from criticizing homosexuality, even in sermons or private e-mails, but that he had to positively renounce his faith in the local newspaper.
(You can read my analysis of that ruling, here.)
Andreachuk's unconstitutional ruling wasn't some independent decision, at arms length from Blackett's government. The Government of Alberta positively sent in a lawyer to argue in favour of convicting Rev. Boissoin. It's the only case I've ever read where the government sent in a lawyer to tell the human rights commission what to do. And they did it, with gusto. You can read my analysis here.
After thinking very hard about all this, Blackett's office sent out its replies today. Here it is. I've highlighted a few parts:
-----Original Message-----
From: CCS Minister [mailto:CCS.Minister@gov.ab.ca]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:17 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: Reply from the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit [redacted]
Dear Mr. [redacted]:
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission.
Every Albertan has the right to live free from discrimination. The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission has a two-fold mandate: to foster equality and reduce discrimination. It fulfills this mandate through public education initiatives and the resolution and settlement of complaints of discrimination.
If Albertans feel that their rights are not being respected, they can discuss their concerns with the Commission. The Commission is required to accept all complaints that fall within its jurisdiction. A large number of these complaints are resolved by meeting with the two parties and trying to mediate a solution. For others that can't be resolved, there is an established process in place to address the concerns raised that provides an opportunity for both parties to be heard.
The Albertans Human Rights and Citizenship Commission operates independently of government and its work is guided by the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. As an elected official, I do not become involved in the day-to-day activities of the Commission, nor do I comment on individual cases. The Act protects people from discrimination in a number of areas including publications and notices, employment, services and tenancy. Within these areas, Albertans are protected on grounds such as race, colour, ancestry, disability, gender and religious belief. The Act includes a variety of appeal provisions to ensure that the best decision is made in each case.
Government recognizes the importance of reviewing all legislation from time to time to ensure that it is meeting its intended purpose. We will be taking your views into account as we examine Alberta's human rights policies and legislative framework to ensure it supports all Albertans.
Thank you again for writing and sharing your ideas.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Blackett
Minister of Culture and Community Spirit
MLA, Calgary-North West
I despise letters like that. They're what the Brits call bumf. They don't answer the question -- they seek to distract, daze and confuse. But they're never effective. I can sum up the above letter more succinctly: "We don't care what you think, and don't respect you enough to say so honestly. So we'll give you a bucket full of cliches and buzzwords. Go pound sand."
The letter claims that religious views are protected in Alberta. But that's clearly not true. Rev. Boissoin is specifically ordered not to preach sermons about homosexuality. He's been ordered to publicly renounce his faith. To say that his religious views are protected is a falsehood.
The letter also claims that the government doesn't interfere with particular cases. Again, that is not true. The government sent in a lawyer, named David Kamal, to argue not only in support of the law, but its application against Rev. Boissoin. Kamal argued -- on behalf of the Tory cabinet -- that Rev. Boissoin's real religious rights should be trumped by the fake "right" not to be offended. Blackett's letter is a lie.
I'm sure that the censors at the Alberta human rights commission are delighted with Blackett's letter. It's carte blanche for them to continue their anti-Christian persecution. Remember, only a few years ago, they pursued Bishop Fred Henry for daring to write a letter to his diocese about same-sex marriage.
Given Kamal's intervention against Rev. Boissoin, I suppose Blackett's letter was never really in much doubt. Still, there was an intervening fact: the HRC's Stalinist order gagging Rev. Boissoin received international attention. I suppose the Alberta Tories just don't care -- with a big majority in the Legislature, and the next election probably not until 2012, why should they care?
I was starting to think that Alberta's HRC would drop the charges against me, because of the negative publicity they would receive if they took me to a full-blown hearing. Like the Canadian Human Rights Commission making the strategic decision to drop their case against Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn, I thought the Alberta HRC would let me go, so they could focus their abuse on smaller, quieter targets than me.
Blackett's whitewash of the HRC -- his effective endorsement of their persecution of Rev. Boissoin -- has caused me to think again. Sure, taking me to a full-blown trial would make the government of Alberta even more of an international laughingstock. But Blackett's letter suggests they don't care about being a laughingstock, and they certainly don't care about being anti-Christian. Again, I'm only pointing out the obvious -- for they did send in a special lawyer to argue for Rev. Boissoin's conviction.
It's starting to feel more and more like the old, arrogant, bullying Press Act of 1938 -- one of Alberta's most embarrassing moments.
Normally, I'd suggest sending an e-mail to Blackett, here. But really, what's the point?
UPDATE: Another reader sends me his letter from Blackett, containing an extra paragraph:
You asked why the Attorney General intervened in the Lund v. Boissoin human rights case. When a constitutional issue is raised by one of the parties to a case being heard by a court or by a tribunal, such as a human rights panel, the party raising the issue is required to notify the Attorney General. In the Lund v. Boissoin case, Reverend Boissoin raised a constitutional issue, notified the Attorney General as required, and the Attorney General appeared to address that issue.
I've seen two news items written by U.S. journalists who attended the Congressional Human Rights Caucus meeting where I spoke about Canada's human rights commissions, and how they've been hijacked by a coalition of radical foreign jihadis and domestic politically correct busybodies.
Jack Langer, an editor with Regnery, wrote this item, calling our HRCs the "sensitivity police".
By now, many conservatives have heard of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions thanks to the decision by three CHRCs to investigate hate crimes complaints against Maclean’s magazine for printing -- among other things -- excerpts from conservative writer Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone.
...Many Americans can only shake their heads at the nutty excesses of multiculturalism in Canada. Government investigations for insulting people? That kind of thing could never happen here . . . Right?
Wrong, probably. Multiculturalism may not be as advanced in America as it is in Canada, but it’s on the same path.
...The infrastructure for this sort of action is already in place in many American cities which, though largely unknown to the public, have their own human rights commissions.
Take Philadelphia, for example. Although I am a native Philadelphian, I had never heard of the city’s “Commission on Human Relations” until 2006 when it began investigating Geno’s, the quintessential Philly steak joint, for hanging a sign asking customers to order in English. After spending nearly two years and untold amounts of taxpayer dollars investigating what some apparently regarded as a major hate crime, commissioners voted 2-1 to dismiss the complaint.
..Philadelphia now has the highest poverty rate of any major U.S. city, with a murder rate that skyrocketed by over one-third between 2002 and 2007, even as the city’s police force was reduced by 500 officers in roughly that period. But for the mayor, those issues will be addressed “at some point in time,” after enough resources are allocated to pressing matters like the Geno’s “speak English” sign.
And Nutter meant business. After the Geno’s complaint ended in ignominious dismissal, he cleaned house at the CHR. To head the commission, he appointed Rue Landau, a radical activist who had formerly co-chaired the Liberty City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club. Landau quickly got to work replacing eight of the nine appointed commissioners with more politically reliable people. Her stated goals include raising the commission’s fines and forcing employees of every city agency to undergo diversity training, especially for issues related to the “transgendered.”
...And Landau has learned from past mistakes. By investigating Geno’s, the Philadelphia CHR made the same mistake that its Canadian equivalents made when it took on Maclean’s and Mark Steyn -- if you’re going to prosecute some outrageous case of political correctness, it has to be against a nobody, who doesn’t have the resources to fight back or marshal public attention. The Philadelphia and the Canadian sensitivity police had no choice but to dismiss these cases because everyone was watching.
Landau knows this -- she insists the HRC should not have taken the Geno’s case, even though she argues that the “speak English” sign violated Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Act, which was the basis of the complaint in the first place.
...Where is this mania for multiculturalism heading? Again, Canada points the way. As Ezra Levant notes, Canadian authorities recently disciplined an alleged white supremacist for sending her child to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. The penalty? The government took her kid away.
Such an extreme case is unlikely to occur in America for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the oppressive enforcement of multiculturalist diktats in Canada highlights the creepy, logical endpoint of this ideology when it receives state sanction.
America’s would-be sensitivity police certainly have their sights set higher than a mere cheesesteak restaurant in Philadelphia. The Geno’s case should serve as a warning.
And here's Julia Duin in today's Washington Times:
Late last week, I attended a Capitol Hill briefing about an obscure United Nations resolution on "defamation of religions" that some call the "soft jihad."
Lined up in front of a hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building were six panelists including David Harris, a Canadian who was sued for libel in 2004 by the Canadian branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for remarks he made on a radio show.
Also there was Ezra Levant, the publisher of a Canadian magazine who in 2006 got in hot water - and is the target of several lawsuits - for reprinting the Danish cartoons of prophet Muhammad as part of a news story. "Foreign-born jihadis," he says, "have teamed up with politically correct busybodies to use our own laws to undermine our freedoms, especially our freedom to criticize them."
The chief topic of discussion was a U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolution, backed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that addresses "the campaign to defame religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities" since Sept. 11, 2001.
Freedom of expression, the resolution says, would be "subject to limitations" to guard the "respect of the rights and reputations of others; protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs."
...Angela Wu, a panelist from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, pointed out the burning of Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran and the torturing of religious minorities in Pakistan - especially those who convert from Islam - hurt plenty of feelings as well.
In the West, one has to prove that one has been harmed physically, mentally or materially in order to win a court judgment. With the kind of worldwide blasphemy laws suggested by this resolution, anybody anywhere could sue for merely having hurt feelings.
"When we talk of injuring religious feelings, what is that?" said a lawyer on the panel. "Is saying 'God has no son' on the Dome of the Rock an excuse to riot? Or dipping a crucifix in urine?"
Maybe it is, said the Pakistani representative.
"The ideal of freedom of speech is precious to you, but it's not value-neutral," she said. "You don't have to hurt peoples' sentiments and bring them to the point where they have to react in strange ways."
Congress has introduced three bills to protect America's interpretation of the First Amendment and protect citizens from being sued in a foreign court if their speech or writings do not constitute defamation under U.S. law. For the moment, those bills are in committee.
hat tip: Free Mark Steyn
My travails with Canada's human rights commissions all started when I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, apparently known in Denmark as the danske Muhammedtegninger.
That sounds a little bit terrifying, I know. But it's nothing compared to the villainy of the canadiske menneskeretsråd.
Here's a Danish blog that summarizes the threat to Western democracies posed by radical Islamic censorship. If you've chipped your teeth on those words, you can see an automatic translation here. Google doesn't know how to translate menneskeretsråd, but I'm guessing it's not good.
I enjoy signing off of the occasional blog post with the subtle call to arms, "Fire. Them. All." I usually reserve it for stories of particularly egregious conduct on the part of HRCs -- so, basically, a few times a week.
Well, I noticed that John Martin's CanWest Op-Ed signs off with the same slogan! It's a great piece -- one of several that John has written on the subject of HRCs -- and I think that, like me and so many others, he's run out of patience for excuses offered by those who think Canada's HRCs are salvageable.
His latest column focuses on the absurdity of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's decision to try comedian Guy Earle for the thought crime of uttering un-funny come-backs to some hecklers at a B.C. night club last year.
Here are some excerpts:
...Most commentators have rightly pointed out that hecklers voluntarily insert themselves into the show and should expect a rough ride; even a rude one. It's also been correctly noted that something has gone terribly wrong for the state to even think it has the moral authority to scrutinize a comedian's act.
...Now, in an ideal world no one would ever be disrespectful to or about anyone. But that's not how it works. Some may applaud that the reverend can never be critical of gays. But a similar ruling could be made in the not too distant future that prohibits criticism of Christians or Americans. The CBC would sure have a tough job filling up its airtime under such a prohibition.
It sounds insane, but at the end of the day it's completely conceivable that Guy Earle could be banned for life from ever making a joke not pre-approved by the Human Rights Tribunal. Many people think they can ignore a tribunal's sentence because it's not a real court. But tribunals register their decision with a real court and they become fully enforceable, just like any court order. A person can be fined into compliance or even jailed.
This is the type of power available to the thugs on the tribunal panels who police our thoughts and words. Mercifully though, there's a simple solution available to Gordon Campbell that could put an end to the disgraceful conduct and abuses of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that has become a rallying cry for those opposed to these kangaroo courts.
Fire them all.
I love it!
Regular readers will know that Guy Earle is the Toronto comedian who must now face a trial at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, because of his response to hecklers. A drunk woman in the audience claimed that his rough reply to her disruption -- pretty much standard operating procedure for any comedian whose work is being interrupted by drunks -- was illegal discrimination, and the BCHRT agreed enough to schedule a hearing, as opposed to summarily dismiss the matter as a nuisance suit without legal basis.
The kangaroo judge in that kangaroo hearing? None other than Heather MacNaughton, the same one who chaired the five-day trial in to Mark Steyn and Maclean's alleged "discrimination" last month.
I've written about Earle here and here.
Earle must now pay for a lawyer, to defend his jokes as funny. The fact that preceding sentence is a true news report, and not a line from a science fiction story, is depressing.
Earle is having a comedy night, the proceeds of which will benefit his legal defence fund. It's scheduled for this Saturday night in Toronto at the Comedy Bar on Bloor Street West. Tickets are $20. I like the concept: 40 comedians, each giving their best one minute of work. Sounds like a great show -- and a good way to raise Earle's legal costs. I won't be in Toronto, but for readers who are, please consider attending.
Blogrolls
