The hearings were actually in response to two complaints. The first was filed by a radical imam in Calgary, Syed Soharwardy, a tin-pot fascist who has publicly called for Canada to be ruled by sharia law. Soharwardy boasts of his studies in Pakistani madrassahs and his religious lectures in Saudi universities, and he's bringing those Saudi and Pakistani values to Canada.
And a day earlier:
1. The hand-scrawled complaint filed against the magazine by a radical, Saudi-trained imam who has publicly called for sharia law to be imposed in Canada...
From yesterday's Calgary Sun:
The leader of the Al Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre said he's considering legal action after disparaging comments were posted yesterday [January 11th] on a website run by Ezra Levant, founder of the now-defunct Western Standard magazine.
On the site, Levant refers to Syed Soharwardy as a "radical, Saudi-trained imam," a charge Soharwardy flatly denied.
"If he has proof ... show me about my training," said Sohawardy, founder of the group Muslims Against Terrorism. "Mr. Levant ... is spreading lies in the community."
And Ezra's response:
Asked for proof of his allegation the imam was religiously trained in Saudi Arabia, Levant conceded in an e-mail to the Sun Soharwardy lectured at a university there, but did not study.
And yet the false statement is still on the website. In fact, it would seem that one version of the false statement (top link) was made on the same day that Ezra conceded its falsehood to The Sun, or perhaps the day after. The false statement is also blazing its way across the blogosphere in the youtube version of Ezra's opening remarks to the AHRC.
What's up, Ezra? Too busy practising debating moves in the mirror to clean up your own inaccuracies?
40 comments:
The now obviously explicit alliance between radical Islam and today's left,
will be looked upon in decades to come as the defining moment in the downfall of leftist thinking.
It seems that the term "progressive" has become nothing but a cloaking codeword used to mask what is fundamentally fascist thinking.
I'd like to thank BCL's endless stream of posts which supports this proposition nicely.
So anonymous, are you saying that Ezra has a right to slander someone now? In all seriousness, where do you, yourself draw the line?
Greg,
I guess that all of his other posts on the side of the Islamists v. Steyn, Levant ect. are all just coincindental.
It's now all really about that single statement, right?
No, Greg, its about silencing opposing views, and the allegation of slander is just another tool in BCL's (and the left's) tool kit.
Jonah Goldberg's book is bang on.
And blogs like this simply confirm it.
Perhaps the imam can take Ezra to the HRC commission for apparently slandering the imam at the commission in front of the interogator.
So,
rather than being a simple student, the Imam had the more prominent role of being a lecturer there.
Where his views, level of wahhabism, and radical devoutness would no doubt have been carefully vetted.
"Then come two sections - one in which "human rights agent" Shirlene McGovern quizzes him on his intent in publishing the cartoons, and another in which she raises the fear that his publishing them could lead to violence against Muslims “particularly in today’s world post-9/ 11 that has made a number of Muslims more vulnerable to hatred and contempt”.Ezra's answer speaks for itself, but Ms McGovern's question reminds me of a passage from Melanie Phillips' book Londonistan:
Minority-rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority.
Ms McGovern, a blandly unexceptional bureaucrat, is a classic example of the syndrome. No "vulnerable" Canadian Muslim has been attacked over the cartoons, but the cartoonists had to go into hiding, and a gang of Muslim youths turned up at their children's grade schools, and Muslim rioters around the world threatened death to anyone who published them, and even managed to kill a few folks who had nothing to do with them. Nonetheless, upon receiving a complaint from a Saudi imam trained at an explicitly infidelophobic academy and who's publicly called for the introduction of sharia in Canada, Shirlene McGovern decides that the purely hypothetical backlash to Muslims takes precedence over any actual backlash against anybody else.
Thus the unending valse macabre of our times, as the supposedly progressive forces of tolerance are whirled around the floor by the avowedly intolerant. Ezra is rightly contemptuous of these "human rights commissions". Canadians should be ashamed of this show trial."
(from Mark Steyn at the Corner)
Nail on the head.
I think Ezra's supporters should think carefully about their hero. Obviously, he prepared that statement before the commissioner. He even set up the camera to capture it all on video. He then proceeded to enter as evidence something he later conceded was wrong. To me that indicates, at the very least, a carelessness about the facts that should give you pause.
The childlike minds of Toronto Liberals, on display.
However, your amusement value in these dreary winter days is moderate so please continue.
Keep up the good work.
Greg,
It is also possible he entered into evidence something he already KNEW to be wrong. The Sun story is from the 12th, so did he make the consession on the 12th or the 11th?
The childlike minds of Toronto Liberals, on display
I will accept childlike, but I am neither a Liberal nor from Toronto.
It is also possible he entered into evidence something he already KNEW to be wrong. The Sun story is from the 12th, so did he make the consession on the 12th or the 11th?
Presumably, we will find that out if the Imam decides to sue.
The Imam will never sue, because rules of discovery would require him to come forth with all his radical statements, and yes, invlovment in Saudi Wahhbism.
Radical Imams aren't too keen on scrutiny by infidels.
Lots of good discussion of this on American blogs. The level of debate is much higher in America, I find, probably due to the stronger protection of freedom of expression there.
It is noteworthy that there is no movement to ban anonymous commentors at American blogs; "growing" the blogsphere via oppression of protected identity commentary and discouraging readers from commenting seems to be a uniquely Canadian strategy. At least in contemporary times anyway; Stalin hated anonymous pamphleteers.
The level of debate is much higher in America, I find, probably due to the stronger protection of freedom of expression there.
Heh. Do you people EVER tell the truth? Can you even recognise it anymore?
It is noteworthy that there is no movement to ban anonymous commentors at American blogs; "growing" the blogsphere via oppression of protected identity commentary and discouraging readers from commenting seems to be a uniquely Canadian strategy.
Liar. There's actually a law that goes further than anything we have here to restrict anonymous commentary:
Last Thursday President Bush signed into law the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. Included in the law is a clause that outlaws anonymously using the Internet "with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass."
While BCL references the Bay City Rollers, blogs on the right do the serious thinking, with Powerline referncing Tocqueville:
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville famously concludes with a warning of the kind of despotism to which democratic are especially susceptible. Tocqueville warns that the passion for equality will give rise to a certain kind of degradation in which citizens will surrender their freedom democratically to a tutelary power:
Above these [citizens] an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?
***
Subjection in small affairs manifests itself every day and makes itself felt without distinction by all citizens. It does not make them desperate, but it constantly thwarts them and brings them to renounce the use of their wills. Thus little by little, it extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls....
Ezra Levant recently confronted the tutelary power of Canada's administrative state in the person of one Shirlene McGovern of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The former publisher of Canada's Weekly Standard, Levant has been called before McGovern to answer the complaint of Islamists offended by the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons in the Standard. In his statement and testimony (a href="http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/what-is-your-intent.html">here, here, here, and here) to the commission Levant shows the spirt of the free man resisting the tyranny of the administrative state.
Check out Balbulican's post with regard to our friend Muslims Against Sharia.
I'm glad all these frauds are finding each other. That is so much more fun than listening to that knob Ezra Levant's whining that his defamation isn't as legally protected as he'd like.
Tocqueville warns that the passion for equality will give rise to a certain kind of degradation in which citizens will surrender their freedom democratically to a tutelary power:
Yes, and that happened in November, 2000 in the US of A and was confirmed in 2004.
Thank God Canadians are paying attention.
"The level of debate is much higher in America, I find, probably due to the stronger protection of freedom of expression there."
Are you aware that the SCC has given the right to express yourself freely a broader definition than the US SC has?
Either you are ignorant, or you are a liar.
But all will be made right in 2008 when the americans will democratically elect Obama or Clinton, as is likely, right ti-guy?
In other words when the democratic verdict results in a left-leaning government it's democratic, when it favours a right-leaning one it's tyranny.
Which is why ti-guy's ideological utterances are treated with contempt by all but his fellow-travellers.
Symptomatic of the left's gospel-like politics. No wonder they despise religion so, their politics is their religion.
Gayle, it's pretty obvious that the U.S wins hands down vs. Canada on freedom of speech issues. We're in the grip of politically correct institutions that brook no dissent. Ypu have to be blind or igorant yourself to think otherwise.
frances - prove it.
I'm disturbed by the suggestion that Levant wilfully and knowingly stated a falsehood before the commissioner.
What is the timeline again?
But all will be made right in 2008 when the americans will democratically elect Obama or Clinton, as is likely, right ti-guy?
I'm not a fan of Democrats, Andrew-Biff. For all their talk about "change," they never really change anything.
I'm taking a wait and see approach. I wish the Americans the best (and I do hope they put the Nixon-era/Reagan-era crooks away for good this time), but I really do have my own country's politics and our own neoconservatives/5th-column traitors to worry about.
Gayle you silly thing, poaching from ti-guy's talking points no less!
And only someone who's out of touch with reality would make the assertion that a country's freedom is dependent on a court decision.
The Soviet Union gave all kinds of supposed freedoms to their citizenry but if the latter ever attempted to meaningfully assert it, we know where they'd end up.
Ignorance must be bliss Gayle.
So you can't prove it then.
What a shock.
Buckets,
Timeline is:
Jan 12th is the 1st blog post I quote, Jan 11th is the second blog post and the date of Ezra's appearance. There is a third blog post on the 11th (about noon, before the hearing) where the same claim is made.
The Calgary Sun article is dated the 12th, so I am assuming the events it describes took place on the 11th. Come to think of it, it probably isn't likely that Ezra made his concession before going before the HRC, but I suppose its possible.
However, if he sent his email to the Calgary Sun on the 11th, he might be repeating something he knows to be false on the 12th.
Oh and you have Gayle? By your lights a quick read of the Soviet Constitution results in that regime being a beacon of freedom and prosperity.
Maybe with the Americans electing the Clinton or Obama and Canadians re-electing Harper their will be a rapprochement of sorts on the freedom of expression front. I hear the Democrats aren't too fond of certain forms of freedom of expression. It has to be the right kind, a bit like our Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Changing topics, I understand a poll out of Quebec has the Conservatives winning 25-30seats there next election. So it is looking good for the Conservatives.
Oh my. But that's Levant -- he was a political hatchet man for long enough that he seems to forgotten what the rules are once you are off parliament hill.
You have to wonder who sends over the Biffs to this blog?
I bet KKKate e-mails her minions and directs their action.
The white supremacists do that kind of stuff, you know.
"Oh and you have Gayle?"
In the case of R. v. Keegstra, the SCC held that "expression" in s. 2(b) embraces all content of expression, irrespective of the meaning or message sought to be conveyed. It is irrelevant if the expression is invidious and obnoxious, promotes hatred of an identifiable group or threatens violence.
The Court said the same thing in the Zundel case.
As for the rest of your post - the word "strawman" comes to mind.
Frances - ti-guy's being a little coy here but what he's alluding to is your discussion of the Liberal party's chances in the next election. In case you didn't know, there's an unoffical prohibition on Liblogs to discuss same, presumably so people don't all go into a deep funk. So if you're going to go OT do so but omit that particular topic. Plus, we don't want ti-guy dipping into the sauce before supper and that might set him off.
Gayle, I can't be bothered getting into a protracted discussion with an obvious philistine as you're showing yourself to be.
If you honestly think your quote is a conversation stopper, I'll leave you in your Alice-in Wonderland world of fantasy.
frances - what discussion?
You are not discussing anything. You are throwing out opinions like they are fact - and they are not.
Next time you wish to engage me in a "discussion", try arming yourself with facts first.
ti-guy's being a little coy here but what he's alluding to is your discussion of the Liberal party's chances in the next election.
You never do get tired of losing the debate this way, do you?
No one is talking about the Liberals and the next election. One would think that would be obvious to any sentient human being.
You Conservative yobs really don't have anything left except to make a shambles, do you?
"You Conservative yobs really don't have anything left except to make a shambles, do you?"
They are not interested in meangful debate. Their only purpose is to come here and derail discussions. I also think biff's idea of a good time is to come here and try to get under your skin. Sadly s/he simply is not smart enough to see how very stupid s/he looks.
I also think biff's idea of a good time is to come here and try to get under your skin.
What does get under my skin is the very idea that doing so is fun, or a productive use of one's time. It's pathetic and certainly NOT conservative. It's puerile.
I'd be more sanguine about it if not for the fact that the entire CPC is like that.
Come on, Gayle. The U.S. is so committed to free expression that they've even set up designated, fenced areas dedicated soley to that purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
But, but, but...that's different.
/right-tard
"Gayle said...
frances - prove it."
How about that America doesn't have (yet) thought crime kangaroo courts for starters?
"How about that America doesn't have (yet) thought crime kangaroo courts for starters?"
Which is proof that you have not yet learned to differentiate between facts and opinion.
Keep trying.
Post a Comment