I am informed that when vandals hit the Calgary Jewish Community Center and the Congregation House of Jacob Mikveh Israel last week with Swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti, they also got the house of one Marvin Levant, father of Ezra Levant, Canada's premier Free Speech warrior and an opponent of legislation intended to crack down on Neo Nazi's on-line activity.
Can't confirm this 100%, but Levant the Elder does live quite close by.
Here's Marvin himself complaining about Human Rights Commissions.
"Ezra Levant, Canada's premier Free Speech warrior and an opponent of legislation intended to crack down on this kind of activity."
ReplyDeleteBullshit. The "human rights" legislation isn't there to address vandalism and violence. That's the criminal code's job.
You get a brick through your window, you're gonna call Jennifer Lynch?
Made a slight alteration in the name of semantic precision.
ReplyDelete"Activity of Neo Nazis".
ReplyDeleteActivity of anybody (however you spell it) involving violence and vandalism - criminal code.
Activity involving "hate speech" - HRC.
Different.
That simple.
Interesting for sure. The very fact that Mr. Levant Sr. lives even close to the hateful attack must have had an impact on him. As much as I dislike his son's silliness and even some of the father's antics I do not wish such a thing on anyone!!
ReplyDeleteThis assault on Jewish places in Calgary proves that the so-called basement Nazis are not spending all their time in basements. While I am truly sad that Marvin Levant's home may have also been hit by these racists it is for sure a cautionary tale.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bracken, if the perpetrators are caught and convicted their sentences can be enhanced under the criminal code if the Crown proves that this is a hate crime...a pretty sure bet I would suggest.
How unfortunate that Jennifer Lynch didnt get her hands on these thugs before they committed this crime. She could have had them learn the error of their ways with sensitivity training and this whole thing would have been prevented.
ReplyDeleteBCL Im quite puzzled. Is this post an admission that you were wrong? That s. 13 is pointless and that the real threat here comes from actions and not words?
Or are you going to come back and say that had s.13 been enforced with more zeal that these lovely gentlemen would have never been influenced to hate.
IMHO, no amount of s.13, sensitivity training or other nonsense could have prevented these thugs' crimes. In another contexts, their victims may have been random strangers, but I cant fathom them being anything other than very disturbed young men who just jumped on the first bandwagon offered to them.
wow the tinfoil hats are out on this one.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure as to what these tin-foilers are trying to accomplish. They seem to miss the irony totally. It's certainly regrettable (if the rumor is accurate) that these haters also hit Levant the elder. Indeed according to Levat the younger the fellas that undertook to redecorate the neighborhood no longer really exist.
ReplyDeleteActually, the rumor has been confirmed.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that Levant, who normally can't shut up, had nothing to say about the vandalism or the fact his father was victimized.
ReplyDeleteUnless I missed it.
Perhaps such an incident doesn't fit into his "free speech" agenda right now.
Is this post an admission that you were wrong? That s. 13 is pointless and that the real threat here comes from actions and not words?
ReplyDeleteThis is the type of mind that higher education can't even refine these days.
We're doomed.
This is the type of mind that higher education can't even refine these days.
ReplyDeleteI know. I've tried higher education, all my professors were hardcore leftists, and it didnt take. Maybe I should start smoking crack to "refine my mind".
But please Ti-Guy, enlighten my poor troglodyte mind, how does this incident show that s.13 should be kept on the books? After all, it happened while the law is in effect. Do you think these disturbed young men would have changed their minds if they had been subjected to a hearing at the HRC?
I think the 17 year old was just arrested in Manitoba; they're still looking for McKee. CBC radio news.
ReplyDeleteHere: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/11/24/calgary-bomb-attack-teenager-arrested-mckee.html
ReplyDeleteBut please Ti-Guy, enlighten my poor troglodyte mind, how does this incident show that s.13 should be kept on the books?
ReplyDeleteThe only person who claimed that was you. And what I was implying is that it is awfully juvenile to have bothered in the first place. Thus, my complaint about higher education no longer providing a maturing experience of any kind.
The only person who claimed that was you.
ReplyDeleteSure but the implication is obvious, because of BCL's support for s.13.
But hey if you dont feel like acting like BCL's henchman today, that's fine by me.
But hey if you dont feel like acting like BCL's henchman today, that's fine by me.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you take on one of the right wing idiots who troll this blog incessantly, if you're spoiling so much for a fight?
Bottom line, Jermo is that if the speechies (with rare exceptions) spent as much using their freedom of expression to counter bad speech with more speech instead of vilifying and defaming all the people who don't necessarily agree with them, all the while attracting an audience that approves of these tactics (and inciting hatred to boot), the rest of us might have long ago become convinced that they all believe free expression is a right worth preserving.
But they don't and that's the key here. They just want their ideas to dominate and prevail and to be sheltered from challenges that expose just how little merit most of their ideas usually have.
It goes right to the core issue that people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant don't believe in laws to protect human rights at all. Steyn called the Charter of Rights a comically worthless document and Ezra Levant claimed that the "stupid Charter" was at the problem with respect to changing the discriminatory civil marriage law.
This campaign against sec. 13 was just an attempt to begin chipping away at civil rights protection at the edges with the assumption that the campaign would move on to core protections once this battle was won. Although, with the drama and celebrity resulting from several libel suits and lucrative careers resulting from perpetual fundraising for legal defences, it's kind of taken on a life of its own at this point.
Their ultimate goal is clear: to preserve the unjustifiable privilege enjoyed by people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant (and many many others), who, let's face it, would now, in a real meritocracy that they claim to champion, be living in cardboard boxes in the street.
I used to be quite fine with their unjustified privilege; as a white, Christian male, I've enjoyed it myself. Success is 99% good fortune anyway. But now that they've had the chance to reveal the extent of their intellectual dishonesty and their moral and ethical corruption, I'm convinced more than ever that these types of people, along with anyone who supports them, agrees with them or is associated with them represent a clear and present danger to the rest of us.
You get a brick through your window, you're gonna call Jennifer Lynch? - bracken
ReplyDeleteExactly.
And the real haters and threats to Canada, like the Toronto 18, are always given a free pass by our leftish elites.
It goes right to the core issue that people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant don't believe in laws to protect human rights at all.
- Ti
You don't say. Core issue? This illustrates how our HRC's are being used as political tools to silence opponents.
Their ultimate goal is clear: to preserve the unjustifiable privilege enjoyed by people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant - Ti
LMAO. Got paranoia Ti?
And the real haters and threats to Canada, like the Toronto 18, are always given a free pass by our leftish elites.
ReplyDeleteStop lying, you stupid fuck. The only thing they're getting is due process.
This illustrates how our HRC's are being used as political tools to silence opponents.
No one has been silenced, you stupid fuck. You've been here and elsewhere, criminally cyber-harassing others for years and no has stopped you yet.
LMAO. Got paranoia Ti?
Do you model this behaviour in front of your children? Just point and laugh?
Anyway, that last comment wasn't addressed to you. Mind your own business, you tedious troll and go lob a molotov cocktail at some Jewish doctor's house or something.
Certainly the Toronto 18 should have due process, and it should be available to all Canadians, including Steyn and Levant.
ReplyDeleteIt still remains true though that our HRC's have failed to protect us from those planning spectacular acts of violence against Canadians.
and it should be available to all Canadians, including Steyn and Levant.
ReplyDeleteLevant is certainly happy that's true, what with all the libel suits. Steyn, of course, was never subject to any action. Although the catamite's sugar-daddy sure was, amirite?
It still remains true though that our HRC's have failed to protect us from those planning spectacular acts of violence against Canadians.
They haven't protected Canadians from your criminal cyber-stalking and harassment either.
That's because it's not their job, you tedious troll.
That's because it's not their job, you tedious troll.
ReplyDeletePray tell, apart from harassing vocal Canadians, what is the job of our HRC's?
Certainly the Toronto 18 should have due process, and it should be available to all Canadians, including Steyn and Levant.
ReplyDeleteDue process... Are you refering obliquely to the argument that the Human Rights Commission has a "100% conviction" rate.
Here's how the process works with regards to Section 13. Nothing gets sent straight to the tribunal.
As noted on the site: "Between January 2001 and September 2008 the CHRC received 73 section 13 complaints (about 2% of the total number of complaints received by the CHRC). Of these, 32 were closed or dismissed by the CHRC and 34 were sent to the CHRT for adjudication. (When these numbers were compiled in September 2008, 2 of the 73 complaints were under investigation by the CHRC and 5 were awaiting decision by the CHRC.) Of the 34 complaints that were sent to the CHRT, 10 were resolved prior to adjudication. In September 2008, 8 of the complaints forwarded to the CHRT were awaiting conciliation/adjudication. In the remaining 16 cases the CHRT found that section 13 had been breached and imposed a cease and desist order. In several of these cases the Tribunal also imposed monetary penalties."
As Richard Moon notes the 100% conviction rate is an exaggeration: "A National Post editorial observed that: 'The CHRC, too, has a frighteningly undemocratic 100% conviction rate on hate speech cases.' When Mark Steyn makes the claim he likes also to point out that not even Iran and North Korea have a 100% conviction rate.
This claim is a little like Bill Clinton’s statement : “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”. It is intended to be misread. It is possible, although just barely, to interpret the 100% conviction rate claim as true, but in its ‘true’ meaning it is entirely uninteresting and in no way a criticism of the CHRC."
You can see this in what happened to Levant and Steyn. They were brought up on complaints that were ultimately dismissed.
Pray tell, apart from harassing vocal Canadians, what is the job of our HRC's?
ReplyDeleteTo give you something to bitch and moan about and criminally cyber-stalk and harass other Canadians for.
You evaded the issue of having two Blogger accounts quite nicely, by the way.
You can see this in what happened to Levant and Steyn. They were brought up on complaints that were ultimately dismissed.
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear: a complaint was never lodged against Mark Steyn. It was against MacLean's.
The Robber Baron's catamite suffered enough under the great weight of his Lardship. He does not need additional reasons to be a martyr.
You don't say. Core issue? This illustrates how our HRC's are being used as political tools to silence opponents.
ReplyDeletePolitics is being used to criticse the HRCs with regards to section 13. There are legitimate complaints to be made about the process, among other things, but there are a lot of distortions and lies about what they do.
Pray tell, apart from harassing vocal Canadians, what is the job of our HRC's?
Check out this site if you're really curious.
Just to be clear: a complaint was never lodged against Mark Steyn. It was against MacLean's.
ReplyDeleteTrue. D'oh.
The Robber Baron's catamite suffered enough under the great weight of his Lardship. He does not need additional reasons to be a martyr
Ha! Now I'm trying to get that image out of my head. :P
You evaded the issue of having two Blogger accounts quite nicely, by the way. - Ti
ReplyDeleteAnswered it three times already.
Politics is being used to criticse the HRCs with regards to section 13. - sharonapple88
Of course. Since HRC's are behaving more as political entities then impartial bodies, they deserve heightened scrutiny.
Check out this site if you're really curious.
Oh please. Their top story is the Racism. Stop It! National Video Competition. We don't need HRC's to browbeat Canadians on this largely dead topic.
Ha! Now I'm trying to get that image out of my head. :P
ReplyDeleteFrightening, isn't it?
Evaded it three times already.
ReplyDeleteFixed.
That's it Ti. When you're losing on points, change the topic to something unrelated.
ReplyDeleteRE: Ti-Guy @4:18pm
ReplyDeleteSorry I didnt reply any sooner, stuff just kept on happening.
It's not about Mark Steyn, Levant or Lemire. Rights are rights, regardless of the character of the person involved. That's what distinguishes a right from a privilege.
the rest of us might have long ago become convinced that they all believe free expression is a right worth preserving.
It's not about what they believe. Even if Steyn and Levant were all about "preserving white privilege" as you imply, that doesnt take away any of their rights. It's not about Steyn and Levant, it's about the state, and the state's control of speech.
Ti-Guy:
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you take on one of the right wing idiots who troll this blog incessantly, if you're spoiling so much for a fight?
Im trying to go after Kunty Shaidle here but she's not biting.
It's not about Mark Steyn, Levant or Lemire. Rights are rights, regardless of the character of the person involved. That's what distinguishes a right from a privilege.
ReplyDeleteWhat's built into the Charter is the idea of reasonable and justifiable limits. Right now free speech is limited by libel laws and copyright. It could be argued that the laws may be too restrictive, but I'm fairly certain that in general people want some libel laws, some copyright restrictions. Free speech isn't an unlimited right even when we exclude the idea of hate speech.
Im trying to go after Kunty Shaidle here but she's not biting.
ReplyDeletePretty lame, Jermo. I'd go over and show you how it's done, but Jay Currie no longer let's my comments through moderation. They appear as "in moderation" and then disappear a few minutes later.
Anyway who's the "we: that Kathy Shaidle is talking about? Her family was squatting in a potato field in the Sudetenland when the Battle of the Plains of Abraham happened.
It's not about what they believe. Even if Steyn and Levant were all about "preserving white privilege" as you imply, that doesnt take away any of their rights. It's not about Steyn and Levant, it's about the state, and the state's control of speech.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what you think it's about. My last comment described what's really motivating people like Steyn and Levant (they're not the only ones, by the way). And it's not white or even male privilege necessarily, although I suspect that has a lot to do with it. It really is about unjustifiable privilege.
I accept that as inevitable. Anti-discrimination laws and minority rights protection are just a counter-challenge to keep that in check and a fairly insignificant one at that.
Pretty lame, Jermo. I'd go over and show you how it's done, but Jay Currie no longer let's my comments through moderation.
ReplyDeleteI know. I was hoping to escalate things when she replied but she never did.
I can only aspire to be as rude and vulgar as you towards these retards. Maybe one day, if I practice alot.
But seriously, you should revel in her stupidity, cause she makes the point better than you ever could that conservatives are racist retards. I believe in conservatism and so I must try to make sure she does not represent what a conservative is.
But seriously, you should revel in her stupidity, cause she makes the point better than you ever could that conservatives are racist retards.
ReplyDeleteThat was never my problem with her. It was her being invited onto the media as a spokesperson for either religious or freedom of expression issues, for which she has no demonstrable expertise, experience or scholarship that merits that kind of attention.
She works cheap though and is always available.