For Those Keeping Track

From David Gollob, Director of Communications, Canadian Human Rights Commission:

 The Commission did not accept any complaints under section 13 in 2010.

Canadian Bar Association on Section 13

Here is their submission to the Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in regards to Section 13 (the hate speech provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. All common-sense stuff, and not particularly surprising; 13 itself is okay, but they recommend removing section 54(1)c and (1.1) (the penalty provisions) from the act, which seems to be the legal consensus as far as one exists.

Don't know if they've already presented this to the committee, but my understanding is that its already moved on to other issues, so maybe they won't get a chance. One interesting bit:

The Special Report recommends that the Act be amended to permit cost awards in cases where the Tribunal is of the opinion that a party has abused the Canadian Human Rights tribunal process. The CBA endorses this recommendation and recent experience suggests it is overdue. In its submission to the Canadian Human Rights Act Review, the CBA advocated that the Act be amended to empower the CHRT “to award costs in exceptional circumstances, which would include claims or defences found to be frivolous.”27 The power to award costs is a discretionary one and would be exercised only after all the circumstances of a particular case are taken into account.

The CHRT already has the "residual power" to award costs under such circumstances--and indeed some of its provincial counterparts have occasionally employed such powers--but the CBA would make it explicit.

Harper Closes CHRC Offices

OTTAWA, March 25 /CNW Telbec/ - The Public Service Alliance of Canada condemns the Harper government's decision to close Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) offices in Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax. The union maintains that the closure of the three offices will make it substantially harder for individuals from marginalized groups to launch human rights complaints.

[...]

PSAC sees the closures of the CHRC offices as part of a broader trend by the Harper government toward self-regulation - something that puts both public safety and human rights into question. By severely hampering the Canadian Human Rights Commission's ability to adequately deal with complaints throughout the process, the federal government is relying on employers to voluntarily meet employment equity obligations and address discrimination. But with no mechanisms for enforcement, the CHRC's mandate will be reduced to mere suggestions.

Note that these closures will have an effect on the ability to file any kind of HRC complaint, not just the relatively controversial hate-speech kind.

PS. Although Brian Lilley is flogging an alternative set of numbers that suggest the commision is expanding. The budget increase looks to be about the level of inflation.

Things That Won't Happen But Which, Perhaps Perversely, I Would Like To See Happen

Marc Lemire has asked to be invited to appear before the Committee. His story should jolt them out of the fog Lynch laid down.

That's this Mark Lemire, and the Committee is The Standing Committee On Justice and Human Rights which is examining the hate speech clauses in Canada's Human Rights Act.

I would particularly like to see a picture of Tory MP and Committee member Brent Rathgeber shaking Lemire's hand.

CHRC Recommendations

From their "Special Report to Parliament: Freedom of Expressionand Freedom from Hate in the Internet Age":

1) Keep Section 13.

2) Amend CHRA so def. of "hate" is in accordance with Tayler.

3) Lack on intent provision is no big deal, as Commission "routinely considers the context of an alleged hate message."

4) No statutory requirement for legal representation (a point Ezra never acknowledges), but costs can be awarded "in exceptional circumstances where the Tribunal finds that a party has abused the Tribunal process." As has already been done at least once in B.C.

5) Amend CHRA to more swiftly dismiss "section 13 complaints when messages do not meet the narrow definition of hatred or contempt."

6) Continue to let individuals (in addition to the commission) file complaints.

7) Move to end "forum shopping", which in any event is a rare occurrence.

8) Repeal section allowing fines against section 13 complaints. Keep penalties (paid to complainant).

Here's the full .pdf.

CHRC Under Scrutiny...Again?

OTTAWA — The controversial section of the Canadian Human Rights Act governing hate speech comes under scrutiny today when federal politicians decide whether to debate the limits it places on freedom of expression.

Brian Storseth, a Conservative MP, has asked the Commons justice committee to review Section 13 of the act, which contains provisions that deal with hate messages. Mr. Storseth also wants the committee to review the mandate of the commission itself.

Except that the Liberals seem to have taken a stand on the matter:

Liberal MP Brian Murphy said his party is not in favour of removing Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act. "It is a unique tool for people who are being discriminated against and it's an added protection," he said.

Good on Iggy. And the NDP don't sound too helpful either:

Joe Comartin, the NDP justice critic, said he opposes removing Section 13, but believes the act is a "blunt instrument" that requires significant amendments.

The mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not clear, Mr. Comartin said, and there must be better criteria for selecting commissioners to ensure that Section 13 is not used improperly. That would require an extensive review that could take some time, he said, and which would likely be postponed to allow the justice committee to deal with more pressing issues.

So, essentially, months more of flailing in the blogosphere, but no action likely. Shall we have one more dance, speechy warriors?

Speechy War Officially Over. Speechys Lose

Stephen Harper "has no plans" to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prevent unwarranted interferences in free expression by human rights commissions.

...which explains maybe why Ezra has gone off his exclusive HRC diet the last couple of weeks. He sees a revenue stream drying up.

Tracking Free-D John Does

As you might know if you've been following the Free D vs. Richard Warman saga, Warman has been seeking out the true identity of eight "John Does" accused of making allegedly defamatory comments about him re the infamous Lucy Posts and/or various aspects of his CHRC cases.

These people write under the names:

...klinxx, SaskBigPicture, Droid1963, conscience, Faramir, Peter O'Donnell, Padraigh, and HR-101.

Playing around on Free-D, I discovered that, back in late 2006, Connie asked members to post links to their blogs, and among those who did was Droid1963. Unfortunately, Droid blogged as "Andrew E." so I haven't got hold of his real last name yet, but there are a number bits of information on "Victoryous Canada" that can get us closer to his real identity. One of the most interesting is from his profile. Apparently, Andrew E loves

Hunting and fishing whenever possible, playing guitar in "The Cracked Pots".

"The Cracked Pots" are a gospel/blues band best known for their rousing Sunday evening shows at Calgary's Central United Church. They have been active as late as October of this year, although it is I suppose possible that "Andrew E." is no longer playing for them.

(Incidentally, you can match the picture on the front page of Victoryous Canada to these from one of Droid1963's photo-bucket albums. There's also a shot of him playing a band on a stage labelled "Central United Church". Droid1963 is definitely Andrew E.)

I've been researching a number of people on the Free-D list, and hopefully more revelations will come in the days and weeks ahead.

So watch it little Free-D pseuds hiding from your lawsuit, BCL is after you!

The Imam Strikes Back! Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti Speaks!

I am unimpressed by the latest CHRC "scandal", and particularly unimpressed by the comparison of Mr. Al-Hayiti's book (L’Islam ou l’Intégrisme?), which the CHRC argued did not meet the Section 13 standard, to the writings of Stephen Boisson, which were judged to have met that standard. Most of my arguments get hashed out in the comments (ignore NAMBLA-Dick) here, but the short version is that Boisson's letter to the Red Deer Advocate triggered a concrete incident of gay bashing by one of Mr. Boisson's associates, and it is pretty easy to interpret his letter in context as a concrete call to action against the local homosexual community (as opposed to Mr. Al-Hayiti's book, in which the offensive language is rather vague).

In any case, while Mr. Boisson has argued his case on various blogs and other online forums, Mr. Al-Hayiti thus far has not. So I fired off a quick email to the yahoo group he is associated with Mr. Al-Hayiti's and asked him:

Would Mr. Al-Hayiti like to respond to the claims in this and other stories that his book contains language likely to expose gays, lesbians, and jews to "hatred and contempt"?

Mr. Al-Hayiti responded as follows:

Maybe the complaint should have been against the Qor'an, the Word of God! Or maybe even against the bible also! Do you think the commission should censor God? Everything I said in my book is from the revelation, not from me! I have nothing else to say.

Thank you!

So there you have it.

Sheldon Johnston And The CHRC

Sheldon Johnston is the WTBA's Policy Chair. At the end of his CV, Mr. Johnston writes:

2003-2006 – Fought human rights case against the Canadian Forces for refusal of admittance as a Pentecostal Chaplain. I won the case before the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the grounds that the CF refused entrance to members of my church and under-represented other Pentecostal churches based upon discriminatory hiring policies. This groundbreaking case opened the doors for the induction of the first Muslim Chaplain to the CF, and changed the dynamics of chaplaincy in the CF to be more open and inclusive of religious minorities.

This is fascinating and quite encouraging for it, in one fell swoop, refutes the Speech Warrior contention that 1) Conservatives and/or Christians never employ the Canadian Human Rights system and that, 2) HRCs and HRTs are biased towards Conservatives and/or Christians. For more background, there is a good story on the early stages of Johnston's complaint in Christian Week from July 8, 2003.

Except that the only pertinent record that I can find in the CHRT archives would seem to contradict Mr. Johnson's claim to have won his case. From the decision (in which Mr. Johnson is referred to as The Complainant):

[33] The Complainant has thus ignored or failed to comply with numerous time limits set by the Tribunal in the present case. Based on the evidence before me, there is no reasonable excuse to explain the Complainant's late or non-existent compliance with all of these Tribunal directions. I cannot but infer that the Complainant has no interest in following through with his complain

[34] The Tribunal is entitled to protect its process from abuse brought on by this sort of wholesale disregard of time limits, which in this instance has rendered the case completely static for at least two years, an unreasonably long time. I therefore grant the Respondent's motion. The complaint is dismissed.

Furthermore, if you look at this decision, you will note that it is dated 2007/10/17. Even if there is more documentation that I have missed--if, for example, there is another complaint that Mr. Johnston filed and pursued to a successful conclusion--the decision emanating from this successful complaint would almost certainly have to have been issued after October 2007.

But the first Muslim Chaplain to join the CF was Suleyman Demiray, and he was welcomed into the service in late 2003. So it is very difficult to see how Mr. Johnston's complaint could have had any impact on this event.

h/t Buckets.

Ezra Strikes Back Again!

On November 10th, the National Post posted on its Full Comment Web blog a column entitled “Ezra Levant: Canada’s free speech enemies to lay Remembrance Day wreath,” which included a link to another Web site that suggested lawyer and human rights activist Richard Warman had posted an offensive item on the Freedomsite website about Senator Anne Cools. The National Post has no evidence to support this allegation against Mr. Warman and it hereby retracts any suggestion that Mr. Warman manufactured any statement about Senator Cools. The National Post apologizes for any embarrassment this has caused Mr. Warman.

When will these guys learn?

PS. Please note once again that linking to defamatory material can itself be defamatory.

Ezra On Pankiw: A Quick Fisking

Ezra's views on the Jim Pankiw case are unsurprising. I will just note one of the howlers in his Natty Post column today:

Pankiw can be prosecuted for spreading "discrimination," every MP is at risk. Not a day goes by when MPs don't offend one group or another. We allow it; we expect it; in fact, we give MPs more freedom than any other Canadians, even exempting their debates from defamation law, on the liberal theory that all ideas should be heard, and in the clash of views, the truth will emerge and the country will be better off. It's called parliamentary privilege, and it goes back centuries. It's one of our ancient civil rights, designed to protect the people's representatives from political interference from the King.

Whether or not Pankiw "wins" his trial is irrelevant. He's already lost, and so have we. The message is loud and clear: The CHRC has ended parliamentary immunity.

Mr. Pankiw has already attempted to play the parliamentary immunity card, to which CHRT chairperson Grant Sinclair responded as follows:

[14] Nor does it appear to us that the PSA, and s. 52.6 in particular, extends the scope of any privilege or immunity from which Members may benefit. Parliamentary privilege provides Members with an absolute immunity from civil or criminal prosecution when speaking in the House of Commons or engaged in a proceeding in Parliament (see J.P.J. Maingot, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2d ed). Over the years, the assertion of parliamentary privilege has varied in its scope and extent. But as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Vaid (at para. 23), a narrower concept of privilege has developed in more recent times. The Court referred to a 1971 ruling of the Speaker of the House, who stated that parliamentary privilege "does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons".

Since Mr. Pankiw is not being charged of reading the content of his householders (pamphlets) from the floor of the HOC, parliamentary immunity does not apply to him.

This, by the way, is the same line of reasoning behind Harper's law-suit against the LPoC. And I'm sure the Ez knows just how far privilege extends. He wrote back in February:

Being called a law-breaker is about the worst defamation you could say about someone, especially a lawyer like me. It's a complete fabrication, factually inaccurate and completely unfair. But, because it was uttered in the House of Commons, it is protected by "absolute privilege". Ms. [Raymonde]Folco is immune to a lawsuit.

Today my lawyers fired off this letter to her. And, until she repeats her accusations outside of Parliament, the letter is all that can be done, legally.

And, just as an aside, Ezra writes:

The suit against Pankiw is clearly unconstitutional. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that human rights commissions could only pursue "hate" cases against Canadians whose messages were pure evil -- they were explicitly forbidden from touching political speech.

Here he is referring to CHRC vs. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. But, of course, as I pointed out yesterday, this case referred exclusively to the constitutionality of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Pankiw is being charged with violating sections sections 5, 12, and 14. So while Levant's argument may be relevant to some other case, it is not relevant to this one.

Rob Breakenridge: His Speech Is Free, His Math Sub-Standard

Here's Rob Breakenridge on Jim Pankiw's Human Rights case before the CHRT:

Some further thoughts on yesterday's post and specifically a point raised by Ezra Levant - one that demands some further attention. Ezra writes:

The CHRC has long ago abandoned the legal limits set out by the Supreme Court in its 1990 Taylor case, that prohibited "hate" prosecutions of political views. They are violating the constitution.

Ezra's specifically referring to the landmark Supreme Court ruling which narrowly upheld Section 13 - under which a John Ross Taylor was charged and under which former MP Jim Pankiw has been charged. You can read the full decision here.


Of the argument which follows, I can only say that I was impressed by it and hope Mr. Breakenridge one day finds a context to which it is appropriate.

However, Mr. Pankiw is not being charged under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. He is being charged under sections 5, 12, and 14. While 12 deals with Publication of discriminatory notices, etc. , 5 and 14 refer to the discrimination and harassment in the provision of services. As householders, Pankiw's pamphlets are a public good/service provided by an MP to his constituents and whoever else receives them. In this case, the publications were used to harass and discriminate against a sub-set of these constituents. That, at least, is the argument.

The fact that the service provided was a pamphlet, a vehicle of communication, is tangential, and therefore so are the implications of this case for the current debate over section 13. Certainly, a repeal of section 13 would not have had any effect of this case going forward whatsoever.

Breakenridge provides a link to the original pamphlets.

Lemire Retreats! Speechies Get Stiffed!

Somewhere out there, Marc Lemire is putting the final touches on a 500 page "book" outlining his constitutional challenge to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, Ezra has already posted the CHRC response and, not surprisingly, he has ignored the most important bits.

Firstly, Lemire has long claimed that CHRC staff in general, and CHRC investigator Dean Steacy in particular, posted racist material in the course of their investigations of various White Supremacist websites. Well, no more! From the CHRC document:

The respondent has conceded at page 400, line 4 that Dean Steacy posted no racist material in the course of his duties as a Commission investigator.

Naturally, Ezra, Kate, Mark Steyn, and etc., were happy enough to regurgitate Marc's nonsense. I imagine now, in light of all the lawsuits his pronouncements have generated, that Mr. Lemire will not be on their Xmas card list.

However, my favorite bit concerns Lemire's whole ridiculous "hacked wifi" conspiracy, in which CHRC employees, whose laptops were not wifi enabled at the time, were apparently able to hack an encrypted network from about 350 meters away, or three times the effective diameter of your typical wifi hotspot. This charge was bone-headed to begin with, and the MSM (esp. The National Post) touched a new bottom in journalistic credibility by reporting it with a straight face, even after Buckets and I publicly refuted it (well, Buckets did most of the work, but he is shy and retiring and doesn't like to make a fuss). In any case, it appears that Lemire has dropped these accusations from his brief as well:

There is no allegation in the respondent’s written submissions corresponding with previous allegations in motion materials pertaining, inter alia, to disclosure, that the Commission breached the privacy of the individual whose name was publicly disclosed as a result of a subpoena granted to the respondent by Bell Canada, or that the Commission gained surreptitious access to her wireless internet service. The evidence did not establish any such surreptitious access and this was denied vehemently by the Commission. The Commission considers this unsubstantiated allegation to now be withdrawn.

Of course, Ezra, Mark, Shaidle and the rest of the "Canuck Six" were quick to broadcast this drivel to the world as well, with Mr. Steyn going so far as to accuse Dean Steacy of criminal acts by name. Presumably, they will all apologize immediately.

B'nai Brith On HRC's: A Mixed Bag

Just a few quick notes on B'nai Brith's presentation to Richard Moon, the University of Windsor law professor who was appointed to make recommendations as to the direction the CHRC should take re Internet Hate Speech in Canada.

First, the good. B'nai Brith's practical recommendations are, for the most part, common-sense. For example, it does not seem fair that complaints can be pursued in multiple jurisdictions. As BB writes:

The ability to make several complaints at once in different jurisdictions against the same target means that the complaint power can be used as a way of harassing the object of the complaint. That avenue of harassment needs to be cut off. Complaints should be heard in one forum only. The appropriate forum should be the one with the most substantial connection to the complaint and the parties. No other jurisdiction should have the power to entertain essentially the same complaint.

Perhaps the question of awarding costs to successful defendants is a little more problematic , esp. in light of the Maclean's Magazine case where the refusal to negotiate with complainants, and the legal costs resulting from this refusal, can largely be seen as a stunt, a desperate attempt to bump up sales by embracing cheap controversy and pandering to Canada's far right fringe. Here and elsewhere, where the out-sized sums spent on defending a complaint amount to a kind of business investment on the part of the defendant, should such behavior be rewarded?

However, where I think the B'nai Brith report really disappoints is in the way it draws analogies between the complainants in the Macleans and Western Standard cases and some world-wild conspiracy on the part of "Political Islam"... the way it swallows the Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant koolaid, in other words.

Put briefly (and to give just a single example), whatever the ultimate strength of his case against the Western Standard, there is no question in my mind that Syed Soharwardy was correct when he wrote that the Western Standard "mis-used the Freedom of the press to create hatred against Canadian Muslims", and that his complaint was a response to this and not a move within some vast international conspiracy by Islamic militants.

And I think B'nai Brith Council David Matas, who wrote their presentation to Dr. Moon, probably should have made himself aware of the context around and fallout from Mr. Soharwardy's complaint, which included calls for Muslim Genocide on the Western Standard Blog, and generated a police investigation as well as eventual apologies from the WS editors. I realize that it would have been unpleasant for Mr. Matas to stick his head down that particular sewer, but I think it would have made him a little more aware of what was really at stake.

Read the entire report here.

Are Ezra's Acolytes Threatening CHRC Employee?

Ezra's facing another lawsuit by CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna, and his fans are striking back. Here's one example:

just left Vigna a strongly worded message of disapproval (but NOT a threatening message) on his office voicemail. Others may wish to join me in pushing Vigna's fragile mental state further over the edge by leaving him a message at his office number in Ottawa at...

Here's another:

I can vouch for that 613 ph number.

now how would I know that?

I addressed him first as 'mr bilingual' and from then on as 'mr serene'. then told him to back off, that he was pushing his luck and that I was tired of the vendetta he has engaged in against Ezra.then I gave him MY ph # and invited him to return the call.

"Pushing his luck", eh? I wonder what is supposed to happen if he pushes it too far.

And, by the way, Ez, the precise term is "process server", not "private detective", as in:

Affidavit of Gaby Saliba, Process Server on behalf of the appellants sworn on 01-DEC-2006 confirming service of Notice of Appeal on the respondent...

You are such a diva.

And you should call off your fans. In fact, given your own problems with threats lately, I think you would be more clued in to what is and is not appropriate behavior.

Word To Muslims: Go Ahead And Treat Journalists Like Crap

Jonathon Kay tells a room full of moderate Muslims:

Journalists control the commanding heights of Canadian culture. Why would you want to alienate them? What's notable about the reaction to the Steyn case is that even writers who abhor his right-wing politics have rallied to his cause. This includes not only the editorial board of The Globe And Mail, but also the Toronto Star, an avowedly left-wing newspaper that, in every other context, is a sounding board for political correctness and trumped-up racism accusations. And no wonder: Journalists put food on the table by putting words on the page. The surest way to enrage them is to slip a gag over their mouths, which is exactly what the CIC has tried to do -- purportedly in the name of all Canadian Muslims, no less. In the long run, is that going to improve the way that Muslim issues are covered by this same pissed off media?

Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to be joking, so here's a little corrective.

Dear moderate Muslims,

In Canada journalists have a social standing that lies somewhere between grave robbers and insurance sales-men. Your typical Canadian's experience of the journalistic profession, in so far as they come in contact with them at all, is being misquoted. And the CIC's HRC complaint against Maclean's magazine shows their utter inability to move Canadian opinion or the Canadian political establishment. Yes, almost every hack with a pen has opined against the case, and the only result thus far is a meaningless private member's motion (not bill) that will change nothing if it ever came to a vote, and that will never be allowed to come to a vote. The government's point man on the issue, Jason Kenney, is reduced to meeting supporters at underground comedy events, and then sneaking off before he is noticed by normal folk. His speeches bashing HRCs never appear on his website. And the government as a whole wisely keeps silent, knowing that if the issue ever gets beyond the opinion pages and into the wider public realm, they will be seen as reclaiming a Reform Party past that they have been so eager to shed over the course of the past several years.

So, in short, if you can use the Canadian Human Rights apparatus to knee-cap a few uppity columnists, go ahead. Nobody cares.

More HRC News

This story slipped under my radar-screen. It concerns a gay civil servant who filed a complaint in 2005 re alleged abuses that occured in 1985. The CHRC usually declines to hear cases filed after more than a year, but has the discretion to tdo so under particular circumstances. Here, Paul Richard argued that the CHRC "failed to consider the discretionary provisions of the time limit". Not a section 13 case, but interesting nevertheless. Hardly the kind of thing likely to help the CHRC streamline its case-load.

Note: the story is from "Xtra" magazine. For "hot gay chat", follow the links.

CHRC Drops Another One

Catholic Insight is off the hook for its alleged gay bashing. Deborah Gyapong has such details as are available. This case languished for a long time before the CHRC, and cost the magazine $20,000 to defend before being dropped. An argument for reimbursing successful respondents?

Mind you, CI gets about $12,000 a year in PAP subsidies. If they are going to publish offensive material, shouldn't they too be buying their own stamps?

Levant Alone

I half-missed this exchange when it occurred last week, but since it illustrates my general theme--that Ezra scrupulously avoids anything resembling facts when they impede the thrust of his "Human Rights Supporters Are All Corrupt/Unpatriotic/Criminal" narrative, I thought I would take a crack at it now.

On June 15th, the TO Star's Haroon Siddiqui published "Free Speech Cannot Be An Excuse For Hate", in which he, among other things, interviewed the CJC (Canadian Jewish Congress) executive director Bernie Farber. Part of the article reads as follows:

But freedom of speech is not absolute. "Except for the U.S., virtually every Western democracy has laws against hate," notes Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "Our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused."

The Supreme Court has upheld those laws. Jewish, gay and other groups have long advocated their use. Few Canadians complained. But now that Muslims are, many are.

"That's really what it's about," Farber told me. "When non-Muslims were using it, nobody really cared.

"People need scapegoats. It used to be Jews. Now it's Muslims, to a great extent. Tomorrow, it may be Bahais or somebody else ...

"People should focus on the law, not on those using it. If the complaint is frivolous, the system will deal with it."

And that's it.

However, these lines must have sent Ezra into extended convulsions, because almost two weeks later he responded with "Bernie "Burny" Farber converts to Islam".

On the basis of this one brief interview, Ezra accuses Farber of "coming out in solidarity" with Mohamed Elmasry. He also seems to think that Farber is arguing that critics of Elmasry's complaint against Maclean's are all "Islamophobic".

These charges are clearly ridiculous, unless Farber intends that the epithet should apply to himself. He has several times criticized the Macleans/Mark Steyn complaint, going so far as to say on one occasion that

The commission's investigation of Steyn shows it has lost sight of the legislation's original purpose and the narrow fence it establishes against truly discriminatory speech.

As to the further content of Farber's remarks in the Star column, his statements seem to lie within the realm of the bleeding obvious. For example, Ezra has never even mentioned, let alone fulminated against, the Human Rights complaints charged to the Alberta PC Party by Ron Leech and Craig Chandler on the grounds that Chandler and Leech have been discriminated against for their Christian beliefs. And in fact this very morning he applauds a number of clearly frivolous complaints launched by White Nationalist Marc Lemire over the years.

But when a couple of Muslims attempt to access the same system, his head explodes... What does that tell you?

Ezra's other major contention, that Farber has "become subservient to radical Islam", is at least as ridiculous as the rest. It is founded on a number of stories re alleged Canada-based Hezbollah sleeper cells that Farber was asked to respond to. What he said was:

"They've known about this alleged threat for a while, they've investigated it, and they've told me categorically that while the chatter is out there, and it has been for a while, there is nothing to lead them to believe that there's anything imminent or that in fact the chatter is real..."

... which reads to me, and I think most reasonable people, like a leader of Canada's Jewish community calming the waters over the possibility of an allegedly "imminent" terror attack. To Ezra, however, this smacks of surrender.

If you're not 100% with Ezra, you're agin' him, it seems, and as such deserve no end of sleaze and slander.