Levant - “Hate laws backfire on Jews”
By DAVID LAZARUS, Canadian Jewish News
MONTREAL — The federal anti-hate law that “official Jews” lobbied for and got passed has, 32 years later, backfired, sowing the seeds for political correctness, media chill and censorship that have undermined the values that define the Jewish People, says Alberta lawyer, author and activist Ezra Levant.
Levant, who is Jewish, made the assertion in an Oct. 21 talk to a small audience at Beth Israel Beth Aaron Congregation about his 900-day saga of being prosecuted by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for reprinting controversial Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad in his now defunct magazine, the Western Standard, in February 2006.
“It is what I call the ‘soft jihad,’” said Levant, describing the actions of Muslims who file complaints with human rights commissions against those they perceive to have aggrieved them. “I was a Jewish publisher of a Zionist newspaper charged for publishing the news.”
Levant has spent the last 3-1/2 years railing against human rights commissions, which he says have fostered a climate of censorship, media chill and political correctness that’s now being exploited by those he calls enemies of the West, Israel and the Jewish People.
“The Jews should have known better,” Levant said. “We know about the ‘hard jihad,’ but the ‘soft jihad’ is far more effective and clever – it says to find the weakness in the law.”
It’s ironic, Levant suggested, that organizations such as Canadian Jewish Congress helped create a law that has come back to haunt them.
Levant, a free-speech libertarian and former activist in the Reform party, said that the anti-hate law – which since it passed in 1977, has had a “100 per cent” conviction rate and was upheld in 1990 in a narrow decision by Canada’s Supreme Court – is very dangerous.
That’s because its “malleable and vague” wording allows authorities to charge anyone for actions, words or pictures that are “likely to expose a person to hatred and contempt.”
As well, he said, it laid the groundwork for the establishment of national and provincial human rights commissions, quasi-judicial bodies that can summon and charge anyone out of the blue after a complaint is filed, then mete out fines and ultimately muzzle them, without the accused having the automatic right to legal counsel.
“In Alberta, they can take things without a search warrant – warrantless search and seizure. And these are not real courts,” Levant said.
In Levant’s case, the printing of the cartoons in his magazine led Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada to bring a complaint before the Alberta commission.
Initially, Soharwardy approached the police. He went to the commission only after the police told him that “they don’t arbitrate political or religious disputes.”
At the commission, however, Soharwardy found a far more sympathetic ear – in Levant’s view because he is Muslim.
Because of the pervasive climate of political correctness that infuses human rights commissions, Levant asserts, little heed is paid to Jewish or Christian complainants.
But Levant said he bore the full brunt of the Alberta commission’s quest to enforce its own statutes.
“Why am I upset?” he asked. “Because it’s what I call a subterranean, parallel legal system that offers no protection under the rule of law.”
Although Levant eventually won his well-publicized case in August 2008, he still faced a $100,000 legal bill.
His case also coincided with a similarly high-profile complaint filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as well as with the commissions in British Columbia and Ontario, against journalist Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine over book excerpts that were alleged to be anti-Muslim.
The cases were also eventually dropped or dismissed.
For Levant, all this points to the complete inanity of the original 1977 anti-hate speech law and the establishment of “kangaroo court” human rights commissions.
In his view, proud anti-Semites, such as John Ross Taylor and others who have been convicted under the 1977, law got way more attention than they otherwise would have if they had merely been allowed to vent their spleens to the marginal few who cared or bothered.
“They were all kooks and nutbars,” Levant said. “The government took kooky nobodies and turned them into glamorous victims, national celebrities,” he said.
Regarding Muslim groups that file complaints with human rights tribunals, “the Canadian Islamic Congress did far more to destroy western freedom than 9/11 did,” Levant said. “Nine/11 did not change how we live, but [the Canadian Islamic Congress] got editors to censor ourselves.”
There has been an unspoken fear in Canada that the tidal wave of immigrants and assylum seekers that have arrived in Canada for several years now may ignite cases of racial confrontation and violence.
That was the context for the creation of Human Rights Commissions. The government wanted to preempt the occurrence of conflicts and “misunderstandings”. They wanted to persuade the “offenders” to mend their ways … or else.
Of course now Canadians are faced with the law of unintended consequences. The Human Rights Commissions took a life of their own and have made life hell for those few who dare to question the effects of too large numbers of immigrants from the Muslim world, those who are reluctant to go out of their way to make accommodations to their cultural needs, and of anyone who may say anything that may offend a minority. “Offenders” such as journalists Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.
If you Google “Ezra Levant Mark Steyn” you’ll get lots of information and videos of what these Kangaroo Courts are doing to the country and how they restrict freedom of expression.
There are other horror stories about “offended” parties that took their case to the Human Rights Commission, and you can watch Ezra Levant on YouTube telling the case of a large transgendered male who demanded a job at a rape center. His offer was politely refused, so he took his case to the Human Rights Commission, and won.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-HtxesGsas
Here is another Human Rights Commission Horror Story video, where an “offender” was told that the right not to be offended trumps the Canadian Constitution right to free speech. Very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKIcHTz4pFU
The case of Canada is important because other countries feel too overconfident that their Constitutions are there to protect their basic rights. In the case of Canada, the Constitution is not worth the paper is written on, once a minority howls emotional injury of some sort.
Eventually, it could happen anywhere as our Western values continue to make their retreat in the name of social cohesion, or cultural accommodation, or whatever.
Comment by Aline — October 29, 2009 @ 4:51 am
BUT HOW ABOUT ISRAEL’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
The Israeli media also walk on tip toes so as not to offend the Arab population.
Today I saw a column by Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam that is somewhat relevant to this subject.
You can read this column here:
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2009/10/losing-israel.html
Comment by Aline — October 29, 2009 @ 5:20 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JewPI News and Aryeh ben Avraham, The Source. The Source said: CanadaRights.com Israpundit » Blog Archive » Levant - “Hate laws backfire on Jews”: … and for.. http://bit.ly/V7loX [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention Israpundit » Blog Archive » Levant - “Hate laws backfire on Jews” -- Topsy.com — October 29, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Is Levant right to blame Jews for the creation of Human Rights Commissions in Canada and that Canadian Human Rights Commissions evolved to become government anti-free speech and anti-human rights bodies?
I don’t think so.
To be sure Jews did support the creation of the HRC in Canada, but to single out Jews of the 1960’s and 1970’s as Levant has along the lines of the epithet, “you reap what you sow” and seek to rub today’s Jews noses in the problem with Canada’s HRC’s, is unfair and disproportionate.
According to Alan Borovoy, a leading civil libertarian, an outspoken advocate for free speech and civil right and supporter of the creation of the HRC has more recently expressed concern in effect that:
http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/main/page.php?page_id=136
Sec. 13.(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:
That section must by read in conjunction with the rest of Sec. 13 as well as Sections 12 and 14. The Canadian Human Rights Act in its entirety can be found at:
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/canada/canada.H-6.part-1.html#5
The immediate concerns the Canadian Human Rights Act was meant to address was discrimination in the areas of federal government services, employment and landlord tenant accommodation issues.
The breadth of the act evolved thereafter to become the anti-free speech commission it is today.
Why does Levant single out Jews for not having the foresight to envision what Canada’s HRC’s would become and in particular in Levant’s words, sowing the seeds for political correctness, media chill and censorship that have undermined the values that define the Jewish People??
Jews possessed no better vision of the future then other groups that supported the enactment of the HR Act and the Canadian MP’s that brought that legislation into force.
Further, Levant has failed to take into account Canada’s enacting official multiculturalism and the impact of that ideology and value set on Canadian perceptions and attitudes.
See: Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.))
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-18.7/page-1.html
See as well:
Library of Parliament http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/936-e.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Multiculturalism_Act
An identity of many: it was in the 1960s that the Canadian government started to rethink its notion of assimilating immigrants.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/An+identity+of+many:+it+was+in+the+1960s+that+the+Canadian+government…-a0158092997
Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Royal_Commission_on_Bilingualism_and_Biculturalism#encyclopedia
Some pundits have opined that during the leadership of PM Pierre Trudeau that his efforts to make multiculturalsim official Canadian policy was in part, if not in the main motivated as his strategy to blunt rising Quebec nationalism which not only advocated French Quebec as a distinct society, but also the separation of Quebec from Canada. This was a source of very serious political concern and threatened peace and social order and political and social stability.
To be sure, Quebec was and is in many respects a distinct society, but under PM Trudeau’s leadership and successful efforts to begin to transform Canada into a distinctly multicultural society, Canadians, especially immigrant Canadians from all ethnic/religious backgrounds came to see themselves as not only distinct cultural enclaves in Canada, but equally distinct with each other including Quebecers.
The HRC’s and enacting legislation was also a product of Canada, on the political and ordinary Canadian level adopting multicultural ideology and values to define themselves as Canadians. The lexicon of political correctness quickly developed from there and added to by the impact of the Canadian HRC.
Ezra Levant is without a doubt a man of high strong principles and courage for his having exposed the corruption and perversion of original noble purpose of Canada’s HRC’s. For this important contribution to our nation, Ezra Levant rightfully should be considered by all Canadians as one of our great Canadian people.
That said, I still cannot endorse his smugly and derisively wagging his finger at the Jews of yesterday for not having had a crystal ball when they supported the enactment of the HR Act and the creation of the HRC’s, which they did because anti-semitism was deeply concerning then and they perceived they needed government protection.
Surely the Jews are not responsible for the transformative evolution of the HRC’s into anti-free speech bodies. To the extent Levant says that HRC evolution has in fact undermined the values that define Jews, that statement demands greater explanation then a tossed out conclusion, if Levant’s conclusion can be accepted as fair and accurate.
To conclude, I reject Ezra Levant’s statement quoted in the Lazarus article:
Comment by Bill Narvey — October 29, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Suppemental to my #4, Levant on his blog has gone after Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber (whom he refers to as Burny) and its president, Mark Freiman in the 4 - 5 articles Levant wrote which follow the above posted article.
Check out:
http://ezralevant.com/
These critical comments about Farber and Freiman have been showing up in Levant’s writings for a considerable time.
Though I have read many of Levant’s blog articles highly critical of Farber for his pro-Israel/Jewish advocacy, I do not recall reading an article whereby Levant lays out the pro-Israel and pro-Jewish advocacy strategy and tactics he would like to see employed.
Comment by Bill Narvey — October 29, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
THE TRUTH ABOUT CANADIAN ISRAEL ADVOCACY!
CANADIAN ISRAEL ADVOCACY IN TURMOIL by Isi Leibler
Excerpts:
Regrettably, in recent years the community’s public advocacy on behalf of Israel has dramatically declined.
The downturn had its genesis in 2004 when the principal communal fund-raisers, concerned about increased anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel, decided to supplant the traditional communal advocacy bodies - the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canada Israel Committee - with a “more professional” organization.
The new entity, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), was commissioned to deal exclusively with “advocacy on Canada Israel relations while the Canadian Jewish Congress would handle issues of Jewish concern.”
This effectively neutralized the central role of the Canadian Jewish Congress in determining policies on Israel and anti-Semitism and replaced it with an undemocratic body headed by professional public relations consultants.
The federations, via the United Israel Appeal, allocate very substantial funds to the CIJA. The budget this year, including mega-salaries for the principal officers, amounts to more than $11 million.
However, from the outset, the new team of PR professionals, headed by CEO Herschel Ezrin, was soon identified as archetypical practitioners of the discredited sha shtil approach, displaying passivity and determined to maintain a low profile. Their vast financial resources concentrated on campaigns emphasizing that Israelis “are just like the rest of us Canadians”.
Their PR philosophy, depicted as a model that other communities would do well to emulate, was outlined in a surrealistic internal document circulated in 2004 titled “The 10 Commandments.” It was never formally repudiated and to this day appears to reflect CIJA policy. The document must be seen to be believed.
Commandment 5 states: “Do not directly attack or assign blame to the Palestinians or their leadership. Canadians will not tolerate - or believe - that one side is more responsible for the violence than the other.”
Commandment 6 says: “Do not ask Canadians to pick a side in the conflict or assign blame. Very few Canadians are prepared to assign blame for ongoing violence or attacks.”
Commandment 7 states explicitly: “Do not ask the government of Canada to appear - or be - more favorable to Israel… There is no support for further government support of Israel.”
Commandment 9 warns: “Do not attack the media for being biased against Israel… There is no constituency to support a public effort to attack the media.”
The obsession to avoid “confrontation” was especially acute on the campuses where Hillel activists were explicitly directed to avoid debates, ignore Arab anti-Israeli tirades and never display examples of Islamic anti-Semitism to avoid offending Muslim groups
THE CIJA has a virtual monopoly on Israel advocacy in Canada. The exceptions are a plucky B’nai B’rith Organization which attempts to be more assertive and a small but highly effective body known as the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research (CIJR)
CIJR, whose influence extends beyond Canada, operates on a shoestring budget of less than $200,000 and is staffed overwhelmingly by volunteers.
Since the creation of CIJA, the Jewish establishment has totally blackballed CIJR and denied it any funding.
The time for reform is now while Canadian Jews are blessed with a prime minister who has emerged as one of Israel’s staunchest international allies. Unlike the cowardly cabal of “PR experts,” Stephen Harper is willing to publicly distinguish between Islamic fundamentalists seeking the destruction of the Jewish state and the right of Israel to defend itself. However, we cannot expect statesmen to be more pro-Israel than the self-appointed spokesmen of the Jewish community.
You can read the entire column here:
http://www.leibler.com/article/361
Comment by Aline — October 29, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
JEWISH ADVOCACY IN CANADA EXPOSED
The following column by Isi Leibler is a very good analysis of what ails Jewish advocacy in Canada:
Canadian Israel Advocacy in Turmoil by Isi Leibler
Excerpts:
Regrettably, in recent years the community’s public advocacy on behalf of Israel has dramatically declined. This paralleled a major upsurge in anti-Semitism and demonization of Israel as a consequence of Muslim immigration and intensified hostility from the Canadian left.
The downturn had its genesis in 2004 when the principal communal fund-raisers, concerned about increased anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel, decided to supplant the traditional communal advocacy bodies - the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canada Israel Committee - with a “more professional” organization.
The new entity, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), was commissioned to deal exclusively with “advocacy on Canada Israel relations while the Canadian Jewish Congress would handle issues of Jewish concern.”
This effectively neutralized the central role of the Canadian Jewish Congress in determining policies on Israel and anti-Semitism and replaced it with an undemocratic body headed by professional public relations consultants.
The federations, via the United Israel Appeal, allocate very substantial funds to the CIJA. The budget this year, including mega-salaries for the principal officers, amounts to more than $11 million.
However, from the outset, the new team of PR professionals, headed by CEO Herschel Ezrin, was soon identified as archetypical practitioners of the discredited sha shtil approach, displaying passivity and determined to maintain a low profile. Their vast financial resources concentrated on campaigns emphasizing that Israelis “are just like the rest of us Canadians”.
Their PR philosophy, depicted as a model that other communities would do well to emulate, was outlined in a surrealistic internal document circulated in 2004 titled “The 10 Commandments.” It was never formally repudiated and to this day appears to reflect CIJA policy. The document must be seen to be believed.
Commandment 5 states: “Do not directly attack or assign blame to the Palestinians or their leadership. Canadians will not tolerate - or believe - that one side is more responsible for the violence than the other.”
Commandment 6 says: “Do not ask Canadians to pick a side in the conflict or assign blame. Very few Canadians are prepared to assign blame for ongoing violence or attacks.”
Commandment 7 states explicitly: “Do not ask the government of Canada to appear - or be - more favorable to Israel… There is no support for further government support of Israel.”
Commandment 9 warns: “Do not attack the media for being biased against Israel… There is no constituency to support a public effort to attack the media.”
That such a document was not immediately condemned and withdrawn demonstrates how a group of wealthy donors, dazzled by “PR expertise,” bypassed the will of the vast majority of Canadian Jews.
The obsession to avoid “confrontation” was especially acute on the campuses where Hillel activists were explicitly directed to avoid debates, ignore Arab anti-Israeli tirades and never display examples of Islamic anti-Semitism to avoid offending Muslim groups.
Three years ago, the PR mavens even managed to convince the Montreal federation to cancel the annual Israel Independence Day parade out of a fear of possible anti-Israeli counterdemonstrations.
Fortunately, independent communal leaders, rabbis and school principals took it upon themselves to lead a grassroots revolt to retain the dignity of the community and Independence Day parades were reinstated.
The CIJA has a virtual monopoly on Israel advocacy in Canada. The exceptions are a plucky B’nai B’rith Organization which attempts to be more assertive and a small but highly effective body known as the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research (CIJR) headquartered in Montreal.
CIJR, whose influence extends beyond Canada, operates on a shoestring budget of less than $200,000 and is staffed overwhelmingly by volunteers.
Among other initiatives, it publishes a daily Internet newsletter viewed by more than 100,000 readers, which incorporates key data, original op-eds and reprints of articles relevant to activists. Its greatest success was to create an elite group of student activists willing to take up the cudgels on behalf of Israel on the campus.
Since the creation of CIJA, the Jewish establishment has totally blackballed CIJR and denied it any funding.
The time for reform is now while Canadian Jews are blessed with a prime minister who has emerged as one of Israel’s staunchest international allies.
Unlike the cowardly cabal of “PR experts,” Stephen Harper is willing to publicly distinguish between Islamic fundamentalists seeking the destruction of the Jewish state and the right of Israel to defend itself.
However, we cannot expect statesmen to be more pro-Israel than the self-appointed spokesmen of the Jewish community.
You can read the entire article here: http://www.leibler.com/article/361
Comment by Aline — October 29, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
To moderator: I was not allowed to correct a typo. It classified my talkback as “spam”. What did I do wrong?
Thanks, Aline.
Comment by Aline — October 29, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
Actually, it deleted my whole talkback!
Here it goes again, without the the bold font.
JEWISH ADVOCACY IN CANADA EXPOSED
The following column by Isi Leibler is a very good analysis of what ails Jewish advocacy in Canada:
Canadian Israel Advocacy in Turmoil by Isi Leibler
Excerpts:
Regrettably, in recent years the community’s public advocacy on behalf of Israel has dramatically declined. This paralleled a major upsurge in anti-Semitism and demonization of Israel as a consequence of Muslim immigration and intensified hostility from the Canadian left.
The downturn had its genesis in 2004 when the principal communal fund-raisers, concerned about increased anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel, decided to supplant the traditional communal advocacy bodies - the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canada Israel Committee - with a “more professional” organization.
The new entity, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), was commissioned to deal exclusively with “advocacy on Canada Israel relations while the Canadian Jewish Congress would handle issues of Jewish concern.”
This effectively neutralized the central role of the Canadian Jewish Congress in determining policies on Israel and anti-Semitism and replaced it with an undemocratic body headed by professional public relations consultants.
The federations, via the United Israel Appeal, allocate very substantial funds to the CIJA.
The budget this year, including mega-salaries for the principal officers, amounts to more than $11 million.
However, from the outset, the new team of PR professionals, headed by CEO Herschel Ezrin, was soon identified as archetypical practitioners of the discredited sha shtil approach, displaying passivity and determined to maintain a low profile. Their vast financial resources concentrated on campaigns emphasizing that Israelis “are just like the rest of us Canadians”.
Their PR philosophy, depicted as a model that other communities would do well to emulate, was outlined in a surrealistic internal document circulated in 2004 titled “The 10 Commandments.”
It was never formally repudiated and to this day appears to reflect CIJA policy. The document must be seen to be believed.
Commandment 5 states: “Do not directly attack or assign blame to the Palestinians or their leadership. Canadians will not tolerate - or believe - that one side is more responsible for the violence than the other.”
Commandment 6 says: “Do not ask Canadians to pick a side in the conflict or assign blame.
Very few Canadians are prepared to assign blame for ongoing violence or attacks.”
Commandment 7 states explicitly: “Do not ask the government of Canada to appear - or be - more favorable to Israel… There is no support for further government support of Israel.”
Commandment 9 warns: “Do not attack the media for being biased against Israel… There is no constituency to support a public effort to attack the media.”
That such a document was not immediately condemned and withdrawn demonstrates how a group of wealthy donors, dazzled by “PR expertise,” bypassed the will of the vast majority of Canadian Jews.
The obsession to avoid “confrontation” was especially acute on the campuses where Hillel activists were explicitly directed to avoid debates, ignore Arab anti-Israeli tirades and never display examples of Islamic anti-Semitism to avoid offending Muslim groups.
Three years ago, the PR mavens even managed to convince the Montreal federation to cancel the annual Israel Independence Day parade out of a fear of possible anti-Israeli counterdemonstrations.
Fortunately, independent communal leaders, rabbis and school principals took it upon themselves to lead a grassroots revolt to retain the dignity of the community and Independence Day parades were reinstated.
The CIJA has a virtual monopoly on Israel advocacy in Canada. The exceptions are a plucky B’nai B’rith Organization which attempts to be more assertive and a small but highly effective body known as the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research (CIJR) headquartered in Montreal.
CIJR, whose influence extends beyond Canada, operates on a shoestring budget of less than $200,000 and is staffed overwhelmingly by volunteers.
Among other initiatives, it publishes a daily Internet newsletter viewed by more than 100,000 readers, which incorporates key data, original op-eds and reprints of articles relevant to activists.
Its greatest success was to create an elite group of student activists willing to take up the cudgels on behalf of Israel on the campus.
Since the creation of CIJA, the Jewish establishment has totally blackballed CIJR and denied it any funding.
The time for reform is now while Canadian Jews are blessed with a prime minister who has emerged as one of Israel’s staunchest international allies.
Unlike the cowardly cabal of “PR experts,” Stephen Harper is willing to publicly distinguish between Islamic fundamentalists seeking the destruction of the Jewish state and the right of Israel to defend itself.
However, we cannot expect statesmen to be more pro-Israel than the self-appointed spokesmen of the Jewish community.
You can read the entire article here: http://www.leibler.com/article/361
Comment by Aline — October 29, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
[...] the rest here. Also noted by Israpundit. Meanwhile, Ezra writes in his blog: How far have we come? It seems wrong to quibble with such a [...]
Pingback by Today’s Lynch List « The Lynch Mob — October 30, 2009 @ 2:40 am
I agree. But they didn’t… and still don’t. We’re talking here, about a steep learning curve — It’s called being “stiffnecked”, according to a book I read.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — October 31, 2009 @ 9:46 am
according to a book I read It’s called “Mein Kampf”
Comment by yamit82 — October 31, 2009 @ 3:31 pm