tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post802513987321447931..comments2024-03-25T16:27:37.609-04:00Comments on Wise Law Blog: Ezra's Law - The Levant File@wiselawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16852672948478340298noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-62650440361909348082010-02-13T15:11:52.212-05:002010-02-13T15:11:52.212-05:00Change your last name Garry.Change your last name Garry.Blazingcatfurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260488914265052543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-53655463750101749362008-05-10T12:50:00.000-04:002008-05-10T12:50:00.000-04:00You completely miss the point of Ezra's campaign. ...You completely miss the point of Ezra's campaign. The HRC's are offensive the the Charter right to freedom of speech. The tactics and lack of rule of law in the HRCs make them irrelevant. Section 13 is by far the most offensive. The tactics employed by some of the HRC Staff are deplorable. Basically entrapment. Let us not forget the illegal methods as well, such as hijacking the internet connection of a neighbor to their offices. Lately, withholding a transcript of the kangaroo court from the defendant, but providing a copy to a reporter. All involved should be FIRED! Any Lawyer that supports this abomination of justice should be disbarred for incompetence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-48096673880519902022008-04-11T17:20:00.000-04:002008-04-11T17:20:00.000-04:00A little late to the show, I know, but wow, You ar...A little late to the show, I know, but wow, You are one seriously deluded individual, Mr. Wise. And I must say right here that the first comment to your post, from Ted S., is absolutely brilliant. You should read it over and over again, like a lesson, until you get it.<BR/><BR/>First, let me say I'm an American and I live in America. But I make it a point to pay attention to what goes on in Europe, Canada, and Australia because as Western countries I believe it's only a matter of time when what is happening in any given W. country or region will spread to the next like a disease or a blessing, depending on the matter at hand.<BR/><BR/>I'm ashamed to admit I heard about the Ezra Levant story for the first time just a couple days ago, but I am utterly appalled and enraged to see what must be the final stretch of road in a rabidly politically correct country obsessed with a culture of victimization and the superceding rights of the minority. As to not offend the sensibilities of one person, the rights of another are squashed. The level of hypocrisy is simply astounding.<BR/><BR/>Another disturbing trend I'm seeing in western culture is the ceding, bit by bit, of our culture and way of life to appease the vocal (and sometimes violent) minority. Take for example the recent decision by Harvard to disallow males into a campus gym during certain hours-- this to accomodate Muslim women. Ana Veciana-Suarez in The Miami Herald actually defended the decision by pointing out that the gym in question was little used and on the edge of campus (but hey, Czechoslovakia wasn't using the Sudetenland either, were they?). Mr. Wise, you and your kind fail to see, acknowledge, and take action against threats until it is far too late. You think the Nazis sprung up and into power overnight? No, read your history, it took over a decade in a much "slower" world and time. If you bothered to pay attention you'd notice the cyclical nature of history and how it's just the players that change, not the deeds. But in the end, people like you ignore the threat until the blood flows like rivers and another generation is smashed to bits.<BR/><BR/>But hey, I'm sure I'm being reactionary, so you better get back to defending those who want to replace your Western culture with their Islamic one.<BR/><BR/>...and you're a Jew too.. simply amazing...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-38596620757665361092008-01-22T19:48:00.000-05:002008-01-22T19:48:00.000-05:00Dear Mr. Wise, have you ever actually LOOKED at th...Dear Mr. Wise, have you ever actually LOOKED at the cartoons that are the genesis of all this fuss? They are not offensive by any stretch of the non-fundamentalist imagination. See for yourself at http://michellemalkin.com/2006/01/30/support-denmark-why-the-forbidden-cartoons-matter/.<BR/>It is not up to me to tell anyone what they should and should not find offensive, but these cartoons are innocuous by Canadian standards.Any depiction of the prophet Mohammed would be offensive to some Muslims.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the Human Rights Tribunal should have looked at the cartoons first and determined whether or not there was any basis for going farther, whether they offend 'community standards,' similar to what used to be done with respect to obscenity.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line, no matter what you think of Mr. Levant, these cartoons are within acceptable parameters of Western editorial standards. This is a frivolous case.Beverly Akerman MSchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049705953923022347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-77207433512471658252008-01-22T19:42:00.000-05:002008-01-22T19:42:00.000-05:00Dear Mr. Wise, have you ever actually looked at th...Dear Mr. Wise, have you ever actually looked at the cartoons that are the genesis of all this fuss? They are not offensive by any stretch of the non-fundamentalist imagination. See for yourself at http://michellemalkin.com/2006/01/30/support-denmark-why-the-forbidden-cartoons-matter/.<BR/>It is not up to me to tell anyone what they should and should not find offensive, but these cartoons are innocuous by Canadian standards.Perhaps the Human Rights Tribunal should have looked at the cartoons first and determined whether or not they would offend 'community standards,' similar to what used to be done with respect to obscenity.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line, no matter what you think of Mr. Levant, these cartoons are within acceptable parameters of Western editorial standards. This is a frivolous case.Beverly Akerman MSchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049705953923022347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-11839512620080059502008-01-21T06:41:00.000-05:002008-01-21T06:41:00.000-05:00I haven't bothered reading through all of this, so...I haven't bothered reading through all of this, so sorry if this has been said already, but just in case it hasn't I feel that I need to point this out.<BR/><BR/>We don't live in some sort of perfect world where everything just falls into place and everyone has rights that don't conflict. For example, as a Jew you have the right not to be discriminated against, right? And a Muslim person in Canada also has the right not to be discriminated against, right? How ironic that it's not possible for Jews and Muslims to be mutually free of discrimination. Why is that? Well, to find out let's take a look at one of the passages of the Qur'an:<BR/><BR/>"And verily, you will find them (the Jews) the greediest of mankind for life and (even greedier) than those who - ascribe partners to Allâh (and do not believe in Resurrection - Magians, pagans, and idolaters, etc.). Everyone of them wishes that he could be given a life of a thousand years. But the grant of such life will not save him even a little from (due) punishment. And Allâh is All-Seer of what they do." (2:96)<BR/><BR/>Can you honestly say that passage isn't discriminatory towards Jews? Oh my, according to the anti hate speech laws Islam should be banned from Canada because it spreads hate. But wait, according to the Charter and the Bill of Rights we have freedom of religion, right? Aaaaaand therein lies the problem. By trying to regulate hateful speech the HRC ends up putting some rights higher and some rights lower (hey, all rights equal, but some rights are *more* equal than others!)... and let me ask you this: Is that not the very *essence* of discrimination?<BR/><BR/>You know what the really sick thing is? I'm afraid that if I don't post this comment anonymously that I might get dragged before a tribunal (with the charge of discriminating the Muslim people) for pointing out a hateful, discriminatory section of the Qur'an. I'm beginning to feel like I'm living in the novel '1984' and it sucks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-24979903825735022372008-01-17T13:37:00.000-05:002008-01-17T13:37:00.000-05:00Well, I'm not impressed by what you have quoted in...Well, I'm not impressed by what you have quoted in the Update. Judges no doubt like to imagine themselves as the great balancers of competing claims, but sometimes they should know that what they aim to achieve in their flights of metaphysical gymnastics are never going to be readily applied in courtrooms and closed-door "tribunals" of the land, as the history of HRCs has made clear in recent years. For example, why is hatred and scapegoating of "homophobes", i.e. people upholding long religious traditions of criticizing the "sin" (not the sinner), traditions originally designed to overcome cultures of pederasty, evidently more permissible in these "courts" than is hatred and scapegoating of homosexuals?<BR/><BR/>The question can only be answered by someone who already believes, without a doubt, and in contrast to the established wisdom of 3000 years of Western religion, that "homophobia" is worse than homosexuality. It implies such a certain belief or prejudice, not disinterestedness. Only then can the proper reference for terms like "hatred" or "contempt" be defined. Empirical observation of "hatred" cannot be the starting point, because we - all good thinking people - agree that some things should be hated, like "homophobia".<BR/><BR/>If the "courts" were capable of the metaphysical gymnastics your judgment suggests, how is it that we have come to the time when a Muslim, apparently less interested in individual freedom than in defending the Sharia proscriptions against blasphemy, can have his claim of victimization heard and paid for, against someone merely republishing cartoons of news worthiness? Is there any evidence Levant hates Muslims as individual human beings? I see the opposite. He loves individual freedom. What he hates is Islam, at least traditional or orthodox Shara-bound Islam. And if we can't have the right to hate what we consider a bad or untrue faith, then we don't have even the beginnings of freedom of thought and speech. This is clearly not a case where some balancing respectful of fundamental freedoms of speech went into the HRC's decision to run Levant through the mill.<BR/><BR/>But how, in their metaphysical flights of fancy are the "judges" going to distinguish hatred of Islam from hatred of Muslims? I doubt they will find a way to do this transparently or credibly. Even the attempt to distinguish "contempt" and "hate" in the judgment you quote, with its attempt to distinguish hatred of people for having "superior" qualities - obviously aimed at antisemitism - from "contempt" (but surely one can still have contempt for someone whom one deems superior in some ways...), betrays a need to move beyond the knee-jerk moral relativism where everyone has a supposed right not to be hated to acknowledge that humanity is involved in a historical struggle that eventually recognizes which values and beliefs are superior to others.<BR/><BR/>Empirically, are countries which limit freedom of speech safer for minorities than those that try to uphold the constitutional guarantee of free speech above all else - there is only one, the U.S., and even there there are now limits? I see no evidence. In fact, i think it is when governments and courts start trying to mediate group resentments instead of individual rights to freedom and the tough skin it requires that we see countries where people will no longer stand up for each other as individuals, but decline into tribal resentments. Check out France, or now Britain, for example, where the governments' only response to rising ethnic nationalism and religious supremacism is to enforce more and more politically correct speech codes. It's a losing path, quite possibly ending in civil war.<BR/><BR/>Hate speech crimes in Canada were first legislated, in the sixties, in response to the Holocaust, with the active participation of people like Trudeau who may well have felt guilty for his pre-war antisemitism. But are Jews and minorities really protected by such laws from a return to a Nazi-like state? Of course not. No Nazi-state would ever pay such a law a moment's notice. Guilt is delusional. The only thing that really protects Jews and minorities is a free society freed from official mediation of group resentments, a society with an emphasis on individual opportunities, and the courage and openness that real freedom requires. Stupid resentments and hatreds don't bother a truly free person. We don't need a culture of victims, once everyone is equal before the law. Such a culture can only lead to violence. <BR/><BR/>Political and legal gestures that once righted wrongs cannot do so forever. They face a law of diminishing returns as their truths become part of mundane life, their revelatory power thus discounted. Claims of "racism" exemplify this, as they are becoming more and more incoherent in their reliance on innuendo, less able to reveal real truths about humanity, as opposed to our political jockeying. A free person really should have no problem with someone making fun of his religion. It happens to me all the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-34724267056862897472008-01-17T13:34:00.000-05:002008-01-17T13:34:00.000-05:00"You are being dishonest." -- Mike addressing me.I..."You are being dishonest." -- Mike addressing me.<BR/><BR/>I don't have to lie, Mike. To prove what I meant you need only quote my words that immediately followed "hauled before the court."<BR/><BR/>What I said was, "Ezra Lavant is hauled against his will before a court (what in Canada is called a “commission”) ...."<BR/><BR/>Why you twice omit that parenthetical, I can only guess. It is quite important to understanding the meaning of my words. But here's a guess as to why you twice omitted certain of my words: You want to mislead, to create a false impression of what I said. In short, you lie. You lie, Mike. Not me.<BR/><BR/>Why don't you stop it? Could it be true that you are NOT lying, that you are just too stupid to comprehend the rhetorical device I was using with the phrase "hauled before a court (what in Canada is called a 'commission')? No one else appears to have your problem with the English language. Clearly, I knew when I wrote those words that this was not a "court" in the legal sense of the word. (If you read my other comment on an earlier thread, where I make this explicit for you over-literal bores, you would know this; however, I expect you are too lazy and rabid in your views to bother to find this out.) <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, in one respect my logic in calling the commission a “court” is wrong, and I made this distinction in the other thread (that I need to write this for you, Mike, just emphasizes how foolish your accusations are). The commission is not only acting as a court in this case, it is acting as cop and prosecutor also. That is a sinificant part of the crime being committed against Levant’s inalienable rights here. How can anyone defend this abomination?<BR/><BR/>Next, when I said that your silly, over-technical, and really quite anal distinction between (a) Levant’s being "forced to appear" before the commission and (b) Levant’s option of “writing a letter" to the commission. This distinction is so mind-numbingly absurd, that I can only believe you wish to muddy the issue of the fact that Levant was compelled to answer to the commission the charges leveled against him. By “compel” I mean “force,” Mike. Whether he appears in person or sends a letter affects not one jot the fact that he has been charged with wrong-doing and he may be liable for his actions, which actions deal solely with what he put in print in a magazine. If he refused to appear or write a letter, would the penalties against Levant be any different, Mike? If it chose to write a letter instead of addressing the commission in person, would it make any difference in how the commission decides his case? Did Levant have a choice whether to respond to the commission? No, no, and no. The bottom line fact is that Levant was compelled to answer these absurd charges against him. How he answered the charges makes no difference. The fact that he had a choice in HOW he answered the charges is irrelevant to anything in the case, Mike.<BR/><BR/>This is the reason I wrote to you that you made a “distinction without a difference." Have you ever heard of this phrase, Mike? Do you have any idea what it means? Even I don't think you are so stupid as not to know exactly what I was saying. I know this because I can see with my eyes that you know how to write in English. The only conclusion we can reach, therefore, is that you intend to mislead the readers here, Mike. You haven’t gotten away with it.<BR/><BR/>Mike, you have repeated yourself in your attacks on me. I've had to answer you identically both times. I suggest you stop; you are embarrassing yourself and boring me (and probably others). You must be a first year law student. Am I right or are you just a poseur?Nomennovumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661874416886153923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-26389349900114760692008-01-17T03:28:00.000-05:002008-01-17T03:28:00.000-05:00Ezra Levant, one nation unto himself. Under Ezra.T...<I>Ezra Levant, one nation unto himself. Under Ezra.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing new about the hard time that has been afforded Muslim immigrants to Canada by these self-appointed "protectors of the nation." </I><BR/><BR/>-It seems you have little idea how a free society works. In a democracy we all share in a covenant to act as guarantors for each other's freedom. We all must appoint ourselves to this task. Actually, you half grasp this idea, clearly wanting to appoint yourself a protector of our nation, and yet you cannot grasp that in our work as protectors of the nation, means do not justify ends. You would use totalitarian methods to guarantee some alleged victim group's freedom. But that can't ever work, because, for one thing, freedoms like freedom of speech are indivisible; we all have it, or none of us have it, except at the will of the powers that be and their passing fancies for who is a deserving victim and who an oppressor. But because you identify with the politically-correct authority of the day, you can't see this. What if tomorrow you have a change of heart and think Muslims are the bad guys? Where will they be then if your idea of prosecuting bad guys prevails?<BR/><BR/>The times in which we live demand that we learn to recognize that the means are the ends. Thought policing goes nowhere but thought policing.<BR/><BR/>You remind me of people convinced that communism was a good idea, so convinced they would kill millions before finding out it can't work. And some still don't get it. Ends do not justify means! Liberal ends are always in conflict with the means that would bring them about because institutionalized methods always compromise the liberating end. Such human paradox is a reason for humility, and the rule of law, applied equally to all, not self-righteousness. But how on earth could one ever apply a law againts "hate" equally? Can't you see how subjective is anyone's conception of hate? There is no judge in the land sufficiently wise or disinterested to apply a law against hate equally. Such a law positively requires a judiciary mired in political correctness, which is what we now have.<BR/><BR/>Have you read the Koran? A book that threatens the unbeliever with great regularity? One could easily make an argument that it is hate speech (it is clearly a resentful reaction to the earlier monotheist claims to be in covenant with the one God, just as Christianity is structurally Judeophobic, such that the task of the good Christian - or Muslim - is to learn to transcend Judeophobia, something that cannot be taken for granted). But it would be insane if we tried to prosecute Islamic preachers. Where would we stop? Where would we draw the line? All people are resentful. It's a universal human fact. You, sir, are mired in it. And all resentment is delusional, to some degree. yes, all humans are delusional to some degree - which is precisely why we need freedom of speech and not self-righteous arbiters of what resentments are good and holy, and which not. Just try thinking rationally about what resentment is - what kind of relationship to the sacred it entails - when you are feeling resentful. It can't be done. We are not fully rational beings when we are working up a steam against our myth-mediated consciousness of enemies, like "right wing fascists". Don't you see how your characterization of Levant is so crudely scapegoating in form? Don't you see that you need to hold up the mirror when railing against that alleged hate monger?<BR/><BR/>Do you not see that your whole discourse here is not a defense of Muslim-Canadian freedom to be treated as free and responsible individuals? It is a call for them to be treated as victims who can't live with any kind of "offense" to their religion. It is patronizingly to tell Muslims they belong to a group resentment, and do not have the skins to decide for themselves what these cartoons mean. They are not free individuals, in your way of thinking. Because if you granted them freedom as individual Canadians, they wouldn't need you to act as their group protector, at least not in the way you are acting now, which appears to be the only way you know how to act politically. We each need you to act as a guarantor of our individual freedoms, not of oppressive group resentments. It simply isn't true that Canadians are generally out to oppress minorities today in the way you imply. The vast majority of Canadians will defend their neighbor's freedom and security, without need for the kind of totalitarian thought crime police you envision. You create a myth of victimhood, because that is how you understand the world in general.<BR/><BR/>Just imagine if we tried generally to implement the rule that no one need suffer offense to some aspect of their identity? We'd be in a world where no one could ever say anything.<BR/><BR/>You cast yourself as a progressive voice, but to my mind you are the perfect replica of the self-righteous "progressive" whites who once championed the White Man's Burden. Just as the liberal Victorian racists were blind to what they were about, due to "progressive" self-righteousness, so are you. You need victims on the scenes of your political and esthetic consciousness to make sense of the world. Your "religion" is victimary, it seems to me. This post makes clear that you have a positive need for victims, which is a form of violence in and of itself - something Judaism has always struggled against.<BR/><BR/>By the way, every Jewish male of a certain age in Toronto claims/ed to have been at the Christie Pits riots. Such is the allure of the sacred and sacrificial, but it is an allure that wise people eventually learn to do without. That is how we become free individuals.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, because I truly live in fear of what people like you would like to do to people who express their opinions about freedom freely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-77312932876616778702008-01-16T22:18:00.000-05:002008-01-16T22:18:00.000-05:00"Ezra Lavant is hauled against his will before a c..."Ezra Lavant is hauled against his will before a court (what in Canada is called a “commission”)."<BR/><BR/>He was not "hauled" anywhere, he did not have to appear.<BR/><BR/>He did not appear "against his will", he went of his own free will and accord.<BR/><BR/>A commission is definitely NOT a court.<BR/><BR/>This is not just differences in wording, Nov. The generally accepted meaning of the colloquial "hauled before a court" is that one is brought before a judge, in an actual court of law, usually by a cop. "Against his will" is very unambiguous. It implies he had no choice but to appear, when in fact he did. Sending a letter is not appearing. He could have chosen to ignore the whole process.<BR/><BR/>But then, he wouldn't have got all those juicy Youtube videos.<BR/><BR/>Don't try to pretend you meant something other than you wrote. You are being dishonest. You know damn well what "hauled before against his will before a court" literally means and in this context implies. And you also know you are wrong.<BR/><BR/>I'd laugh at your idiocy if it wasn't so sad and obviously partisan.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06941875334878452635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-48357175578366682302008-01-16T10:36:00.000-05:002008-01-16T10:36:00.000-05:00Levant could have answered by sending a registered...<I>Levant could have answered by sending a registered letter detailing his side of the story.</I><BR/><BR/>This is incorrect - it confuses (a) the initial response to a complaint with (b) a response to an investigation. The relevant portions of the Alberta act can be read <A HREF="http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/H14.CFM" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/legislation/bypart1.asp#Respondent's" REL="nofollow">here</A>. To summarize: when a complaint is filed, the respondent has 21 days (see section 3 of the by-laws) in which to file a written response (which Ezra did - you can read it <A HREF="http://ezralevant.com/Response_to_complaint.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>). If the commission elects not to dismiss the complaint at that point (see sections 21 and 22 of the Act), and an investigation is commenced (as occurred in the Levant case), the commission has the power to compel individuals to appear at an oral hearing - a power which is backed by court order (see sections 23 and 24). In short, if an investigator requests an oral hearing, you don't have an option to respond in writing and you don't have an option not to attend - unless you want to get thrown in jail for violating a court order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-29990478980795407862008-01-16T10:34:00.000-05:002008-01-16T10:34:00.000-05:00Mr. Wise:"His "big stand" involved copying and pas...Mr. Wise:<BR/><BR/><I>"His "big stand" involved copying and pasting. He published a series of inflammatory comic drawings that most of the Western media wisely saw fit to avoid, after observing the great offense taken to them by the Islamic world."</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed, the great offense taken by the Islamic world included murdering a nun in Egypt. The one great benefit of all this may be that it will show whether Canada has a constitution worthy of that name. Either we have freedom of expression (including the press) or we don't. Too bad it's in the hands of politically appointed civil servants and not real judges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-16960837728457673972008-01-16T00:31:00.000-05:002008-01-16T00:31:00.000-05:00Levant (and Maclean's) should no-show the HRC proc...Levant (and Maclean's) should no-show the HRC proceedings, wait for the outcome & then sue 'em in all in federal court, if necessary. The HRCs can't fine people for cartoons. A real court will determine this and fix the problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-70983949779323393842008-01-15T22:42:00.000-05:002008-01-15T22:42:00.000-05:00One aspect you miss, Mr. Wise, is the one-sided na...One aspect you miss, Mr. Wise, is the one-sided nature of these commissions. By the nature of these things, they will be staffed with left wing activists who will project their biases accordingly.<BR/>So to my knowledge no official body has tried to ban the “work” by Terence Koh of Jesus with an erect penis, nor of Piss Christ, nor of the Virgin Mary covered in dung. These were far more offensive than the bland Mohammed cartoons, but to the chatteroids who adjudicate these matters, with their curious ethnic and cultural self loathing, Christians are just not one of the fashionable groups worthy of protection. Hurt feelings? Tough.<BR/>They show neither the respect to refrain from offending anyone, nor the balls to ruffle everyone. To insult those who will not slit your throat, while showing fawning deference to those who will, is contemptible. It could be called Wise’s Law.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08777016476887951317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-24733529953112233662008-01-15T20:13:00.000-05:002008-01-15T20:13:00.000-05:00Mr Wise, You make good points about the unprofessi...Mr Wise, <BR/><BR/>You make good points about the unprofessional nature of Levant's tone, and his insulting the official in charge of his file. And you are right that Ezra Levant is a publicity seeking clown. <BR/><BR/>A few thoughts: Levant's tone aside, it IS legitimate to challenge the validity of a section of law, or a law related procedure, by holding it up to other law, including the constitution and the common law tradition. And it is also acceptable to charge jurisdictional overreach in the very court you're accusing of overreach. <BR/><BR/>However, your comment on "Ezra's Law" makes a good point. Interestingly, conservatives often scream 'judicial activism' when courts strike down laws as violating 'basic principles of justice' or other 'principles' not positivized into actual law. Rightly, they accuse judges as trying to be philosopher king's, trying to discover the 'true meaning' of equality, for example. <BR/><BR/>Among other things, Levant seems to be doing exactly that - refering to basic principles, ideas of liberty, and 'rights', including some not found in positive law. At very least, his reference is 'principles' beyond the positive law. <BR/><BR/>Can I infer from your rejection of "Ezra's Law" that Mr Wise opposes "Bertha's Law" (in Bertha Wilson's strange concurrent decision in Morgetaler for example), or "Henry's law" (when Henry Blackmun creates a 'right to privacy') as much as Ezra's?deepsixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11457827835994773164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-10415862240240161102008-01-15T18:22:00.000-05:002008-01-15T18:22:00.000-05:00He did amuse me. It made me proud as a fellow memb...He did amuse me. <BR/><BR/>It made me proud as a fellow member of the Commonwealth. <BR/><BR/>And as a fellow lawyer. <BR/><BR/>And as an atheist.<BR/><BR/>This is going to go all the way. All the way to a final result. Either way.<BR/>And it's becuase of brave people like Ezra that we will finally get a result.<BR/><BR/>Bravo Ezra - Allez mon pote.SorenKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03993582153774370238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-41532776714961623802008-01-15T17:27:00.000-05:002008-01-15T17:27:00.000-05:00This entire thing was orchestrated by Levant, manu...<I>This entire thing was orchestrated by Levant, manufactured to make him appear to be a martyr.</I><BR/><BR/>Riciculous. Good for Levant who used his gravitas and sophistication to shine a light on that Stalinesque charade. He's is a martyr as is any poor shulb trotted before this abominable thought crimes court where acquitals are zero. Check that out. <BR/><BR/>Free speech includes the chance of being offended. To allow the state to arbitrate free speech is sheer stupidity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-87949714242950186732008-01-15T15:33:00.000-05:002008-01-15T15:33:00.000-05:00On the question of whether or not Ezra was acting ...On the question of whether or not Ezra was acting as a lawyer: <A HREF="http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/my-closing-argument.html" REL="nofollow">"As a lawyer I've made plenty of closing arguments before, but not for myself…"</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-21018886276310101742008-01-15T14:42:00.000-05:002008-01-15T14:42:00.000-05:00Well, you've certainly blown any idea of yours bei...Well, you've certainly blown any idea of yours being the moderate legal opinion out of the water.<BR/><BR/>Won't be back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-75188611757707030322008-01-15T14:30:00.000-05:002008-01-15T14:30:00.000-05:00Mr. Wise, I am patiently waiting for you to file a...Mr. Wise, I am patiently waiting for you to file a complaint with the appropriate human rights commissions about the persistent demonizing of the Jewish/Zionist community in Canada by the Canadian Islamic Congress, Mr. Mohammed Elmasry, Montreal Muslim News, Canadian Arab Federation, Canpalnet, the sponsors and signatories to the "Israeli Boycott" campaign, the sponsors and signatories of "Israeli Apartheid Week", the sponsors and signatories of the "Boycott Chapters/Indigo" campaign, etc, etc, etc. Oh, and lets not forget that FaceBook group!<BR/><BR/>You see Mr. Wise, you can not have it both ways. If you can not support your fellow Canadian Jew Ezra Levant (his Jewishness has nothing to do with it, but since you inserted the issue...) in his vigorous defense of our freedom of expression, then how, as a Canadian Jew, can you possibly tolerate for one more second the deliberate, despicable coordinated campaign to demonize and intimidate your entire community? <BR/><BR/>I am intimidated, I am frightened, I am "offended" and I am not Jewish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-37742875186294584832008-01-15T14:28:00.000-05:002008-01-15T14:28:00.000-05:00John Milton clearly didn't believe himself, mind y...John Milton clearly didn't believe himself, mind you, or he wouldn't have gotten a job as a censor after his side won.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-69726104375549354652008-01-15T14:15:00.000-05:002008-01-15T14:15:00.000-05:00Idealistic Pragmatist,You have evidently made the ...Idealistic Pragmatist,<BR/><BR/>You have evidently made the right choice in where you live, and I salute you for it. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>Have a nice life. That, after all, is the intent of anti-hate speech laws. “Niceness uber alles.” A little smiley-faced fascism can be quite pleasant – not to mention, pragmatic. No?Nomennovumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661874416886153923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-52072123251276765902008-01-15T14:07:00.000-05:002008-01-15T14:07:00.000-05:00Mike,I had said, ""Ezra Lavant is hauled against h...Mike,<BR/><BR/>I had said, ""Ezra Lavant is hauled against his will before a court."<BR/><BR/>You replied, "BZZZZZT. Wrong. Levant could have answered by sending a registered letter detailing his side of the story."<BR/><BR/>That, Mike, is called "a distinction without a difference." (But thanks for the early afternoon laugh.)<BR/><BR/>And thank you for pointing out the obvious to me that the commission is "not a court (as you say...hell, that they weren't a court was one of Levant's argument's against them ...."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you missed this from my comment or failed to grasp its meaning: "Ezra Lavant is hauled against his will before a court (what in Canada is called a “commission”)."<BR/><BR/>Are simple rhetorical devices beyond your ken or was it you who was not “paying attention” and not me? <BR/><BR/>Finally, please point out the part of Levant’s speech before the commission where he “spouted his hate” (of anything except for the process imposed by his grand inquisitors) or otherwise showed himself a “bigot.” Surely, you are not relying on what other people say about Levant’s purported bigotry. Why, that would be … “gullible.”Nomennovumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661874416886153923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-28086215629424970092008-01-15T13:04:00.000-05:002008-01-15T13:04:00.000-05:00A question with regard to the recording and public...A question with regard to the recording and publication. Ezra, as others have pointed out, was not the lawyer in this case. But apparently his lawyer was present. Has Ezra's lawyer violated the law society rules by participating in this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11931513.post-19053305524523137922008-01-15T12:33:00.000-05:002008-01-15T12:33:00.000-05:00"Ezra Lavant is hauled against his will before a c..."Ezra Lavant is hauled against his will before a court "<BR/><BR/>BZZZZZT. Wrong. <BR/><BR/>Levant could have answered by sending a registered letter detailing his side of the story. He choose to show up in person, tape the proceedings and rant in front of the camera. This entire thing was orchestrated by Levant, manufactured to make him appear to be a martyr.<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with HRC's either, but they are not a court (as you say...hell, that they weren't a court was one of Levant's argument's against them, if you had been paying attention) and Levant was in no way compelled to appear.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, this whole incident points to one of the big reasons I do not like HRC's and such - they give angry bigots like Levant a platform to spout their hate and a cause around which to rally gullible people like nomenovem. It give his nonsense an air of creidibility it does not deserve.<BR/><BR/>John Milton made that very arguement in 1644 in Areopagitica. Too bad we haven't learned.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06941875334878452635noreply@blogger.com