Only if you’re conservative:Is it illegal in 2014 to call activists in an anti-Semitic organization, anti-Semitic?
38 Replies to “Free Ezra Levant!”
You answer your own question,Kate.
Liberals don’t like competition. They feel it best we all go to jail rather than vote for somebody else.
I don’t hold out a lot of hope for Ezra’s appeal in court. Liberals are known for having their thumb on the Scales of Justice when it suits them.
Yep, the Courts have decided that the truth will not be tolerated. I guess the “judge” has also decided that Muslims have the “right” to be anti-semitic… spewing hatred of jews is now a “right”… I wonder if hatred of the Joos is exclusively a “right” of Muslims or whether everyone can join in… Who needs Hitler when you’ve got the Canadian judiciary.
could there be anti-Semitism without the glorious blessings of Semitism?
‘A’ court has decided that a leader of an anti-Semitic organization is to be believed when he claims he is not anti-Semitic. One Judge. We shall see what the Supremes have to say.
If the Sharia Law of Blasphemy is upheld here, and make no mistake about it that is the real issue, the M.B. and the I.S. will grow in stature and power and recruits in Canada. (note- the co-operation growing between the I.S. and the M.B. in Egypt.)
The group of moderates will shrink as defectors are taught the original Islam, and have who the weak horse is pointed out to them.
Islamic supremacism requires a cloak of darkness over it until it’s population is large enough to intimidate all opponents. This strategy has worked very
effectively in Europe, the U.K. and Scandinavia.
Ezra Levant is the best public protector that Jews, Christians and secularists have in Canada, and women, too.
This isn’t about the Sharia Law of Blasphemy. This is about Canada’s slander and libel law. Oz comes much closer to the truth here than most of the rest of you. If the judge was incorrect in his interpretation of statements of fact vs. statements of opinion it will be overturned on appeal.
The deterioration of Canadian justice continues – in this case the subversion is twice as vile because this represents an abomination of the people’s common law by the political influence of the culture war. Obviously the message sent is that multicult pecking order nepotism trumps objective evidence in commonlaw courts.
“the people’s common law”
What’s that and where is it found in the statute books?
Then there’s this.
“nepotism trumps objective evidence in commonlaw courts”
Even Ezra admits that he didn’t have any evidence before the court on the salient point being made by the judge. So how is this “trumping” what wasn’t presented at all?
I was in a “debate” online with a typical leftist obfuscating liar about this issue. This addled person went on and on about Harper and all sorts of issues except answering my question whether or not he believed that someone could voluntarily be part of an anti-Semitic group and not be one himself? I posted this 6-7 times and he never acknowledged my point, nor responded to it. This is a perfect illustration of their insanity or evil intent.
Ezra has been a more important figure in protecting Canadian free speech than ANY *sshole politician from ANY of our slimy political parties over the past decade.
He has my utmost respect for continually dragging the topic of extreme Islam into the daylight so we may see it for what it truly is, in spite of the MSM’s best efforts to ignore and appease. That and for showing his massive gonads by printing the Mohamed cartoon.
From my understanding of Canadian law, he has a good chance of winning his appeal.
well Mike I don’t have to go to some obscure place on the internet to not get answers, I get stone walled rite here in SDA. I have been accused of being anti-semitic in here, and my only sin has been to post facts and statistics that involve Jewish people, and non of these facts have been refuted as incorrect, there has been only name calling by biased, ingnoRANT of fact fools, and most of these fools are bible-bangers who should know better. Butt I’ll not wait for a reasoned answer from you on this. :-)))
Your comment to me is a total non sequitur. If you want to beat up on Jews, don’t use me as a excuse. I’m talking about truth and the Marxists are allergic to it. Now that you have inserted yourself, why don’t you answer the same question I have posed?
To be a member of an antisemitic organization is prima facie evidence that you’re antisemitic.
Unless, maybe — and this is a long shot probability — you’ve made statements disavowing this view as a person who has joined up with the objective of trying to push reform of said organization.
But as others have pointed out this shouldn’t be actionable in contemporary rant-prone society.
From a defamation point of view being thought of as an antisemite today has zero defamation value.
In fact, it’s a badge of honour among many western political grandees esp. of the EU variety — people who’ve never forgiven the Jews for Auschwitz. .
Enemy666: The so-called facts you publish about joooos doing this or that are not facts in the sense you mean them, viz., evidence of some kind of jooish conspiracy. Did joooos conspire for example, to dominate the Nobel prizes? Related on the opposite end of the spectrum: did “African Americans” conspire to dominate pro basketball?
A devout muslim who believes the koran and who bangs his head toward mecca five times a day is an anti-Semite. It’s baked into the cake. There are numerous explicit expressions of hatred toward Jews in the koran and hadith.
A devout muslim cannot not be an anti-Semite, because the koran is claimed to be the revealed word of allah, and must be accepted in its entirety.
Now, it’s entirely possible that “cultural” or “secular” muslims may not be anti-Semites, but such persons would be regarded as apostates by devout muslims. In any case, the horse has left the barn on that one for Ezra’s antagonist, because his other actions have placed him firmly in the “devout” camp, so he’s an anti-Semite by default.
Maybe I’m stretching it a bit ….maybe even a lot…. but perhaps this has to do with the definition of “antisemitic”.
In common use, antisemitic means anti jewish and/or anti Israel. But semitic, like aryan or slavic or celtic, is also a racial designation (horror at the idea of racial differences). Semitic peoples include Jews and Arabs both. Thus if we get technical, antisemitic does not describe the common use of the term but rather describes a bias against ALL semitic peoples. Maybe Levant should have said anti jewish instead.
“To be a member of an antisemitic organization is prima facie evidence that you’re antisemitic.”
Which simply shows that you don’t understand the law. There is no conviction by association in Canada or just about any other western democracy’s judicial system. To be convicted has to be done on the basis of what the accused has actually done. This precedent is NOT new. Go back and read the Nuremburg rulings if you wish. The defendants were convicted not simply because they belonged to an evil political organization but because of the actions they personally undertook in support of that evil.
And if you can’t demonstrate any actions or statements they made, then then can sue. I like and support Ezra’s point of view. But he was stupid and because he’s a lawyer he should have known better than to make a statement about an individual he couldn’t defend.
And if this judge’s ruling is wrong, it will be overturned on appeal.
Well, the term “anti-Semite” was invented by a German Jew-hater as a “scientific” term to make Jew-hating more respectable. Hating Arabs wasn’t part of the definition. Arabs are Semites, true enough, as a racial classification, but the term “anti-Semite” was coined specifically as a euphemism for “Jew-hater.” By a Jew-hater.
cgh, the one place where one can be considered a criminal by association is in the case of terrorist organizations. All it would take would be for PMSH to grow a pair and label the organization that this POS who’s suing Ezara belongs to as a terrorist organization. Thus, any payment of funds to such an organization would be illegal.
If the SCC dislikes it, there’s the notwithstanding clause to put them in their place as they’ve already ruled that truth is no defense in “hate speech” cases.
What would be useful is for people who are outraged about this travesty of justice to send the POS who claims he was “libelled” letters letting him know what the population of Canada really thinks about him and his medieval “religion”. An anonymous letter from each Sun News viewer would probably get attention when the local post office delivering mail to this POS got suddenly overwhelmed.
cgh said: There is no conviction by association in Canada
True. I know this.
But no one, least of all Ezra, is trying to convict the man of antisemetism.
That was Ezra’s well founded opinion.
He didn’t need the cat to come out and say he hated Jews to describe him as antisemitic.
Membership in such a group is prima facie evidence of antisemitic bigotry just as being on a hockey team is prima facie evidence that you like hockey and being a member of a libertarian group is prima facie evidence that you dislike big overarching government.
But just as being called “homophobic” for being against “gay marriage” shouldn’t be actionable nor should calling someone antisemitic be. And in this case I simply don’t see the damage to his reputation or how he would be harmed economically.
cgh, you really don’t get how lawfare is one of the principal weapons Islamists use to institute sharia law via the instalment plan. The Islamists are laughing their asses off over your infidel hairsplitting.
This ruling is applied sharia law.
“To be a member of an antisemitic organization is prima facie evidence that you’re antisemitic.”
Perhaps a gray area…..
However….this fella was not merely a “member” but an officer/official of an anti-Semitic organization…..that makes the anti-Semitic label fiting and proper….like being the CAPTAN of that analogist hockey team.
I’m not a lawyer, just a citizen, but one of the things I find disturbing in the ruling is what seems to me to be the sympathetic, practically hagiographic tone of the judge’s presentation of Awan’s back-story.
Not surprisingly, the students were nervous, although this did not come through to (Macleans’ counsel, Julian Porter, Q.C.)
So, their putative nervousness – and I’m not sure why it would be relevant in the decision – “did not come through” to a person who was actually there, but it comes through later to a judge who wasn’t there, who then recounts this nervousness, which she deems “not surprising”, in her ruling.
There’s a tone in the ruling that the students were reasonable actors througout. Here’s the judge on a meeting between the students and Macleans:
“I conclude that the meeting was a significant failure of communication. Neither side effectively communicated what they had planned to propose.”
At the outset Macleans quite rightly told the students to get stuffed – more or less — and that they would rather shut down the publication than accede to the ridiculous demands. Is that a “failure of communication”, or is it perhaps highly effective communication of a reasonable, righteous POV?
After the meeting, the students were shell-shocked and believed that they had not been given a chance to convey their concerns. They regrouped at the coffee shop across the street…
Poor ‘tings. These students made a demand that an independent, private publication publish an article reflecting their own views, and they were, in the judge’s words, “shell-shocked” because they were rebuffed?
Ironically, while their original objective was in furtherance of freedom of expression, their perceived attack on the article and the venerated Maclean’s magazine resulted in their portrayal as attacking that very freedom.
That one word — “ironically” — is a refined exercise in question begging. How can the judge deem the students’ demand that a private publication publish a particular perspective as a counterweight to another article that had been published to be “in furtherance of freedom of expression”? What the hell is “ironic” about the fact that such an anti-freedom demand was perceived as an attack on freedom of expression? What else is a demand that a magazine publish an article by a writer of your choice and to hand over money, if it’s not an attack on freedom of expression?
Another thing – and this isn’t exactly something you can stick on a scale and weigh — is that it seems to me that throughout the preamble/context before the actual ruling there’s a constant, low-level hum, between the lines, of dislike for Ezra Levant, and that a sideways “pointing out” that he doesn’t hold the “correct” progressive views is salted throughout the preamble to the decision, e.g., —
(Levant) testified that he wrote his book Shakedown in 2008, a book in which he described “his ordeal” and his views on human rights commissions. In his publications tendered at trial, and in his trial testimony, he repeatedly described them as “kangaroo courts”. The defendant was particularly critical of the BCHRT that heard the complaint against Maclean’s. He described it as one of the most abusive tribunals. He described it as a third-rate troika of radical activists.
I see that as editorializing, between the lines. Your mileage may vary.
Loki, I’m surprised at you. You usually show more sense than this. Declaring it a terrorist organization is far more serious than it being an anti-Semitic organization. You need a little thing called evidence, either that it’s committed terrorism, planning to commit terrorism or aiding and abetting terrorism by things like providing funding. This isn’t about the courage or lack there-of by the Prime Minister. Such a designation needs evidence. Have you got any?
MND, I’m going to try this one more time and see if it sinks in. Ezra’s opinion in the eyes of this judge was only well-founded if Ezra could show that the plaintiff by personal word or deed was anti-Semitic. That was the legal test, and Ezra didn’t meet it. Now we can argue whether the judge was right or not, but we don’t need to. That’s what the appeal process is for.
EBD, those are some sensible observations about the judgment itself, something no one else here has done. I read it too, and I also was disturbed by some of the language in it. Irony has no place in a ruling, nor does putative sympathy for one side or the other. I also am not a lawyer, but if these things have any weight the appeal court process is the place where they should be taken up.
Yes, sasquatch, I thought of that after hitting submit.
No ordinary member but the leader of the youth wing.
Afterthoughts:
These people make no secret of their malice toward Jews. Jew hatred is part of the warp and woof of Islam.
This cat put Ezra though hell in the “human rights” tribunals for merely publishing the Mo cartoons.
LAWFARE. As is this case.
I wonder how Ezra would have fared had he called him Judeophobic?
How would you or I have fared if we sued a muslim for calling us islamophobic?
Why is the muslim successful here?
Lawfare.
The gradual insinuation of sharia law into our country with the assistance of pusillanimous pols and judges.
Sorry cgh, it didn’t sink in.
This is successful lawfare.
Calling a leader of an islamist organization antisemitic is fair reasonable comment.
This is in the realm of opinion not provable fact.
Which is how he’ll win in the SCC.
AND this shouldn’t be actionable, period. No defamation occurred here.
No damage was done to this cat’s career, quite possibly the reverse!
This is Islamic lawfare and this isn’t sinking in your end.
An egregious double standard is at play here.
Would you be successful in front of this judge suing this cat if he publicly called you islamophobic.
That’s a rhetorical question.
CJH if you don’t know the difference between a code charge under statute law and a law suit, don’t presume to lecture on the law.
How would you or I have fared if we sued a Muslim for calling us Islamophobic?
I think we all know that it wouldn’t even make it to trial. Similarly, I think we all understand that no one’s going to ever receive damages from anyone who makes an accusation of “racism” or “colonialism” or “white privilege bias” or anything like that; these accusations – like “anti-Semitic”, IMO – are just part of the cut and thrust of vigorous and free discourse.
Ezra might have overdone it a bit with the serial “…the Liar” posts, but as far as him not “proving” that Khurram Awan merits the “anti-Semitic” label, the rest of us had better hope that we can continue to call the members of what is clearly an anti-Semitic organization anti-Semitic. We’re increasingly hamstrung by progressive proscriptions against straightforward language, which should be a concern to any liberty-minded person.
“Similarly, I think we all understand that no one’s going to ever receive damages from anyone who makes an accusation of “racism” or “colonialism” or “white privilege bias” or anything like that; these accusations – like “anti-Semitic”, IMO – are just part of the cut and thrust of vigorous and free discourse.”
Bingo EBD. And modern discourse with blogs and social media is especially rambunctious, even downright cruel, mean and nasty betimes. That’s the new community standard.
There was a time, perhaps, when an accusation of antisemitism was scandalous, even defamatory, but decidedly not today. Is this judge out of touch?
Another thing that saddens me is that our cheerful warrior is extremely thick skinned himself. He rolls, cheerfully, with the punches. You cannot imagine Ezra launching such a frivolous lawsuit.
At the risk of sounding misogynist, woman judge eh?
If I was to be brought before a judge for doing what Erza did pointing such obvious. I wouldn’t even show up to court, not on such contradictory charges like that.
There’s no shortage of stupid these days
I have no dog in this fight, but you really should give up the “Free Ezra Levant” meme on this one.
The finding that Levant could not defend at trial his statement of fact in his blog (not Levant’s opinion, but his assertion as fact – there’s a difference) against the plaintiff that the plaintiff was an anti-Semite had little to do with the judge’s decision: the judge essentially found that Levant’s blog on the plaintiff’s testimony at the BCHRT hearing (that the plaintiff – who was studying to be a lawyer- was a “serial” liar, “And lied and lied and and lied”)”…bears the meaning that the plaintiff is incompetent and tells lies to suit his audience, which meanings in turn suggest he is unethical and not fit to be a lawyer. And, as discussed above, those meanings have not been successfully defended” (see para. 142).
So, if you publicly and repeatedly assert that someone, esp. someone studying to become a lawyer (an articling student in this case), is an incompetent serial liar, you better be able to back it up in court. The judge found in some instances that Levant’s comments (the “Al Sharpton like shakedown” for instance) were “fair comment” but she eviscerated Levant’s defence on his other assertions of FACT (not his “opinion” – again, there’s a difference) he made against the plaintiff (as a liar), in detail, in paragraph after paragraph of her decision. Her decision appears to be well-reasoned and not capricious.
That the Sun Network continues to give Levant a platform to continue with this, should give everyone cause for concern…
Ezra for Prime Minister!
Carl Spackler voice/
“I smell trolling lawyer poontang”
lots of words, very little logic and critical analysis. the Koran says that muslims must kill Jews. all followers of islam are bound by this dictate. therefore all follwers of islam who follow the Koran, and therefore this dictate, are anti-semitic.
@richfisher: look, at least some of us, like cgh and EDB above appear to have read the decision. EDB raises appropriate concerns about the “editorializing” of the judge in her decision, and fair enough. But, unfortunately for Levant in this case, the judge is the fact finder and as such is required to assess the evidence called at trial, find the facts, and apply the law to those facts. The judge obviously had a certain view of Levant based on his testimony, but again, fair enough: that’s the trial process – people testify, judge’s form impressions of the witnesses. The statements made by the judge and referred to by EDB above are made to provide “background” to the lawsuit, and again, are not essential to her analysis in finding the lack of “truth” of Levant’s posts that the plaintiff was a incompetent serial liar – and the whole “anti-Semite” thing is a bit of a red herring, taking the judgment as a whole, but again, Levant made this statement also as one of fact, not opinion. As of yet, I have not seen anything from Levant or anyone else suggesting that the trial judge was biased, or that she incorrectly set out the facts in her decision, based on the evidence called at trial. And her findings of facts are essentially unappealable, unless patently wrong. Again, that’s why we have the trial process.
Simply put, commentators like Levant, who publicly and repeatedly engage in extremely personal attacks on individuals likeable or not, such the plaintiff in this case, simply better be prepared to establish the truth, on the balance of probabilities, of what they are saying in these attacks in court, if it comes to that.
The proof of the truth of Levant’s statements would have set Levant free: he was given the opportunity in our court process (of which he is an officer of, as lawyer himself) and was simply unable to prove it, in the trial judge’s opinion. So, if he intends to appeal, he better be able to show that this judge’s opinion was based on a patent misapprehension of the evidence established at trial, and/or that she misapplied the law.
EarlP:
As uncomfortable as that is to read, you make a good case here.
I confess, I didn’t read the judgment and was focused solely on the antisemitism.
I was unaware of the incompetent serial lying statements. That is certainly problematic which I believe EBD conceded.
That said, I presume you know about this person’ participation in the lawfare against Ezra’s perfectly innocent and necessary publication of the Mo cartoons which the gutless, pusillanimous MSM media refused to touch. The multi year government agency torture Ezra was put through.
Tho, I suppose, that has no bearing here. Maybe it should.
All that said, this is still Islamic lawfare, be very clear about this and our aspiring conquerors very much appreciate your post!
But of course all Islamists are serial liars.
They lie proudly as part of their jihad.
War is deception Mo said.
It’s called taqiyya.
Also, amusing your remark about the horror of a law student being called a liar.
Given the grand tradition encapsulated in all those shopworn lawyer jokes, it’s hard to see how a law student being called a liar would harm his career, harm him economically.
Didn’t Awan lie about not seeking money from MacLeans when they were in fact seeking money from MacLeans, as well as other lies?
Thanks for that richfisher.
I was gonna ask about those alleged lies.
As EBD reminded us this woman judge felt for the poor dears who were shell shocked at discovering they couldn’t commandeer Macleans to publish their bullshit Islamist propaganda. Pace the commenter just above this doesn’t seem appropriate to me.
Well, thank you for the acknowledgement, but as far as anyone “appreciating” my posts, the only ones I want to “appreciate” my posts are those who read and appreciate Kate’s blog, like yourself.
And the only point I really want to make is this: to be successful against such opponents, pick your battles based on honest assessments of the strength and weakness of your positions. Levant wrote what he did on his blog, he invited suit, he was sued, he had his day in court to defend his position, he lost: now, let’s move on.
When people here starting talking about the whole system being rigged against commentators like Levant in an effort to silence him, it looks like misplaced paranoia. For instance, I have never heard of Michael Coren being sued successfully or at all for his stated opinions on the topic of Islam or radical Islam, or on the topic of these complainants before the BCHRT, or on the topic of Elmasry and the CIC – why do you think that is?
You answer your own question,Kate.
Liberals don’t like competition. They feel it best we all go to jail rather than vote for somebody else.
I don’t hold out a lot of hope for Ezra’s appeal in court. Liberals are known for having their thumb on the Scales of Justice when it suits them.
Yep, the Courts have decided that the truth will not be tolerated. I guess the “judge” has also decided that Muslims have the “right” to be anti-semitic… spewing hatred of jews is now a “right”… I wonder if hatred of the Joos is exclusively a “right” of Muslims or whether everyone can join in… Who needs Hitler when you’ve got the Canadian judiciary.
could there be anti-Semitism without the glorious blessings of Semitism?
‘A’ court has decided that a leader of an anti-Semitic organization is to be believed when he claims he is not anti-Semitic. One Judge. We shall see what the Supremes have to say.
If the Sharia Law of Blasphemy is upheld here, and make no mistake about it that is the real issue, the M.B. and the I.S. will grow in stature and power and recruits in Canada. (note- the co-operation growing between the I.S. and the M.B. in Egypt.)
The group of moderates will shrink as defectors are taught the original Islam, and have who the weak horse is pointed out to them.
Islamic supremacism requires a cloak of darkness over it until it’s population is large enough to intimidate all opponents. This strategy has worked very
effectively in Europe, the U.K. and Scandinavia.
Ezra Levant is the best public protector that Jews, Christians and secularists have in Canada, and women, too.
This isn’t about the Sharia Law of Blasphemy. This is about Canada’s slander and libel law. Oz comes much closer to the truth here than most of the rest of you. If the judge was incorrect in his interpretation of statements of fact vs. statements of opinion it will be overturned on appeal.
The deterioration of Canadian justice continues – in this case the subversion is twice as vile because this represents an abomination of the people’s common law by the political influence of the culture war. Obviously the message sent is that multicult pecking order nepotism trumps objective evidence in commonlaw courts.
“the people’s common law”
What’s that and where is it found in the statute books?
Then there’s this.
“nepotism trumps objective evidence in commonlaw courts”
Even Ezra admits that he didn’t have any evidence before the court on the salient point being made by the judge. So how is this “trumping” what wasn’t presented at all?
I was in a “debate” online with a typical leftist obfuscating liar about this issue. This addled person went on and on about Harper and all sorts of issues except answering my question whether or not he believed that someone could voluntarily be part of an anti-Semitic group and not be one himself? I posted this 6-7 times and he never acknowledged my point, nor responded to it. This is a perfect illustration of their insanity or evil intent.
Ezra has been a more important figure in protecting Canadian free speech than ANY *sshole politician from ANY of our slimy political parties over the past decade.
He has my utmost respect for continually dragging the topic of extreme Islam into the daylight so we may see it for what it truly is, in spite of the MSM’s best efforts to ignore and appease. That and for showing his massive gonads by printing the Mohamed cartoon.
From my understanding of Canadian law, he has a good chance of winning his appeal.
well Mike I don’t have to go to some obscure place on the internet to not get answers, I get stone walled rite here in SDA. I have been accused of being anti-semitic in here, and my only sin has been to post facts and statistics that involve Jewish people, and non of these facts have been refuted as incorrect, there has been only name calling by biased, ingnoRANT of fact fools, and most of these fools are bible-bangers who should know better. Butt I’ll not wait for a reasoned answer from you on this. :-)))
Your comment to me is a total non sequitur. If you want to beat up on Jews, don’t use me as a excuse. I’m talking about truth and the Marxists are allergic to it. Now that you have inserted yourself, why don’t you answer the same question I have posed?
To be a member of an antisemitic organization is prima facie evidence that you’re antisemitic.
Unless, maybe — and this is a long shot probability — you’ve made statements disavowing this view as a person who has joined up with the objective of trying to push reform of said organization.
But as others have pointed out this shouldn’t be actionable in contemporary rant-prone society.
From a defamation point of view being thought of as an antisemite today has zero defamation value.
In fact, it’s a badge of honour among many western political grandees esp. of the EU variety — people who’ve never forgiven the Jews for Auschwitz. .
Enemy666: The so-called facts you publish about joooos doing this or that are not facts in the sense you mean them, viz., evidence of some kind of jooish conspiracy. Did joooos conspire for example, to dominate the Nobel prizes? Related on the opposite end of the spectrum: did “African Americans” conspire to dominate pro basketball?
A devout muslim who believes the koran and who bangs his head toward mecca five times a day is an anti-Semite. It’s baked into the cake. There are numerous explicit expressions of hatred toward Jews in the koran and hadith.
A devout muslim cannot not be an anti-Semite, because the koran is claimed to be the revealed word of allah, and must be accepted in its entirety.
Now, it’s entirely possible that “cultural” or “secular” muslims may not be anti-Semites, but such persons would be regarded as apostates by devout muslims. In any case, the horse has left the barn on that one for Ezra’s antagonist, because his other actions have placed him firmly in the “devout” camp, so he’s an anti-Semite by default.
Maybe I’m stretching it a bit ….maybe even a lot…. but perhaps this has to do with the definition of “antisemitic”.
In common use, antisemitic means anti jewish and/or anti Israel. But semitic, like aryan or slavic or celtic, is also a racial designation (horror at the idea of racial differences). Semitic peoples include Jews and Arabs both. Thus if we get technical, antisemitic does not describe the common use of the term but rather describes a bias against ALL semitic peoples. Maybe Levant should have said anti jewish instead.
“To be a member of an antisemitic organization is prima facie evidence that you’re antisemitic.”
Which simply shows that you don’t understand the law. There is no conviction by association in Canada or just about any other western democracy’s judicial system. To be convicted has to be done on the basis of what the accused has actually done. This precedent is NOT new. Go back and read the Nuremburg rulings if you wish. The defendants were convicted not simply because they belonged to an evil political organization but because of the actions they personally undertook in support of that evil.
And if you can’t demonstrate any actions or statements they made, then then can sue. I like and support Ezra’s point of view. But he was stupid and because he’s a lawyer he should have known better than to make a statement about an individual he couldn’t defend.
And if this judge’s ruling is wrong, it will be overturned on appeal.
Well, the term “anti-Semite” was invented by a German Jew-hater as a “scientific” term to make Jew-hating more respectable. Hating Arabs wasn’t part of the definition. Arabs are Semites, true enough, as a racial classification, but the term “anti-Semite” was coined specifically as a euphemism for “Jew-hater.” By a Jew-hater.
cgh, the one place where one can be considered a criminal by association is in the case of terrorist organizations. All it would take would be for PMSH to grow a pair and label the organization that this POS who’s suing Ezara belongs to as a terrorist organization. Thus, any payment of funds to such an organization would be illegal.
If the SCC dislikes it, there’s the notwithstanding clause to put them in their place as they’ve already ruled that truth is no defense in “hate speech” cases.
What would be useful is for people who are outraged about this travesty of justice to send the POS who claims he was “libelled” letters letting him know what the population of Canada really thinks about him and his medieval “religion”. An anonymous letter from each Sun News viewer would probably get attention when the local post office delivering mail to this POS got suddenly overwhelmed.
cgh said: There is no conviction by association in Canada
True. I know this.
But no one, least of all Ezra, is trying to convict the man of antisemetism.
That was Ezra’s well founded opinion.
He didn’t need the cat to come out and say he hated Jews to describe him as antisemitic.
Membership in such a group is prima facie evidence of antisemitic bigotry just as being on a hockey team is prima facie evidence that you like hockey and being a member of a libertarian group is prima facie evidence that you dislike big overarching government.
But just as being called “homophobic” for being against “gay marriage” shouldn’t be actionable nor should calling someone antisemitic be. And in this case I simply don’t see the damage to his reputation or how he would be harmed economically.
cgh, you really don’t get how lawfare is one of the principal weapons Islamists use to institute sharia law via the instalment plan. The Islamists are laughing their asses off over your infidel hairsplitting.
This ruling is applied sharia law.
“To be a member of an antisemitic organization is prima facie evidence that you’re antisemitic.”
Perhaps a gray area…..
However….this fella was not merely a “member” but an officer/official of an anti-Semitic organization…..that makes the anti-Semitic label fiting and proper….like being the CAPTAN of that analogist hockey team.
I’m not a lawyer, just a citizen, but one of the things I find disturbing in the ruling is what seems to me to be the sympathetic, practically hagiographic tone of the judge’s presentation of Awan’s back-story.
So, their putative nervousness – and I’m not sure why it would be relevant in the decision – “did not come through” to a person who was actually there, but it comes through later to a judge who wasn’t there, who then recounts this nervousness, which she deems “not surprising”, in her ruling.
There’s a tone in the ruling that the students were reasonable actors througout. Here’s the judge on a meeting between the students and Macleans:
At the outset Macleans quite rightly told the students to get stuffed – more or less — and that they would rather shut down the publication than accede to the ridiculous demands. Is that a “failure of communication”, or is it perhaps highly effective communication of a reasonable, righteous POV?
Poor ‘tings. These students made a demand that an independent, private publication publish an article reflecting their own views, and they were, in the judge’s words, “shell-shocked” because they were rebuffed?
That one word — “ironically” — is a refined exercise in question begging. How can the judge deem the students’ demand that a private publication publish a particular perspective as a counterweight to another article that had been published to be “in furtherance of freedom of expression”? What the hell is “ironic” about the fact that such an anti-freedom demand was perceived as an attack on freedom of expression? What else is a demand that a magazine publish an article by a writer of your choice and to hand over money, if it’s not an attack on freedom of expression?
Another thing – and this isn’t exactly something you can stick on a scale and weigh — is that it seems to me that throughout the preamble/context before the actual ruling there’s a constant, low-level hum, between the lines, of dislike for Ezra Levant, and that a sideways “pointing out” that he doesn’t hold the “correct” progressive views is salted throughout the preamble to the decision, e.g., —
I see that as editorializing, between the lines. Your mileage may vary.
Loki, I’m surprised at you. You usually show more sense than this. Declaring it a terrorist organization is far more serious than it being an anti-Semitic organization. You need a little thing called evidence, either that it’s committed terrorism, planning to commit terrorism or aiding and abetting terrorism by things like providing funding. This isn’t about the courage or lack there-of by the Prime Minister. Such a designation needs evidence. Have you got any?
MND, I’m going to try this one more time and see if it sinks in. Ezra’s opinion in the eyes of this judge was only well-founded if Ezra could show that the plaintiff by personal word or deed was anti-Semitic. That was the legal test, and Ezra didn’t meet it. Now we can argue whether the judge was right or not, but we don’t need to. That’s what the appeal process is for.
EBD, those are some sensible observations about the judgment itself, something no one else here has done. I read it too, and I also was disturbed by some of the language in it. Irony has no place in a ruling, nor does putative sympathy for one side or the other. I also am not a lawyer, but if these things have any weight the appeal court process is the place where they should be taken up.
Yes, sasquatch, I thought of that after hitting submit.
No ordinary member but the leader of the youth wing.
Afterthoughts:
These people make no secret of their malice toward Jews. Jew hatred is part of the warp and woof of Islam.
This cat put Ezra though hell in the “human rights” tribunals for merely publishing the Mo cartoons.
LAWFARE. As is this case.
I wonder how Ezra would have fared had he called him Judeophobic?
How would you or I have fared if we sued a muslim for calling us islamophobic?
Why is the muslim successful here?
Lawfare.
The gradual insinuation of sharia law into our country with the assistance of pusillanimous pols and judges.
Sorry cgh, it didn’t sink in.
This is successful lawfare.
Calling a leader of an islamist organization antisemitic is fair reasonable comment.
This is in the realm of opinion not provable fact.
Which is how he’ll win in the SCC.
AND this shouldn’t be actionable, period. No defamation occurred here.
No damage was done to this cat’s career, quite possibly the reverse!
This is Islamic lawfare and this isn’t sinking in your end.
An egregious double standard is at play here.
Would you be successful in front of this judge suing this cat if he publicly called you islamophobic.
That’s a rhetorical question.
CJH if you don’t know the difference between a code charge under statute law and a law suit, don’t presume to lecture on the law.
I think we all know that it wouldn’t even make it to trial. Similarly, I think we all understand that no one’s going to ever receive damages from anyone who makes an accusation of “racism” or “colonialism” or “white privilege bias” or anything like that; these accusations – like “anti-Semitic”, IMO – are just part of the cut and thrust of vigorous and free discourse.
Ezra might have overdone it a bit with the serial “…the Liar” posts, but as far as him not “proving” that Khurram Awan merits the “anti-Semitic” label, the rest of us had better hope that we can continue to call the members of what is clearly an anti-Semitic organization anti-Semitic. We’re increasingly hamstrung by progressive proscriptions against straightforward language, which should be a concern to any liberty-minded person.
“Similarly, I think we all understand that no one’s going to ever receive damages from anyone who makes an accusation of “racism” or “colonialism” or “white privilege bias” or anything like that; these accusations – like “anti-Semitic”, IMO – are just part of the cut and thrust of vigorous and free discourse.”
Bingo EBD. And modern discourse with blogs and social media is especially rambunctious, even downright cruel, mean and nasty betimes. That’s the new community standard.
There was a time, perhaps, when an accusation of antisemitism was scandalous, even defamatory, but decidedly not today. Is this judge out of touch?
Another thing that saddens me is that our cheerful warrior is extremely thick skinned himself. He rolls, cheerfully, with the punches. You cannot imagine Ezra launching such a frivolous lawsuit.
At the risk of sounding misogynist, woman judge eh?
If I was to be brought before a judge for doing what Erza did pointing such obvious. I wouldn’t even show up to court, not on such contradictory charges like that.
There’s no shortage of stupid these days
I have no dog in this fight, but you really should give up the “Free Ezra Levant” meme on this one.
The finding that Levant could not defend at trial his statement of fact in his blog (not Levant’s opinion, but his assertion as fact – there’s a difference) against the plaintiff that the plaintiff was an anti-Semite had little to do with the judge’s decision: the judge essentially found that Levant’s blog on the plaintiff’s testimony at the BCHRT hearing (that the plaintiff – who was studying to be a lawyer- was a “serial” liar, “And lied and lied and and lied”)”…bears the meaning that the plaintiff is incompetent and tells lies to suit his audience, which meanings in turn suggest he is unethical and not fit to be a lawyer. And, as discussed above, those meanings have not been successfully defended” (see para. 142).
So, if you publicly and repeatedly assert that someone, esp. someone studying to become a lawyer (an articling student in this case), is an incompetent serial liar, you better be able to back it up in court. The judge found in some instances that Levant’s comments (the “Al Sharpton like shakedown” for instance) were “fair comment” but she eviscerated Levant’s defence on his other assertions of FACT (not his “opinion” – again, there’s a difference) he made against the plaintiff (as a liar), in detail, in paragraph after paragraph of her decision. Her decision appears to be well-reasoned and not capricious.
That the Sun Network continues to give Levant a platform to continue with this, should give everyone cause for concern…
Ezra for Prime Minister!
Carl Spackler voice/
“I smell trolling lawyer poontang”
lots of words, very little logic and critical analysis. the Koran says that muslims must kill Jews. all followers of islam are bound by this dictate. therefore all follwers of islam who follow the Koran, and therefore this dictate, are anti-semitic.
@richfisher: look, at least some of us, like cgh and EDB above appear to have read the decision. EDB raises appropriate concerns about the “editorializing” of the judge in her decision, and fair enough. But, unfortunately for Levant in this case, the judge is the fact finder and as such is required to assess the evidence called at trial, find the facts, and apply the law to those facts. The judge obviously had a certain view of Levant based on his testimony, but again, fair enough: that’s the trial process – people testify, judge’s form impressions of the witnesses. The statements made by the judge and referred to by EDB above are made to provide “background” to the lawsuit, and again, are not essential to her analysis in finding the lack of “truth” of Levant’s posts that the plaintiff was a incompetent serial liar – and the whole “anti-Semite” thing is a bit of a red herring, taking the judgment as a whole, but again, Levant made this statement also as one of fact, not opinion. As of yet, I have not seen anything from Levant or anyone else suggesting that the trial judge was biased, or that she incorrectly set out the facts in her decision, based on the evidence called at trial. And her findings of facts are essentially unappealable, unless patently wrong. Again, that’s why we have the trial process.
Simply put, commentators like Levant, who publicly and repeatedly engage in extremely personal attacks on individuals likeable or not, such the plaintiff in this case, simply better be prepared to establish the truth, on the balance of probabilities, of what they are saying in these attacks in court, if it comes to that.
The proof of the truth of Levant’s statements would have set Levant free: he was given the opportunity in our court process (of which he is an officer of, as lawyer himself) and was simply unable to prove it, in the trial judge’s opinion. So, if he intends to appeal, he better be able to show that this judge’s opinion was based on a patent misapprehension of the evidence established at trial, and/or that she misapplied the law.
EarlP:
As uncomfortable as that is to read, you make a good case here.
I confess, I didn’t read the judgment and was focused solely on the antisemitism.
I was unaware of the incompetent serial lying statements. That is certainly problematic which I believe EBD conceded.
That said, I presume you know about this person’ participation in the lawfare against Ezra’s perfectly innocent and necessary publication of the Mo cartoons which the gutless, pusillanimous MSM media refused to touch. The multi year government agency torture Ezra was put through.
Tho, I suppose, that has no bearing here. Maybe it should.
All that said, this is still Islamic lawfare, be very clear about this and our aspiring conquerors very much appreciate your post!
But of course all Islamists are serial liars.
They lie proudly as part of their jihad.
War is deception Mo said.
It’s called taqiyya.
Also, amusing your remark about the horror of a law student being called a liar.
Given the grand tradition encapsulated in all those shopworn lawyer jokes, it’s hard to see how a law student being called a liar would harm his career, harm him economically.
Didn’t Awan lie about not seeking money from MacLeans when they were in fact seeking money from MacLeans, as well as other lies?
Thanks for that richfisher.
I was gonna ask about those alleged lies.
As EBD reminded us this woman judge felt for the poor dears who were shell shocked at discovering they couldn’t commandeer Macleans to publish their bullshit Islamist propaganda.
Pace the commenter just above this doesn’t seem appropriate to me.
Well, thank you for the acknowledgement, but as far as anyone “appreciating” my posts, the only ones I want to “appreciate” my posts are those who read and appreciate Kate’s blog, like yourself.
And the only point I really want to make is this: to be successful against such opponents, pick your battles based on honest assessments of the strength and weakness of your positions. Levant wrote what he did on his blog, he invited suit, he was sued, he had his day in court to defend his position, he lost: now, let’s move on.
When people here starting talking about the whole system being rigged against commentators like Levant in an effort to silence him, it looks like misplaced paranoia. For instance, I have never heard of Michael Coren being sued successfully or at all for his stated opinions on the topic of Islam or radical Islam, or on the topic of these complainants before the BCHRT, or on the topic of Elmasry and the CIC – why do you think that is?