The Ezra Strikes Back

I've always been a big believer that in order to marginalize the left, we have to use their own tactics and institutions against them. What follows is a brilliant example of how to do that:

March 30, 2006

Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission
Southern Regional Office
310, 525 – 11th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2R 0C9

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Re: Soharwardy v. Western Standard
Complaint S2006/03/0330

I write on behalf of the Western Standard in response to the above-captioned complaint.

1. Overview

The complaint is a frivolous and vexatious abuse of process. It has no basis in fact or Canadian law. It is contrary to Canadian values of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and religious plurality, under which Canadians are free from compulsion to submit to religious edicts. The complaint is an attempt to abuse the power of the state to chill discussion about subjects that are in the public interest. It is also an inappropriate combination of mosque and state, using a secular government agency to enforce a Muslim religious precept, namely the fundamentalist prohibition of the depiction of Mohammed.

From a legal point of view, the bulk of the complaint refers to comments made by Ezra Levant in other media, where the Western Standard was not the publisher or broadcaster. As those collateral comments were not published or broadcast by the Western Standard, they are irrelevant to the complaint as framed, and will not be dealt with here. The fact that the complainant has not named those other media as respondents strongly suggests that the selective nature of this complaint – against the Western Standard only – is malicious and punitive.

This is a nuisance suit that serves an illiberal agenda, and should the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) not dismiss it forthwith, the AHRCC itself would become a party to it.

2. Perversion of Human Rights Commission

If the AHRCC does not dismiss this complaint, as did the Calgary Police Service in response to a similar complaint brought by the same complainant, the AHRCC will be discredited and its liberal reputation will be brought into disrepute. This complaint perverts the cause of human rights. As Alan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, wrote in the Calgary Herald on March 16th, in direct response to the within complaint, “during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech”. Borovoy wrote that censorship was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.”

Borovoy was so concerned that the AHRCC would even consider this complaint that he called for an amendment to the AHRCC’s governing statute, to reign in the AHRCC. “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation,” he concluded.

3. AHRCC could chill public discussion

The national debate surrounding the Western Standard’s publication of the Danish cartoons touched on many important matters of Canadian public policy, including the separation of mosque and state, the proper response to terrorism, press freedom, diversity of religious opinion, the division between radical and liberal Muslims, and the inculcation of Canadian Charter values in new immigrants. All of these matters are bona fide topics of discussion for both private citizens and the media, especially for news media like the Western Standard.

If the AHRCC allows itself to be used to attack the publication of a good faith debate on these issues, the AHRCC will become a tool of censorship akin to libel chill. If it does not dismiss this complaint, the AHRCC will send a message that the state, with its unlimited resources, will not hesitate to interfere with and harass media that discuss controversial topics even in a bona fide manner. That would be worse than a private lawsuit brought by an illiberal complainant, as such a litigant would have to finance his own prosecution, and would be liable for costs to any defendant for a baseless action. Not so with the AHRCC, which has unlimited resources, and which does not compensate defendants against whom a complaint is dismissed. Even an acquittal, therefore, is a punishment. The process becomes the penalty.

4. Freedom of expression and the right to offend

Freedom of expression cannot be limited to merely innocuous subjects, or else it is not truly freedom. Freedom of expression is only meaningful when it trumps other values, such as political sensibilities, or religious dogma, or personal sensitivities. Indeed, Western Civilization’s progress in all realms, ranging from science to art to religion to feminism to civil rights for racial minorities and gays, has come about from the free expression of ideas that necessarily offended some earlier order.

[...]

The rest of the document is here. Backgorund to the case can be found here.

It's going to be really interesting to watch what the human rights tribunal does with this file. Will they prove themselves to be on-side with the islamofascists and suppress our freedom of speech / freedom of press? Time will only tell.

On a personal note, I can honestly say that I never knew the ACLU had a Canadian cousin in the CCLA. Hell, I never knew the CCLA existed at all. Based on some of the positions outlined on their website, they're clearly an organisation that's going to need to be poked with a pointy stick from time to time. Sweet!