Category Archives: ezra levant
Ezra Levant debates Elisabeth May at Free Thinking Film Festival
Fred Litwin of Free Thinking Film Society put on a rather excellent event a couple of weekends ago. His first (hopefully) annual Free Thinking Film Festival in Ottawa.
Vlad Tepes had people on the ground there filming away for us, so expect lots of goodies in the coming weeks.Here is the first 20 minutes of the debate on the ethics and ecology of Canada’s Oil Sands, a fashionable leftist target by people who really just want to destroy ‘capitalism’ as they fantasize it to be. Enjoy. The rest of the debate will appear here in this post as the editing gets done so please save the URL and check back weekly and don’t forget to visit the Free Thinking Film Society web site as they have fantastic events for true rebels about every 6 weeks.
Ezra Levant – Elisabeth May debate Pt. 1 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.
Mark Steyn, Ottawa Oct 30 2010
Here are a few great moments from what was a house shaking speech given at the Ezra Levant tribute dinner Oct. 30 2010 hosted by the Centre for Policy Studies.
Please consider buying the DVD of the whole evening when it becomes available at www.policystudies.ca
Shariah law has come to Canada.
From The Ottawa Sun
Court decision puts veil over women’s rights
By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency
Last Updated: October 17, 2010 2:00am
It is illegal for a woman wearing a face-obscuring veil to board a plane in Canada. But a unanimous ruling last week by the Ontario Court of Appeal says it’s just fine for that same woman to give testimony in court with her face covered.
There’s more. Ontario’s highest court says veiled women can ask for an order to clear men out of the courtroom — any men in the public gallery, any male court staff, even her opponent’s lawyer, even the judge himself — in return for taking off her veil. It’s paragraph 85 of the ruling.
Shariah law has come to Canada.
Face-obliterating veils called niqabs are a medieval tool for gender apartheid. They destroy a woman’s identity. They turn her into an object, a chattel owned by her master — which is why they’re the norm in Saudi Arabia, where women have fewer rights than men and only slightly more than animals.
Burkas — an even more prison-like shroud, with just a tiny beekeeper’s screen to peek through — are the Taliban variety. Those are now allowed on the witness stand in Canada, too.
Rip the Ten Commandments off the wall, because we must have separation of church and state. But when the most un-Canadian expression of radical Islam walks in the court, our judges follow the Qur’an.
But that’s not fair to the Qur’an. No verse in that book requires face-covering. But our judges now say it’s a Charter right.
To their shame, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened to support this. They have demanded Bibles be removed from schools and the Lord’s Prayer be banned from legislatures. But Muslim veils — a chastity belt for the face — have their support in a secular court.
The CCLA has found religion. And LEAF, the feminist law organization built with Canadian tax dollars, has a new view on a woman’s proper place. They argued for the niqab, too.
As National Post columnist Barbara Kay points out, a survey of Muslim women in France found 77% wear the veil out of fear of men.
Australian Imam Taj Din al-Hilali put it another way, in a sermon about rape: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street … and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.”
LEAF supports covering up “the meat.” Now our courts do too.
The Ontario ruling came about because a Muslim woman alleged she was molested as a child by her uncle and her cousin in the 1980s. It’s a horrendous accusation and, if true, the woman deserves our sympathy and the accused deserve our most punitive punishment. But before we get there, there’s the matter of a trial.
In Canada, even accused rapists have the right to question their accuser and the court has the right to observe her demeanour. It’s why we don’t allow testimony from someone wearing a mask.
But this accuser didn’t want to take off her mask.
“It’s a respect issue, one of modesty and one of — in Islam, we call honour,” she told the judge at the preliminary inquiry “It’s to conceal the beauty of a woman.”
She had only been wearing a veil for about five years and the judge found her religious belief was “not that strong.” But “I would feel a lot more comfortable if I didn’t have to, you know, reveal my face.”
Sure, she took the veil off to get her driver’s licence. But that was important, you see. Not like accusing a man of a horrendous crime.
The judge told her to take off her veil. That’s what was over-ruled last week.
This could be great, says the Court of Appeal. The reliability of her veiled testimony could actually be better.
“Without the niqab … one could not expect her to be herself on the witness stand … her embarrassment and discomfort could be misinterpreted as uncertainty and unreliability.”
But it’s more than law. It’s politics, they say. Allowing the niqab “could be seen as a recognition and acceptance of those minority beliefs and practices.”
That’s exactly the problem.
In heaven, Aqsa Parvez is screaming again.
— Read Levant’s blog at ezralevant.com
Gay-bashers thrive in modern-day Netherlands
“Fortuyn was a Marxist professor, a champion of gay rights, women’s rights, liberal drug laws and euthanasia. Yet, because he opposed Muslim immigration, the CBC called him “right wing.”” -Ezra Levant
Toronto Sun:
By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency
Last Updated: October 10, 2010 2:00am
If you think Amsterdam is the gay capital of Europe, you’re half-right, but 10 years out of date. Today it’s the gay-bashing capital of Europe.
Because Amsterdam isn’t just gay. Now it’s Muslim, too. A million Moroccans and Turks have immigrated to the Netherlands, and sharia law rules the streets.
If you doubt it, then you haven’t been paying attention. Actually, that’s not fair. Gay-bashing is front-page news only when it’s committed by a straight, white male.
The media is terribly uncomfortable writing about gay-bashing by minorities. It’s the same reason why Canadian feminists are so eerily quiet about honour killings of Muslim girls.
According to an “offender study” by the University of Amsterdam, there were 201 reports of anti-gay violence in that city in 2007 — and researchers believe for every reported case there are as many as 25 unreported ones. Two thirds of the predators are Muslim youths.
The violence couldn’t be more brazen. It’s not in the back alleys in the dark, it’s in the heart of the city, often in broad daylight. It’s a direct dare to the Dutch government to show who rules the streets.
In 2008, 10 Muslim youths broke into a fashion show, dragged gay model Michael du Pree off the stage and beat him bloody. Last month, several lesbians were hit by beer bottles thrown at their heads as they marched in a parade of thousands to protest violence against gays. There’s a gay community centre in Amsterdam — you’d think that would be safe. Wrong. It’s a target, with home-invasion style beatings. No one is immune. Last year Hugo Braakhuis, the founder of Amdsterdam’s gay pride parade, was attacked. Continue Reading →
Ezra Levant responds to horrid remarks by the Bloq Quebecois
Please click on over to Ezra Levants excellent site to read his take on this clip. The clip itself is quite interesting and Ezra, as usual, is really good.
H/T Bad Faun
PLEASE donate to Ezra. This is ALL our fight.
The article below is taken verbatim from Ezra Levant’s website here: Please click on over and donate anything you can at all. This is not just his fight. This is the Canadian version of the Geert Wilders trial. Donating to Ezra, is truly fighting for all of us.
Eeyore
By Ezra Levant on January 21, 2010 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments
Khurrum Awan of the anti-Semitic Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has finally filed his nuisance lawsuit against me, as he threatened to do last summer. You can see it here.
Awan’s jihad: lawfare
Awan is the shakedown artist who targeted Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine with three human rights complaints in 2008, for Steyn’s political offence of criticizing radical Islam. Awan lost those suits, and his demand to censor Maclean’s was rejected, but he still managed to waste a lot of Maclean’s money – and even more taxpayers’ money, too.
That’s Awan’s strategy: abuse our courts to bully his opponents. It’s a shocking thing for a lawyer to admit to, but Awan isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. As he told an anti-Semitic meeting in British Columbia a while back, he was proud to have “cost Maclean’s two million dollars in legal expenses and lost circulation.” Awan’s friend, the notorious anti-Semite Greg Felton, approvingly quotes Awan saying “we attained out strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material”.
So it’s not about justice. It’s not about “human rights”. It’s about abusing our legal system to punish his enemies.
Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine were first. And now I’m next in line.
This is the soft jihad of “lawfare”, the strategy where anti-Western radicals use our own laws to attack us, rather than pantybombs or shoebombs.
It’s Awan’s little jihad. And because I’ve criticized him (and the human rights commissions he hijacked), he’s coming for me now.
What kind of people are Awan and the CIC?
I won’t go through Awan’s entire history again; if you’re interested, I’d encourage you to read my biography of him when he first threatened me, last summer. But here are a few highlights.
Awan was the president of the CIC’s youth wing, loyally standing by the CIC’s president, Mohammed Elmasry, when he declared on national TV that every adult Israeli was a legitimate target for a terrorist attack.
You can watch that clip here, courtesy of SDA Matt:
Elmasry’s the kind of guy who puts the KKK in klassy.
For years Awan was Elmasry’s mini-me. But he moved out from under Elmasry’s shadow when he became the PR front man for the CIC’s human rights nuisance suits against Steyn and Maclean’s.
Awan was not actually the complainant in those complaints. He was one of Elmasry’s sock puppets, a ventriloquist dummy for Elmasry’s attack on the Canadian values of freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Elmasry needed puppets, because he had damaged his own reputation so badly with his televised comments. But here’s an interview where Elmasry boasts that Awan was little more than Elmasry’s stooge. And Awan was only too happy to comply.
Elmasry was smart enough not to sue in real court. Not Awan.
But even Elmasry wasn’t stupid enough to sue Maclean’s in defamation court, where truth is a defence. And though he whined when I wrote this about him, he was smart enough not to sue.
Which is why I’m looking forward so much to Awan’s trial. He isn’t smart enough not to sue.
Khurrum Awan and Mohamed Elmasry hurt their reputations by attacking Maclean’s – and the Canadian value of freedom. They were almost universally denounced.
They lost their human rights complaints, but they weren’t stuck with Maclean’s legal bills as they would have been in real court. And they never really underwent any true scrutiny – unlike in real courts, they escaped any meaningful examination of their own foul conduct.
Awan is about to find out that real courts are a lot more even-handed than the kangaroo courts he manipulated.
Another junk lawsuit
Let’s take a quick look through his nuisance lawsuit together.
The first thing to note are the dates. Awan is suing me for my in-the-courthouse reports on the CIC’s human rights complaints, back in June of 2008. But he didn’t bother to serve a libel notice on me until July of 2009, more than a year later. And then it took him nearly another six months to serve the suit itself, which my lawyer received over Christmas.
That’s 18 months after I wrote what I wrote. Which shows Awan’s strategy: this isn’t about correcting the record in a timely manner. It’s about punishing a political opponent.
The next interesting thing in the suit is that Awan describes himself as a lawyer. But a quick glance at the Law Society’s website shows that he is not in fact registered to practice law. I wonder why that is. After all, he was articling at Lerner’s, the same firm as Faisal Joseph, the lead CIC lawyer suing Maclean’s. Why didn’t Joseph keep him on? Competence? Politics? Not enough business? I’m quite curious. Aren’t you? I’m excited that I’ll learn about it in open court.
Awan’s lawyer in this lawsuit is Brian Shiller, the same lawyer representing Richard Warman and Warren Kinsella in their nuisance lawsuits against me (and many others they’ve targeted for silencing, including Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan and Free Dominion). Awan, Warman and Kinsella are all part of the same censorship cabal.
I’ve pointed out some of Shiller’s hilarious legal drafting errors in the past, and this lawsuit is no different. See paragraph 4: he manages to misspell the word Maclean’s (he writes it with a capital l) and to write the plural of Muslim as “Muslim’s” – with an apostrophe. Those aren’t important errors, of course. But they go to the sloppiness of Shiller’s work. But when you’re filing nuisance suits, it’s good enough.
Khurrum Awan is a serial liar
The main thrust of Awan’s suit is that I call him a liar. Well, he is a liar – and it was all revealed that day in court, when I wrote about it. Awan and his fellow sock puppets had repeatedly told the public that they had asked Maclean’s to publish a lengthy pro-Muslim essay, to rebut an article by Steyn, and that the rebuttal would be written by a “mutually acceptable” author. But under cross-examination by Maclean’s lawyer, Julian Porter, Awan admitted he had never asked Maclean’s to run a “mutually acceptable” article – he had demanded that they run a piece written by someone solely of the CIC’s choosing. The “mutually acceptable” thing was a lie told to the media, designed to make Awan and the CIC look more reasonable to the public. Here’s what I wrote when that lie was exposed on June 3, 2008. It’s a blog entry called Khurrum Awan is a serial liar:
Julian Porter himself was at the meeting where Khurrum Awan and his junior Al Sharptons tried to shake down Ken Whyte and Maclean’s for cash and a cover story.
Porter asked Awan point blank if the CIC’s proposed “counter-article” was to be “mutually acceptable” to Whyte or of the CIC’s own choosing.
After obfuscating for a few rounds, Awan acknowledged that he never in fact offered a “mutually acceptable” article — that was simply an after-the-fact lie, a little bit of taqqiya that Awan et al. has told the press.
Awan admitted that he made no such offer of a mutually acceptable author. It was to be the CIC’s own choice.
For an example of just how often Awan told that lie, let me recommend to you Colby Cosh’s notes on the subject.
That’s the bulk of Awan’s case. But let me point out one other little quirk: at paragraph 26, Awan claims that he “has been shunned by former friends” because of my blogging. That’s fascinating. I can hardly wait to learn the details about those friends – who they are, what they thought of Awan before they read my blog, how they decided to “shun” Awan afterwards, and what exactly it was that caused the change: Awan’s actions, or my blogging about his actions. (Do you think he’ll actually name names, or do you think he’ll mumble and crumble, like he did under Porter’s cross-examination in 2008?)
Awan’s lawsuit is for $50,000 plus costs. It’s not an enormous amount of money, but it will probably cost me $50,000 just to defend against it, plus a week at trial in another city.
Let’s go on the offensive. (They hate that!)
But here’s a question that has me pretty excited: can we turn lemons into lemonade here? By that I mean, instead of just fighting this lawsuit passively, what if I could use it to go on the offensive, and really root around inside the Canadian Islamic Congress, and expose their anti-Semitic, anti-Canadian ways? The trial will be partly about what I’ve written — no problem. But it will equally be about Awan’s reputation, and that of the CIC. It will give me a chance to ask Awan questions he’s never been asked before, and to see documents he’s never had to disclose before.
I’ll be able to expose the CIC for the venomous outfit that it is. I can picture spending at least an hour talking with Awan about his organization’s call for the decriminalization of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups.
My friends, I don’t like being sued. But I have to tell you, of all the junk lawsuits thrown at me because of my campaign for free speech – and there have been plenty – this one is in some ways the most important. If I handle this one right, I can expose the true nature of the CIC and the radical Islamist, pro-terrorist groups in Canada with whom Awan has consorted.
Let me quote a Jew now, just because it will irritate Awan. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote nearly 100 years ago, “publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” I’m going to bring some klieg lights to trial on this one.
I believe that nothing will disinfect our public square better than scrutiny and publicity of how illiberal Islamic fascists are waging war against our values. I hope that the lasting impact of this trial will be the complete and final detonation of the CIC’s credibility.
Bring it on.
Can you help me, please?
As I mentioned, this lawsuit will probably cost me $50,000 to fight. And it’s just one of many suits and complaints that the same cabal has hit me with, again and again.
Over the past two years I’ve been hit with three human rights complaints, over twenty complaints to the law society and this is the fifth defamation suit. That’s 28 suits and complaints. And they’re all junk lawsuits – SLAPP suits designed to shut me up.
I won the three human rights cases, and the first twenty law society complaints have all been dismissed. So far I have a perfect track record: 23 out of 23. Unfortunately, even if you win these sorts of nuisance complaints, you don’t get your legal costs back, so it’s been expensive.
If you’d like to help me, I’d appreciate it. It’s expensive fighting two dozen legal fights, even if they are junk. I think that a “normal” person would try to get out of a lawsuit like this – make a settlement, withdraw from the public square, and don’t criticize radical Islam or censorship anymore. But I don’t want to submit like that – I want to use this lawsuit to expose the truth about Awan and the CIC. And I certainly don’t want this suit to change what I say or do in my life, especially my ability to criticize radical Islam and its politically correct allies.
If you believe in fighting back against these bullies, please help me out. You can chip in by PayPal, by clicking on the button below. If you’d prefer to send in a cheque by snail mail, that’s great. Please make cheques payable to my lawyer:
“Christopher Ashby in Trust”
Attn: Ezra Levant defence fund
Suite 1013, 8 King Street East
Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1B5
Thank you very much. I promise to fight this battle all the way to the end.
“I am not a registered non-profit organization. Donations are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.”
****To donate to Ezra please follow this link and scroll to the bottom of the article****
This seems like a good spot to repost this amazing moment from a speech by a Canadian Prof. of law, and former candidate for the federal N.D.P. party.
From Ezra Levant’s blog. Please read and click on over.
Here is a truly stunning article. Just in case Canadians feel that Islam in Canada is somehow not as agressive or violent or anti-semitic as Islam everywhere else in the world. From Ezra Levant’s excellent blog
Montreal massacre anniversary special: Syed Soharwardy says battered woman is faking it!
I’ve written a couple of blog entries outlining the bigotry of Syed Soharwardy, Calgary’s most vicious terrorist-supporting Muslim radical. I won’t recap all of his hatred here — there’s just too much to treat it quickly — but go back and read the details in my earlier reports if you like. If I had to choose the most telling comment from Soharwardy’s anti-Semitic rants, I’d choose the page where he publishes this:
A great slaughter of the Jews will ensue and every one of them will be annihilated. The nation of Jews will be exterminated.
Not much wiggle room there. What the hell were Calgary’s Official Jews thinking by letting such a bigot co-sponsor their rally against anti-Semitism last month? And what the hell is Judy Shapiro, Calgary’s chief Official Jew, doing going to such a man’s propaganda “Hannukah Party” later this week?
I’ve written about Soharwardy’s bigotry and his other misconduct at his mosque before. Nearly two years ago, I received this laughable legal threat from his lawyer, to which I immediately replied: “let’s rumble“. I never heard back, which is too bad, because such a trial would have been a spectacular civic education for the city about the stealthy jihad against our values being perpetrated by Pakistani-born, Saudi-trained radicals like Soharwardy.
Well, I didn’t hear back from Soharwardy’s lawyer this time — I heard directly from the bigot-in-chief himself! I won’t give him the publicity of reprinting his whole rant, but let me choose two key passages.
The first is actually a pretty bold statement from the old Jew-hater. He doubles down, and says that everything he wrote on his websites is defensible. The call for the extermination of the Jews; the slanderous lie that the Talmud instructs Jews to murder Gentiles; the lovingly reprinted commentary from Muslim Brotherhood terrorist Al Qaradawi; the disparagement of the Jewish Holocaust, and the claim that Israel itself is perpetrating a Holocaust. Soharwardy doesn’t back down an inch from any of that. Instead, he writes:
I will be delighted to discuss with you the contents of any article on ISCC and related websites, which you seem to find Anti-Semitic.
I “seem to find” the call for the extermination of Jews to be anti-Semitic. He’d be “delighted” to make the case to me directly. Wow — sounds about as interesting as accepting an invitation from Jim Keegstra for a history lesson about the Holocaust.
The second point is just fascinating. As I’ve documented before, Robina Datt was a dissident at Soharwardy’s mosque. She asked pesky questions, like “where the hell did the donations go?”
So she was beaten to the point of hospitalization.
Here’s a contemporaneous report in the Calgary Herald. And here’s pictures of poor Robina in a Pakistani-Canadian newspaper:
For the rest of this important article please click over to Ezra and read the finale. Well worth the trip.
IFPS Steyn and Levant speak to Parliament
From the IFPS website:
This was an extraordinary thing. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant spoke to Canada’s Parliament making the case for freedom of speech over the right not to be offended.
There will clearly be a sequel as you can tell at the end when they are invited back to restate the case once the evidence for their various claims have been properly examined. This was a great moment for freedom of speech.
James Cohen
Link: 
Below, the same video from youtube, perhaps slightly better quality
Ezra Levant: A great day for freedom of Speech (In Canada)
From The International Free Press Society:
I decided to post a video clip of Ezra at the HRC answering a rather central question to this debate. Know that in this man’s opinion, it was Ezra Levant who basically single-handedly removed the power that the Canadian Human Rights Commissions had accumulated for itself, and with which they ran an unopposed extortion racket in Canada under the guise of section 13, the ‘hate speech’ laws. This victory of the people over the state belongs to Ezra.
Below the video, the National Post article.
Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did something its never done in its 32-year history. It acquitted somebody of “hate speech” charges. Until now, the tribunal had a 100% conviction rate.
In a 107-page ruling, tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis didn’t just throw out the case against Marc Lemire, he threw out the law, too, calling it an infringement of the free speech guarantees of the Charter of Rights.
Hadjis is no wild-eyed civil libertarian. In the recent past, he himself has convicted people under this same law. And, before Jean Chretien appointed him to the tribunal, Hadjis was the boss of one of Montreal’s largest multicultural lobby groups, which thrived on ethnic identity politics. But even Hadjis has had enough of the human rights industry and their fetish for political correctness. He ruled that allowing Canadian citizens to express offensive ideas is preferable to living under a government that prosecutes people for expressing those ideas.
As of yesterday, it’s no longer illegal to write politically incorrect things on the Internet. Now it’s illegal to prosecute someone for it.
This will have an immediate impact on the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which maintains a large censorship department and has other cases under investigation. If the CHRC were a real police force, and the tribunal were a real court, all existing censorship cases would be dropped, and anyone who was previously convicted would have their convictions voided. Dozens of lawsuits against the government for wrongful prosecution, and compensation for costs, wouldn’t be far behind.
But the tribunal isn’t a real court, and Hadjis acknowledged that he doesn’t have the power to strike down the law, only to declare it unconstitutional and to refuse to apply it. The CHRC has ignored the tribunal before: In this same case, Lemire was routinely denied his procedural rights by the CHRC, including its outrageous tactic of waiting until the trial was over before disclosing all of its documents to him. Even worse, some bizarre CHRC conduct came to light, including confessions by their staff that they joined neo-Nazi organizations and published bigoted comments on the Internet to entrap their targets. A real court would have thrown the case out years ago, and a real police force would have disciplined such rogue conduct.
Still, it’s a great day for Charter values like freedom of speech. But how long will it last? The human rights industry knew this was an important case, and over the past six years it spent millions of tax dollars fighting Lemire. The federal government had six lawyers on the case–four from the CHRC and two from the Justice Minister’s office. And there were five lawyers intervening on behalf of Canada’s tax-subsidized Jewish groups, the B’nai Brith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC).
Yesterday, the CJC issued a bizarre press release in which it states that, despite the tribunal’s clear ruling, it believes the censorship law “remains constitutional.” In the next few weeks, the CJC and the rest of the human rights litigation industry will clamour for the government to appeal this decision.
It was one thing for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to defend the constitutionality of a government law that was under attack — that’s standard operating procedure. But now that the law has been found to be illegal, it would be quite another thing for Nicholson to positively act to revive such an illiberal law. Nicholson must also put a leash on the disgraced CHRC, and order it not to appeal either. They’ve already done more than enough damage to Canada’s civil liberties, at great expense to taxpayers.
In fact, just leaving Hadjis’s ruling intact isn’t enough–his ruling illustrates a deeper rot in the CHRC. Hadjis found that the CHRC has become much more aggressive and confrontational in recent years, and at the same time it started applying punitive sanctions — such as issuing fines of tens of thousands of dollars. That toxic mix of abusive conduct with criminal-style punishments was specifically forbidden by the Supreme Court when it last reviewed the censorship laws in 1990.
It’s that bullying corporate culture that Nicholson needs to address. Nicholson should start by ordering Jennifer Lynch, the CHRC’s chief commissioner, to stop her expensive campaign of demonization against the commission’s critics. And then he should call in a retired judge — or the auditor-general — to do a thorough biopsy to find out how Canada’s human rights agency became such a threat to our human rights.
Ezra Levant on Ottawa’s CFRA
In this, never before seen, interview with Ezra Levant he speaks eloquently on Canada’s so called ‘Human Rights Commissions’ and other subjects that should be of concern to all freedom minded peoples. Watch and comment.
Eeyore
Link:
The Canadian Bar Association has a crush on Omar Khadr
This column written by Ezra Levant, appears in today’s National Post. It perfectly describes the left’s ongoing love affair with Canada’s #1 poster-boy of terrorism, Omar Khadr.
Ezra Levant: The Canadian Bar Association’s Khadr fetish
Posted: August 19, 2009, 9:45 AM by NP Editor Full Comment, Ezra Levant
The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has a crush on Omar Khadr. The left-leaning lawyers’ club held its convention in Dublin last week, but even Ireland’s charms couldn’t get their minds off the accused terrorist, still detained in Barack Obama’s prison at Guantanamo Bay.
The spark for the CBA’s latest pronouncement on the matter was a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, ordering the Canadian government to seek Khadr’s repatriation (the government is considering an appeal). But the CBA doesn’t need a reason to talk about their favourite cause. Khadr has been the subject of more CBA press releases than everyone else on the planet combined.
The CBA is obsessed. A search of its website yields 232 items about Khadr. What about other Canadians trapped overseas, such as Huseyn Celil, a Canadian citizen currently being held on trumped-up charges by China, or William Sampson, who was held and tortured in Saudi Arabia? They are non-persons to the CBA — no press releases for them, and no mentions on its website.
Ezra Levant on 100 Huntley St.
Video of Australia’s ‘Ezra Levant’ in a way. Worth the watch.
Ezra Levant on CTV. This is priceless. The last minute especially.
[kaltura-widget wid=”2nfl1fzk6g” width=”410″ height=”364″ addpermission=”3″ editpermission=”3″ /]The Canadian Human Rigths Commision shows its brutal hypocracy and proclivity to outright lie about its own agenda and policies here. Please do watch right to the end the last minute is a doozy. To quote Christopher Hitchens when he was talking about North Korea: “It’s like they read 1984 and thought ‘hey! what a great idea!’ “