Many believe him to be a free speech saviour, many more see him as a spicy, flavourful and pesky advocate for nearly everything that is strictly conservative, yet others see his views as downright deplorable and as an individual in disrepute for the way he conducts himself.  If you have been keeping abreast of the discussions on this site and the national debate on freedom of expression I’m sure you have a hunch of who I’m talking about, that’s right, our wily and outspoken friend Ezra Levant.

Now let me tell you what he isn’t, it’s simple, he is neither fair nor genuine.

In his latest entry he haphazardly attempts to support his belief that human rights commissions are biased and arbitrary and unavailable to members of the Christian community (what he is really suggesting is that are only accessible by Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups).  The example he opines upon is thus: A gentleman has filed a human rights complaint against a tv personality and Showcase TV (supporting this event) for flying a plane pulling a banner with the words “Jesus Sucks”.  For the full account of the story see here.

Here is Ezra’s view on the merits of this claim:

Hotz precisely meets the test of Canada’s hate speech laws: what he did was “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt”. That’s the wording in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Alberta code, the B.C. code and other provincial HRCs. If Hotz was a skinhead, and the banner said “Jews suck”, he’d already have had a human rights officer at his  door, and probably a policeman, too.

First off, Dean Skoreyko, the individual championing this complaint, admitted to submitting this statement to the B.C. Tribunal:  “my Christian beliefs and upbringing were publicly ridiculed.” So, he alleges public ridicule and essentially what really boils down to hurt feelings, yet Ezra, who we must remember holds a law degree from the University of Alberta, states that he “precisely meets the test…what he did was likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.” A self-admitted complaint of public ridicule, yet Ezra strongly suggests it fits the bill.  And accordingly, if this complaint gets dismissed, Ezra sees this “as proof that the HRCs are biased and arbitrary, and that they believe in the Animal Farm Credo that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  Clearly this is a spurious argument.

And if that’s not quite enough, according to the The Vancouver Sun, Mr. Skoreyko “filed the complaint because he wanted to make the point that the human-rights system applies double standards.” What happened to all that talk about wasting tax payers money Ezra?

Pushing that aside, is it true that his legally trained mind cannot discern the difference between a statement such as “Jesus sucks” and a compilation of invective articles?  Let’s say that message reached the entire world, is telling the world that “Jesus sucks” going to make anyone dislike Christians?  Even if one takes this to be true, why would it expose Christians to hatred or contempt, if anything people might feel sorry for them for having a less than adequate symbolic leader (or sucky if you will). 

Now if a publisher establishes a pattern of print articles that use inflammatory, stereotypical and racialized terminology when referring to members of a faith community, and suggest that these members are growing in numbers through high birthrates with the specific intent of taking over our institutions, I think it is fair to say societal sentiment would tend to gravitate towards contempt for members of the group in question.

Should either of these situations require state intervention?  Maybe…maybe not, but there is a difference. Are human rights commissions in need of a massive overhaul? Again, another distinct question more than worthy of discussion and debate. 

Moreover, as Ezra is fully aware of B.C. legislation and jurisprudence he knows that a factor of consideration in claims of this nature is the question of the vulnerability of the group being written about and the historical discrimination it has endured.  He should equally beware, that this is also a factor in the analysis of constitutional cases regarding s. 15 of the Charter.  He clearly fails to give this any mention, let alone importance in his analysis. 

And lastly, Ezra bespeaks of a political motif through the “law-fare” epithet, in that Muslims are waging a soft-jihad with the help of the state by advancing complaints through human rights commissions to further their fascist aspirations.  This assertion is made irrespective of the insurmountable documentation showing that discrimination to Canada’s minorities is a pressing concern; albeit an occasionally over-exaggerated and superfluous claim. Yet he is clearly political in his quest to abolish human rights commissions so that public disseminators may pronounce as they wish with no accountability.