Canadian Publisher Fights Back

January 13th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Via LGF: three videos of Ezra Levant, a Canadian publisher who published the infamous Mohammed cartoons. Instead of accepting this publication as Levant exercising his free speech right, he has to defend himself before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As Charles writes this hearing is indeed an “outrage” and Levent is, indeed, “brilliant.”

YouTube Preview Image

He started off by saying that publishing the cartoons was the proudest day of his life / career. He would do it again he said. “In fact, I did do it again”: on his website.

He called the commission, rightfully, “a joke.”

“It’s the Canadian equivalent of Judge Judy… except for that Judge Judy actually is a judge.”

“It’s part Kafka and part Stalin.”

YouTube Preview Image

Why did he publish it? “Because it’s my bloody right to do so… I refuse to concede to you that what my political thoughts in my mind are, or in my heart are… will determine whether or not an artifact is legal or illegal.”

“The fact that you dare to ask a publisher in Canada, in name of the government, what his political thoughts were is obvious that you’re hunting for a thought-crime. I’m not going to answer you in a minimizing way. I’m not going to say ‘please master, my intentions were good let me off the hook’.”

This one is good as well, he explains what the real source for violence is:

YouTube Preview Image

And this one, via Ezra’s website:

YouTube Preview Image

“you’re a thug.”

He really wiped the floor with the thought police. That woman sitting on the opposite side of the table should be ashamed of herself. She’s betraying everything her ancestors stood for, fought for and died for.

Also blogged at Small Dead Animals: be sure to check out the comment section – SMA is a conservative Canadian blog… and the biggest one at that.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Dylan
    January 13th, 2008 at 13:31
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Michael – just a note: the quote about Judge Judy should be "actually is a judge" not "actually is a job".

  2. Michael van der Galien
    January 13th, 2008 at 17:06
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Dylan: yeah I know. My mistake. Didn’t reread. Meanwhile, I just watched one of the videos again, "why is that a relevant question?" Oops. "Um, well according to section this, statue that," :D

    You just see her thinking "O, Sh*t."

  3. Steynianism 19.0 « Free Mark Steyn!
    January 13th, 2008 at 19:53
    #3
  4. utsu
    January 13th, 2008 at 20:41
    Reply | Quote | #4
  5. Muslims Against Sharia
    January 16th, 2008 at 00:27
    Reply | Quote | #5

    <b>Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission</b>

    Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let’s consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This "investigation" will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals’ claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and moderate Muslims will be pushed towards radicalization. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!

    <b>Muslims Against Sharia are proud to be the first Muslim group to publicly support Ezra Levant and denounce HRC inquisition</b>
    <a href="http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/canada-freedom-of-speech-succumbing-to.html">http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/canada-freedom-of-speech-succumbing-to.html</a>

    Sign Free Dominion Against the HRCs Petition
    <a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html">http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html</a>

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.