Saturday, May 9, 2009

A Review of Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"

To lead off, a quick and somewhat overdue (I read the book 2 months ago) review of Ezra Levant’s recently published “Shakedown,” which chronicles his adventures with the Canadian, Alberta, and BC so called Human Rights Commissions.

It’s an excellent book, well written, engaging; a thoroughly enjoyable read. Get it, read it, and DO SOMETHING.

Hey, I said “quick,” didn’t I? For more information, visit his site. Or, read the book. Or both.

Reading the book was something of a trip down memory lane for me. I’ve long been a reader of George Jonas, who has been against the HRCs as long as I can remember, probably right from the start (I’m a bit young to be able to say for sure, he came to Canada before I was born, and the HRCs are older than I). In fact, it was through his writings that I was originally persuaded of their inherent wrongness. Time has borne him out, although the HRCs’ evil has only, in the last year, started to become apparent to Canadians as a whole.

For this story, we travel back to the mid/late nineties. The place was Alberta, and the issue was a man who sued his employer for wrongful termination. He was openly gay, and his employer was a Christian private school, which terminated him for violating the terms of his employment contract. Said contract included a morals clause, which he violated by living his chosen lifestyle.

IIRC he lied to get his job, then flaunted his violations of the contract in order to get fired, so he could haul them into court, force them to take him back, and thus make a point. I don’t even remember if it was a “Human Rights” kangaroo court. What I do remember is that he won (point made, you're an asshole), and that I was royally pissed off at this abrogation of the schools property and freedom of assembly rights. At that time, I did not realize that Canadians have no property rights, Pierre F’ing Trudeau having chosen to leave them out of the constitution. But that’s not the point. The point is the conversation this led to.

I had a great friend at University, Steve. He and I saw eye to eye on a great many things, though not all. One thing I thought we agreed on was freedom of speech. We’d never actually broached the subject, but hell, we’d discussed just about everything under the sun and, agree or disagree, we were great pals. As he’d recently hung out his shingle as a lawyer, in Detroit, it never occurred to me that he’d believe in the hammer of state being an appropriate tool for regulating speech. Back then I simply didn’t understand the power of tribalism. Not being afflicted with that particular disease, I doubt I really do, even today.

We were chatting about this, that and the other one evening, and the aforementioned case came up. Somewhere along the way we got into whether a man may be punished for speaking unpopular opinions, such as Holocaust denial (there’d recently been a couple of high profile cases on the subject). I said no effing way. He responded with, “What gives you the right to hate me?”

Huh? Oh, yeah, Steve is Jewish. Barely (the first meal his family fed me was Polish sausages). But, seriously, wtf? I have never heard from him since, and this is a man who told me of a friend of his who had said he’d make a nice lamp. Steve is from a badly depleted line of Polish Jews, so, yes the Holocaust is a mightily sensitive subject, and I never could, would or did make a crack like that one. I simply think you have the right to air stupid opinions.

What gives me the right to hate him? That would be natural law. What gives him the right to use the hammer of state to try to prevent it? Anti-Semites, hell bigots of any sort, are nasty little shits who should be exposed, held up to public ridicule, and shunned. But this is not the purview of government; it is the purview of polite society. Only when they exit the arena of words and enter the arena of violence do you bring in the hammer of state.

What is the connection? Read the book. Or go to Mr. Levant’s website. The HRC’s are in large measure a creation of what he calls Canada’s “Official Jews,” created specifically to punish Neo-Nazi’s and other holocaust deniers. Such as Syed Soharwardy, the complainant who tortured Mr. Levant, by way of the HRCs for almost three years.

Who is Mr. Soharwardy? A Calgary based, Hamas and Hezbollah supporting, holocaust denying, radical Imam who took offense at Mr. Levant’s republication of the Jyllands Posten caricatures of Mohammed. You know, those cartoons whose initial publication sparked off globe spanning riots, which resulted in over 200 deaths.

To recap: The HRCs were created, in part due to pressure from Canadian Jewry, to be used to punish Jew hating holocaust deniers. Mr. Levant, a Jew was dragged through these kangaroo courts for 900 days by a Jew hating holocaust denier, whom Mr. Levant offended.

Can we get rid of these fucking commissions now?

And Steve, NOW do you see the danger of putting government in charge of policing thought?

No comments:

Post a Comment